hi there, has anybody out there heard of a company called TH3 Solutions? my wife recived a call 2 weeks ago from a very stroppy, arrogant, patronising man from a mobile phone tellign her she was entitled to about £3.5k worth of PPI insurance refund from when our original mortgage was with gmac (which then got sold onto ME!) they knew ALL her detials, how much we borrowed, how much we owe, how much we pay each month, name, DOB, address as well as ALL my detials. the alarm bells started wringing when they asked her for her credit card detials - the thing is they had the first 8 numbers completely correct!! luckily my wife challenged them and ask 'why do you need these detials' - they stroppily replied 'so we can actually verfiy who you are mrs d'.... hmmm the guy then went onto a massive rant tellign her that 'fine we'll give your money away to charity then if you dont want it' and got very very lairy with my wife, she was playing him to be fair, and has a got knack at winding people up. but in a p[refessioanl and courteous mannor. she contacted the police, as when she called back the number that had come up on her mobile - lo and behold - its a dead number... first thing she thought is oh no were victims of ID fraud (again!!) so called the police who are looking into it. we have been away all w/e long and i jsut got back now, as i googled them, seems they only started up last year. but unsure as to whom/what they do. the thing is, a few years back we did ALL the companies we had PPI with and won! but neither of us are sure we had any ppi with GMAC at the time we took out our mortgage? weird? if anyones got any advice id really appreciate it - or if they know anyone else thats been contacted by these buffoons? - are they real - are they legit?

hi guys, update time, i got home last night and had recived this letter from S&S who are now sayin that the amended POCs and revisions i made last week (sent rec del) although have been recived well within the deadline, theyre now tryign to say that they re not what was requested.... i have recived this letter... We act for the Defendant in the captioned matter and write further to the Order of District Judge Calnan dated 18 October 2010 (the "Order"). The Claimant has failed to serve Further Particulars of Claim on the Defendant by 4pm on 01 November 2010 as required by the Order and we believe, therefore, that the claim stands struck out. We should be grateful if the Court would confirm this position. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Defendant has received the enclosed letter and document from the Claimant. Taken together the letter and corresponding document appear to be an application for permission to amend the Claimant's Particulars of Claim. They are not the Further Particulars of Claim which the Defendant was ordered to serve, the legal arguments are not the same as those outlined in the Claim Form and the principle amount claimed has also changed. For the avoidance of doubt and again without prejudice to our belief that the claim stands struck out, the Defendant has not consented to the Claimant amending his Particulars of Claim. Yours faithfully i then sent this to them and recived back:- dear S&S i have left a message for you today with your secretary, and was looking to speak with you in person, as this matter is most urgent. i received a letter from you yesterday dated the 2nd November, asking the court for my claim to be struck out. this is ludicrous. i had actually sent in revised POC for my claim against BFP and that someone in your post room called 'Tony' had actually signed for them on 27th October 2010 - well within the 1st November deadline set by yourself. furthermore i can also confirm that Northampton court received theirs and signed for them on the 29th October, again, well within the deadline. so to receive your letter yesterday evening dated the 2nd November, was quite a shock to say the least, especially as i knew i had sent both letters with revised POCs via recorded delivery.. with respect, i would urge you to re contact the Northampton courts to confirm that i had actually complied with the request with your deadline and that my claim must continue as i had not broken the agreement to provide the information within the set time limits, and that the reason for this was down to a Simmons & Simmons internal breakdown in communication. i have made contact with the court today, who have confirmed that they are in fact a week behind with processing claims and that they have received my POCs. they were also very surprised you sent this letter, considering you had already received the info. again, with respect, as this appears to be some kind of internal problem within S&S id ask you to speak to your staff to ensure this doesn't happen again as the ramifications of sending out these type of letters to claimants when they have duly complied is immense. i sure you see my point and i have stated my intentions clearly enough. i await your response and confirmation to the above points yours sincerely they replied: Thanks for your email dated 04 November 2010 (16:18). I think you have misinterpreted our letter. We have no issue with the timing of your submission rather it is the content which we believe to be incorrect. This has nothing to do with the efficiency of our excellent post room staff. In the second paragraph of our letter to the Court dated 02 November 2010 (attached), which was copied to you, we acknowledge receiving your letter dated 22 October 2010 and the document which was enclosed with it. What we are saying in the first paragraph is that you failed to serve the Further Particulars of Claim which Deputy District Judge Calnan (not us) ordered you to serve by 4pm on 01 November 2010. The Court may decide otherwise but the document you sent to us under cover of your 22 October 2010 letter is not what the Deputy District Judge wanted you to provide. Your document is an application for permission to amend your claim, it is not a Further Particulars of Claim. The third paragraph of our letter is a reference to CPR Part 17.1(2) and the fact that our client has not consented to you amending your claim. The Court may decide (given that you are a litigant in person) to overlook the fact that you have failed to follow the correct procedure and if it does so we will of course comply with whatever directions or orders it may make. I recommend that you seek independent legal advice on this matter. Alternatively you may find it useful to speak with your local Citizens Advice Bureau details of which can be found at www.citizensadvice.org.uk.

perfect thanks slick and SAB for all your help. i have amended the POCs and send them today with a £40 PO to amend the POC with the N224 form i had to submit with amended POCs keep you all updated with any progress cheers pete

bit stuck on the points in red at the bottom regarding the interest?

Claim No: BETWEEN: - -and- Barclays Partner Finance DETAILED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on 23rd MAY 2008, whereby the Defendant was to purchase an Apple Computer on HP with Barclays Partner Finance providing the loan, Account no 0))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ("The Account"). 2. The Agreement essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a Barclays Partner Finance Fixed Sum Loan (“The Account”) which would allow the Claimant to make a HP purchase at APPLE SALES INTERNATIONAL in the United Kingdom. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate. 3. The Agreement was a Regulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. At all material times the contract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time. Summary 5. Throughout the course of the Agreement, the Defendant has added numerous default charges to the Account for the Claimant’s failure to make the minimum payment on the due date and or for having Direct Debits returned. (Full particulars are set out in schedule 2). 6. The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were: a). A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and b) An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant. 7. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account. The Charges 8. The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows: (a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with credit facilities. The Claimant was entitled to use the credit facilities to make purchases up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing. (b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases at the published rate. © The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment of £36.23 by the due date as notified in the monthly statements. (d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant did not pay on the due date or had a payment returned. The Charges are currently £20 for 'Unpaid DD Chg' Charges and £22.50 for 'Default Late Payments' for each transgression. Penalty 9. The Charges were payable on breach of contract by the Claimant. 10. The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Defendant in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions. 11. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law. The Regulations 12. At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations. 13. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms. (1)The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated. (2)The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract. (3)The Charges exceeded the costs which the Defendant could have expected to incur in dealing with the exceeding of the credit limit, late payment or returned payment. (4) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and indicative of an unfair term. (5) As the Defendant knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement. (6) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges. (7) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable. 14. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totalling some £350.00 between 23/05/2008 and 29/08/2010. Particulars appear from Schedule 2. 15. On 2/08/2010 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied. And the Claimant claims (1) A declaration that the sums totalling £350.00 have wrongly been applied to the Account. (2) Payment of the said sum of £350.00 and interest of £49.99, applied by the Defendant thereon. (3) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of payment of the Charge to date in the sum of £000.00, and at the daily rate of £0.00 until judgment or sooner payment. (4) Court costs of £35.00 I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of four pages, are true. Dated 21/10/2010 Signed Pdaddy

thanks SAB also slick - is it ok for me to re post my amended POCs - i wouldnt mind if you could quickaly cast your eye over them for me? have to have them in by friday many thanks P

Hi slick, thanks again. yes i did use your spreadhseet in post #3, but amended it to include their rate of interest at 15.88% (was this the right thing to do?) i did look in your signature but theres NO link #6 - only goes up to no 3. when i click on the link http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/121-bookworm the page seems to hang so i cant access the libnk for the template? i cant seem to find these barclays POCS so i cna revise my earlier attempt. really keen to revise this asap. P

hi slick, thanks for your replies, appreciate them and being a fellow Kentish countryman, i was wondering if you could help throw a few more pointers as to how i change the POC? its weird, as the X template i sued for the interest was one from CAG Barclays thread, so that total interest is £49.43 - that's not the daily rate, i dont know how to work that out? but when i spoke to BF they told me the interest rate im being charged is 15.88% so over the course of when i first started receiving penalties i have accrued that amount in interest. as i have made such a pigs ear of this im really unsure and embarrassed on how to rectify this. so correct me if im wrong. do i need to do anything now at this stage to rectify the 2 points which you mentioned? or do i wait to revise this part of the claim? i haven't received anything from the local courts or Barclays in relation to this matter, but on Friday i did receive a letter form some new solicitors called Simmons and Simmons who have noted that i haven't yet submitted any details and my daily rate of £49.43 is absurd, they then go onto point out i have copied these POCs form the www and whilst that's ok, they do ask to send in specific POCS for my claim. they say my POC lack particularity. help. im really stuck now on how best to re-do this apart from:- stage 1 - re read the thread in your sticky. stage 2 - ??? if you can offer any pearls of wisdom id be truly grateful thanks Pete

hi all, anyone got anything to add? i have been off lately,and need to respond to their last letters, plus i need to serve them some kind of notice for non compliance on the SAR which they have taken the money for and not responded to the SAR request. P

dear all, i was on a train yesterday and received a call from some solicitor who was dealing on behalf of Barclays (it was a very bad line, no pun intended, so it was hard to hear him) suffice to say, his call DID take me by surprise, and i couldn't hear his name nor the name of the solicitors. anyway, h was asking me if i had submitted any more documents/evidence as i said i was going to be...?? instead of answering properly , as i dont know this guy form Adam, i explained i was on a packed train, and if they want to ask me something they have to correspond with me via letter only. he again asked me, and i could tell my reply had rattled him, so again, i re iterated that i wasn't answering his question and if you have something to say or ask me - put it in writing please. i think he got the message quickly and realised he was dealing with a player ; ) and ended the call. so my questions:- has anyone else experienced this? did i do the right thing by not entering into dialogue with him over the phone (especially on a packed train) what did he mean by this? should i be sending in more docs? why has he called me on phone? when most solicitors i have dealt with before on claims, have ALL written to me instead. for the record my POCs are:- blah blah blah....defended debited charges & interest in respect of purported breaches of contract. defendant is aware of all details as a lit of all charges has already been supplied.claimant contends the charges exceed the defendants losses caused by the breaches of term permitting the defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable under the unfair terms in consumer contracts regs 1999, unfair contract terms act 1977 and at common law. claimant claims return of the amounts debited of £421.93 interest per 269 county courts acts 1984 of. i will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after the service of the claim form. the claimant claims interest under section 69 if the Country court acts 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 10/9/2010 to 17/9/2010 on £421.93 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of the judgement or earlier payment at the daily rate of £49.43 hmmmm i can already see the error i made on the MCOL claim form, which i actually cut n paste this from someone else's claim, i think i need to revise this immediately - can anyone help as i have really screwed this up haven't i? hope it can be rectified and i can continue? cheers P

bump anyone?

cheers for reply slick no i didnt use the BC POCs - i sort of used my own ones form a previsou claim, damn, i hope that was ok to do that - is is worth posting up what i have said in my POC? i am claiming the actual charges and with regards to interest i am using their interest, which is 15.88% - so i used that in the XL calculation sheet for the interest charges. - is that ok to do that too? or should i have done it differently? i have recived back my confirmation letter form MCOL stating that the defendant wihses to defend the whole claim, do i still need to send thru my bundles though? been so long since i last did all this, i have actually forgotten the process and protocol, any replies greatly appreciated. Pete

hi all, latest developements i still havent recived our SAR Requests and its well over 40 days 1. so how do we go about suing them/fining them for non compliance - any threads or links i can be advised on, as non compliance is a serious breech, and i wanna take these to the cleaners. 2. we have both had another letter from crap1 sayign they wont enter into any more dialogue and that they have already sent us the paperwork relating to our account on 3 separate occaisons - FACT what they have sent on 3 separate occasions are 'guarnatted acceptance forms' AKA an Application Form. this as we all know, DOES NOT conform with the CCA nor does it supply the prescribed T&Cs... 3. they are still saygin they will defend any claims, and the account must be brought up to date as they dont consider it in dispute 4. when i get my SAR back im going to claim for the extra charges and also the removal of the defaults (whislt the account is in dispute)

hi guys, thought id quickly update you on my situation with barclays partner finance. after much too-ing and fro-ing and letters/phonecalls i was getting no where with them and they verbalyl said they couldnt waive any of the charges, then backed this up with a letter. so, i decided it was time for MCOL. put a claim in 2 weeks ago for the amount of about £424. recived my letter back from MCOL to say they DO intend to defend all the chargses, its been a few years since i did hsbc/lloyds etc for my bank charges (sucessfully) and i cant remember if this is normal standard practice, and should i be worried at this point? if you can set my mind at ease please? also, i cleared my arrears with barclays and brought the account up to date and am continuing to make my monthly payments as part of the HP agreement. look forward to your replies cheers p

hi all, been off recuperating so a bit slack updating with latest developements... we have both recived letters form crap1 saying they cant process our SAR becuase we didnt sign the letters, and some rubbish about they cannot process an SAR till they have our signature - im sure this is tosh, but cant remember the letter or template i need to send them to coutner their letter - as they said they cannot process an SAR without a signature - like i said this is tosh, but not sure what i need to tell them? secondly, they are still going on that the 40 days doesnt start till they reciev the correct documentation - but im sure 100% i read that the 40 days starts when they recive the cheq - right? lastly, and most importantly, on my letter from them recently, they did the usual accoutn not in dispute nonsense, and that they wont be corresponding with me any more, and then went on some massive rant quoting some recent cases - mr justic flaux in mcguffick v the royasl bank of scotland EWCH2386 and HH judge waksman in carey v HSBC EWHC3417 (QB) and documented about how the judges still saw these agreements as enforceable and a debt that is still due and owing and debtor remians liable to make payments etc etc etc now, has anyone else seen or witnessed any of these new scarmongering tactics? its a long 4 page letter, the biggest i have had from crap1, and signs off saying i must call their SSU - specialist support unit to discuss my account - i havent yet called them and feel i might jsut for a laugh. they sign off by sayign that 'financial regualtions require me to advise you that this is my final response in relation to this matter'..... so do i counter this with 'my final response to this matter' if so i could do with some meaty bits to quote and paraprhase - if anyone has any ideas or things i should mention id be greatful. pdaddy - fighting fit!! : )