Actually, I have just phoned the o/h as she is not here right now and she says she's had the card account for years. I have looked again at the form and it was opened in 2003. You can see on the scan I posted in #1 the stamp on behalf of Argos conveniently fades away where the year would be and I would not put it past them to have added a little bit to the date my o/h wrote to make it look like 2008! So, the game is back on. Thanks cerbs.

This account has now been passed to Experto Credite (the funniest name yet). I have just realised that she opened the account in 2008 (that'll teach me to blur out the dates on app forms) so I guess this fact changes the situation quite considerably?

Sorry citizenB - nothing today.

It's your claim. Capone cannot vacate it for you. Let them contact the court! ** Sorry, didn't spot page 3 of this thread!

I emailed the above (after fixing a typo) to the bank this morning.

Hi Slick, I hope it helped you sleep

I was thinking of sending this in reply to their latest.

There would still be the issue of restitution a la Sempra, the default removal and compensation a la Durkin. I think they are trying to side step the restitution issue and to water down any potential compensation the court may award by removing the dispute of the repayment of charges. At the end of the day, the bank are a "sophisticated financial institution" who will no doubt have "sophisticated systems" they used to analyse how to screw the customer most efficiently... erm I mean analyse how to charge a fee equal to their liquidated damages. So, surely, it should be an easy matter for them to pony up the info asked for in the directions order. It's not as if they are being asked to work out their basis for levying charges just for me is it?

Just to re-cap, the bank are now asking me to agree that they should not have to comply with this section and sub-sections of the order. The figures quoted in their letter do add up and tally with mine (give or take rounding errors). Their letter at post #101 seeks to settle the PPI part of the claim without admitting liabilty, whereas my claim asks for a "declaration that the sums debited to your credit card account in respect of default charges have been incorrectly applied to the account" The same letter at #101 seeks to repay default charges without admitting liabilty, whereas my claim seeks as part of the same declaration as above that the "sums debited to your credit card account in respect of default charges have been incorrectly applied to the account" The they go on to complain about the disproportionate effort the bank would be put to by complying with the above section and sub-sections of the Court's order with no mention of the amount of effort I have put in to complying with the Court's order. The postman brought the letter today and it asks me to reply by today or they will apply to the court to amend the directions. The Court's order giving the directions is dated 05 Oct 2009 and states "UPON THE COURTS OWN INITIATIVE The court has made this Order of its own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an Application to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it." I need to be wary of being perceived as being unreasonable but I see no reason why I should agree to their request. Does anyone disagree with me?

I don't know right now, will have to check the figures when I get home. I just get the feeling that they are trying to pull a fast one somehow... imagine that from a bank

Received this from them via email. and the attached letter

Don't forget, if you have the right version of Windows 7 you can get XP mode for it which is like a virtual PC version of XP running inside your Windows 7 installation (for those who don't like Mars speak)

The DC is a Win2k3 R2 server. To take full advantage of all the new admin features via AD and GPs you do need Win2k8 R2. I have just set one up and will be promoting it soon and raising the domain functional level as soon as I can. The Win7 workstations are manageable via the win2k3 server though.

Looks like it might be worth watching. BBC - BBC Three Programmes - Don't Get Screwed

I have had a number of workstations running the RTM at work since it was released via MSDN - works fine.

Just in time for the VAT rise

I have had a search around and can't find the source of the quote either. Sorry.

Nice one!

If the DFS branch have placed the order for the sofa without awaiting credit approval, more fool them.

I think that goes without saying Patma. I would simply do as I suggested above and invite LD to save costs and gather their evidence from the police. Fred is not being unhelpful (not that he needs to be) and is trying to assist the claimant

What has any of this got to do with Paul's case?

Yes, sorry. It stands for Document eXchange.

This is highly irregular and I would be tempted to write to the court manager and ask him/her how the situation arose. It could happen if LD received the Court's order via DX and were on the ball with their reply, also served via DX. I'd want to know if I were Fred. Dear LD, Thank you for your letter dated XXXX, the content of which is noted. In an attempt to help you avoid further unnecessary costs, I suggest you contact Devon and Cornwall Police as they may supply the evidence you seek free of charge. Yours sincerely, Fred.

No, they have 14 days from Monday to server their bundle as per the draft order in post #75.

Although the form of the wording is prescribed by the regulations, a DJ might treat an un-underlined word as de minimis if everything else was in order. The time limits to be given however are clearly set out in the act and the days to allow for service by 1st and/or 2nd class post are similarly covered by statute. Amex dare not now amend their stupid DNs to give you 14 clear days to remedy as that would be tacitly admitting that all of the DNs they have issued to date are ineffective.