Dori2o v HFC ***won***

[Mad Nick]

Dorio2,

I thought the £12 was a limit to what they could charge, not a recommendation.

NO. The OFT actually said that “…the card issuer may only recover the relevant limited administrative costs arising out of those defaults”; that £12 is the “simple monetary threshold for intervention by the OFT.”; and that “Our assumption will be that credit card default charges set above this level are unfair unless there are exceptional factors.” In other words, the principle of them having to show that their default charges are consistent with the costs associated with a breach still holds regardless of the £12. I strongly suggest you read the start of the OFT report (paras 1.6-1.9). Regards, Mad Nick

[dori2o]

Dorio2,

 

NO. The OFT actually said that “…the card issuer may only recover the relevant limited administrative costs arising out of those defaults”; that £12 is the “simple monetary threshold for intervention by the OFT.”; and that “Our assumption will be that credit card default charges set above this level are unfair unless there are exceptional factors.” In other words, the principle of them having to show that their default charges are consistent with the costs associated with a breach still holds regardless of the £12. I strongly suggest you read the start of the OFT report (paras 1.6-1.9). Regards, Mad Nick

 

Thats what I meant, it just didn't come out that way, however, from what HFC have put int heir letter, they seem to be advocating that the £12 is the "recommended" charge.

 

The more I think about it, the more likely it is that I will write back, despite them saying that this is their final response, even if they don't write back, from the 22nd of March, it will be down to the courts.

 

What I pondering though is whether I should use the Unfair Trerms in contracts regs 1999 as part of the defence in the letter, and possible request again that they disclose the actual workings of what is included in their £15 charges.

 

Can anyone help with what I should put in the letter with regard to this, if I should use it at all?

[crfx250]

Mad nick is right. The OFT did not say ''£12 is a fair reflection of the actual cost''. I have a recent letter from the OFT stating that ''we were not saying we considered £12 to be a fair level of charge for a default''.

 

The £12 figure is only the threshold at which the OFT would act on. Anything less could still be considered unfair and unlawful but only a judge

could really decide that

 

Just how bright are these people? The putz is talking complete rubbish. And even so, 15 dos'nt divide into 12 without a surplus. I'd be glad to send you a copy if you'd like to show the jerk.

[dori2o]

The more I think about it, the more likely it is that I will write back, despite them saying that this is their final response, even if they don't write back, from the 22nd of March, it will be down to the courts.

 

What I pondering though is whether I should use the Unfair Trerms in contracts regs 1999 as part of the defence in the letter, and possible request again that they disclose the actual workings of what is included in their £15 charges.

 

Can anyone help with what I should put in the letter with regard to this, if I should use it at all?

 

Anyone?

[Mad Nick]

dori20, you need to concentrate on getting the N1 right and the UTCCR1999 is obviously central to that. I think it's a waste of time continuing the debate with the Bank. You've followed the CAG guideline of Prelim and LBA. Go to N1 on 22 March (if I understood your post correctly).

 

However, I agree that you ought to write some sort of letter to HFC if only for appearance's sake. I would keep it simple and not continue the debate. Just say that, having re-read the OFT report and UTCCR1999, you remain dissatisfied with their response and that you intend to proceed with court action on 22 March unless they disclose the basis of their default charges. Don't go in to why you are dissatisfied - leave that argument to the N1. Regards, Mad Nick

[dori2o]

Thanks, I have drafted a letter and will send it on Monday.

 

In closing I m required to add you have the right to refer your complaint to the Finance and Leasing Association, Imperial House, 15-19 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6UN.

What about these people, is it worth giving them a try. Or would I just be wasting my time?

 

Also with the N1- would I have to amend the POC from the one in the templates- or would that one suit this claim.

[InKogneeToh]

Hi

 

Just browsing the site and saw your thread. In your first post you state that your agreement included insurance of over £200. I assume the DVD cost maybe c£60-90 so this insurance is outrageous.

 

Are you sure it was actually PPI (not product insurance) and either way does the copy of the agreement they have sent you show your consent to this?

 

The OFT has launched an investigation of the mis-selling of PPI and you might want to find out more about this and whether you may have any remedy.

 

I will try to find some info. and get back to you.

 

Regards, Pam

[InKogneeToh]

Hi again

 

I think you need to start another thread urgently about the PPI element in the PPI section of this site.

 

It seems that you can make a claim for a refund of your PPI instalments if the policy was mis-sold.

 

This could be because e.g you were not in full time employment, you were unemployed, self-employed, you had pre-existing medical conditions not discussed at the time the policy was taken out, the policy was not explained to you, the effects of the extra cost in terms of the interest rate was not explained and so on.

 

Even if none of these applied at the time, I personally think that encouraging you to take on an extra debt of £200+ as a way of protecting payments over 4 years on what must have been a relatively small debt to begin with is totally irresponsible and unfair to say the least and I would have thought that this would come under the 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act'.

 

You need to read up on this and then when you have fully assessed the situation, write to the creditor and request the refund of these payments. If they refuse then the next step is probably a complaint to the FSA which is liaising with the OFT in the investigation.

 

Regards, Pam

[dori2o]

Hi again

 

I think you need to start another thread urgently about the PPI element in the PPI section of this site.

 

It seems that you can make a claim for a refund of your PPI instalments if the policy was mis-sold.

 

This could be because e.g you were not in full time employment, you were unemployed, self-employed, you had pre-existing medical conditions not discussed at the time the policy was taken out, the policy was not explained to you, the effects of the extra cost in terms of the interest rate was not explained and so on.

 

Even if none of these applied at the time, I personally think that encouraging you to take on an extra debt of £200+ as a way of protecting payments over 4 years on what must have been a relatively small debt to begin with is totally irresponsible and unfair to say the least and I would have thought that this would come under the 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act'.

 

You need to read up on this and then when you have fully assessed the situation, write to the creditor and request the refund of these payments. If they refuse then the next step is probably a complaint to the FSA which is liaising with the OFT in the investigation.

 

Regards, Pam

 

I think you may have misunderstood the origional post, the total cost of the finance was £233, this included 4 year insurance of £43.

 

There is also PPI on the balance. I do not remember agreeing to it but it is acknowledged on the credit agreement which is complete with signatures from myself and currys on behalf of HFC.

[dori2o]

In closing I m required to add you have the right to refer your complaint to the Finance and Leasing Association, Imperial House, 15-19 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6UN.

What about these people, is it worth giving them a try. Or would I just be wasting my time?

 

Also with the N1- would I have to amend the POC from the one in the templates- or would that one suit this claim.

Anyone?

[Guest Niklowe]

You could contact them, but personally I think they are using this as a delaying tactic. It would mean in all probability, that you would have to delay your N1 submission.

[Isiris]

They have said no

 

Dont bother with FLA, go straight to court. No brainer imvho

[InKogneeToh]

I think you may have misunderstood the origional post, the total cost of the finance was £233, this included 4 year insurance of £43.

 

There is also PPI on the balance. I do not remember agreeing to it but it is acknowledged on the credit agreement which is complete with signatures from myself and currys on behalf of HFC.

 

Oh right, sorry - I misread it.

 

Regards, Pam

[dori2o]

N1 filed at Court today.

 

Let the games begin!!!

[Bigmac versus]

Fun begins

[dori2o]

Filed at court yesterday, but just going through my correspondence with HFC and I cannot find the statement. It's not very clear anyway and I have sent HFC a spreadsheet with a simplified version of the statement, and HFC have acepted that the spreadsheet verifies the information on the statement they issued to me.

 

Will this be a problem if it goes all the way. Should I simply call them and ask for another tomorrow. (I called them the first time and they advised they do not charge for it as it is just a screen print of what they have on the computer)

 

HELP!!!!

[InKogneeToh]

Filed at court yesterday, but just going through my correspondence with HFC and I cannot find the statement. It's not very clear anyway and I have sent HFC a spreadsheet with a simplified version of the statement, and HFC have acepted that the spreadsheet verifies the information on the statement they issued to me.

 

Will this be a problem if it goes all the way. Should I simply call them and ask for another tomorrow. (I called them the first time and they advised they do not charge for it as it is just a screen print of what they have on the computer)

 

HELP!!!!

 

Hi

 

I'm not sure what sort of 'statement' you are referring to here, but did you do one of this site's spreadsheets to total the charges and calculate the interest you want to claim -either their rate or the s69 8% rate? This should have been included with your claim form.

 

Regards, Pam

[dori2o]

The statement I'm referring to is the screen print that was sent to me from HFC that allowed me to calculate the charges they havd made on the acount.

 

I was under the impression that if this went all the way, I would need this as part of my evidence.

 

I did attach a spreadsheet with the claim.

[InKogneeToh]

Hi

 

Oh right, I see now!

 

Regards, Pam

[dori2o]

Received in the post today a notice of issue.

 

Deemed issued on 4th April.

 

HFC have until 18th to respond.

[dori2o]

They have not yet submitted to the court their intention to defend.

 

However I did get a letter with a copy of my credit agreement.

 

The letter states:

 

Without Prejudice

 

Dear Mr Dori2o

 

Account Number: XXXXXXXX

 

Please find enclosed a copy of the legal agreement as requested.

 

Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact this office on 0870 010 2230.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

(no name)

 

Payment Advisor

HFC Bank Limited.

[dori2o]

Well today was the day they had to acknowledge the claim.

 

Would it be worth contacting the court in the morning to see if they have acknowledged?

 

If they have not, is it best to write and give them a further 7 days to do so before obtaining judgement?

[dori2o]

Received acknowledgement today, they intend to defend all the claim.

 

Don't suppose it will be long now before they settle.

[dori2o]

Looks like I was wrong. They should have put in a defence on or before 2nd May, todays the 9th and I've still not received anything.

 

I'm going to phone the courts tomorrow.

 

Any advice appreciated.

[meagain]

If no defence has been received, file for a judgment in default. If they request that the judgment be set aside, you should contest this - lack of opportunity to defend is a mandatory ground for set aside, but since they did acknowledge the claim and bought themselves another two weeks they can hardly claim this.