Alphageek Vs GE Capital Woodchester "WON"

[Alphageek]

The HMCS cheque has been debited from my account. What is the time-scale for hearing from the Court?

[Alphageek]

Received my Notice of Issue (specified amount) papers this morning.

 

"Your claim was issued on 04 December 2007. The court sent it to the defendant by first class post on 05 December 2007 and it will be deemed to be served on 07 December 2007. The defendant has until 21 December 2007 to reply."

[steven4064]

You're on your way

[Alphageek]

The Defendant filed an Acknowledgement of Service on 13 December 2007.

 

The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend all of the claim.

 

Acting solicitors are Salans.

[steven4064]

Acting solicitors are Salans.

Usually is

[Alphageek]

Received a letter from Salans today;

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO CONTRACT

 

Our Ref BLAH

Your Ref

Date 19 December 2007

Direct Line: +44(0) 20 7429 nnnn

Email: person@salans.com

 

Dear Sir,

 

Yourself - v - GE Money

Claim No.: BLAH

 

We act on behalf of GE Money and have been retained to investigate and advise upon the merits of your claim with a view to resolving this matter.

 

We have been passed all the relevant correspondence relating to your account and have also received and reviewed all documentation from our client in relation to your account.

 

Our client does not accept that the charges which are the subject matter of this claim are either unfair or illegal in law, be it statutory or common law. It has reviewed the Office of Fair Trading's ("OFT") publication of its findings into default fee charges and its cost base and remains of the view that, due to the administrative costs it incurs upon a default, it is entitled to charge these fees. This view is not inconsistent with the OFT's view.

 

The OFT deemed that a fee over £12 would be presumed to be an unreasonable charge for costs incurred as a result of a default. Accordingly, and although our client is of the view that its charges are not illegal, it is willing, on this occasion, and as a gesture of goodwill with no admission of liability, to refund the proportion of charges that you have incurred that exceed £12. This is a sum of £xxx.xx. It is also willing to pay the sum of £xx to you in respect of the Court Fee.

 

In total therefore, our client is prepared to pay £xxx to you in full and final settlement of this matter.

 

This offer is conditional upon both parties agreeing to sign a draft Consent Order bringing the present Court proceedings (subject to the Court's approval) to an end. The draft Order is enclosed for your review. Please sign and return the draft Order as soon as possible. Upon receipt of the signed copy from you, we shall sign the draft Order on behalf of our client and arrange for it to be lodged with the Court for approval and sealing. Please do not date the draft Order.

 

Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the writer, PERSON, on the direct line detailed above. Alternatively, if it is more convenient, please correspond by email at the address detailed above.

 

Yours faithfully

SALANS

 

Don't they ever give up?

[steven4064]

Don't they ever give up?

Obviously not. And this is being thingy with the whatsit:

The OFT deemed that a fee over £12 would be presumed to be an unreasonable charge for costs incurred as a result of a default

What the OFT said was

Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12. Setting a threshold for intervention is a pragmatic pro-consumer action that is designed to give the industry the opportunity to change its practice without litigation.

Which is not the same thing at all as Salan's limited quote. £12 is just a practical limit that the OFT will ignore for the time being. Later on the OFT says

Only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not.

OFT Press release here. And this is just the UTCCR1999. If the charge is more than the actual losses sustained by GE Money as a result of the consumer's breach of contract, then it is a contract penalty and unlawful even if it is only 12p.

[Alphageek]

I am going to email the person they told me is handling the case. Should I accept the offer on the understanding that I will let the case continue for the rest of the charges I am claiming or just tell them to get lost (in a nice way of course)?

 

Also, there is a confidentiality clause which they can whistle for.

[steven4064]

I am going to email the person they told me is handling the case. Should I accept the offer on the understanding that I will let the case continue for the rest of the charges I am claiming or just tell them to get lost (in a nice way of course)?

It doesn't really matter so long as you leave them in no doubt that you are not stopping until you get everything you have claimed

 

Also, there is a confidentiality clause which they can whistle for.

Quite right!

[Alphageek]

Via email.

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

RE: Me Vs GE Capital Bank Limited

 

Dear PERSON,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 19th December 2007. The contents of which are duly noted.

 

It seems to me that your client has given you instructions to negotiate a settlement with me. I must tell you that I consider that the time for negotiation would have been in June 2007.

 

You client chose to embark upon a, probably non-existent, protracted investigation into the unlawfulness or otherwise of the default charges at issue that ended with a letter from Sarah Mates laying out a similar position which your letter contains. I obviously did not accept your client's position nor do I accept your position.

 

I find your selective quoting of the OFT ill-judged at best and an attempt at deceit at worst. You will know as well I that the press release stated "Only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not."

 

As your client has not attempted to justify the charges at issue by providing a breakdown of the costs to which it is put by such alleged breaches of contract I can only assume that they are seeking to unduly enrich themselves by levying a charge greater than their actual loss. The law states that if any part of a penalty charge is unlawful, be it £26 or 26 pence then all of it should be repaid.

 

I will accept the payment you offer as an interim payment only on the understanding that I will continue the court action until such a time that your client has repaid all that I claim. For your convenience I have attached an up to date Schedule of Charges that I am claiming.

 

Please don't send me any more ridiculous Draft Orders. If I decide to discontinue the proceedings I will ask for the Court's approval to bring it to an end.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Me.

[steven4064]

Sweet

[Alphageek]

Received this about 30 mins later;

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Alphageek,

Thank you for your email upon which I shall take my client's instructions and will revert to you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

PERSON

[Alphageek]

Received Salans' defence in the mail today;

 

1.It is admitted that the Claimant entered into an agreement with the Defendant for the provision to the Claimant by the Defendant of credit for the purchase of a Vroom Vroom motor vehicle (Account No: xxxxx) ("the Account").

 

2.It is further admitted that the Defendant debited charges to the Account of £xxx.xx ("the Charges").

 

3.The Defendant denies that the Charges are a disproportionate penalty, unenforceable, irrecoverable at common law or contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 or otherwise. The Charges are a genuine pre-estimate of the cost to the Defendant of dealing with the Claimant's default and are reasonable.

 

4.The Defendant further denies that the Claimant is entitled to repayment of the interest charged by the Defendant on the Charges.

Oh dear, it's game over for me then. :o

 

Seriously, I don't think they could have tried less. This is my first claim that has come to the Court stage, but I am amazed at what Salans are getting paid for.

 

There is also an AQ I need to fill in and return to the court. Will shout if I need help with it.

[steven4064]

It looks pretty much like what we had (compared to Cobbetts (NatWest) defence of about 10 pages - made no more sense though )

[Alphageek]

I should say the AQ is an N149.

[Alphageek]

AQ with Draft Order for Directions in the mail to the Court tomorrow morning.

[Alphageek]

Mailed the AQ today.

[steven4064]

Another step nearer

[Alphageek]

I have a feeling they will capitulate soon. Did you have to send in an AQ and any further stages?

[steven4064]

I've just looked back at my records. it looks like we never actually sent in the AQ although I have a copy of it with draft directions in the file. It was due in on 4 June and Salans gave in on theh 30 May which was a Wednesday, 4 June being the following Monday - they left themselves some time to spare .

[Alphageek]

Yes, I have read your GE thread and couldn't decided if you had got to the AQ stage or not.

 

Thanks.

[steven4064]

I seem to remember what happened was that, on the Wednesday, I rang Salans and told them I was about to take the AQ to court and did they want to settle before it cost them another £100. They did.

[Alphageek]

Was the fee for AQs £100 back then?

 

The HMCS site indicates I did not need to pay a fee now as my claim is for under £1500.

[steven4064]

You are right - it was free under £1500 - I must be getting confused with a different case. I definitely spoke to Salans about the time the AQ was going in though and that prompted the settlement.

[Alphageek]

Oh well, too late for me to do the same. The Court will have it in the morning.