Thread: BC - General discussion re tactics

No problem. Just thought will give you some views as by rights, if the account is in dispute then a DCA should not have become involved. Also hope that the fos letter will get Barclays to take action. (Incidentally, Stockton on Tees? LOL. About 20 miles away from me).

I would recommend sending this to Calders. Then they will have to communicate in writing and should not call you any more.

By recorded delivery

Dear Sirs

Your ref:
My ref: Debt in dispute.

I refer to the telephone call received today from your office.

In that conversation, your employee tried to state that the only way your office will communicate is by telephonic conversations.

To be honest, I fail to see why you office does not wish to put anything in writing unless you intend to breach any OFT guidelines or any other regulation. In fact, I prefer writing to telephonic communications and hence please note:

You are to take heed and notice that, your office/company are not to contact me by phone ever again. Considering I am notifying you that you must not contact me by phone again, then and under the Data Protection Act, you have to remove my telephone number from your records being in whichever way/form it is held. Please note that if you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and as such, I will report you to both the Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading. You are also to note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and considering you will have not removed record of my phone number after a request to remove it, you will also be in breach of the Data Protection Act.

Yours sincerely

I would also, at the same time, try to push Calders into doing some mistake about the Default Notice. That will open a new avenue for you to explore.

Originally Posted by benboy

Hi nick and Toni. I am reading this thread with great interest, especially as I may tackle Barclaycard re: CCA.

However, just nit-picking here... I have highlighted in your suggested letter a mistake (unless I am dumb). I don't think they said they do not have to provide a copy of an executed agreement, they beleive they have sent a copy of an executed agreement, yet they don't think they need to send a signed copy.

Sorry if I'm wrong.

In english the word "Executed" means and as from: executed - definition of executed by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
1. To put into effect; carry out: a government that executes the decisions of the ruling party.
2. To perform; do: execute a U-turn. See Synonyms at perform.
3. To create (a work of art, for example) in accordance with a prescribed design.
4. To make valid, as by signing: execute a deed.
5. To perform or carry out what is required by: execute the terms of a will.
6. To put to death, especially by carrying out a lawful sentence.
7. Computer Science To run (a program or an instruction).

In this case item 4 applies as we are talking about a copy of the "executed agreement". An unsigned copy is not a copy of a "duly executed agreement".

IF they are saying "we have executed your request" it means as per item 2 and even item 5. But, we are referring to a copy of "the executed agreement".

Originally Posted by nick20045

In english the word "Executed" means and as from: executed - definition of executed by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
1. To put into effect; carry out: a government that executes the decisions of the ruling party.
2. To perform; do: execute a U-turn. See Synonyms at perform.
3. To create (a work of art, for example) in accordance with a prescribed design.
4. To make valid, as by signing: execute a deed.
5. To perform or carry out what is required by: execute the terms of a will.
6. To put to death, especially by carrying out a lawful sentence.
7. Computer Science To run (a program or an instruction).

In this case item 4 applies as we are talking about a copy of the "executed agreement". An unsigned copy is not a copy of a "duly executed agreement".

IF they are saying "we have executed your request" it means as per item 2 and even item 5. But, we are referring to a copy of "the executed agreement".

You clever cloggs! So yes it is a contradiction on their part. An executed agreement means a signed agreement.

Nick, could this process go on for ever? If BC keep denying the account is in dispute then how will this benefit Toni?

If a CCC ever do turn up an executed copy of agreement however late it may be, does this mean the dispute is off and they can then persue the debt?

Some editing done in post#21.

Originally Posted by benboy

You clever cloggs! So yes it is a contradiction on their part. An executed agreement means a signed agreement.

Nick, could this process go on for ever? If BC keep denying the account is in dispute then how will this benefit Toni?

If a CCC ever do turn up an executed copy of agreement however late it may be, does this mean the dispute is off and they can then persue the debt?

1: What you will find is that most foreign born people will interpret agreements (and even Law) as per the Queens English. (Being what they have been taught at school). And I am sorry but that is how Law is written. In Queens English.

2: Re para 2, personally (and this IS myself personally) I do not believe in beating round the bush. I ask. If I get declined I will ask again. If I get declined I will ask a "third party to assist" (especially if that third party is an approved goverment body made to mediate between litigating parties). IF the third party writes in my favour then I expect it to be honoured. If NOT then I will give last and final chance, notify the "person" involved of the mistakes. Notify the third party to intervene again and ask for assistance (cannot be denied as in the first instance it was granted). IF then it is not sorted then I go for basically "the kill".

Now most probably there will be some that will not agree with me and I ask for their comments as a healthy discussion is always good as it teaches one of others opinion. At the end of the day, a mature person is not somebody who thinks that knows it all but is somebody who is capable of hearing others, noting their comments, questioning parts that does not understand and then making an opinion of what is deemed to be the best out of all things aired and shown.

IF the OP is going for the fos route, then personally I would for the SAR route at the same time. This being that the FOS will take its time and an SAR is 40 days (non working days). We have Christmas and we have New Year coming. In the matter of an SAR they actually work in my favour.

Now......... FOS route. Let us say BC keeps on refusing. The way I planned it: 1: Request made. 2: Refused 3: Complained 4: Given template letters 5: Got a Goverment body involved 6: Goverment body says I am entitled to information and writes to BC and notifies me of such 7: BC refuses 8: BC informed of dispute (but not default). 8: FOS notified of non compliance by BC. 9: FOS should write to BC 10: BC can comply (sorted) or non comply BUT it now has the DN request to reply to as well (so have opened another route can manouver about). 11: DC may not comply re DN either.

Now DC has non complied with a legal applicaton, has refused to comply with FOS instructions twice now in dispute and default. IF DC also does not comply with DN info request then rescinded agreement unlawfully.

Final letter will be the SAR which should seal everything.

That is how I look at it. And in my opinion, it would have been Checkmate.

Any comments?

[Edit] I have just seen the post above this one. Will have a good read (as seems we posted roughly at same time (or at least while I was writing this post) but may have to go to Specsavers first.

And from me to Tony also sorry for the discussion and somewhat hijacking the thread.

No, the fos did not say that. Post 13 shows that the FOS have written to BC and they should contact Tony but nowhere does the FOS say they have written to BC telling them to fwd the credit agreement.

The request by Tony was for assistance in making the executed copy of the agreement available. The fact that the FOS wrote to say they have written to BC and that BC will be making contact should then refer to the original request made.

A recent FOS complaint was sent back to a CAGger because the creditor had NOT made a Final Response. That is why I now recommend seeking a Final Response before making a FOS complaint, like in BTNelson's case. My advice is adapted and updated, based on recent experience.

Fair enough. So really it is advisable that a debtor gets the Final Response first. (Although in this particular case the FOS took action without the Final Response BUT in other cases it is advisable to get this first).

BC will only produce the agreement if told to by FOS. Technically, there is no formal dispute as BC have complied with the requirements of s.77/s.78/s.79 CCA1974 by supplying their T&C's.

I beg to differ on this one. IF the original CCA application is as some I have seen which are basically about 3 to 5 lines and then it goes into "putting the account in dispute" then I will agree with you. IF the application was for "A copy of the executed agreement" then a copy of the T&C's is not a copy of an executed agreement.

We don't know what the FOS has done so far. They may have simply asked BC for their view of the dispute.

In my opinion, IF the FOS has asked BC for their view then the FOS would not have written telling Tony that BC will be making contact with Tony in due time. I would have more expected the FOS to say that they have written and they are awaiting a reply for BC to see their response. (This is based on personal communications I have had with the FOS and with the Solicitors Complaints service and in how they write back).

CPR31.16 can be used to get sight of the agreement. Then a N244 Application can be made seeking an injuctive solution - eg seek a declaration by a judge that the agreement is unenforceable and that the creditor be barred from making further demands

Nice piece of information I have to admit.

NOTE: In order to make it clear, I am not disputing what you are saying or trying to get into any litigation as it is obviously clear you know "your stuff". I am simply explaining things as I see them and how I understand them to be.

Bit harsh on nick, it's healthy discussion and opinion. I do agree on sticking to template letters though as they are (as slick said) tried and tested.

Originally Posted by benboy

I do agree on sticking to template letters though as they are (as slick said) tried and tested.

Before I leave:
1: Same as we can read template letters so do the banks and DCA's. Hence they know what to expect, they know how to answer and they know what the next answer will be.
2: If scientists/people did not try new experiments, we would still be shooting arrows, eating out of mud cups, picking our ears for a pastime and wondering what a thong is.

Originally Posted by nick20045

Before I leave:
1: Same as we can read template letters so do the banks and DCA's. Hence they know what to expect, they know how to answer and they know what the next answer will be.
2: If scientists/people did not try new experiments, we would still be shooting arrows, eating out of mud cups, picking our ears for a pastime and wondering what a thong is.

That may well be true but if these template letters are tried and tested and updated to allow for new legislation (as I am sure they would be on such an active sight) then I can only see them being productive. I don't think the fact that banks know what to expect when reading these template letters is such a bad thing.....on the contrary, I always imagine they think "oh, it's someone else who is getting good advice, this is not going to be easy"

But Nick, yes of course experimentation is also good as is necessary, but I'm sure most of the experimenting has been done before.

Originally Posted by benboy

but I'm sure most of the experimenting has been done before.

At one time people would use a toothbrush to brush their teeth. A well known, highly efficient method, well truly tested and trusted. Now they have the electric toothbrush. (Sorry Tony3x......... I promise this will the last one. Honest).

At one time there was the petrol plane. Truly tested and trusted. Heck thousands were made especially in the second world war. Then came the jet engine.

At one time there was the manned plane. Well and truly tested. Now there is the drone plane and other forms of flight transport.

Everything in life gets well and truly tested. Some are binned. Some are used for ages. New things come in life and it is for one to experiment, to make mistakes, to learn by said mistakes and to learn to achieve then to sit down and say "Well this has been well and truly tested". For otherwise one is simply the equivalant of a parrot and a simple robot, programmed to say as taught to say and to do as shown to do.

Keep It Simple

Believe me, when you are in debt and you don't know where to turn for advice, the last thing you want is conflicting opinions. Stick to tried and tested templates letters. I am sure Tony and other CAG folk have the intelligence and gumption to be able to adapt templates to suit their needs etc. This ain't no time for experimentation!!! It's real life and you can do without messing up at a time like this.

Wish you all the best Tony

In the first instance most of the contents of this thread does not make sense in how it has be constructed. Hence, in case asked, this mostly started on a thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post2652953

Originally Posted by slick132

Hi Nick,

I agree with you in certain ways about how progress is made and how things evolve and improve.

However, you have advised CAGgers, on their threads, to use letters that you have adapted and improvised from your own understanding, and some of these are wrong. <-- To claim that something is wrong is to disect it and show which part is wrong whether it is contrary to the Law or contrary to what.

When you write with confidence, as you do, some users will take your advice, not knowing if some of it is wrong. I've had to stop peeps using your advice because it's wrong in one way or another. <- To state it is wrong is one thing. To show where it is wrong is totally different. It is said that it is Human to Err but then again A person cannot know what was the mistake if it is not shown.

There are many discussion threads where ideas can be exchanged and if you want to air your own views or suggest improvements, use those threads or start a new one.

I'm not suggesting you should be a parrot and never question anything. However, the way to learn here is to read, read, read. <- That is why (unlike some others, I do not go into every thread (even like some others to build a post count and post some simple post). And one of the reasons is that I will look up the relevant Law, the relevant information etc (I also read case law in my spare time as a hobby) and then write as I "believe" the answer should be. As to the comment "I believe", this is evidence by the fact of the post #15 in Tony3x thread where I ask for comments and suggestions. Now as to "read read read" yes I read and one of the things I "read" is that a lot seem to think that "I want to use the CCA to get out of debt". And I have repeatedly stated that the CCA is to protect the consumer with Law and was never written to "Get the consumer out of debt". (Unless there have been infrigements of the Law by the debtor).

Other users threads are not the place for you to learn by your mistakes.

I've shifted the discussion posts off Tony's thread and into this one where discussions can happily continue.

Now let us disecet this one which is a the top of this thread.........

Originally Posted by nick20045

No problem. Just thought will give you some views as by rights, if the account is in dispute then a DCA should not have become involved. Also hope that the fos letter will get Barclays to take action. (Incidentally, Stockton on Tees? LOL. About 20 miles away from me). Should a DCA be involved if the account is in dispute? The OFT says no. (Hence I do not think this was wrong advise unless can show otherwise).

I would recommend sending this to Calders. Then they will have to communicate in writing and should not call you any more.

By recorded delivery

Dear Sirs

Your ref:
My ref: Debt in dispute.

I refer to the telephone call received today from your office.

In that conversation, your employee tried to state that the only way your office will communicate is by telephonic conversations.

To be honest, I fail to see why you office does not wish to put anything in writing unless you intend to breach any OFT guidelines or any other regulation. In fact, I prefer writing to telephonic communications and hence please note: <- Anything unlawful regarding the above 3 paragaphs? Tony said the employee said they will only deal by telephonic conversations. I want things in writing. IF the DCA will ONLY deal by telephonic conversations it is so there is no proof of any guidelines/law breakages. (Even if ask for a transcript of the conversation, this can "unfortunately become lost if it is contrary to any guideline/law).

You are to take heed and notice that, your office/company are not to contact me by phone ever again. Considering I am notifying you that you must not contact me by phone again, then and under the Data Protection Act, you have to remove my telephone number from your records being in whichever way/form it is held. Please note that if you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and as such, I will report you to both the Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading. You are also to note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and considering you will have not removed record of my phone number after a request to remove it, you will also be in breach of the Data Protection Act. <- From a standard template.

Yours sincerely

So please tell me. What is misleading or wrong with that letter? I await your kind comments.