Re: Tools v MBNA ** SETTLED**
Seems I have lost a few more letters in between this one too (as I said I did kind of lose the plot a bit) but here is the next one in the order of things I will add the others if I find them
Patricia Brassil Poole
Head of Customer Assistance
MBNA Europe Bank Limited
PO Box 1004
Chester Business Park
Chester
CH4 9WW
Account: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Ms Poole,
I am writing with regards to your recent letter dated October 18th 2007 and my subsequent reply dated November 02nd 2007.
I consider the debt to be in dispute as the entirety of the outstanding debt is made up of unlawful charges.
This claim is brought following publication in April 2006 of the OFT report - Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts - A statement of the OFT's position which clearly states – “penalty charges should”:“reflect a reasonable pre-estimate of the net limited additional administrative costs which occur as a result of the specific breaches of contract and which can be identified with reasonable precision”
It is my contention that the charges are a disproportionate penalty, do not reflect a true representation of actual loss and therefore are unenforceable in common law and statute.
The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79, along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963
It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that these charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss.
For your information, I will not be making any further repayments on this account until this matter is resolved.
Currently the amount outstanding on the account is £85.36
The amount I calculate you have taken in charges to date is £232.00 excluding any accrued contractual interest.
You will be aware that under the Banking Code, to which you subscribe, you may not default my account or take further enforcement action whilst the debt is in dispute. It is in both our interests to come to a swift resolution.
I would also like to make you aware of The Office of Fair Trading Code of Guidance in which it states: putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive This includes: Ignoring disputes about whether money is owed and refusing to freeze action if the debt is in dispute.
You should also be mindful that the recent test case brought by Office of Fair Trading relates only to current account unauthorised overdraft fees and not to credit card fees and as such is not subject to any waiver issued by the Financial Services Authority
I hope to receive your full co-operation in this matter and would like to request a written response to that effect.
Yours faithfully
Mr Tools
Administrator of LegalBeagles.info Consumer Website
Seems I have lost a few more letters in between this one too (as I said I did kind of lose the plot a bit) but here is the next one in the order of things I will add the others if I find them
November 3rd 2007
Head of Customer Assistance
MBNA Europe Bank Limited
PO Box 1004
Chester Business Park
Chester
CH4 9WW
Account: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Ms Poole,
I am writing with regards to your recent letter dated October 18th 2007 and my subsequent reply dated November 02nd 2007.
I consider the debt to be in dispute as the entirety of the outstanding debt is made up of unlawful charges.
This claim is brought following publication in April 2006 of the OFT report - Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts - A statement of the OFT's position which clearly states – “penalty charges should”:“reflect a reasonable pre-estimate of the net limited additional administrative costs which occur as a result of the specific breaches of contract and which can be identified with reasonable precision”
It is my contention that the charges are a disproportionate penalty, do not reflect a true representation of actual loss and therefore are unenforceable in common law and statute.
The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79, along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963
It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that these charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss.
For your information, I will not be making any further repayments on this account until this matter is resolved.
Currently the amount outstanding on the account is £85.36
The amount I calculate you have taken in charges to date is £232.00 excluding any accrued contractual interest.
You will be aware that under the Banking Code, to which you subscribe, you may not default my account or take further enforcement action whilst the debt is in dispute. It is in both our interests to come to a swift resolution.
I would also like to make you aware of The Office of Fair Trading Code of Guidance in which it states: putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive This includes: Ignoring disputes about whether money is owed and refusing to freeze action if the debt is in dispute.
You should also be mindful that the recent test case brought by Office of Fair Trading relates only to current account unauthorised overdraft fees and not to credit card fees and as such is not subject to any waiver issued by the Financial Services Authority
I hope to receive your full co-operation in this matter and would like to request a written response to that effect.
Yours faithfully
Mr Tools
Administrator of LegalBeagles.info Consumer Website
Comment