Thanks slick, will adapt the one above now. They sent the second fob off letter to my old address (despite sending the first to my current address) so definitely will be filing with the court this week, can I do this online or do I need to go into my local court? Also is there any argument in the fact they flat out said they could not produce me with a CCA?

It's bits and pieces I have copied from different ones found on the web, I thought we had to make our own Thanks for pointing me in the right direction slick... mk2 coming up

Sorry about the copy and paste, computer has broken and my work laptop crashes opening pdf files. This is how far I have got so far, skimming through it there I have noticed a few bits I need to change. Doesn't look like they are even going to reply unless I get it last minute in the post tomorrow so looks like this is going all the way

BETWEEN: MrMJV Claimant -and- Thomas Cook Personal Finance Ltd. Defendant ____________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM ____________________________ 1. The Claimant holds a credit card account with the Defendant bank (“The Credit Account”). 2. The Credit Account is operated in accordance with the standard terms and conditions which the Defendant applies to credit accounts held with it (“the Standard Terms”). The Standard Terms were not individually negotiated between the Claimant and the Defendant. 3. Pursuant to the Standard Terms, the Defendant has levied the following charges on the Claimant in respect of the operation of the Credit Account (“the Charges”): (1) £348 4. The Standard Terms and/or the circumstances in which the Charges were levied were such that the relationship between the Defendant (as creditor) and the Claimant (as debtor) arising out of the Standard Terms is and/or was unfair to the Claimant (as debtor) within s.140A(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In particular, and without prejudice to the burden of proof which rests on the Defendant to prove that the circumstances of its relationship with the Claimant are fair (pursuant to s.140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974), the relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant was unfair in the following respects: (1) The charges provided for by the Standard Terms were (or had the potential to be) excessive in comparison with the level of borrowing which triggered the levying of the said charges. (2) The charges provided for by the Standard Terms were (or had the potential to be) excessive and punitive in comparison with the costs to the Defendant caused by the conduct which triggered the Bank Charges. (3) The charges provided for by the Standard Terms were set by reference to the overall cost to the Defendant of providing credit accounts to all of its customers which held such an account, rather than merely to the cost of the conduct by the Claimant which triggered the charges thereby effectively requiring the Claimant to subsidise the provision of current accounts by the Defendant to other customers. (4) In the premises the Defendant did not deal fairly as between the Claimant and its other customers. (5) The existence and quantum of the charges provided for by the Standard Terms and/or the circumstances in which those charges were levied were inadequately and/or insufficiently explained and/or drawn to the attention of the Claimant either: (a) When the Current Account was first opened; and/or (b) When the Claimant gave an instruction to the Defendant which would result in the levying of a charge; and/or © Otherwise before any particular charge was applied. (6) The circumstances and manner in which the charges were levied created potential for: (a) The application of multiple charges; and/or (b) The levying of charges to give rise to the application of further charges. (7) The complexity of the charges provided for by the Standard Terms and/or the circumstances in which they were levied. (8) The nature of the charges and/or the circumstances of their application was such as to cause inherent difficulties in predicting the incidence and amount of such charges in advance. (9) The absence of any effective competition between providers of current accounts which restricted the ability of the Claimant to chose a current account operated on terms which did not provide for charges such as (and/or equivalent to) those levied by the Defendant pursuant to the Standard Terms. 5. Further or alternatively, by reason of each of the facts and matters set out above (save for those matters which relate to the level of the Charges as against the service supplied in exchange), the contractual terms pursuant to which the Defendant levied the Charges were unfair pursuant to article 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 because, contrary to the requirement of good faith, they caused a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the Standard Terms, to the detriment of the Claimant. 6. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Claimant is entitled to and claims hereby: (1) Repayment of all sums paid by the Claimant by way of the Charges as particularised above. (2) Alternatively, the repayment of such part of the Charges as the Court thinks fit in all the circumstances. (3) An order that the Defendant shall cease to levy the Charges on the Claimant pursuant to the Standard Terms. (4) A declaration that those terms within the Standard Terms pursuant to which the Defendant levied the Charges are unenforceable by the Defendant. 7. Further, the Claimant claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to him at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit. AND the Claimant claims: (1) Alternatively such sum as the Court thinks fit by way of repayment of all sums paid by the Claimant by way of the Charges (2) Payment of the said sum of £348 and interest in restitution of £242.86 as per the case of Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Commissioners 2005. (3) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of claim until judgment or sooner payment.

So their time is up on Tuesday for the LBA have read shelleys thread again, what are the main differences for the poc? Ideally would like toget that ready to do on Wednesday if they do not respond/the response is not what I am willing to accept

Very helpful thread as my lba has gone in the post this morning! Any updates on where you are with them Trancyb?

Thanks slick, I previously sent csl a letter stating about the charges and would only pay through TC if there was any further need to pay and that I had moved, they sent a few more letters to my old address so I re-sent it and have heard nothing more... yet! LBA went off in the post this morning so I'm going to start reading and getting an idea of what is involved with the poc and get that up together ready, do I give them 14 days from when I posted the letter or 14 days from when they receive it? Thanks, Mrm

Just read half of Shelleys thread and I think I know where I am now and my next step should be to re-send my original letter with "letter before action" as the heading? Also should I include another spreadsheet with up to date interest amounts as this will have changed now due to the extra days elapsed? Should I offer a token monthly payment at this stage or is the account classes as in dispute? Thanks in advance, will def be making a donation to help keep the site alive, I would have no doubt been screwed over by CSL had I not found it! And I most certainly wouldn't know about reclaiming charges etc.

Thanks guys I will have a read through that this afternoon. The balance left on the ac is just under 300, the charges are around 340 and over 500 with interest added. I can afford to pay each month, I have stopped at the moment because I was paying to csl

I have done this using apps on my phone so fingers crossed!

Is it just the recent letter or the spread sheet of charges etc? I have no cca as they still have not provided me with one. Will try to scan everything in the morning, our computer isn't up to much though so may take a while! Slick, Thomas cook credit card is run by Barclays, it is Barclays that show on my credit file. Thanks for your replies guys

Had a response from tc, they have stated they think their charges were fair blah blah blah. What to do next?

Just about to send tc another copy of the original letter and stating that I will deal with them only not csl and sending csl a letter pointing out the same to them and pointing out (again) that I no longer live at the address they hold for me also including a copy of the letter I sent a few weeks ago. Right thing to do???!

Still no word from Thomas cook, csl have sent two further threatograms, shall I re-send my letter to them or just save some money on loo roll and use them?

I sent csl the letter you suggested about dealing directly with tc as there were loads of charges. Sent TC the charges reclaim and spreadsheet and their 14 days to reply is up