Jump to content

Fred_Funk v Call-4-Cash (London Scottish Finance Ltd)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5172 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

It's like this...


Many years ago, I entered into a 'credit agreement' with Cofidis which subsequently became Call-4-Cash (a trading name of London Scottish Finance Ltd).


It's one of those accounts where you're allowed to borrow more and more cash up to a pre-arranged limit and charged excessively for the privilege.


In due course, I intend to go after 'em for mis-sold payment protection insurance - which given I was paying around £30 a month for seven or eight years should amount to a tidy sum - but, for the time being, am happy to content myself with the arrears charges and contractual interest (compounded) as an equitable remedy to their unjust enrichment.


The total amount involved is only £250 - £100 in arrears charges and £150 in contractual interest - but it's the principle that counts! ;-)


Sent my prelim off on July 4 and received the predictable fob-off last Friday. Before I send off my LBA, I just wanted to clarify one or two things and, with that in mind, any feedback would be much appreciated.


(1) Call-4-Cash argue that I've agreed to their terms and conditions and, moreover, that the OFT report of April 5, 2006, was applicable only to credit cards. Clearly, neither of these arguments hold any weight whatsoever though, all the same, I'd be grateful for some reassurance.


(2) C4C go on to argue that the costs I have incurred due to breaches in my contract are a fair reflection of their costs. They also point out that they have, on occasions, wavered (sic) arrears fees and that, when this is taken into account, the charges that they have applied are not excessive.


Now, correct me if I'm wrong but, surely, the fact that they may on occasions have waived excessive arrears fees doesn't make the charges they've imposed on other occasions any less unlawful, does it?!


(3) Im my prelim I said: "I also claim contractual interest (compounded) as an equitable remedy to London Scottish Finance having, contrary to common law, profited from unjust enrichment as a result of these charges. The standard rate of interest set by London Scottish Finance is 40 per cent therefore this is the rate added to the above amounts and will continue to accrue until this claim is settled."


In their response, C4C imply, mistakenly, that I've asked them to refund interest accrued on my account as a result of my arrears charges. I haven't; I've asked for contractual interest (compounded) as a remedy to their unjujst enrichment which is, it seems to me, rather different.


What's more, they dismiss my request for interest at this rate on the basis that they did, albeit for a very brief period, reduce my APR to 0 per cent which, undoubtedly, saved me a few quid. But that's as maybe - the occasional 'gesture of goodwill' pales into insignifigance when you have an APR of 40 per cent - and, in anycase, as far as I can see it has no relevance to this claim.


Anyway, I'm about to send my LBA but, with all the kerfuffle about today's OFT announcement my head's all over the place, and I'd appreciate any feedback on the points above just to put my mind at rest.


Thanks in anticipation


NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...