thanks noonmill i feel better now and a better understanding,i am going to concentrate on the a.q. now

i thought in the small claims court that they couldnt claim there costs?

thanks,i just wondered if i lost how much it could cost me,if they wanted to unerve me its worked

well im pretty confused and they have really scared me now,i cant a reply so i dont know what to do

can someone look at post 64 please and tell me what they think

n149

ive just got the aq in the post

so now they saying that the claim is liable to be struck out and the costs will increase as the case continues and our client reserves the right at the final hearing to seek to recover the full costs of the proceedings from me,in the event that your claim is ultimatley unsucessful on the grounds that you have acted unreasonable,we therefore invite you to withdraw your claim by signing and returning to us the notice of discontinuance within the next 7 days,should you do so our client will not seek its costs from you.

i didnt know i had to respond to the defence,how do i do that?

thanks,i will go to court and argue my case,i have read quite a bit and i know people have won,the only reason they are so old is because tesco woudnt return them,i was really asking about there defence?they said i was deluded

so i was lookin for some advice,should i carry on?

14.8% the spreasheet does not exist i didnt know how to use one so i did the interest with a calculator,the sheet i sent to court was a proper one not a handwritten one,i sent three copies op everthing,but they didnt send me a copy back,so thats what i have

i sent one with the interest on

will someone be able to look at it all today?

ive sent it

whats that?

did u get them?

yes i can scan them and send as an attachement?

the defence papers i cant do all the things you have said above,i have no idea were to start,i know you have explained it all very well but its beyond me

ARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account, Account no ("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 and receive cash 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. The Charges 8. The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows: (a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Card to make purchases and receive cash advances 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 and cash advances at the published rate. © The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment of 3% of the amount owed or £5 (whichever was the greatest) by the due date as notified in the monthly statements. Penalty 9.The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Bank in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions. 10. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law. The Regulations 11.At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations. 13. At all material times the terms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that contrary to the requirement of good faith they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant. 14. 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 Bank 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 thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term. (5) As the Bank 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. 15. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms’ imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and relies on the following matters. (1) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreement. (2) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money). (3) The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the key information provided to new customers. 16. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations. 17. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totalling some between 05/01/2003 and 01/09/2005 Particulars appear from Schedule 2. 18. On 07/10/2011 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied. 19. The Defendant has not repaid them or any of them. And the Claimant claims; (1) A declaration that the sums totalling have wrongly been applied to the Account. These charges are older than the normal 6 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 and interest in restitution of (3) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate per annum on the amount claimed (daily rate of until judgment or sooner payment. (4) Court costs of £50.00 I believe that the facts stated in these particulars, comprising of 2 pages, are true. Dated 27/04/2012 Signed

i got a copy of tesco defence today,it says 1,the claimant is time barred from bringinging a claim,2,in the premises the court is invited to exercise its case management power under cpr.3.4(2) to strike out the poc and dismiss the claim,3,if and to the extent that the court declines to strike out poc of its own motion the defendant reserves thes right to apply for strike out,there are more but this is the one i have chosen next,8. by reason of forgoing facts and matters,it is the defendants case that the claim is misguided and if it is allowed to proceed as presently constituted the defendant will submit that,8.1 the claimant is bt service of this defence put on notice of the same and,8.2 for the claimant to pursue a claim(to its knowledge)has no legal basis and no prospect of sucess,ive shortened it all,and i have no idea what it all means?

thanks i am,i just wondered why they had sent this letter,if they are goin to court or not,i am

ok thanks,are they llikely to settle before court?

what they have offered includes the 50.00 court fee

just under 500.00