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.
They "may nots" in the account in dispute letter - can someone tell me where these come from i.e.
* you may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment.
* you may not add further interest or charges to the above account nor are you to pass this account to a third party.
*you may not register any information in respect of this account with a credit reference agency nor are you allowed to issue a default with regards to this account.
The reason I ask is that I have had a response from a company saying they do not have to abide by these as these are in relation to the Banking Code - and as they aren't a bank they do not have to adhere.
Is this true??
Thanks
I am a layperson and have no legal training but I do have an iota of common sense (sometimes)
Welcome Finance PPI -----> over £3k court case filed SETTLED
Park Motor Finance -----> incorrectly logged default on credit file claim for compensation
Lloyds Tsb ----> plenty of things all filed with Financial Ombudsman or Small Claims ----> settled by paying me full amount sought 02/05/09
Re: ***Questions about dispute letter - Response***
No - if they fall under the Consumer Credit Act then all the above DOES apply to them. They are spouting rubbish.....ignore them and carry on dealing with them in whichever way you were.
I am not an expert, but I can give good advice about Brighthouse
Am learning more and more about DCA's too
I have no legal experience and all advice given is based on the knowledge I've gained from this site.
<------If you think I have been helpful, please feel free to tip my scales - remember to put your CAG name though!
Re: ***Questions about dispute letter - Response***
clemma,
There is nothing in the act that stops them doing these things. The only thing that the act states is that they may not enforce the agreement until they do comply with a s77/78 request. The Rankine case does have a lot in it that is questionable but it did confirm that enforcement means proceedings in court.
There is nothing to say that they cannot continue adding interest or using dcas etc. It is simply that they may not enforce the agreement through a court.
Re: ***Questions about dispute letter - Response***
ok - confused now...
basically the account is in dispute as I dispute the amount owed - the compnay added on PPI without consent and where the amount of the borrowing has been satisfied I refuse to pay for insurances I neither wanted nor could have used.
The matter is currently with the court and so I have disputed what is left owing, as previously stated the actual amount borrowed and interest has been repaid.
The company concerned were sent the dispute letter in March and it gave them 21 days to respond if they did not agree - they didn't and I have confirmation that on 10th March they put a note on the account to take no collection activity until the outcome of litigation. Therefore I was verbally told by a customer service member of staff my account was on hold
However, they have continued to process my data with the CRA and have so far logged 3 late payments and increased the balance - I assume with charges and interest.
When I questioned them on this they said they did not accept the account to be in dispute and did not deem a response necessary to the original account in dispute letter!!
They then go on to say that as they are not a bank they do not have to abide by the "do nots"
So basically Nicklea - can they do whatever they like to my credit file even though I do not accept, and will prove I do not owe them anything??
I am a layperson and have no legal training but I do have an iota of common sense (sometimes)
Welcome Finance PPI -----> over £3k court case filed SETTLED
Park Motor Finance -----> incorrectly logged default on credit file claim for compensation
Lloyds Tsb ----> plenty of things all filed with Financial Ombudsman or Small Claims ----> settled by paying me full amount sought 02/05/09
IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinion, These opinions are not endorsed by CAG in anyway and are offered informally without prejudice or warranty of any kind. These opinions are solely based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal training.
Re: ***Questions about dispute letter - Response***
Originally Posted by nicklea
clemma,
There is nothing in the act that stops them doing these things. The only thing that the act states is that they may not enforce the agreement until they do comply with a s77/78 request. The Rankine case does have a lot in it that is questionable but it did confirm that enforcement means proceedings in court.
There is nothing to say that they cannot continue adding interest or using dcas etc. It is simply that they may not enforce the agreement through a court.
my take on this is that they could continue adding interest because you don't know that they don't have a valid agreement simply by virtue of their failure to comply with s78
however they cannot enforce whilst they are in default of s78 and i don't agree that enforce just means court action
any form of action which punishes or penalises you other than normal addition of interest for not making payments must be enforcement therefore the imposition of charges (which otherwise would not have been added in the normal course of events) are enforcement- they are designed to make you pay up (IMO)
Re: ***Questions about dispute letter - Response***
diddydicky,
again, in your opinion. However, the High Court has a different opinion. As I said, there is a lot wrong with the Rankine decision but at the end of the day, it is a high court decision.
Would you want to stand up in front of a judge and argue against that when it was the likelihood that it would be you getting a CCJ if you were wrong?
clemma,
They can continue doing it until you get a court to stop them and, as pt said above, it is up to you to bring an action against the lender to enforce your rights
Re: ***Questions about dispute letter - Response***
Originally Posted by nicklea
diddydicky,
again, in your opinion. However, the High Court has a different opinion. As I said, there is a lot wrong with the Rankine decision but at the end of the day, it is a high court decision.
Would you want to stand up in front of a judge and argue against that when it was the likelihood that it would be you getting a CCJ if you were wrong?
clemma,
They can continue doing it until you get a court to stop them and, as pt said above, it is up to you to bring an action against the lender to enforce your rights
hi, not sure why you underlined "your"- - of course it is my opinion - ins't that what the forum is for?
i was pointing out that enforcement IMO is NOT just court action .
I am well aware that despite the fact that it is not permissable they can still do it-
there is nothing in the cca which says i can make a charge everytime i write a letter t the creditor whilst he is in default but i DO, and i charge them 7.50 each time i write
(what's good for the goose is good for the gander!) and it is equally up to them if it gets to court for them to ask the court to rule my charges are unfair)
a DN is enforcement action is it not? that occurs before any court action
Re: ***Questions about dispute letter - Response***
Yes, I agree with you that a valid DN is a necessary prerequisite before a creditor can enjoy the benefits of section 87.
However, I would suggest that, there is a big difference between charging interest or default fees, restricting credit or using debt collection agencies on one hand and serving a dn followed by terminating the agreement on the other hand.
The reason for this is that the Dn clearly states that it is part of an enforcement process. Default fees and the use of internal/external collection agencies are not part of any enforcement process, these things are contained within the terms and conditions of the agreement that we all sign up to (whether they are fair or not is another matter) .
Re: ***Questions about dispute letter - Response***
Originally Posted by nicklea
Yes, I agree with you that a valid DN is a necessary prerequisite before a creditor can enjoy the benefits of section 87.
However, I would suggest that, there is a big difference between charging interest or default fees, restricting credit or using debt collection agencies on one hand and serving a dn followed by terminating the agreement on the other hand.
The reason for this is that the Dn clearly states that it is part of an enforcement process. Default fees and the use of internal/external collection agencies are not part of any enforcement process, these things are contained within the terms and conditions of the agreement that we all sign up to (whether they are fair or not is another matter) .
or, didnt sign up to as is the case with 99.99% of folk on here!
***Questions about dispute letter - Response***
or charges to the above account nor are you to pass this account to a third party.
)
Reply With Quote
I am not an expert, but I can give good advice about Brighthouse
Originally Posted by nicklea
