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.
I CCA Egg in January and received no response to any of my letters (All template letters from CAG & all recorded delivery)
27th April 09. I received an aggressive letter from a DCA Moorcroft. They where threatening me with bailiffs, attachments to earnings etc etc.
A part of the letter from Moorcroft was quite funny; at the end of the first paragraph reads “this letter fulfils this requirement even if it is not actually read by you”.
I sent a letter to back to them informing them to return this alleged account back to Egg as no CCA has arrived also informing them that this is in serious dispute.
Hi Chris
This was my letter putting my account into dispute with them
Amend to suit. I will post up my previous letter covering off a few points in from my Egg cca that may be useful
Fingers
Account/Reference Number: **** **** **** **** – Account in dispute
I am writing in response to your letter dated *******. Your letter was in response to my letter dated ********.
Please note that you have failed to address any of my points in my letter dated ********.
In response to your letter:
I agree that you sent me a copy of the executed agreement and I had never asserted otherwise.
I agreethat you sent me a “true copy” of the original executed agreement reproducing the original terms and format. I had never asserted otherwise.
You have totally avoided the points raised in my letter in that the copy of the agreement you have supplied me with is improperly executed.
My complaint is that the agreement does not comply with CCA 1974 in that the term approved limit is not a prescribed term
The word Approved Limit is used and my complaint which is supported by case law is that the word 3.Limit which is set out in the margin and the word Approved limit is not sufficient to advise you what the credit limit is or how it will be decided. Therefore a prescribed term is not correctly stated. You avoided this point in my letter dated ******
Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable and your agreement does not. Again you have avoided this point in my letter dated ******.[/font]
Central Trust Plc V Spurway [2005] CCLR, His Honour Judge Overend states
In my judgment, the passages of Lord Nicholls’ speech cited by Mr Say persuade me that:
(a)The amount of credit must mean credit in its technical sense, and
(b)That although the use of the word “credit” is not prescribed, there should not be any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what the amount of credit is.
Court of Appeal[
WILSON v THE FIRST COUNTY TRUST LIMITED
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK
and
LORD JUSTICE RIX
In effect, the creditor – by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms – must (in the light of the provisions in sections 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid
Your agreement is improperly executed and I am entitled to ask the court to consider the agreement and make a declaration of the rights of parties to the agreement.
Alternatively if you feel this matter can be amicably resolved please contact me to discuss so we can try to resolve matters without the need to involve the court which will undoubtedly saves costs on both sides.
I look forward to hearing from you within 14 days
Hi Again
This was provided by another cagger on my Egg thread
At the top of the letter mark in bold ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE and remind them of their obligations when an account is in dispute...even though they will ignore you !
Hope you can create your own strong letter from these posts
Fing
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']I trust you are aware of the limitations placed upon you now that the account has been formally disputed. I particularly draw your attention to the legal requirement that a creditor is not permitted to take any action against an account whilst it remains in dispute.
The lack of a valid and enforceable credit agreement and the payment protection insurance complaint are both very clear disputes and therefore the following applies:
• You must not demand any payment on this account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.
• You must not add any further interest or charges to this account.
• You must not pass this account to any third party.
• You must not issue a default notice on this account.
• You must not register any information in respect of this account with any of the credit reference agencies. To register information with the credit reference agencies, or to issue a default notice, would also be in breach of Section 13.6 of The Banking Code, which stipulates that you can only register such information if the amount owed is not in dispute. I note that you are a subscriber to this Code.
Any further actions taken by Egg to collect the alleged debt whilst it is under dispute will be vigorously defended. I am also aware of the law regarding harassment of creditors under these circumstances and will use UK law to defend myself.[/FONT]
If there is no enforceable CCA can I demand that they take the default off my credit file in-fact demand that they remove all entries & data if this is not a legal contract?
Not entirely sure on this point. I have read on the forum instances where people have negotiated settlements with their card companies and part of the negotiations have involved ensuring adverse information is to be removed so ultimately card companies can do this.
Hopefully somoene can answer this point for you as not sure.
I understand that the credit card company would not be too chuffed about removing the data but if the credit agreement is not lawful/ enforceable they should not be able to process any data and they should remove it all.
Please tell me if I am wrong.
But first things first, let them prove that the CCA is enforceable.
Note that it’s not from Moorcroft 'pre court division' from my previous letters, so that scare tactic has been dropped.
I was so angry I rang them up and asked “are you regulated by the consumer credit act 1974” she said “1918” . No “1974” “mmm’ I don’t know I will find out” a few moments later she said yes we are.
I said that this alleged account was still in dispute and for them not to contact me any more.
I did say please take me to court, but bring an enforceable agreement with you.
Thank you for you letter dated --- --- 2009, unfortunately Egg have provided you with a copy agreement which does not comply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and the associated regulations and is therefore only enforceable by an order of the court by virtue of s65. However, since it does not have a term concerning the credit limit (rather, it defines an "Approved Limit" - whatever that is) as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of s127(3)
I trust you will now be in a position to reduce the balance on this account to £0 and request EGG to remove any default that has registered with any credit reference agency as required by the Data Protection Act 1984 since it is obviously incorrect as no agreement existed between me and Egg. If you refuse, I will commence court proceedings against you under s14 of the Data Protection Act 1984.
I look forward to your favorable reply within the next fourteen days, or I will consider this account closed and I will not respond to any further communications.
I can hardly believe this but I have been through exactly the same process as you in parallel, but with different DCAs - you with Moorcroft and me with ARC, getting to the same point at much the same time.
I got my "agreement" from Egg/ARC on 28th May, and sent off the standard "wrongly headed/ no credit limit/ no default charges" letter on 2nd June. Today I got their response from 11th June, which says "We are instructed that our client's documentation is a true copy as required by the OFT Directive and we are to continue collection for the above balance" They then go on to request a statement of my financial situation (incomings, outgoings and list of creditors) along with a "token offer of payment" (dont know if that is interesting or not). In other words, we are just going to ignore anything you say that doesnt suit us.
So in response they got a letter back reminding that the paperwork from Egg is inadequate in at least three of its aspects,and suggesting they go away, reminding them of their responsibilities until they get the right paperwork (which of course, as the paperwork was flawed from the start, they wont).
However, on the basis of this -and your parallel experience Chris - I just wonder whether they hope that if they carry on regardless enough will crack to make the whole thing worthwhile. If Egg realise that their paperwork is defective, it might be that they are planning to cut their losses by harassing enough people that (say) 40% crack and pay up without going to court - where Egg would probably lose. But if you can get 40% without going to court, clearly 40% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Put another way, are we getting to a situation where they might threaten court, but it might be that we need to take formal action - probably in Court, or perhaps politically - against them to prevent them from harassing us? :twisted:
Yet again I wish to point out that Egg has provided you with a copy agreement which does not comply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and the associated regulations and is therefore only enforceable by an order of the court by virtue of s65. However, since it does not have a term concerning the credit limit (rather, it defines an "Approved Limit" - whatever that is) as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of s127(3)
Therefore, I would indeed welcome the opportunity to place this before the court. Furthermore should you proceed with the threats to issue a court claim I will make an immediate application to have it set aside for the grounds outlined above, also I shall refer the judge to this letter when the matter of costs falls due.
Please also note that I consider your behaviour in this matter as pure harassment, I find it hard to believe that I have to quote the Office Of Fair Trading's guidelines on debt collections which state - Section 2.6 - h. ignoring and /or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment
As you represent banks, who regularly make charges and in light of the fact that I have taken time out to carry out research, I have charged you again £30.00 which I will adding to my legal costs.
Also please again consider this a FORMAL COMPLAINT, and again if I do not receive your OFFICIAL COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES within 14 days, I will have no option but to make your behaviour known to the Office Of Fair Trading and the Financial Ombudsman Service.
I trust this outlines my position clearly enough for you.
If I do not to hear from you with in 14 days I will consider this matter closed and the debt wiped off, after this period I will not respond to any more communications.
The letter you propose sending is not a million miles from mine, and clearly their response provoked the same feelings/ reaction in you as the response I got did for me ("dont these people read"?). I think the main difference is that you are a bit more "come on and get some" in the third (red formatted paragraph). And this was the point I was getting at right at the end of my last post. Do we wait for them to take US to court - which is what you are encouraging them to do? This, if it happens would give resolution. But - and the fact that we have both been through an almost parallel process makes me wonder this - is this a policy to see how many they can shake down - "if we make clear that we are ignoring the problems with the paperwork, we can threaten them with court, and see how many cough up" If even one person does so, then perhaps, for them, its been worth it. The fact that my letter from my, different, DCA merely says that "it will be passed to our solicitors" if I dont cough in 14 days, is highly suggestive that this would be the next action, but its not inevitable is it? Kind of "we will recommend/consider etc court action". Or they might even set the court process going, but desert the cause before it gets into court. Again how many of us might give up the struggle before then, even though we might be confident of succeeding. This one isnt an easy path to follow. We are all working away on our own against very large and well resourced organizations that employ highly specialsed staff, who arent all, lets say, highly moral in their dealings.
In any of these events, we havent lost, but we havent won. The debt - albeit with duff paperwork (or in some cases NO paperwork) - will still exist for the bank at least, and they can come back with some other approach, or just a repetition of what they have done already. This is a situation of heads we (the banks) win (if they are paid), but tails you dont (or not in a final sense). A sort of living death (for the debt, as well as for us). Its better than the alternative (just paying whatever sum they dream up as due) but its not altogether satisfactory.
While I wouldnt be confident about the FSA or the Ombudsman, I think your letter is fine. I hope in due course you will advise us all of the outcome (assuming there is one and it doesnt just disappear into its coffin, Dracula-like)
Chris V Egg (is this CCA enforcable)
in January and received no response to any of my letters (All template letters from CAG
& all recorded delivery)
Reply With Quote
.
