Thanks for clarifying that because I was also reasoning that the claim is not for PPI but for charges. It never occurred to me that they would interpret that the claim was for PPI or the money received was for full and final payment especially where the acceptance letter clearly stated that it was in regards to PPI only. Well, as you said if they decide to bring it then the Judge will decide. Dot

Thank you so much. The fight continues. I will send them the letter and wait for their response if any. Dot

So, do you suggest that I send the letter then?

Mike, Below is the actual letter that was sent to Argos. Their offer letter stated that it was full and final settlement to which I rejected. May be they have not been given everything. I believe they have just known about the PPI recently as their defense seems to suggest that they were not aware at the time they submitted it. Dot I write further to my letter of xx.xx..2014 and in response to your offer letter for my PPI claim. I can confirm that I am prepared to accept your offer of £xxxx for settlement in respect of my PPI claim only. I request that payment is made directly to me by cheque and that any refund in whole or part should not be allocated to any set off or third parties. Should the latter occur my claim will be deemed as unsettled and I will proceed to the Courts for recovery. Please note that this offer is accepted in regards to my PPI claim only and I look forward to receiving payment within 14 days. Mike, My POC were as follows: PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around xx/xx/2003, whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account, Account no xxxxxxxxxx ("The Account"). 2. The Agreement essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“The Card”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases in advances on credit. 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 exceeding the credit limit and or if a payment is 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. And the Claimant claims; 1) A declaration that the sums totalling to £xxx have wrongly been applied to the Account. Some of these charges are older than the normal years but are claimed by virtue of s32 (1) c Limitations Act 1980 as per Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council. (2) Payment of the said sum of £xxx and interest in restitution of xxxx as per Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Commissioners calculated using a rate of XX % APR (3) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount claimed daily rate of £xx.xx per day until judgment or sooner payment (4) Section 19 (1) (2) is as below: A declaration that adverse data reported about the account by Credit Reference Agencies be removed as the amounts so reported are inaccurate due to the inclusion of unlawful penalty charges and mis-selling of payment protection . I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of 2 pages, are true.

Thank Mike for your quick respond. The payment was accepted just for the PPI settlement. It was stated clearly in the acceptance letter that it was in settlement of the PPI. "We are instructed that you accepted a cheque in the sum of £xxxx dated xx January 2015 in respect of the sale of PPI product, Coversafe". They are being very vague as they are not saying as it was in F&F settlement. I will send them the letter and see what they will say. Dot

Hi Mike, Thanks for dropping in again. There is no change as yet. May be it will happen later. I managed to get the case back to the local court but the hearing date moved to Sept now. Will keep you posted. Today I received a letter from the defendant representative referring to the PPI issue which initially they said they could not respond to as there was no evidence. They have now come back with the letter below. We refer to your Claim, in particular, so far as it relates to the sale of PPI. We are instructed that you accepted a cheque in the sum of £xxxx dated xx January 2015 in respect of the sale of PPI product, Coversafe. Despite this, you caused to have issued the Claim Form alleging mis-sale on xx Feb 2015. Take notice that unless we receive your unequivocal withdrawal of the allegations in respect of PPI, by 4pm on 30 July 2015, we will make an application to the Court seeking that the allegations be struck out with an order for costs against you on the grounds of your unreasonable conduct in bringing a claim which you knew to have no cause of action. Any thoughts please? How do I respond to this? Should I ignore it? Thanks (4) Section 19 (1) (2) is as below: I declaration that adverse data reported about the account by Credit Reference Agencies be removed as the amounts so reported are inaccurate due to the inclusion of unlawful penalty charges and mis-sellingicon of payment protection. 15. The Defendant is embarrassed by paragraph 7(4). The Defendant is unable to plead a response in the absence of any particulars of the allegation. As you will notice, the claim is not about PPI but it mentioned that the CRA reporting is not accurate as it includes the PPI and charges. They agreed and refunded the PPI correct CRA entries. This was before the claim was issued. I am not sure why they think it is wrong to include that in the POC. Any suggestions? Dot

Just wondering if anyone can have a look at post 46 for me (grounds for the application). Any suggestions of how to deal with? I would like to oppose the set aside application. Your help is very much appreciated. Dot

Any suggestions please. Thanks Dot

Well, It never occurred to me that "reasons or grounds" are requirements for applying for a DSAR. Dot

not yet Mike, I spoke to the Court yesterday and was told that it has been forwarded to a judge. Dot

Thanks Andy, Will do that as soon as there is communication from the court. This was sent by the defendant. LTL states the followings in their WS. Real prospect of successfully defending the claim The Claim relates to DSAR made to the Bank on or around XX Feb 2015. The Claimant alleges that the Bank has failed to comply with the DSAR. The Claimant seeks 1) an Order that the Bank do comply with DSAR; 2) damages; and 3) cost in the sum of £xx. The Bank believes that it has a real prospect of successfully defending the Claim, pursuant to CPR13.3, on the following grounds: • The Claimant has failed to particularise the alleged failure by the Bank to comply with the DSAR • The Bank takes its regulatory and statutory obligation seriously. If the DSAR has been made by the Claimant on valid grounds, the Bank will be required to comply with it; and • The Claimant claim costs in the sum of £xx, however, as the Claim is likely to be allocated to the small claims track the Claimant is not entitled to the sum sought. Some other good reason why the judgement should be set aside • The Default Judgement reflects the cost claimed by the Claimant in respect of time spent dealing with the DSAR. However, the Claimant also seek an Order requiring the Bank to to comply with the DSAR and damages. The default Judgement does not conclude the claim and therefore it will not prejudice the Claimant’s position for the Default Judgement to be set aside and for her claim to proceed. • Practice Direction1.2 of CPR 12 provides that a claimant may not obtain a default judgement under Part 12 if the procedure set out in Part 8 is being used. The remedy sought by the Claimant is akin to Part 8 claim because she is asking the court to decide whether the Bank has complied with its requirements under the Data Protection Act 1998 and it is not straightforward money claim. • The main remedy sought by the Claimant cannot be granted by way of default judgment, without an application being made in accordance with Part 23, as is set out in CPR 12.4(a). The Claimant has not, as far as the Bank is aware made any such application Any suggestions? Dot

Thanks Andy.

Thank BazzaS, They attached a WS, the above was an abstract from it. I will post the WS and then hopefully it will make more sense. Dot

If I post the WS,will it help at all? If I can get help to object it? How much time do I have to do that please? Dot

Thanks Adny, The court they are suggesting is not my local. What do I do then? Dot

The WS state that "the Bank was severed with Claim on 9 June 2015 and instructed my firm to act on its behalf. Due to an administrative error my firm did not file an acknowledgement of service or defense on time. The Bank received notice of Default Judgement on 13 July 2015 and immediately forwarded it to my firm. I contacted the claimant by phone on the same day we received the notice of the Default Judgment, and today requesting that she consent to the Bank's application to set aside Judgement in order to save the Court and the parties' the time and costs of considering it. On both occasions the Claimant refused to discuss the matter. As a result the Bank immediately made the application to which this witness statement support". Dot

Is there anything I can do to reject the application please? Thanks Dot

The Local Court will not be Central London though. I do not know why they are choosing that for us.

Claimants Court. They are defendants. Dot

From what I read, not filing defense. They phone my wife but it was not convenient to talk and they have assumed that she refused. There was no discussion. In fact it was Barclays which called.

Hi all, Made a claim against Barclays as advised and they never acknowledged or defended the claim. I then went ahead and requested for a default judgement which I obtained. They were ordered to comply forthwith. Today a letter arrived from TLT Sols with a copy of N224 Application Notice. They are requesting that: The Judgement is set aside The defendant shall file and serve its Defense within 14 days of receipt of this order. The Claim be transferred to Central London County Court, the Claimant's local Court because the defendant has real prospect of succesfully defending the claim for the reasons set out it the Witness statement in support of the application. They claim that it was an administrative error on their side but it is not their client;s fault. They claim that when their client received the judgement, it was passed on to them and they attempted to discuss setting aside the judgement by consent over the phone to avoid the time and costs of attending a court hearing to deal with the application. They claimed that it was declined. My question is, can one object to this application? Need your help please.

Hi all, Just wondering if anyone can help me with this. below is one of the court directions, is one required to send hard copy or just to make reference? Parties must send to the Court with the documents to be served 14 days before the hearing any authorities on which they intend to rely. Thanks Dot

Hi Slick, Have you had time to look at the POC? Is it the correct one? Thanks

Thanks Slick, No problem, that's fine.

Any thoughts on this please. Thanks