LTSB - No agreement! ***GAME OVER***

[diskmandave]

LTSB can't supply a true copy of the original agreement!



So, i'm sending this letter on Tuesday! I've spent hours writing this! So would appreciate ANY comments/changes b4 letter is sent on Tuesday (27/02/2007)!

***BEGIN***
Mr xxxxxxxxxx,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
xxxxxxxxxx,
xxxxxxx.

Lloyds TSB,
Consumer Debt Recovery,
Queens Road Quadrant,
Brighton,
BX1 3XJ.

BLS Collections (Trading name of Lloyds TSB),
PO Box 467E,
Oxford,
OX4 1WA.

BLS Collections Reference: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xx February 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to your letters dated 20/02/2007, addressing my agreement request from
BLS Collections and from Lloyds TSB returning the prescribed fee for such,
both of which were received on 22/02/2007.
It is the belief of BLS Collections that, "The bank is only obliged to keep some
documents for six years. The onus is on the client to keep such documents."
Whilst this maybe partially correct, it is the bank's absolute legal obligation to
comply with The Consumer Credit Act 1974 and supply a true copy of an original
agreement(/s) in full within the prescribed time limits, as requested.

The Consumer Credit Act 1974: Section 77 (4) If the creditor under an
agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)--- (a) He is not entitled, while a
default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) if the default continues
for one month he commits an offence.
The Consumer Credit Act 1974: Section 78 (6) If the creditor under an
agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)--- (a) He is not entitled, while a
default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) if the default continues
for one month he commits an offence.

Excerpt from a secondarily provided OFT complaint response:
"In circumstances like this we would view it is as unfair practice under
section 25 (2) (d) of the Act and relevant to licence fitness if a trader
failed to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate when a debt
is queried or disputed".

I am now informing you that I have cancelled the standing order payment from
my building society today and that my request as detailed above is not only in
default, but that an offence will have been committed on 02/03/2007. And that
it is now my intention to take detailed legal advise as for the purpose of
recovering all monies paid to you, and I am now aware that I am able to take
legal action against you in order to recover unlawful penalty charges
regardless of their age and within The Limitation Act 1980 including but
not limited to Section 32(1)(b) in as much that penalty charges were unlawful
but had been concealed as such by the bank.



I urge you to read the whole of this letter very carefully. As, as of today, the
xth February 2007, I no longer acknowledge any debt to Lloyds TSB. In fact,
in the near future, should you fail to address my concerns herein I will have
no option but to take legal action as detailed in the last previous paragraph.


Yours sincerely,





Mr XXXX XXXXXX.

***END***

[diskmandave]

Really Need Comments Please!

Bump!

[PriorityOne]

Hi Dave,

You are rushing things here... they have not even defaulted yet ! Why are you writing to them at all ? They should have been aware of their legal obligations before demanding payment from you in the first place. Personally, I would not write... just let the clock tick on. It is not up to you to point out the consequences of non-compliance with a CCA request.

One of mine have long gone over the calendar month for a criminal offence... I have had no communication from them at all, despite paying them for 4 years and cancelling my Standing Order a month ago, without telling them first.

Just do what you have to do... cancel your Standing Order and if they write querying this, state that they have not yet complied with your legal request for a CCA and for his reason, the account remains in dispute.



I've just realised.... "the docs were received on 22/2/07"... was this a typo ? Did you mean January ?

If so, then they will have defaulted (although not the full 43 days yet). If no-one can find a CCA, then the debt cannot be re-enforced, so there may be no point in re-claiming unlawful charges from the original creditor to reduce the debt when no CCA = no enforceable debt.

It depends on the amount of the debt. If you feel that the payments you have made have been in excess of the original amount and money is owed to you..... then you could send an Subject Access Request to the original creditor, but if you feel that the amount outstanding is in excess of payments made, incl. possible charges.... I would leave it alone.

Once again.... this is like yet another mine of mine (different lender).

[diskmandave]

Yeha..! I'm trying to run b4 I can walk, and jump b4 I can run...!
3 months ago I would have hidden in bedroom for a month even tho i'm 41, 6'2" & 15 stone!!!

Want it all, but should play the waiting game like they do!

02/03/2007 is the date that they commit the offence, as per the exact letter of the law, 12 days after date served and then a calender month after for the offence.

Got 3 going now!
LTSB cannot supply. (Cancelled standing order payment)
Lowell Financial (Capital One) Supplied wrong details
MINT (RBS Advanta) NEW & AWAITING REPLY

Knowledge is power!

Dave.

[Stornoway]

Hi your letter refers to both section 77 and 78 of the CCA but I was under the impression that s77 deals with fixed sum credit (loans) whilst s78 deals with fluctuating balance type facilities (credit cards) so suspect you should be referring to one or the other but not both ?

I plan to use s78 to get some defaults removed from my credit file but I personally dont agree with people trying to welch on their debts using s77/s78. Reclaiming unlawful and unfair charges is one thing but if you know this facility / debt is yours then you shouldnt walk away from it - its not morally right. Remember too that this debt will still exist although they cant enforce under currenty laws - it may be a longshot but what would happen if you dont pay this for 10 years then the government change the law and decide it can be enforced (and there is a much higher amount outstanding) ?

[bi15hgm]

Stornoway

This is a forum to outline the CURRENT laws and what people who have run into hard times can do about it. It is NOT a forum to discuss the morals of any contributor to the forum. Please do not moralise about what diskmandave may or may not do or should or should not do, that is HIS decision and his alone. Advice he receives on this forum and what he does with it is for him to decide and him alone.

The majority of DCA' that are mentioned on this forum act outside of the law and without morals, that is why this forum is so helpful, successful and so many people access it to obtain advice to counteract the reprehensible contempt of those same DCA's.

As regards future law, none of us would contemplate taking the steps we do to face up to these DCA's if we waited for the law to change. We act on the law as it is TODAY. However I think we are all wise enough to realise that the law is always changing and at times it may support us but equally it may harm us. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own decisions and certainly, with what I have gleaned in my short time on this forum most people appreciate that fact.

I am sorry if this message may offend you but the majority of people using this forum, do so for advice about the law and their rights as they stand today, so that they can solve TODAYS problem.

[Stornoway]

Originally Posted by bi15hgm

Stornoway

This is a forum to outline the CURRENT laws and what people who have run into hard times can do about it. It is NOT a forum to discuss the morals of any contributor to the forum. Please do not moralise about what diskmandave may or may not do or should or should not do, that is HIS decision and his alone. Advice he receives on this forum and what he does with it is for him to decide and him alone.

The majority of DCA' that are mentioned on this forum act outside of the law and without morals, that is why this forum is so helpful, successful and so many people access it to obtain advice to counteract the reprehensible contempt of those same DCA's.

As regards future law, none of us would contemplate taking the steps we do to face up to these DCA's if we waited for the law to change. We act on the law as it is TODAY. However I think we are all wise enough to realise that the law is always changing and at times it may support us but equally it may harm us. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own decisions and certainly, with what I have gleaned in my short time on this forum most people appreciate that fact.

I am sorry if this message may offend you but the majority of people using this forum, do so for advice about the law and their rights as they stand today, so that they can solve TODAYS problem.

You havent offended me - you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine. On the basis of the law TODAY I have hopefully highlighted to diskmandave that there may be a potential problem with his letter and also that he should be aware he is not eliminating the debt through the s77/s78 argument he is simply stopping the creditor from enforcing - the debt is still there and he should understand exactly what his position is.

[SHERLOCK]

From my understanding even if they change the law tomorrow, that would be for any agreements after that date surely.
Can they change the law and then backdate it?

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by SHERLOCK

From my understanding even if they change the law tomorrow, that would be for any agreements after that date surely.
Can they change the law and then backdate it?

as far as i have read so far, the new provisions in the cca2006 do not change the right of information. after april '2008 any new agreements will all be enforceable (via leave of the court at the worst/best)

[diskmandave]

Originally Posted by Stornoway

Hi your letter refers to both section 77 and 78 of the CCA but I was under the impression that s77 deals with fixed sum credit (loans) whilst s78 deals with fluctuating balance type facilities (credit cards) so suspect you should be referring to one or the other but not both ?

I plan to use s78 to get some defaults removed from my credit file but I personally dont agree with people trying to welch on their debts using s77/s78. Reclaiming unlawful and unfair charges is one thing but if you know this facility / debt is yours then you shouldnt walk away from it - its not morally right. Remember too that this debt will still exist although they cant enforce under currenty laws - it may be a longshot but what would happen if you dont pay this for 10 years then the government change the law and decide it can be enforced (and there is a much higher amount outstanding) ?

It's a combined debt from an old loan and old overdraft, hence both sections. I do agree with what you say about welching but the complete amount still outstanding is 100% charges that I can't claim back so am going down this route instead.


Regards, Dave.

[diskmandave]

Some very good points & debate here

[Stornoway]

Cheers Dave sorry to have misunderstood and good luck with the claim !

[oz4725]

Stornoway/DMD/bi15hgm

Happy days to you all! Sensible banter, good points from all sides, with polite sensible discussion and all done amicably. The whole idea of the site in my view. Good to see after some of the moronic personal onslaughts that i've read over the last few days.

IF i may add a bit! I try to look at it this way, for whatever reasons people challange these large companies, hopefully the upshot will be that they start to realise that THEY have to keep their house in order before hounding (in many cases) the general public. This site proves that bussiness administration in many companies is shocking. The sooner they learn that people are wisening up to their shoddy methods and sort their own procedures out then hopefully standards will improve for all of us. The days of we are bigger than you, do as i say not as i do are hopefully drawing to an end. Probably in many ways thanks to CAG and the people who use it.

[SHERLOCK]

Agreement or not, it is abundantly clear these institutions have been, and still are, breaking the laws on fees, court claims, CCA and Data Protection Act Requests.

I for one have NO comp