We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Halifax refusing my Section 75 Refund
macthemountie
Posts: 16 Forumite
in Credit cards
Hi guys,
I need some guidance on my current situation. I paid £3590 pounds on my Halifax credit card for fees to a company called Cartel Client Review Ltd. They were meant to provide services to legitimately clear balances from my credit cards and loans etc.
However, they went into administration in June 2010 without providing any of the services paid for. When I found out I contacted their agent and he informed me that the only thing I could do was claim a refund back under Section 75 from my credit card provider the Halifax who are deemed jointly and severally liable.
After the usual refund request letters and fobbing off replies, I informed them that I was going to lodge my claim (Letter Before Action) with the small claims court. They replied back that it was up to me to write to the lending institutions involved to confirm that the claims were unsuccessful and no service had been provided? I replied back, pointing out that 3 of the claims were against themselves so they knew the claims were fruitless. They then wrote back stating that I still had to provide them with confirmation from the other lenders that no claims were successful.
I lodged my claim with the Small claims court. I received the Notice of Issue stating that my claim was issued on the 31st March 2011, sent by first class post and deemed to be served on the 5th April 2011. The Halifax’s solicitor wrote to the court enclosing the Acknowledgement of Service for filing, stating that they were going to defend the Full claim. On this form it clearly stated that they had to file their defence within 28 days from the date of service (5th April).
Their defence was received and date stamped by the court on 4th May 2011 and a copy sent to myself. I have copied and pasted their defence below.
The deadline for filing their defence was 28 days from the 5th April which takes it up to 3rd May.
Did they not fail to meet the deadline by it not being received until the 4th May?
Their defence seems to state (Para 14) the Defendant makes no admissions as to whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought or any other relief. What does this mean?
Also, should they not be defending part of the claim because they have already admitted that 3 of the fees for claims failed with themselves?
I now have to either choose to use the Small claims mediation service, i.e. settle the dispute over the telephone or pay another £40 to file my allocation questionnaire?
Your legal opinions would be greatly appreciated.
FromrSCM-SOLICITORS
01422333647
To:908454085304
7. The balance of this Defence is pleaded without prejudice to the facts set
above and references in this Defence to the Defendant are to Halifax pic and/o
Bank of Scotland pic as the context requires.
8. It is admitted that the Claimant is the holder of a credit card, account numt
5434 2986 0013 6159 (the "Credit Card"), with the Defendant, which s
opened on or around 06/12/2002.
9. On 16/05/2008 the Credit Card was used to pay a sum of £3590.00 (tl
"Transaction") to the Cartel Client Review ("the Payee").
10. Whilst the Defendant can make no admissions as to the purpose of
Transaction, the Claimant indicates in the Particulars of Claim that tr
transaction represented payment due by the Claimant to the Payee for financial^
claims services.
11. If the purpose of the Transaction was as referred to in paragraph 10 above, the]
Defendant admits that for any claim that the Claimant may have against the!
Payee in respect of breach of contract and/or misrepresentation in relation to I
the Transaction, the Claimant shall, by virtue of Section 75(1) of the Consumer i
Credit Act 1974, have a like claim against the Defendant who, with the Payee,
shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the Claimant.
12. In her claim, the Claimant has alleged breach of contract by the Payee in
relation to the Transaction.
13. The Defendant has no direct involvement in the matters which form the basis of
the allegations made by the Claimant against the Payee and, therefore, no
admission is made by the Defendant as to whether the Payee has acted in
breach of any contractual duty owed to the Claimant, as alleged or otherwise.
14. By reason of the Defendant's lack of direct knowledge of the facts set out (or
implied) and of the allegations made (or implied) by the Claimant in the
Particulars of Claim, the Defendant makes no admissions as to whether the
Claimant is entitled to the relief sought or to any other relief.
SCM Solicitors
:beer:
I need some guidance on my current situation. I paid £3590 pounds on my Halifax credit card for fees to a company called Cartel Client Review Ltd. They were meant to provide services to legitimately clear balances from my credit cards and loans etc.
However, they went into administration in June 2010 without providing any of the services paid for. When I found out I contacted their agent and he informed me that the only thing I could do was claim a refund back under Section 75 from my credit card provider the Halifax who are deemed jointly and severally liable.
After the usual refund request letters and fobbing off replies, I informed them that I was going to lodge my claim (Letter Before Action) with the small claims court. They replied back that it was up to me to write to the lending institutions involved to confirm that the claims were unsuccessful and no service had been provided? I replied back, pointing out that 3 of the claims were against themselves so they knew the claims were fruitless. They then wrote back stating that I still had to provide them with confirmation from the other lenders that no claims were successful.
I lodged my claim with the Small claims court. I received the Notice of Issue stating that my claim was issued on the 31st March 2011, sent by first class post and deemed to be served on the 5th April 2011. The Halifax’s solicitor wrote to the court enclosing the Acknowledgement of Service for filing, stating that they were going to defend the Full claim. On this form it clearly stated that they had to file their defence within 28 days from the date of service (5th April).
Their defence was received and date stamped by the court on 4th May 2011 and a copy sent to myself. I have copied and pasted their defence below.
The deadline for filing their defence was 28 days from the 5th April which takes it up to 3rd May.
Did they not fail to meet the deadline by it not being received until the 4th May?
Their defence seems to state (Para 14) the Defendant makes no admissions as to whether the claimant is entitled to the relief sought or any other relief. What does this mean?
Also, should they not be defending part of the claim because they have already admitted that 3 of the fees for claims failed with themselves?
I now have to either choose to use the Small claims mediation service, i.e. settle the dispute over the telephone or pay another £40 to file my allocation questionnaire?
Your legal opinions would be greatly appreciated.
FromrSCM-SOLICITORS
01422333647
To:908454085304
7. The balance of this Defence is pleaded without prejudice to the facts set
above and references in this Defence to the Defendant are to Halifax pic and/o
Bank of Scotland pic as the context requires.
8. It is admitted that the Claimant is the holder of a credit card, account numt
5434 2986 0013 6159 (the "Credit Card"), with the Defendant, which s
opened on or around 06/12/2002.
9. On 16/05/2008 the Credit Card was used to pay a sum of £3590.00 (tl
"Transaction") to the Cartel Client Review ("the Payee").
10. Whilst the Defendant can make no admissions as to the purpose of
Transaction, the Claimant indicates in the Particulars of Claim that tr
transaction represented payment due by the Claimant to the Payee for financial^
claims services.
11. If the purpose of the Transaction was as referred to in paragraph 10 above, the]
Defendant admits that for any claim that the Claimant may have against the!
Payee in respect of breach of contract and/or misrepresentation in relation to I
the Transaction, the Claimant shall, by virtue of Section 75(1) of the Consumer i
Credit Act 1974, have a like claim against the Defendant who, with the Payee,
shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the Claimant.
12. In her claim, the Claimant has alleged breach of contract by the Payee in
relation to the Transaction.
13. The Defendant has no direct involvement in the matters which form the basis of
the allegations made by the Claimant against the Payee and, therefore, no
admission is made by the Defendant as to whether the Payee has acted in
breach of any contractual duty owed to the Claimant, as alleged or otherwise.
14. By reason of the Defendant's lack of direct knowledge of the facts set out (or
implied) and of the allegations made (or implied) by the Claimant in the
Particulars of Claim, the Defendant makes no admissions as to whether the
Claimant is entitled to the relief sought or to any other relief.
SCM Solicitors
:beer:
0
Comments
-
"Relief" is the legal term for the 'benefit' (in your case, £3,590 plus costs etc) arising from a court judgment.
What they're saying, reading between the lines, is that you'll get your money but you'll have to work for it!
Address para 10 (to BoS and/or the court), and para 11 provides for your "refief".0 -
Where i work we are still actioning chargebacks for Cartel Client Review customers for non receipt of services.0
-
-
YorkshireBoy wrote: »They must be outside the normal 120 day limit by now though?
But even if the OP went down that route, you can understand BoS's reluctance to bend over?
It's an ongoing service which means that the 120 day timescale isn't applicable. I'll check the files tomorrow and see whether any of them have represented at all, i personally haven't seen one but there's not just me who deals with them.0 -
All cartel client payments are out of time for chargebacks.
Yes it is an ongoing service so the lcbd can be extended HOWEVER
it cannot be extended past the date the merchant went down/authorisation suspended.
I beleive the last chargeback date from memory is about the 14th February 2011. - We pushed thru a pile of them right before the last date.0 -
All cartel client payments are out of time for chargebacks.
Yes it is an ongoing service so the lcbd can be extended HOWEVER
it cannot be extended past the date the merchant went down/authorisation suspended.
I beleive the last chargeback date from memory is about the 14th February 2011. - We pushed thru a pile of them right before the last date.
Think we might have attempted pre arbitrations on some, can't remember the date of the last one i saw but it was definately in the last couple of months.0 -
If the Halifax card was one that Cartel siad they would "write off", it is possible that the bank are preparing a case against the OP for fraudulently taking money.0
-
If the Halifax card was one that Cartel siad they would "write off", it is possible that the bank are preparing a case against the OP for fraudulently taking money.
If the OP obtained services by paying for them with a credit card which they intended to have declared un-enforcable (and therefore never pay for it) it does create an interesting legal situation.
The old offence of "obtaining services by deception" was AFAIK replaced in the Fraud Act 2006. Anyone up to date? The chance of prosecution is virtually nil but it's still an interesting debate.We need the earth for food, water, and shelter.
The earth needs us for nothing.
The earth does not belong to us.
We belong to the Earth0 -
Thanks for the postings.
Yorkshire Boy, do you mean include para 10 and 11 on the allocation questionairre to be sent back into the court?
Also for ILW and the nudeone, why do people pretend to help people and then accuse them of illegal activities!!!
Please be sure of all the facts before you start muck spreading.
For the record, we paid for the fees on the Halifax credit card because we did not have the cash to pay up front.
The Cartel agent came back at a later date to provide an update (so he said) and recommended that we should have the Halifax card checked to see if it legally qualified to be un-enforceable as well. So we agreed.
Information that has now came out make us feel as though none of the claims were valid in the first place and it was all just a scam to get your money. I have not heard of anyone having a successful claim and quite a few of my friends were duped as well. Almost all of them have had their fees refunded from their credit card providers such as Natwest, Lloyds etc?
I am looking for guidance on here not crticism. We realise we have been fools to be taken in so easily,0 -
macthemountie wrote: »Also for ILW and the nudeone, why do people pretend to help people and then accuse them of illegal activities!!!
Did you or did you not use a credit card to pay for services which you expected to result in you not having to pay for those same services?We need the earth for food, water, and shelter.
The earth needs us for nothing.
The earth does not belong to us.
We belong to the Earth0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards