un1boy - N1 issued for breach of CCA request

[un1boy]

Hiya Guys.

 

Please can you check the following? To give you a little insight....I sent a CCA request Aug 2006 and the bank sent me a credit agreement with no prescribed terms....they are still processing the defaults and I have not heard from them at all since January - they have just ignored all my letters....I need to take them to court now because it is reallt effecting my job now as well.....

 

All and any comments welcome:

 

Payment since the account has been defaulted £1900

Interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 £156.35

Loan Payments £600

Interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 £156.35

Court Fee £150

 

TOTAL £935.22

 

Plus interest pursuant to S.69 County Courts Act 1984 from date of issue to date of judgement/settlement at £0.13 per day OR at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

1. The Claimant had an account("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around xx/xx/xxxx and closed on or around xx/xx/xxxx via default by the defendant. (account A).

2.. The Claimant had an account("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around xx/xx/xxxxand closed on or around xx/xx/xxxx via default by the defendant.. (account B).

2. During the period in which the Account A was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Defendant also registered a Default against the Claimant with Credit Reference Agencies in respect of the purported breaches of contract. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the Default was applied and the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

3. In October 2006 the defendant refunded as part of an out of court settlement £600 for penalty charges issued to the account

4. Despite various requests by the Claimant, the defendant has failed to provide documentary evidence that the claimant is liable for the alleged balance for Account A.

5. In August 2006 and various other dates, the claimant requested a copy of the default notice that was allegedly sent for Account A to confirm it complied with the conditions of section 88 of the CCA. The Defendant has failed to comply with all of these requests.

6. In August 2006 the claimant requested a copy of the original executed credit agreement from the defendant under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended). The defendant provided an agreement which has no prescribed terms and is therefore unenforceable by virtue of section 127(1) of the Act. They have also failed to provide the terms and conditions which were applicable at the time and a statement of account.

7. In August 2006 and various other dates, the claimant requested a copy of the default notice that was allegedly sent for Account B to confirm it complied with the conditions of section 88 of the CCA. The Defendant has failed to comply with all of these requests.

8. The Claimant contends that:

 

a) The claimant contends that 50% of the balance of Account A comprised of penalty charges and therefore the data they are processing with the credit reference agencies is unlawful under Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) in that it is not being processed accurately.

b) The defendant has failed to provide documentary evidence that they have obtained the claimant’s data lawfully.

b) The default occurred merely in respect of unlawful charges levied by the Defendant and were the result of impecuniosities caused directly by the taking of penalty charges which were applied unlawfully to the account.

 

c) For both accounts, the defendant has failed to comply with a request made under s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) in August 2006 to provide a copy of the executed agreement which has all the prescribed terms and a signed, true and certified copy of the original default notice under s.78(1). Under s.78(6) of this Act if the Defendant cannot supply this information they may not enforce the agreement and if the default continues for one month they commit an offence.

d) For account Account A, the defendant has failed to comply with a request made under s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) in August 2006 to provide any documentary evidence linking the Claimant’s liability to the account and their ability to collect the balance. The defendant also failed to provide a signed, true and certified copy of the original default notice under s.78(1). The defendants cannot substantiate that the alleged default notice complies with section 88 of the Act.

e) The default markers have caused the Claimant to have to pay £200 per month for a recent car loan obtained, instead of £100. The total loan balance over the term is £12000 and the value of the asset was £6000. These increased amounts are a direct result of the default markers being processed.

f) The defendant has continued to process the data unlawfully for nearly a year and this has caused the claimant distress as his occupation has been effected and his employer has incurred extra costs.

9. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts collected since the accounts were defaulted at a total of £1900.00;

b) a refund of £600 to compensate for extra payments on a loan agreement due totally to the unlawful defaults.

c) The removal of the account data and defaults registered with Credit Reference Agencies;

d) Court costs;

e) Damages at the discretion of the court to compensate for distress and extra costs incurred by employer

 

e) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

the Defendant’s own admission there is no credit agreement as defined under section 60 of the Act.

4 The Defendant does not have the Claimant’s consent under section 173(3) of the Act.

5 The Claimant’s information may not be disclosed in accordance with sections 174 (1) + (2) of the Act.

6 In accordance with the Act section 142(1)(b) the Claimant requests that the court declares the credit agreement unenforceable under section 65(1) by virtue of section 127(3).

7 By virtue of the unenforceability of the credit agreement as item 6 above, the Defendant has no rights, as precedent set in Wilson and others v Secretary of State for Trade and industry (Appellant) [2003] UKHL 40. Therefore the Claimant claims all monies received by the Defendant to the Account.

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true.

[rosierose]

Hi UB.

 

Looks good to me, though I believe S174 was repealed by the Enterprise Act. I'm not really familiar enough with it (EA) to give you proper advice re how to word you claim, sorry. I do recall it saying something about any previously published information being OK, but then it seemed to hand the baton to the Data Protection Act. Its certainly worth some study.

[un1boy]

Hi UB.

 

Looks good to me, though I believe S174 was repealed by the Enterprise Act. I'm not really familiar enough with it (EA) to give you proper advice re how to word you claim, sorry. I do recall it saying something about any previously published information being OK, but then it seemed to hand the baton to the Data Protection Act. Its certainly worth some study.

 

Thanks Rosie, I think it has been repealed in the CCA 2006 but not retrospectively.

[rosierose]

The 2006 Act doesn't mention s174 at all sorry, UB. The repeal was made in the EA 2002 and it applies from the date of enactment.

 

I certainly wish it was otherwise as s174 had some real bite to it, unlike the DPA.

[un1boy]

Ok, well I'm gonna issue the N1 above this week - I'll let you know how it goes

[Josie8]

Good luck

[hisholinessthepope]

Subscribing.

 

Lots looks familar un1boy! lol

 

Section 174 has been repealed and (following advice from the exCAGer Richard Spud and some further research) I believe should be deleted.

 

All the very best with this un1boy. Will be watching with great interest.

[un1boy]

Subscribing.

 

Lots looks familar un1boy! lol

 

Section 174 has been repealed and (following advice from the exCAGer Richard Spud and some further research) I believe should be deleted.

 

All the very best with this un1boy. Will be watching with great interest.

 

Hiya mate,

 

Cheers....I'll take it out.

 

I was gonna email you it coz I found this on another thread......how is yours going? Are you still getting help from someone else?

[petcat]

gosh this is an interesting one, will be rooting for you, and popping in to see what happens.Best of luck.

[hisholinessthepope]

Moving along but doubt will be ready to issue until late August.

 

The help has dried up a little but after the huge boost from Mr Spud before he left, I still have plenty to research for myself.

[un1boy]

Moving along but doubt will be ready to issue until late August.

 

The help has dried up a little but after the huge boost from Mr Spud before he left, I still have plenty to research for myself.

 

 

Well if there is anyhting I can do to help then let me know - I don;t have time to wait around now, it's been nearly a year and it's causing probs at works, so I've just decided that I need to enter these - I just hope the bank won't be able to pick holes in them!!!

[M.Willows]

subscribing

[hisholinessthepope]

Well if there is anyhting I can do to help then let me know - I don;t have time to wait around now, it's been nearly a year and it's causing probs at works, so I've just decided that I need to enter these - I just hope the bank won't be able to pick holes in them!!!

 

Well as it is, I am particularly interested in the banks defence! It should give us some idea of how strong the case is and how they intend to defend. Assuming they do of course.

[remus]

subscribing, all the best uniboy;)

[un1boy]

Well as it is, I am particularly interested in the banks defence! It should give us some idea of how strong the case is and how they intend to defend. Assuming they do of course.

 

I would be very surprised if they do - this is even more dangerous than charges. In my case I have other bodies investigating too so, if a judge gets involved they will be in deep doo doo!!

 

I'll keep you posted!

[davefirewalker]

Hi Un1

 

I have been going mad trying to get my own poc sorted......May just use bits of this if you dont mind.....

 

good luck with yours

 

Dave

[ncf355]

Un1 -

 

Have a copy of my own POC to send you (I have filed several), can you clear your inbox and PM me to let me know when I am clear to send?

 

Thanks

 

NcF

[un1boy]

Hi Un1

 

I have been going mad trying to get my own poc sorted......May just use bits of this if you dont mind.....

 

good luck with yours

 

Dave

 

No probs, that's what we all do!

[un1boy]

Un1 -

 

Have a copy of my own POC to send you (I have filed several), can you clear your inbox and PM me to let me know when I am clear to send?

 

Thanks

 

NcF

 

Thanks NCF - now cleared!

[tomterm8]

I am worried about the mention of the settlement - what was this for?

[un1boy]

I am worried about the mention of the settlement - what was this for?

 

Bank charges mate.

[davefirewalker]

Hi un1

 

Tomterm has just given me some advice I hadnt even considered.

 

just sent them this..............

 

Dear Sirs

 

As you have not acknowledged my last letter sent ddmmyy I feel moved to inform you that I do not acknowledge any debt to your company.

 

Please note that on consideration I do not accept that I owe your organization any money whatsoever, and I consider any alleged contract or agreement void.

 

I now also demand that as no contract exists or has ever existed that you refrain from processing any more data and passing any such information to any third party. Any such further processing will be in contravention of the data protection act

 

Please be aware that I am unwilling to enter into any further correspondence with you on this matter. All I require is your acceptance.

 

If you wish to take this matter further, I suggest you issue a court claim immediately.

 

Unless I hear from you within fourteen days from the receipt of this letter, or receive a court summons I will consider the matter closed.

 

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

I want THEM to take me to court....saves costs and time, plus it may go fastrack or multitrack and I can couterclaim for the whole amount I want

 

rgds

 

Dave

[un1boy]

Hi un1

 

Tomterm has just given me some advice I hadnt even considered.

 

just sent them this..............

 

Dear Sirs

 

As you have not acknowledged my last letter sent ddmmyy I feel moved to inform you that I do not acknowledge any debt to your company.

 

Please note that on consideration I do not accept that I owe your organization any money whatsoever, and I consider any alleged contract or agreement void.

 

I now also demand that as no contract exists or has ever existed that you refrain from processing any more data and passing any such information to any third party. Any such further processing will be in contravention of the data protection act

 

Please be aware that I am unwilling to enter into any further correspondence with you on this matter. All I require is your acceptance.

 

If you wish to take this matter further, I suggest you issue a court claim immediately.

 

Unless I hear from you within fourteen days from the receipt of this letter, or receive a court summons I will consider the matter closed.

 

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

I want THEM to take me to court....saves costs and time, plus it may go fastrack or multitrack and I can couterclaim for the whole amount I want

 

rgds

 

Dave

 

Hiya

 

I yunderstand exactly what you are saying but I have been writing to them since August 2006 and nothing has happened.....even their CEO has chosen to ignore me!!!

 

I have to enter the court papers now - they are *probably* absolute a**holes....

[un1boy]

I am gonna issue this tomorrow then:

 

Payment since the account has been defaulted £1900

Interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 £156.35

Loan Payments £600

Interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 £156.35

Court Fee £150

 

TOTAL £935.22

 

Plus interest pursuant to S.69 County Courts Act 1984 from date of issue to date of judgement/settlement at £0.13 per day OR at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

1. The Claimant had an account("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around xx/xx/xxxx and closed on or around xx/xx/xxxx via default by the defendant. (account A).

2.. The Claimant had an account("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around xx/xx/xxxxand closed on or around xx/xx/xxxx via default by the defendant.. (account B).

2. During the period in which the Account A was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Defendant also registered a Default against the Claimant with Credit Reference Agencies in respect of the purported breaches of contract. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the Default was applied and the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

 

3. In October 2006 the defendant refunded as part of an out of court settlement £600 for penalty charges issued to the account

 

4. Despite various requests by the Claimant, the defendant has failed to provide documentary evidence that the claimant is liable for the alleged balance for Account A.

 

5. In August 2006 and various other dates, the claimant requested a copy of the default notice that was allegedly sent for Account A to confirm it complied with the conditions of section 88 of the CCA. The Defendant has failed to comply with all of these requests.

 

6. In August 2006 the claimant requested a copy of the original executed credit agreement from the defendant under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended). The defendant provided an agreement which has no prescribed terms and is therefore unenforceable by virtue of section 127(1) of the Act. They have also failed to provide the terms and conditions which were applicable at the time and a statement of account.

 

7. In August 2006 and various other dates, the claimant requested a copy of the default notice that was allegedly sent for Account B to confirm it complied with the conditions of section 88 of the CCA. The Defendant has failed to comply with all of these requests.

8. The Claimant contends that:

 

a) The claimant contends that 50% of the balance of Account A comprised of penalty charges and therefore the data they are processing with the credit reference agencies is unlawful under Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (Data Protection Act) in that it is not being processed accurately.

 

b) The defendant has failed to provide documentary evidence that they have obtained the claimant’s data lawfully.

b) The default occurred merely in respect of unlawful charges levied by the Defendant and were the result of impecuniosities caused directly by the taking of penalty charges which were applied unlawfully to the account.

 

c) For both accounts, the defendant has failed to comply with a request made under s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) in August 2006 to provide a copy of the executed agreement which has all the prescribed terms and a signed, true and certified copy of the original default notice under s.78(1). Under s.78(6) of this Act if the Defendant cannot supply this information they may not enforce the agreement and if the default continues for one month they commit an offence.

 

d) For account Account A, the defendant has failed to comply with a request made under s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) in August 2006 to provide any documentary evidence linking the Claimant’s liability to the account and their ability to collect the balance. The defendant also failed to provide a signed, true and certified copy of the original default notice under s.78(1). The defendants cannot substantiate that the alleged default notice complies with section 88 of the Act.

 

e) The default markers have caused the Claimant to have to pay £200 per month for a recent car loan obtained, instead of £100. The total loan balance over the term is £12000 and the value of the asset was £6000. These increased amounts are a direct result of the default markers being processed.

 

f) The defendant has continued to process the data unlawfully for nearly a year and this has caused the claimant distress as his occupation has been effected and his employer has incurred extra costs.

9. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts collected since the accounts were defaulted at a total of £1900.00;

 

b) a refund of £600 to compensate for extra payments on a loan agreement due totally to the unlawful defaults.

c) The removal of the account data and defaults registered with Credit Reference Agencies;

 

d) Court costs;

 

e) Damages at the discretion of the court to compensate for distress and extra costs incurred by employer

 

e) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

 

By the Defendant’s own admission there is no credit agreement as defined under section 60 of the Act.

 

6 In accordance with the Act section 142(1)(b) the Claimant requests that the court declares the credit agreement unenforceable under section 65(1) by virtue of section 127(3).

 

7 By virtue of the unenforceability of the credit agreement as item 6 above, the Defendant has no rights, as precedent set in Wilson and others v Secretary of State for Trade and industry (Appellant) [2003] UKHL 40. Therefore the Claimant claims all monies received by the Defendant to the Account.

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true.

[davefirewalker]

I would get the numbering of the paragraphs right first

 

Dave