Tweet
I have this claim ongoing from 2007 and am now going for it again
All the details are on my thread on CAG
Belville v Capital One - The Consumer Forums
I sent this on 1st august
Capital One Bank
Executive Office
PO Box 5281
Nottingham
NG2 3HX
Dear Sir/Madam
Regarding: Account Number ****************
Further to my past letters requesting a refund of charges, I still believe that you, Capital One Bankhave been charging me charges that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e) of the said regulations gives a non-complete list of terms, which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term that requires me as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.
I believe that your charges are disproportionately high and therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. 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 your charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss.
I realise that some of the charges I am reclaiming were levied before 19th July 2002, that is, longer than 6 years ago. Because this action is based on simple contract, s5 of the Limitations Act 1980 would be thought to apply and the action to be time-barred after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued – the cause of action being, in this case, the levying of the respective unlawful late payment charges.
However, I did not seek repayment of the charges at the time because I mistakenly believed them to be lawful and therefore paid them mistakenly.
I will therefore be claiming that s32 of the Limitation Act 1980 applies as the action is for the relief from the consequences of my mistake (s32 (1)(c)) and that capital one have deliberately concealed facts relevant to my right of action (s32(1)(b)). The limitation period of 6 years thus begins from the point where I could reasonably have discovered my mistake and your concealment, namely the broadcast of the BBC’s Moneybox programme on 18 February 2006.
Furthermore if you fail to comply with this letter, I request without further notice a breakdown and proof of all costs involved, in regards to your actual or liquidated losses involved in any breach of contract to which these charges relate with yourselves, and that these charges reflect your true costs in relation to the said charges, and are proportionate to the charges levied on my account as defined in Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e).
Therefore I require you to refund me a total of £818.00, representing the total, unlawful amount charged during the last 6 years.
I am also requesting payment of interest of £2288.03 as of today’s date based on your credit interest rate of 34.9% APR, as stated on your website, compounded, as restitution for capital one’s unjust enrichment by making unlawful charges to my account, making a total of £3106.03 The interest will continue to accrue at a rate of £0.68 day until such time as I receive payment from you.
I hereby give you 7 days to refund the charges by cheque, made payable to me. For the avoidance of doubt, if this is not done by 28th July 2008 (to allow for postage times), I will commence my claim in the courts without further warning. This action will inevitably involve you in additional costs.
I also hereby request a detailed report of which clause in your terms and conditions each charge has been applied against.
Lastly, I require that you cease harassment of me as regards this account through debt collection agencies as neither you nor they have proved that this account is enforceable as No Credit agreement has been provided in response to my statutory request under s78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
Yours sincerely,
Well would you beleive it I finally got a reply from Crap one yesterday
They are offering me a measly £286.00 what a cheek!!
Ellie Renshaw didn't send this letter though so we now have Someone new to add to the mix a "Sven Lagerberg"
So, Hey Ho off to Court We Go.
I'm ready to start my NI
Could someone check whats below and correct any mistakes I may have made
IN THE XXXXHCOUNTY COURT
BETWEEN
shooter
Claimant
And
Capital One Bank
Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around 12 October 2001, whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account, Account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ("The Account").
2. The Agreement essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“The Card”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate.
3. The Agreement was a Regulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
4. At all material times the contract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time.
Summary
5.Throughout the course of the Agreement, the Defendant has added numerous default charges to the Account for the Claimant’s breach of the Agreement by his failure to make the minimum payment on the due date and or for exceeding the credit limit and or if a payment was returned. (Full particulars are set out in the attached Schedule).
6. The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were:
a). A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and
b) An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant.
7. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account plus interest levied thereon.
The Charges
8. The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows:
(a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Card to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing.
(b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate.
(c) The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment specified on the monthly statements of account by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.
(d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant exceeded the Limit, did not pay on the due date or had a payment returned. The Charges are currently £12 for each transgression. Prior to 2006 the Charges were £20 and prior to 2002 the charges were £18.
Contract Penalties
9. The Charges were payable on breach of contract by the Claimant.
10. The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Defendant in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.
11. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.
The Regulations
12. At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations.
13. At all material times the terms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that, contrary to the requirement of good faith, they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant.
14. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms.
(1) The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.
(2) The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract.
(3) The Charges exceeded the costs which the Defendant could have expected to incur in dealing with the exceeding of the credit limit, late payment or returned payment.
(4) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term.
(5) As the Defendant knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.
(6) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.
(7) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable.
15. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and rely on the following matters.
(1) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreement.
(2) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money).
(3) The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the key information provided to new customers.
16. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.
17. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totalling some £818.00 between 27th November 2001 and 21st June 2006. Particulars appear from the attached Schedule.
18. On 19th July 2007 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.
19. The Defendant has not repaid them or any of them.
20. The Claimant is aware that some of the Charges reclaimed relate to activity on the Account more than 6 years ago and therefore might be thought to fall within the scope of s5 of the Limitations Act 1980. However, the Claimant at the time mistakenly believed the Defendant to be acting lawfully in applying the Charges, and only recently became aware that the Charges were unlawful. Further, the Defendant has maintained that the Charges were lawful despite evidence to the contrary and has sought to conceal their true nature.
21. The Claimant therefore contends that the limitation period is postponed pursuant to s32(1)(b) and (c) of the Limitations Act 1980:
32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake
(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4A) below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either--
(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
(c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
Compound Interest
22. The Claimant submits that the Defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant’s entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of simple interest. The Defendant, a powerful financial institution, has had use of the sums wrongfully and unlawfully gained by way of penalty charges levied to the Claimants account, over a period of up to 7 years. The fundamental core of the business of the Defendant is to acquire funds and profit from those funds in the form of interest by lending at commercial compounded interest rates. Therefore, it is the Claimants submission that the sums wrongfully and unlawfully acquired from the Claimant by way of penalty charges would over the considerable time they have been in the Defendants wrongful possession have earned considerable profit by virtue of commercial rates of compounded interest charged by the Defendant.
23. Therefore for complete restitution to occur the Claimant seeks an award of compound interest at the accounts purchase interest rate of 34.9% per annum which is the defendants advertised rate. The Claimant submits that it is unconscionable that the Defendant may be allowed to profit in any way from unlawful, wrongful and unauthorised use of the Claimants funds, and that compound interest at the rate claimed is necessary to provide an equitable remedy.
And the Claimant claims:
(1) Payment of the said sum of £818
(2) Compound interest at an annual rate of 34.9% from the date of payment of the Charge to 15 August 2008 in the sum of £2357.58, and at the daily rate of 0.082% until judgment or sooner payment.
(3) In the alternative that the court is not minded to award compound interest, Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of payment of the Charge to date in the sum of £270.20, and at the daily rate of 0.022% until judgment or sooner payment.
(4) Court costs
I believe that the facts stated in these particulars are true.
Dated this 15th August 2008
Signed
Schedule 1
From current General Conditions as at September 2007
1.Key Financial Information
1A Credit Limit
We will give you notice of your credit limit and advance limit and we may change them at any time. The advance limit is 50% of the credit limit. We will give you notice of any change to either limit.
1B Timing of payments
You must pay us at least the minimum payment shown on your statement by the payment date shown on your statement (which will be 25 days after the statement date).
1C Amount of repayment
The minimum payment will be 2.25% of the new balance shown on your
statement, rounded down to the nearest pound; or £5; whichever is more. If
the new balance is less than £5, you must pay the full new balance. We may
change the minimum payment amount in accordance with General Condition
8 of the agreement.
3A Default Charges
● If a cheque [payable to us] or direct debit cannot be paid £10
● If you go over your credit limit £12
● If you fail to pay on time £12
● If we return a promotional cheque unpaid to prevent you going over your credit limit £12
● Expense of tracing you if you change address without notifying us £12
● Our reasonable costs or expenses in enforcing this agreement (please refer
to General Condition 6 for details).
General Conditions
The Card
1(b) You (and any additional cardholder) must not do the following:
● Go over your credit limit or advance limit.
● Use the card before or after the period it is valid for or after you receive notice that we have cancelled or withdrawn the card.
● Use the card to carry out transactions for illegal purposes.
Statements
2 (h) Each month we will send you a statement showing:
● any repayments you have made; and
● all amounts charged to your account;
since your previous statement.
You must pay us the minimum payment on or before the payment date shown on your statement.
(i) When we tell you, you must also immediately pay us:
● any amount you owe over your credit limit.
● any unpaid payments from previous statements.
● any late payment charges shown on your statement; and
● the amount of any transaction that breaks this agreement.
Brief POC
Quote:
Repayment of charges unlawfully applied to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant for purported breaches of a contract plus interest levied thereon in contravention of the common law and the UTCCR1999 plus payment of interest in restitution of the Defendant’s unjust enrichment.
The Claimant claims:
(1) Repayment of charges totalling £818.
(2) Compound interest of £2357.58 and at the daily rate of 0.0451% until judgment or sooner payment.
(3) In the alternative that the court is not minded to award compound interest, interest of £270.20 under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 and at the daily rate of 0.022% until judgment or sooner payment.
(4) Court costs
I think I need to add something about
House of Lords - Sempra Metals Limited (formerly Metallgesellschaft Limited) (Respondents) v. Her Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another (Appellants)
But not sure where in the POC to add it
If all is ok I will be filling on friday, I think that I may be exempt from paying fees, cause I get child tax credit, Housing and council tax benefit. Does anyone know what I need to take with me?
All the details are on my thread on CAG
Belville v Capital One - The Consumer Forums
I sent this on 1st august
Capital One Bank
Executive Office
PO Box 5281
Nottingham
NG2 3HX
Dear Sir/Madam
Regarding: Account Number ****************
Further to my past letters requesting a refund of charges, I still believe that you, Capital One Bankhave been charging me charges that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e) of the said regulations gives a non-complete list of terms, which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term that requires me as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.
I believe that your charges are disproportionately high and therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. 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 your charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss.
I realise that some of the charges I am reclaiming were levied before 19th July 2002, that is, longer than 6 years ago. Because this action is based on simple contract, s5 of the Limitations Act 1980 would be thought to apply and the action to be time-barred after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued – the cause of action being, in this case, the levying of the respective unlawful late payment charges.
However, I did not seek repayment of the charges at the time because I mistakenly believed them to be lawful and therefore paid them mistakenly.
I will therefore be claiming that s32 of the Limitation Act 1980 applies as the action is for the relief from the consequences of my mistake (s32 (1)(c)) and that capital one have deliberately concealed facts relevant to my right of action (s32(1)(b)). The limitation period of 6 years thus begins from the point where I could reasonably have discovered my mistake and your concealment, namely the broadcast of the BBC’s Moneybox programme on 18 February 2006.
Furthermore if you fail to comply with this letter, I request without further notice a breakdown and proof of all costs involved, in regards to your actual or liquidated losses involved in any breach of contract to which these charges relate with yourselves, and that these charges reflect your true costs in relation to the said charges, and are proportionate to the charges levied on my account as defined in Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e).
Therefore I require you to refund me a total of £818.00, representing the total, unlawful amount charged during the last 6 years.
I am also requesting payment of interest of £2288.03 as of today’s date based on your credit interest rate of 34.9% APR, as stated on your website, compounded, as restitution for capital one’s unjust enrichment by making unlawful charges to my account, making a total of £3106.03 The interest will continue to accrue at a rate of £0.68 day until such time as I receive payment from you.
I hereby give you 7 days to refund the charges by cheque, made payable to me. For the avoidance of doubt, if this is not done by 28th July 2008 (to allow for postage times), I will commence my claim in the courts without further warning. This action will inevitably involve you in additional costs.
I also hereby request a detailed report of which clause in your terms and conditions each charge has been applied against.
Lastly, I require that you cease harassment of me as regards this account through debt collection agencies as neither you nor they have proved that this account is enforceable as No Credit agreement has been provided in response to my statutory request under s78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
Yours sincerely,
Well would you beleive it I finally got a reply from Crap one yesterday
They are offering me a measly £286.00 what a cheek!!
Ellie Renshaw didn't send this letter though so we now have Someone new to add to the mix a "Sven Lagerberg"
So, Hey Ho off to Court We Go.
I'm ready to start my NI
Could someone check whats below and correct any mistakes I may have made
IN THE XXXXHCOUNTY COURT
BETWEEN
shooter
Claimant
And
Capital One Bank
Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
1. The Claimant entered into an agreement (“The Agreement”) with the Defendant on or around 12 October 2001, whereby the Defendant was to advance credit facilities to the Claimant under a running credit account, Account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ("The Account").
2. The Agreement essentially consisted of the Defendant providing the Claimant with a credit card (“The Card”) which would allow the Claimant to make purchases and receive cash advances on credit. In return the Defendant was entitled to charge interest at the published rate.
3. The Agreement was a Regulated Agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
4. At all material times the contract was subject to the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions which could be varied from time to time.
Summary
5.Throughout the course of the Agreement, the Defendant has added numerous default charges to the Account for the Claimant’s breach of the Agreement by his failure to make the minimum payment on the due date and or for exceeding the credit limit and or if a payment was returned. (Full particulars are set out in the attached Schedule).
6. The default charges were applied in accordance with the standard terms of The Agreement which were:
a). A penalty payable on breach of contract and thus unenforceable: and
b) An unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“The Regulations”) and therefore not binding on the Claimant.
7. The Claimant is accordingly entitled to repayment of the sums wrongly added to the Account plus interest levied thereon.
The Charges
8. The standard Terms of the Agreement in substance provided as follows:
(a) The Defendant would provide the Claimant with the Card. The Claimant was entitled to use the Card to make purchases and receive cash advances up to a credit limit (“the Limit”) set by the Defendant. The Defendant could unilaterally change the Limit by giving the Claimant notice in writing.
(b) The Defendant was entitled to charge interest on the purchases and cash advances at the published rate.
(c) The Claimant was to pay the minimum payment specified on the monthly statements of account by the due date as notified in the monthly statements.
(d) In addition the Defendant was entitled to charge default fees (“the Charges”) where the Claimant exceeded the Limit, did not pay on the due date or had a payment returned. The Charges are currently £12 for each transgression. Prior to 2006 the Charges were £20 and prior to 2002 the charges were £18.
Contract Penalties
9. The Charges were payable on breach of contract by the Claimant.
10. The amount of the Charges exceeded any genuine pre-estimate of the damage which would have been suffered by the Defendant in relation to the Claimant’s transgressions.
11. In the premises the Charges were punitive and a penalty and thus unenforceable at common law.
The Regulations
12. At all material times the Claimant was a consumer within the Regulations.
13. At all material times the terms of the Agreement providing for the Charges were unfair within regulation 5 of the Regulations in that, contrary to the requirement of good faith, they caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the Claimant.
14. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will refer to the following matters in support of the contention that the terms are to be assessed as unfair as at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement, and of each revision to the Standard Terms.
(1) The terms relating to Charges were standard terms; they would not be individually negotiated.
(2) The Charges were a penalty for breach of contract.
(3) The Charges exceeded the costs which the Defendant could have expected to incur in dealing with the exceeding of the credit limit, late payment or returned payment.
(4) Accordingly the Charges were a disproportionate charge incurred by the Claimant for their failure to meet their contractual obligation and thus within the ambit of Schedule 2 (1) (e) of the Regulations and indicative of an unfair term.
(5) As the Defendant knew, the Charges were of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Agreement as a whole and would not influence the making of the Agreement.
(6) As the Defendant knew, the Claimant had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges.
(7) In the premises, the effect of the Charges would be prejudicial to the customer who incurred them, and cause an imbalance in the relations of the parties to the Agreement by subordinating the customer’s interests to those of the Defendant in a way which was inequitable.
15. Without prejudice to the burden of proof, the Claimant will contend that the terms imposing the Charges are not core terms under regulation 6 of the Regulations and rely on the following matters.
(1) The assessment of fairness does not relate to terms which define the main or core subject matter of the Agreement.
(2) The assessment of fairness does not relate to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the goods or services supplied in exchange (in other words, whether or not the relevant services were value for money).
(3) The Charges are correctly described as default charges by the Defendant in the key information provided to new customers.
16. By reason of the said matters the terms were not binding under regulation 8 of the Regulations.
17. The Defendant wrongly applied Charges to the Account totalling some £818.00 between 27th November 2001 and 21st June 2006. Particulars appear from the attached Schedule.
18. On 19th July 2007 the Claimant demanded repayment of the sums wrongly applied.
19. The Defendant has not repaid them or any of them.
20. The Claimant is aware that some of the Charges reclaimed relate to activity on the Account more than 6 years ago and therefore might be thought to fall within the scope of s5 of the Limitations Act 1980. However, the Claimant at the time mistakenly believed the Defendant to be acting lawfully in applying the Charges, and only recently became aware that the Charges were unlawful. Further, the Defendant has maintained that the Charges were lawful despite evidence to the contrary and has sought to conceal their true nature.
21. The Claimant therefore contends that the limitation period is postponed pursuant to s32(1)(b) and (c) of the Limitations Act 1980:
32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake
(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4A) below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either--
(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
(c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
Compound Interest
22. The Claimant submits that the Defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant’s entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of simple interest. The Defendant, a powerful financial institution, has had use of the sums wrongfully and unlawfully gained by way of penalty charges levied to the Claimants account, over a period of up to 7 years. The fundamental core of the business of the Defendant is to acquire funds and profit from those funds in the form of interest by lending at commercial compounded interest rates. Therefore, it is the Claimants submission that the sums wrongfully and unlawfully acquired from the Claimant by way of penalty charges would over the considerable time they have been in the Defendants wrongful possession have earned considerable profit by virtue of commercial rates of compounded interest charged by the Defendant.
23. Therefore for complete restitution to occur the Claimant seeks an award of compound interest at the accounts purchase interest rate of 34.9% per annum which is the defendants advertised rate. The Claimant submits that it is unconscionable that the Defendant may be allowed to profit in any way from unlawful, wrongful and unauthorised use of the Claimants funds, and that compound interest at the rate claimed is necessary to provide an equitable remedy.
And the Claimant claims:
(1) Payment of the said sum of £818
(2) Compound interest at an annual rate of 34.9% from the date of payment of the Charge to 15 August 2008 in the sum of £2357.58, and at the daily rate of 0.082% until judgment or sooner payment.
(3) In the alternative that the court is not minded to award compound interest, Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of payment of the Charge to date in the sum of £270.20, and at the daily rate of 0.022% until judgment or sooner payment.
(4) Court costs
I believe that the facts stated in these particulars are true.
Dated this 15th August 2008
Signed
Schedule 1
From current General Conditions as at September 2007
1.Key Financial Information
1A Credit Limit
We will give you notice of your credit limit and advance limit and we may change them at any time. The advance limit is 50% of the credit limit. We will give you notice of any change to either limit.
1B Timing of payments
You must pay us at least the minimum payment shown on your statement by the payment date shown on your statement (which will be 25 days after the statement date).
1C Amount of repayment
The minimum payment will be 2.25% of the new balance shown on your
statement, rounded down to the nearest pound; or £5; whichever is more. If
the new balance is less than £5, you must pay the full new balance. We may
change the minimum payment amount in accordance with General Condition
8 of the agreement.
3A Default Charges
● If a cheque [payable to us] or direct debit cannot be paid £10
● If you go over your credit limit £12
● If you fail to pay on time £12
● If we return a promotional cheque unpaid to prevent you going over your credit limit £12
● Expense of tracing you if you change address without notifying us £12
● Our reasonable costs or expenses in enforcing this agreement (please refer
to General Condition 6 for details).
General Conditions
The Card
1(b) You (and any additional cardholder) must not do the following:
● Go over your credit limit or advance limit.
● Use the card before or after the period it is valid for or after you receive notice that we have cancelled or withdrawn the card.
● Use the card to carry out transactions for illegal purposes.
Statements
2 (h) Each month we will send you a statement showing:
● any repayments you have made; and
● all amounts charged to your account;
since your previous statement.
You must pay us the minimum payment on or before the payment date shown on your statement.
(i) When we tell you, you must also immediately pay us:
● any amount you owe over your credit limit.
● any unpaid payments from previous statements.
● any late payment charges shown on your statement; and
● the amount of any transaction that breaks this agreement.
Brief POC
Quote:
Repayment of charges unlawfully applied to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant for purported breaches of a contract plus interest levied thereon in contravention of the common law and the UTCCR1999 plus payment of interest in restitution of the Defendant’s unjust enrichment.
The Claimant claims:
(1) Repayment of charges totalling £818.
(2) Compound interest of £2357.58 and at the daily rate of 0.0451% until judgment or sooner payment.
(3) In the alternative that the court is not minded to award compound interest, interest of £270.20 under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 and at the daily rate of 0.022% until judgment or sooner payment.
(4) Court costs
I think I need to add something about
House of Lords - Sempra Metals Limited (formerly Metallgesellschaft Limited) (Respondents) v. Her Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another (Appellants)
But not sure where in the POC to add it
If all is ok I will be filling on friday, I think that I may be exempt from paying fees, cause I get child tax credit, Housing and council tax benefit. Does anyone know what I need to take with me?
Will chat to Bud later as he's doing a very similar claim and we cut his POC right back. And yep you should add in something on Sempra...if you have a look at his cap one thread (you'll be able to see it in a minute 
) it will help.
Comment