Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Just starting a thread mainly for timekeeping purposes.
I took a MInt card out 6 months before going going onto a dmp, so doubt there are many charges, but i will be putting a SAR and a CCA request in the post tomorrow.
Hopefully Mint dont keep records very well and dont hold an agreement for me If not, ill be stopping payment and reclaiming any PPI, if it was on my account.
If anyone has any tips regarding MInt, i'm all ears
I have just got a GOGW offer from mint for only approxiamately a third of what i am claiming, this is only after my first letter asking for a refund.
On reading other posts it seems this is a normal course of action that mint take. They basically change all your charges to £12 each and your GOGW offer is the difference.
MINT charged me £10 for the statement copies and when I requested repayment got the same initial offer i.e. the difference between the old and new charges which is about a third of my claim. I rejected this and sent the letter before action. They replied on the deadline day to say that their offer was unchanged. I am now going down the MCOL route.
Good luck!
Cheers Chris, i sent the S.A.R - (Subject access request) template off this site and youll be surprised what they sent me The cheque hasnt been returned or cashed.
Looking through this site it seems that MINT's standard practice is to offer the difference between £20 charges and their new charge of £12.00 They appear to ignore lower charges (I had a couple of £10.00 charges). They do not budge if you reject their offer and also do not change their offer after a lba. There are two of us now on this forum that have just started court claims so it will be interesting to see how they react.
I haven't asked for the CCA, but you might be interested to know that having submitted my claim through MCOL I have had an acknowledgement and they say that they intend to defend the claim.
Well i should receive an agreement tomorrow or they do into default.
Honestly id looking for the lack of agreement with Mint rather than chasing them for £150, if they provide the agreement, ill have the £150 , if they dont, i wont acknowledge a debt to ermm, ive forgotton
Unfortunately my account with them is closed after I eventually paid off the balance so this is it as far as MINT goes (But there's always Natwest, Egg, Amex )
Well Mint's initial 12 days are up of yesterday for the CCA
i do have a problem tho, i sent the SAR and cca in seperate envelopes but posted at the same time, unfortunatly when i check on Royal Mails website, it says neither have been delivered yet, but obviously the SAR has, cos i have my transactions, sods law states, they would have got one, but not the other
I best compose a letter reminding them of their responsability to my request
I find myself needing to write to you again in relation to the above numbered account. I initially wrote to you dated 25th June 2007
The contents of my original letter, were a legal request under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a true copy of my executed agreement. Mint are in possession of a credit licence, so I am amazed and disappointed that I have to write to you, to remind you of your obligations under the Consumer Credit Act.
The Consumer Credit Act gives you a time frame of 12 working days plus 2 for postage to fulfil your obligation in supplying me with a true copy of my agreement, this timeframe has now passed. If nothing is received in this time frame this account enters default, this account entered default 13th July 2007. Please be aware if the default continues for a further 30 days, Mint will commit a criminal offence.
While the account is in default you are unable to enforce this alleged debt which includes but is not limited to:
· You may not demand any payment on this account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.
· You may not add any further interest or charges to this account.
· You may not pass this account to any third party.
· You may not register any information in respect of this account with any of the credit reference agencies.
So I will now be ceasing payment to this account up until the time you provide me with a true copy of my agreement as requested per the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which I feel is an action I have put into by Mint and their lack lustre attitude to responding to customer complaints or legal requests under the Consumer Credit Act.
If and when you supply an agreement that conforms to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, I will of course recommence payments to Mint
.
I look forward to receiving a copy of my agreement by return or confirmation of its non existence.
Well the agreement turned up, ill post it up for advice, looks good to me, only down point is, they say current t and c's are suitable and have supplied them, if that is the only problem with the agreement, its not worth pushing the enforacability of the agreement.
As my charges are so low, i dont really want to go to court, can i use the fos instead?
My claim is for a similar amount and I got the same replies and offers as you. I have gone down the MCOL route and am waiting to see what happens. RBoS acknowledged the claim and have indicated on the paperwork that they intend to defend my claim. They have another couple of weeks to do something. Having seen all the court material on this site I have no worries about going through with this if they turn up to a court date.
Reasoning behind going down the fos route is, i get paid next week, need to get my footy season ticket and start 4 Court cases 2 against MBNA, 1 vs Egg and the last one against HSBC.
As Mint is for £120, i thought i could file a complaint with FOS and leave it ticking along in the background, while i take on these bigger cases with bigger values.
Guess what turned up in the post today? A cheque from RBoS refunding every charge in full, contractual interest of 16.9% compounded and the Court fee. The letter with it basically said that it was not economically viable for them to go any further. For the sake of £30 which you will get back, I would go down the MCOL route.
Wednesday vs Mint
, so doubt there are many charges, but i will be putting a SAR
Reply With Quote
offered £4,170 - accepted
The cheque hasnt been returned or cashed.
so this is it as far as MINT goes (But there's always 
2 against MBNA, 1 vs Egg and the last one against 