Jump to content
Twitter - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'

johnhn

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    337

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by johnhn

  1. johnhn
    A "weekend spoiler" arrived yesterday from BW Legal - "Letter of Claim". They're asking "if" (!) I dispute the debt (clearly - I already have!) and my reasons for non-payment (because I don't owe it!). They've given me until 27th Feb to cough up £160 or they "are instructed" to issue a County Court Claim.
  2. johnhn
    Yes, reserved for the same Judge. I liked the cut of his jib. He didn't like the cut of theirs much though...
  3. johnhn
    Such as pretty much resting their case on a non-applicable authority? I'm not very concerned about that...
  4. johnhn
    I think he was somewhat disgusted by their strategy (i.e. making an application to strike out/summary judgement instead of either negotiating a settlement or allowing my claim to be allocated and heard) and their associated costs, which are well over double the value of my claim. I got the impression he was sending them a message that he wasn't going to stand for any funny business, or exploitation/manipulation of my LIP status... Either way, that's at least another fortnight in which to negotiate with BC's Sols.....
  5. johnhn
    They failed to provide a LIP with evidence in good time upon which they were relying
  6. johnhn
    I'm afraid I still don't follow the reasoning. The claim is for default charges, the default consists entirely of default charges. If the charges are invalid then so must be the default. that didn't take long. Their barrister got a bit of a spanking for proposing to give me a copy of OFT v Abbey on the spot. Judge wasn't happy with that. Nor was he happy with their costs of £2700+ on a claim of c.£1200 which would have been allocated to a small claim but for BC's choice to approach the matter in this way (as he put it). Hearing adjourned. Costs awarded to me.
  7. johnhn
    Bc say can't remove default
  8. johnhn
    precisely. and yet they're relying on it quite heavily... on my way to court. Wish me luck!
  9. johnhn
    Off to court in 3 hours... I wonder how keen BC are not to have a court find against their default charges. Their Sol's claim for costs is £2733.00. My entire claim is less than half of that. Their skeleton argument cites OFT v Abbey National 2009 [uKSC] and says "There is no material difference between fees for current accounts and those for credit cards and so the court is invited to adopt the same approach here in respect of credit card fees". Really?
  10. johnhn
    Oops. Sorry
  11. johnhn
    So they wanted me to agree an offer made in January 2018 by December 2017?
  12. johnhn
    Also, the offer letter gives me until December 18th 2018 to accept - how does that work with an application hearing tomorrow for strike out/summary judgement?
  13. johnhn
    Still struggling to reconcile their standpoint that my claim "has no real prospect of success" with their offer to repay all charges + restitutionary interest though...
  14. johnhn
    The situation has taken a turn. Whether it's for the worse I'm not sure but it's weird and uncomfortable. To recap: 12th January - received offer of settlement from sol's. All charges plus restitutionary interest. 15th January - rejected offer by email as no default removal, but said I would accept offer if it was revised to include this. 18th January - received email stating I have not responded to the offer and need to sign and return the TO by 4pm 23rd January. I reply referring their attention to my email of 15th January. 22nd January - emailed sol's for acknowledgement of receipt of my emails. 23rd January - received email from sol's acknowledging receipt of my emails. "We are taking further instructions from our Client in respect of your emails." Arrive home from work at 6.30pm to find letter from sol's dated 18th January but postmarked 22nd January stating I have not responded to the offer and need to sign and return the TO by 4pm 23rd January... 25th January - received email from defendant's barrister attaching his skeleton argument for tomorrow's hearing... Are BC likely to take this right to the wire or am I sitting opposite their barrister in court tomorrow?
  15. johnhn
    Removal of the default is part of my PoC. If the default charges responsible for the default are being refunded, how can there be any basis for the default to remain?
  16. johnhn
    Well guys, looks like it's T.O. time... Well, nearly. There's no mention of default removal, and I'm required to withdraw and release the claim "and/or any other matter" (like PBA fees I was about to reclaim?) whilst "any other indebtedness" I have or may have remains unaffected. Hmmm.
  17. johnhn
    Just had an email informing me that my Pounds to Picket account - currently the subject of an FOS complaint and thus under dispute - is now owned by MMF, along with my Sunny account (recently refunded and removed from my credit report). Muppets.
  18. johnhn
    Court date for BC Sol's summary judgement application has been set for Friday 26th January.
  19. johnhn
    1) Don't know. 2) No. I never pay after a default - what's the point? 3) £129
  20. johnhn
    Yes. And despite the witness statement, BC still have a case to answer to. Part of their duty when reporting to CRA's is to do so in a timely manner. They added default fees to the account for 3 or more consecutive months on 3 separate occasions dating from December 2013. On one of those occasions they applied charges for 6 consecutive months and on another, 13 consecutive months, prior to registering a default. In other words, the default could - and should - have been registered much earlier (e.g. Jan, Feb, Mar or Apr 2014, or Oct 2014, or Feb 2015 etc etc, rather than April 2016). Frankly, that stinks. That's assuming the default should have been registered in the first place. I last spent on the card in July 2014, at which point my balance was at or within my credit limit (£150). From that point on, I paid a total of £292.33 into the account. The charges alone from that same point on were £408, so I think it is fair to say the default balance consists substantially if not entirely of default charges, thus the default should not have been registered.
  21. johnhn
    My bottom line is the removal of the default - everything else is for bargaining with.
  22. johnhn
    PoC and Witness Statements attached. PoC.pdf Witness Statement.pdf
  23. johnhn
    "Principles for the Reporting of Arrears, Arrangements and Defaults at Credit Reference Agencies A default should not be filed: If the amount outstanding is solely made up of fees or charges"
  24. johnhn
    Sinking feeling...
  25. johnhn
    I don't know if it's The Bundle, but it's certainly A Bundle... It comprises: 1)N244 Application Notice, for an order to: i)Strike out the PoC pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) because they discloses [sic] no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim or 3.4(2)(b) because they amount to an abuse of process and for judgement in its favour; or ii)Summary Judgment [sic] pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and 24.2(a)(i) on the basis that the [sic] there are no reasonable grounds for the Claim to be brought and that the Claim has no real prospect of succes [sic]. iii)The Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs. 2)Draft Order for the above 3)Witness Statement of TLT Sol. (I'll scan this up tomorrow). Barclaycard T&C’s Statements from October 2013 to October 2017 OFT842 (“Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts – A statement of the OFT’s position – April 2006”) The Witness Statement is quite a scathing read. However, for me, the basic principle remains. Over the course of 4 years, I spent £342.48 on the card. I repaid £663.34. I was subsequently defaulted for £348, but the default fees alone were £564.00... I still marvel at the logic of expecting someone to operate within their credit limit by charging them £12 for going over it. Except of course they don't really want you to operate within your credit limit because if you did, they couldn't make a packet in charges...

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road
London NW11 7PE

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...