Finance company claim- Won!!!! charges refunded!! BBC article

[means2anend]

Yesterday, 27th May 2010, I received a response from the Court to my letter I delivered 13th May 2010 asking for the DJ to not make his decision on setting aside my Judgment based on the Defendants letter alone.

 

The DJ said I should see a copy of the letter the Court had sent to Close Premium Finance on 12th May 2010. This letter was in response to Close's very disrespectfull complaint about the conduct of the claim, and the Courts conduct.

 

The letter stated...........

 

In response to your letter dated 30.4.10 in respect of this case. Your letter was placed before District Judge XXXX who has stated that the Defendant's letter dated 29.3.10 cannot be deemed to be an amended defence. The Defendant must apply on notice to set aside judgment.

 

 

 

If you have read the BBC article and seen the comments by Close Premium Finance............

 

That will be the administrative error by the Court then.

 

HJS

 

Nice and timely:)

[HomerJSimpson]

Thanks to everyone for your encouraging comments:D

 

This site is amazing, I can't believe the help and assistance I've received.

 

It's not over yet, or so Close would have me believe, but I'm really quite enjoying this.

 

HJS

[bustthematrix]

It's not over yet, or so Close would have me believe, but I'm really quite enjoying this.

 

HJS

So are we m8! I'm surprised CPF let it get this far if they're really serious about appealing though? Why on earth did they not defend properly in the first place? And why let it go from Judgement to Warrant if they believe they really have a case?

 

Me suspects they don't - hence why they've paid up. This is all part of their window dressing bluster.

 

I also wonder why the BBC has not used this opportunity to highlight the difference between bank charges and non-bank charge fees and the fact that the SC ruling only applies to personal current account charges as this was the basis of the banks' defense!

[HomerJSimpson]

The Amended Particulars Of Claim that was used in this case.

 

In the xxxxxxxxxx County Court

Claim number xxxxxxxxx

 

Between

HomerJSimpson

Claimant

 

and

 

Close Premium Finance

Defendant

 

Amended Particulars of Claim

 

 

Part 1 Introduction

This is not a Bank Charges claim. The Charges which are the subject to this claimhave nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling against the Personal Current Accountproviders - Eight British banks and others. ( OFT v Abbey etc.) Because this claim is notaffected by the Supreme Court decision, all parts of this claim remain open for determination by the Court, Penalties, UTCCR Regs 5 and 6 etc.

The Defendants have themselves admitted that the Charges are not bank charges.

This claim is brought for the refund of money paid under a mistake and for restitutionary damages or for interest under s.69 County Court Act 1984.

This claim is brought under reg.6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR) and alternatively under reg.5 UTCCR

Alternatively this claim is brought on the basis of a contractual misrepresentation by the Defendant.

This claim is also brought for breach of Statutory Duty.

The Claimant’s position is that either the Late Payment charges which the Defendant imposes on it customers are not part of their core business and are so excessively high that they are wholly disproportionate to their costs and are therefore unfair under reg.6 UTCCR, or

That the Defendant occupies a dominant position in relation t the claimant and has operated its dominant position contrary to the requirements of good faith by misrepresenting the true nature of its Late Payment charges per reg.5 UTTCR or

That the Defendant has made a contractual misrepresentation

 

Part 2 The Parties

The Defendant is an insurance premium finance provider offering running account credit agreements for clients to finance their insurance policies.

The Defendant is regulated by the Financial Services Authority and are subject to the obligations contained in the FSA Conduct Of Business Sourcebook, implemented under the Financial Services And Markets Act 2000.

The Claimant arranged his insurance cover through a broker, xxxxxxxxx, who offered the defendants, Close Premium Finance as a finance company which would allow the payment of the insurance premiums by instalments.

The Claimant entered into two Running Account Credit Agreements, xxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx with the Defendant as detailed in Schedule 1 attached.

The loans were provided under the Defendants’ own standard Terms and Conditions.

Between August 2002 and September 2007 the Claimant incurred late payment charges totalling £240.00

The Defendant’s charges are expressed by them to be their costs for representing failed direct debit payments (Representation Charges).

The Defendant finance company reserves to itself the right to levy Charges it describes as “administrative expenses”, “default fee”, “default”, “defaults/non-payments”.

 

Part 3 The Defendants’ dominant position.

The Defendants are a major finance company and part of the Close Brothers group.

The Defendants operate on their own standard terms and conditions which are imposed upon the customer. There is no opportunity for the customer to object or to renegotiate any aspect of the finance contract. There is no element of mutuality or reciprocity within the contract.

The Defendant finance company occupies a dominant and superior position to the Customer because they are fully informed as to the true nature and level of the operations (or activities) and also the true cost of dealing with Customer Late Payment episodes, and yet refuse to reveal or disclose in any way the mechanisms involved or the true costs associated with Customer Late Payment episodes. The Defendant reserves to itself the right to levy charges it describes as “Administrative Charges” and elsewhere “Representation Charges” and which they claim are calculated to either, as stated in the Terms and Conditions of the agreements;

However the Defendant levies these Charges against its Customers without any proper explanation as to how the costs are derived and so that the Customer is obliged to accept the Defendants generalised explanation of their charges at face value. The Customer is therefore obliged to repose faith in the integrity and straight dealing of the Defendant because of the Defendants superior position in the contract.

 

Part 4 The Defendants’ misrepresentation”.

The Defendant’s contract states that;

6. The Customer may in certain circumstances become liable to pay to the Bank additional charges (including default interest). Details of these are set out in paragraph 9 of these conditions.

9.The Customer shall indemnify the Bank as a separate, continuing and primary obligation on demand for :

(a) all reasonable costs and expenses directly or indirectly incurred by the Bank in connection with any failure by the Customer to pay any amount due in respect of the Account ; and

(b) all internal management and administrative costs incurred by the Bank in responding to and dealing with enquiries and/or requests of the Customer relating to the administration of the Account, and further if the Customer fails to make a monthly payment or pay any other amount on the date that it is due, the Customer shall on demand pay default interest on the unpaid amount from time to time until such amount is paid, calculated daily at the rate stated overleaf (as varied from time to time).”

The Defendant has also told the Claimant that:-

“The law allows us to impose default charges which are a “reasonable pre-estimate” of our costs for dealing with your account once it falls into arrears. This includes the administrative, staffing and systems cost of communicating with you about the state of your account, answering any additional queries you may have and/or renegotiating your loan.

Our default fee has been calculated in view of our legal position and the costs we are legally entitled to recover from you under the law of contract and under the terms of the agreement between us”.

A study commissioned by the BBC in 2006 found that the episodes of the type for which the Defendant imposes default fees typically cost a maximum of £4.50 per episode.

The OFT conducted a study into the fairness of the level and application of unauthorised charges in April 2007. The subsequent OFT July 2008 report found a number of concerns they believed needed addressing:

1. Low levels of transparency over charges and costs, coupled with a high proportion of banks’ total revenues made on charges and costs.

2. The complexity of the charges makes it harder for consumers to control the costs they incur.

3. A significant group of consumers underestimate the level and frequency of banks’ charges, and

4. A general perception among consumers, not completely unfounded, that switching is complex and risky, contributing to low levels of switching between banks.

(Although this study applied particularly to banks, it is submitted that the principles of the study and the results are applicable to other companies within the finance industry which operate excessive charging regimes.)

Claim under regulation 6 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999.

The Defendants Charges are not part of their core business. They are incidental or remedial Charges and are unfairly high. They are therefore invalid under UTCCR .

Claim under regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999.

The Defendant has abused its dominant position by misrepresenting the nature of their charges. This is contrary to the requirement of good faith, and as a result of this the Claimant has suffered detriment.

Therefore it is submitted that the Defendants charging regime is invalid.

Contractual Misrepresentation.

The Defendant has misrepresented the nature of their Charges, the Claimant relied upon the Defendants representations because he believed that he had caused losses to the Defendant, and that he had an obligation to indemnify the Defendant for those losses.

If the Claimant had appreciated the excessive nature of the Defendants Charges, he would have investigated making his finance arrangements elsewhere.

 

 

Breach of Statutory Duty.

The Defendant is regulated by the Financial Services Authority under The Financial Services And Markets Act 2000 and is subject to obligations contained in the FSA Conduct Of Business Sourcebook. Under Regulation 4.2 of the Sourcebook the Defendant is required to ensure that they communicate with their clients fairly,clearly and in a way which is not misleading.

By misrepresenting the nature of it’s charges both in it’s Terms and Conditions, and in it’s correspondence to the Claimant, the Defendant has breached their statutory obligations.

 

 

The Claimant claims:

(a) The return of all charges paid,

(b) Court costs,

© Restitutionary damages, or

(d) Interest under section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984.

(e) A declaration that the Defendant has breached their obligations contained in the FSA Sourcebook.

 

Statement of Truth.

I, HomerJSimpson of xx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxX, believes that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

 

___________________________

HomerJSimpson

Claimant

11th March 2010

Edited June 1, 2010 by HomerJSimpson

[aj84]

Well done on this!

I actually read about your article on the BBC but had no idea it was someone on here!

 

Does make me think now that this happened with Blackhorse with my very first car and being a student, I was late with around 7 odd payments all charged at £25-£30 per "letter"

Was a while back but I might just dig it out - as you said, its the principle!

[Isiris]

30 April 2010

 

We have today received details of a judgment against Close Premium Finance in respect of the above claim.

 

We have been advised by your office that the reason for the judgment was that there was no amended defence in the file passed to the District Judge for consideration.

 

We wish to make a request to have this judgment set aside as well as register a formal complaint concerning the conduct of XXXXXXX County Court in relation to this claim.

 

XXXXXXXXX County Court was in receipt of our amended defence by the required date of 29th March 2009 (I think he's got a time machine) and your posession of this defence document was confirmed over in a call with Close Premium Finance at 11.25am on 12th April 2010. The failure by your office to include this document in the file to be passed to the District Judge is the sole reason that judgment has been given against Close Premium Finance.

 

I enclose a further copy of the defence document that was provided, and ask that arrangements be made immediately for the judgment to be set aside so that a decision can be made on all the appropriate documentation.

 

We also ask that you undertake a thorough investigation as to how a document so vital to the defence was misplaced and what failings allowed this to occur. In addition to the judgment being set aside we require a formal apology regarding the conduct of XXXXXXX County Court over this claim. Given previous failings, I require confirmation that this document has been received together with confirmation of when you will respond by return.

 

Should you have any queries regarding any aspect of this communication, please contact me on xxx xxx xxxxx

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Compliance Officer

Close Premium Finance

 

 

 

 

If You EVER dont want to win a claim, send a letter in like this.

[bustthematrix]

Thanks for posting your POC on this HJS. It will go a long way to help in some of my own work...

[HomerJSimpson]

I've finally received the cheque from Kingston-Upon-Thames Court.

 

Lots of lies or mistruths told to me about where my cheque was.

 

Just a bit of advice if you are thinking of sending in the Bailiffs. Yes you get paid, but it takes a long time.

 

Still nothing from the Courts regarding Close appealing or applying to get the Judgment set aside.

 

Good luck all, get your charges back.

 

HJS

[HomerJSimpson]

Thanks for posting your POC on this HJS. It will go a long way to help in some of my own work...

 

 

I wish I could take the credit for this POC. It was written by somebody much cleverer than me.

[elliot2402]

Hi any tips for pursuing a claim against Close Premium Finance (now Close Brothers Premium Finance) has a claim in place.

 

Thanks

[AndyOrch]

Hi elliot2402 and Welcome to CAG

 

I would advise you to start your own thread on this matter and provide a little background to where you are up to.

 

Regards

 

Andy