Tanzarelli v Cap One... £ + default **WON**

[TANZARELLI]

You have to use an N1 for this type of claim - MCOL is for 'money-only' claims.

 

Do not separate the issues either as you have more likelihood of getting the default removed if it is part of the same claim for a refund because

 

(a) if they wish to settle out of court they have to meet all of your demands

 

(b) if they want to contest the default then they will also have to contest the charges

 

Because of this, you would be advised NOT to accept anything in relation to a refund if the default is not included.

 

I am presuming that, at the date the default was issued, the level of charges were at least close to the default value?

 

PoC should be something like this....................

 

******************************************************

 

1. The Claimant [has] [had] an account 1 ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 2 [and closed on or around 2]

 

2. During the period in which the Account [has been] [was] operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

 

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

4. The Claimant contends that:

a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

 

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ 3 and any interest charged thereon;

b) the removal of any prejudicial information which the Defendant bank may have passed to third parties in relation to the Account and in particular the removal of the Default Notice registered with any credit reference agency which was notified to the Claimant on or around [date], since this was caused solely by the level of disproportionate penalty charges. The Claimant’s request is made under the Data Protection Act 1998, section 14, which gives the power to the Court to order the removal of inaccurate personal data.

c) Court costs;

d) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

 

……………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………….……

 

NOTES ON ABOVE - Not to be included in the Particulars of claim

 

1. Enter account number

 

2.Enter date(s) of account opening and, if necessary, account closure.

 

3. Enter sum for charges total

 

Section 1 - “[has] [had] an account” - remove the unwanted option

 

Section 2 - “the Account [has been] [was] operating” - remove unwanted option

 

Section 5 - [date] Enter date that you were made aware of the default notice.

 

Thanks for that jonny2bad, jsut read all your thread Halifax, what a gutter. Lots of usful thing learnt there though, and I will definately not accept charges before default is removed.

 

Thanks again, your a legend.

 

Tanz

[bill-k]

Thanks for your help here, guys !!

 

And Jonni2B - special thanks for the visit. Experience comes at a price - and yours is premium quality stuff. It's a cr@p job, but somebody went and did it.

 

Many, many thanks.

[TANZARELLI]

Here Here, ditto.

 

Tanz

[TUTTSI]

I worked out my contractual interest for each month:-

Monthly Interest found on statements say monthly interest of 1.530% X 12= 18.36%

Using Vampires spreadsheet for working out the days I then multiplied the charges by the interest (18.36%) divided it by 365 the multiply by the number of days. In my case I was able to change Vampires Spreadsheet with the extra calculations. Each month I changed the interest according to the statement.

I do hope that I have made this clear for you, if you need any help please shout.

DS

[bill-k]

I worked out my contractual interest for each month:-

Monthly Interest found on statements say monthly interest of 1.530% X 12= 18.36%

Using Vampires spreadsheet for working out the days I then multiplied the charges by the interest (18.36%) divided it by 365 the multiply by the number of days. In my case I was able to change Vampires Spreadsheet with the extra calculations. Each month I changed the interest according to the statement.

I do hope that I have made this clear for you, if you need any help please shout.

DS

DS - that is NOT strictly contractual interest. Contractual interest has to be compounded when you calculate it. You are calculating simple interest based on the monthly contractual rate, so this is technically neither contractual nor statutory. As such, it is in danger of being completely thrown out by the court. If that is what you really want to do do, then that is up to you. But I'm not sure that it is a good idea to suggest that everybody else does that. At best, your method gets you less than you are entitled to claim. At worst, it could get you NO interest at all.

 

Please, please, carefully consider claiming contractual interest fully, or not at all !!!

 

Bill.

[Guest willowb]

Bill, why does contractual have to be compounded? I know that 'compounding' is the method that banks use in applying the interest and therefore for the sense of mutuality in contract this should be the method we use. BUT why would a Judge throw out a claim if the interest was not compounded but simple?

 

Am I not understanding something? Lord knows I've read enough!!! but I am prone to things skimming my head and fluttering in the corner of the room with a smug look on its' face:mad: lol

 

Wxxx

[bill-k]

Bill, why does contractual have to be compounded? I know that 'compounding' is the method that banks use in applying the interest and therefore for the sense of mutuality in contract this should be the method we use. BUT why would a Judge throw out a claim if the interest was not compounded but simple?

 

Am I not understanding something? Lord knows I've read enough!!! but I am prone to things skimming my head and fluttering in the corner of the room with a smug look on its' face:mad: lol

 

Wxxx

Willow, Glenn has made one or two stentorian pronouncements on this, and I believe his basis is that for the interest to be contractual, it has to be applied in the same way as the other party(s) to the contract apply it. If we were to pluck random rates, or random methods of calculation out of the air, then it just doesn't sit right when presented to the judge. In a good mood, he'll probably wave it through, but knowing our luck he'd have had a row with his trubble 'n' strife that morning and chuck it out on technicality.

 

Even if we're claiming less than we would if it was compounded, the bank may still decide to argue the point, knowing that it's too late to alter it to a higher rate. We can't expect any leeway from them, just because we're being nice guys - it's the judge we want to please. I think if we are going to claim less than the contractually calculated amount, it is much safer to drop down to authorised rate (compounded), which is still contractual. I see it as being technically correct, and therefore less vulnerable to argument.

 

As I think you know, though, I prefer going for the max, but with alternatives.

 

HTH matey,

 

Catchulater,

 

Bill.

[TUTTSI]

DS - that is NOT strictly contractual interest. Contractual interest has to be compounded when you calculate it. You are calculating simple interest based on the monthly contractual rate, so this is technically neither contractual nor statutory. As such, it is in danger of being completely thrown out by the court. If that is what you really want to do do, then that is up to you. But I'm not sure that it is a good idea to suggest that everybody else does that. At best, your method gets you less than you are entitled to claim. At worst, it could get you NO interest at all.

 

Please, please, carefully consider claiming contractual interest fully, or not at all !!!

 

Bill.

 

Hi Bill

I take on board what you have said, I have called it simple interest on my spread sheet. Thanks though for pointing that I out.

[bill-k]

Hi Bill

I take on board what you have said, I have called it simple interest on my spread sheet. Thanks though for pointing that I out.

 

Thanks for listening, DS !! As long as it's on board, then I feel I've done my duty. In the end we must all do what we feel comfortable with.

 

Bill.

[Guest willowb]

it is much safer to drop down to authorised rate (compounded), which is still contractual. I see it as being technically correct, and therefore less vulnerable to argument.

 

I totally agree and must admit have always been swayed towards advising claiming back the 'authorised' rate; though I really think that we are entitled to unauthorised for obvious reasons! it's all about what is 'fair and reasonable' in the Judges' eyes isn't it?

 

Thank you for clearing that up Bill;)

 

Wxxx

[bill-k]

Thank you for clearing that up Bill;)

Wxxx

Thanks for helping me, Willow !!

[blackd2103]

watching this thread with interest as I too need to get a default removed by crap one!

[Guest willowb]

have you looked through the threads and stickys in 'legalities'?

Are you claiming charges also from Cap one?

 

Wxxx

[blackd2103]

Been looking through the threads and I am also claiming charges. L.b.a was sent 2 days ago.

 

 

have you looked through the threads and stickys in 'legalities'?

Are you claiming charges also from Cap one?

 

Wxxx

[Guest willowb]

can you link your thread pls so that I can have a look!

 

Wxxx

[blackd2103]

here you go - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/35983-wils-capital-one.html#post413357

 

 

 

can you link your thread pls so that I can have a look!

 

Wxxx

[TANZARELLI]

Had another letter from Crap One today which was a little odd considering they have already issued their final response.

 

Not bothered about it though as still going to file claim when I get around to doing it (tomorrow).

 

Anyway it reads:

 

12 December 2006

 

Dear Mr T

 

Account No. **** **** **** ****

 

 

Thank you for writing to me again about the fees (Unlawful Penalty Charges) we've added to your account.

 

Its going to take us a little while to look into your situation and come back with a detailed response. (well its a bit late for that now as you are going to get served with a claim now) We'll do everything we can to get an answer to you within four weeks of this letter.

 

If for some reason our investigations take longer than four weeks, we'll contact you to tell you why this is. (How nice, but to late)

 

Thank you very much for being patient while we collect the information we need. (Well I can tell you the info you need is that the charges total £820, they need to just be refunded, and you will need to remove my default notice.)

 

Yours sincerely (are you really being sincere?)

Robert Udy

Executive Office Manager

 

Oh well if they think i hanging around for 4 weeks they've got another thing coming. Going to slap my claim in on monday when I have writen the POC on my N1.

 

Bish bosh bang.

 

Tanz

[TUTTSI]

Had another letter from Crap One today which was a little odd considering they have already issued their final response.

 

Not bothered about it though as still going to file claim when I get around to doing it (tomorrow).

 

Anyway it reads:

 

12 December 2006

 

Dear Mr T

 

Account No. **** **** **** ****

 

 

Thank you for writing to me again about the fees (Unlawful Penalty Charges) we've added to your account.

 

Its going to take us a little while to look into your situation and come back with a detailed response. (well its a bit late for that now as you are going to get served with a claim now) We'll do everything we can to get an answer to you within four weeks of this letter.

 

If for some reason our investigations take longer than four weeks, we'll contact you to tell you why this is. (How nice, but to late)

 

Thank you very much for being patient while we collect the information we need. (Well I can tell you the info you need is that the charges total £820, they need to just be refunded, and you will need to remove my default notice.)

 

Yours sincerely (are you really being sincere?)

 

Robert Udy

Executive Office Manager

 

Oh well if they think i hanging around for 4 weeks they've got another thing coming. Going to slap my claim in on monday when I have writen the POC on my N1.

 

Bish bosh bang.

 

Tanz

 

Well it is time to take action, they will not budge till you do, Good Luck with your claim, mine has already been issued so now waiting for them to file their defence or PAY UP. They have only 2 weeks left to do this so just waiting.

DS

[bill-k]

Bish bosh bang.

 

'Nuff said. Yeah, do it.

[TANZARELLI]

I will if you insist. No really the pleasure is all mine. lol

[Guest willowb]

eye eye Tanz;) ....lol

 

Wxxx

[TANZARELLI]

Like it? Like your new one.

 

Tanz

[blackd2103]

got for it tanz!!

[Guest willowb]

Like it? Like your new one.

 

Tanz

thank you;) yours is strange:p :p

 

Wxxx

[TANZARELLI]

I like to keep an eye on proceedings.

 

Just a quick question Willowb,

 

When requesting credit files from the likes of equifax, experian, call credit etc what do they need in terms of info re previous adresses is it 6 years worth? Also how do we get this for £2 do we just write to them and state where we have lived etc or do we have to request it under something?

 

Thanks

 

Tanz