Mint

Stokey125

elsie61 wrote: »

Good morning to you all I am a new member on your site.
I have been pursuing Mint to claim back unlawful charges. It is at the AQ stage with the court and yesterday I had a letter from their Solicitors (Cobbetts) offering me £110 in full and final settlement of my claim (the claim is for £157.88). I am going to accept this offer for various reasons, but the question I would like answering if possible is:
On the top of the letter it says 'Without Prejudice save as to costs' can anyone please tell me what this means?
Elsie x

It means that the letter cannot be used in evidence or in the proceedings except when dealing with the question of costs. In effect if you reject the offer and then lose they would use the letter to argue that they should have costs on an indemnity basis due to your unreasonable refusal of the offer which was a genuine attempt to settle the matter without having a trial.

elsie61

Thank you very much for your prompt answer. So it means as I'm accepting the offer, I have nothing to worry about, is that right?
Elsie x

Stokey125

elsie61 wrote: »

Thank you very much for your prompt answer. So it means as I'm accepting the offer, I have nothing to worry about, is that right?
Elsie x

Yes it does mean nothing to worry about

elsie61

Thank you very much for your help. I know where to come now if I need anymore. I have another claim going through with the Halifax, which has been stayed, so I'm waiting on that one.
Elsie x

jenaimepastacopine

Hi everyone,

Currently trying to decide what to claim back from two credit cards. I have about £310 of charges on a Barclaycard and £272 on a Mint card. Have sent BC first letter today asking for all charges plus interest which totals £433. However I am unsure what to ask Mint for. We have a number of charges on the Mint card but many are only for £12. (on BC all charges were above £12)

Question therefore:

a) should i reclaim all charges no matter how much they are
b) just those charges above £12
c) only the difference between the charges and £12.

Would someone be able to clarify what the decision was by OFT (or whoever made it) about £12 charges?

Thanks

Norfolk_Shot

If your prepared to go via the Courts go for the lot....in the first instance they'll probably offer you the difference between £12 and whatever they charged you...

I claimed off RBS Advanta which is now Mint and i was after £113, they originally offered £25 so i went via the courts they took it all the way to defending my claim but paid in full plus MCOL costs before having to actually appear in court...

GMoney_2

Hi
New to this site in terms of forums. Apologies if this is something which has been posted before or if the answer is somewhere in the forum threads, I did look around but could not find it.

I have so far had mild success reclaiming from CC companies (about £300 from Capital One), but am now having problems with HSBC (they are staying the claim based on OFT case but will send them letter pointing out that is nothing to do with CC), and especially MINT. I am claiming over £600 from them and started the claim through court about a month ago. I received a first letter from their solicitor saying they would defend it, and thought it was a stalling tactic. Then yesterday received a more concerning paper requesting "further information and clarification".
This is a two part document from Cobbetts LLp 1) a defence paper laying out why they do not feel they have to pay it as yet and 2) a request for information paper requesting a response by 13 November.

Their request is pursuant to CPR part 18 and Rule 27.2(3) which when looking into means that an organisation can, on behalf of the court, request further information in order to clarify a claim.

Effectively the letter claims that their are deficiencies in the way that the claim is pleaded. The nature of the information they are asking is in two parts:
1) details of the account, the amount of charges, why those charges were applied this is all fine and easy.
It then goes on to ask for clarification as to "why the claiming contends that the same should not have been charged, if yes how much does the claimant contend should have been charged"? So effectively they are asking me to confirm why I feel that those £25 or £15 charges should not have been applied. I could respond that the amounts are unfair altogether, or that they are unfair and that a "nominal" charge representative of the work carried out should be applied, I am not sure which one is better.

2) Finally, in a more worrying twist of affairs, they are asking for specification of "all the facts relied on by the Claimant in support of the contentions that the charges are unfair under the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999" and an identification of which regulation are relied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provisions referred to are unenforceable.

I have to say that I am a bit stuck on this last one. I understand that the regulations claim that the penalty charges applied by credit card companies are unfair, however would not know where to begin in order to specify the contractual provisions which are made invalid by these regulations. Has anyone come across this one before? is this just a standard staying tactic?
Perhaps I require legal help on this one, but thought it best to seek advice from this forum first.
Apologies for the long post!
Thanks

GMoney

nickmack

GMoney wrote: »

This is a two part document from Cobbetts LLp 1) a defence paper laying out why they do not feel they have to pay it as yet and 2) a request for information paper requesting a response by 13 November.

Their request is pursuant to CPR part 18 and Rule 27.2(3) which when looking into means that an organisation can, on behalf of the court, request further information in order to clarify a claim.

You only need respond to the CPR 18 if the court orders you to. It appears the request is from Cobbetts and this is par for the course from them.

Send this response letter from CAG:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/35672-cobbetts-cpr-18-request.html

GMoney_2

Thanks for the prompt and very useful reply! will get that letter out today!:T

qprfcmark

Hi,

I have been advised by the small claims court that Mint Credit Card have submitted a defence via their solicitors. The court has asked me to fill out an Allocation questionnaire. Within the defence is a request for further information and clarification under CPR part 18 by 13/11/07. They have asked the followsing:

1: In relation to each charge, please clarify the following: (a) is it the case of the claimant the same should not have been charged? (b) If yes; please explain why the claimant contends the same should not have been charged? (c) If no; is it the case of the claimant that the same should not have been charged in this amount? (d) If yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged in this amount and identify the sum the claimant contends should have been charged. (e) If no; please state the claimant’s case.

2: In your claim you state that the charges are “an unfair penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999”

3: Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify the regulations of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (2 the Regulations”) relied upon by the claimant in alleging the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable.

The answers to 1, 2 & 3 are complex for someone who has no legal knowledge! Do I just fill out the Allocation questionnaire and under section G detail the claim, and ignore the defence solicitors request for further details? Please bear in mind they have requested a response by 13/11/07 and have said that if a response is not given by this date they will ask the court to order me to provide this information or request an order striking out the claim. I presume that if I do detail the claim under section G the court will correspond with the defendant’s solicitor regarding the answers to questions 1, 2 & 3? The case has also been transfered to my local court which will cost a further £35! Do I detail this on section G of the Allocation questionnaire?