capital one ppi -say i agreed ???????

[fedupwithmuppets]

bad luck mate, at least you gave it a shot...can you not appea? Sorry don't know how this court process works...seems to me like the judge couldn't be ar..d...happen it was near his coffee break?

sorry to be a numpty but was is an unexecuted agreement and a cfa? Still getting my head around all these terms. Chin up...as brw says have a beer or 2 or 3!!

[alanalana]

Oggy the main thing is feel proud that you took them on.

You had the ******cks to challenge and that takes some doing.

 

You should feel no remorse you did what you did and should hold your head up high that you were prepared to reclaim you right. The institutions CAGers are up against have all the resources to retain barristers to fight their case to retain moneys obtained through (alleged) dubious practices. I put in the alleged:D to prevent further legal action against my post:rolleyes:

 

Chill with a beer and come back fighting fit

 

regards

 

aa

[Camdenite]

Hi all, I've been meaning to start looking in to reclaiming PPI from MBNA Abbey for some months now. Do I need to start my own thread, and in which forum?

[steven4064]

Hi CAmdnite

 

It's better to start your own thread - either in MBNA or PPI - you choose

[oggy1]

hi steven,

thanks for your assistance , i did not use it well. i can say i cocked up big time with this.

capital 1 did not send a court bundle to the court, the judge allowed the paperwork in court, they did not even send me all of the paperwork, the worst thing was though, i recieved some papers from them and they said they had faxed the court the paperwork, THEY DID NOT DO IT!! AND I DID NOT CHECK.

[steven4064]

I don't think you did badly - I think the behaviour of the judge was disgraceful

[oggy1]

i agree, but i think i should have made more of an issue about this.

 

the one point that that i hope nobody else falls into is that until the court papers had been issued and i was not armed with all the facts until after , i had to change my poc.

the judge compared the "guesswork" of the first poc , my poor memory, with the ammended poc.

i did point out the new poc was the correct one and his comments were,

"have you signed the document", then i can use it as fact, if it wasnt , then why submit in the first place.

 

i did explain that cap 1 had not complied with the numerous demands for the information, he replied,

" it is your responsibility to have the correct information before embarking on court proceedings".

 

i think i should have taken them for non compliance with the data protection first.

 

i would not go to court again having to amend the poc, but the information on this site does state this very clearly somewhere, about getting the information first.

[alanalana]

Hello oggy,

 

i did explain that cap 1 had not complied with the numerous demands for the information, he replied,

" it is your responsibility to have the correct information before embarking on court proceedings".

 

Do you know how important this is to me?

 

My claim has been met with no information, diversion from the correct information, denial of information, False information. It could take months now for me to proceed I had better sent another complaint about non compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. I already have a complaint lodged but maybe another one is in order

 

 

aa

[steven4064]

Oggy

 

You mustn't beat yourself up about this. You were a litigant in person - the court is supposed to take account of that. You had the right to expect a judge who was familiar with the law your case was based on or who would at least postpone the case when he found out it was not anything he knew about; and you had the right to expect that the judge would comply with practice directions.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Oggy1!

 

Sadly, yet another example of the Judge Lottery it seems.

 

But as Alanalana says, it shows how vital it is to get all of the information needed before Court.

 

The blocking and delaying tactics many on CAG have seen, are clearly not just down to banking inefficiency. Indeed, you could say the bankers are highly efficient at being inefficient...when it suits them.

 

Only sorry this one didn't work out for you as reasonably hoped. A better Judge and it could've been the other way.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[oggy1]

yes i agree with you all,

this was the same judge who i had for mbna case and he was a pain then.

alanalana

the judge made a big issue about not being armed with the facts, he was not amused.

remember, as he said to me, if the facts are wrong it was my fault.

it does give them ammunition to test you and they do pull you apart on this.

 

the barrister quoted part of the law on the cca that means they do not have to comply with the cca request, guess what - he accepted that but would not agree with my argument about the failure to produce.

i am going to sort the paperwork out and give you the information.

[oggy1]

hi steven ,

trying not to , but i am going through it as much as possible to see the main points where i was deemed "wrong" in law.

thanks

cheers brw

and the rest of you, its great to have all the support.

[oggy1]

hi

i am posting this bit on here as well as rbs. have lodged a case with them for credit card charges and this has gone to the court.

it has been allocated to the same judge!!!

i wonder if they have any others.

the main point i am making is the allocated date is the 24th september 2008.

Judge has ordered as follows:

 

1. The claim be allocated to the small claims track and listed for hearing with a time estimate of 2.5 hours.

2. The Claimant must pay the allocation fee requested by the court (unless already paid) by 4th July 2008 and in default the claim is struck out without further order.

3. The Claimant shall send to the Court and to the Defendant by 4pm on 18th July 2008

a) a schedule setting out each charge for which repayment is sought, showing the date, amount and reason given (if any) for that charge being made.

b) copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that the charges have been made.

c) witness statements, documents and any other evidence relied upon in support of the claim.

If the Claimant fails to comply with this Order, the claim is struck out without further order.

 

4. The Defendant shall by 4pm on 1st August 2008 send to the Court and to the Claimant

a) a response to the Claimant’s schedule stating in respect of each item.

(i) pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made and producing a copy of the contract relied upon.

(ii) whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty.

(iii) if such charge is alleged to be a pre estimate of the Defendant’s loss all facts and matters relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of loss.

(iv) if such charge is not alleged to be a pre estimate of loss, showing the basis on which the charge was

b) witness statements, documents and any other evidence relied upon in support of the defence.

c) copies of decided cases and other legal material relied upon.

d) a skeleton argument.

reading this is suprising as he didnt think deadlines and court orders were that important a couple of weeks ago.

of all the cases i have done , i havnt had the direct orders from Oxford before, this is new system here.

any comments???

If the Defendant fails to comply with this Order, the defence is struck out without further order and the Claimant may request judgement in default.

[oggy1]

having checked through my paerwork from the court , i cannot find the section in which the barrister convinced the judge that the cca did not have to be produced, maybe i will have to read the act to try to remember.

[steven4064]

That is actually good - the directions are basically the 'new' directions specified on this site see halfway down this post http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html#post90319

[oggy1]

see i should spend a bit more time studying the site?

 

i am going to look at ppi against egg as my next challenge, but i will be checking everything before i start.

 

will keep you posted.

[HunterT7]

Hi oggy,

 

yuor case intereests me as I'm just taking on crap1 myself. If you intend persuing crap one further you may like to follow my thread. I have included a link to the FSA case against them in the thread.

 

Additional info for you that might be useful is in the FSA finding there are blatant admitted mistakes in their management of PPI especially if your account was opened in the 2005/2006 period. More details in my thread especially the link to the FSA judgement.

 

Hope my info is of use.

 

HT7

Edited July 1, 2008 by HunterT7
added forgotten link