I am trying to find out a couple of things about capital One

It seems at some point they had an address in Euston Rd London that then changed to Nottingham , does anyone know when this was?

There are many different sets of terms and conditions, I was also wondering what set were used in 2007/2008 . It seems that V14 were used in 2010 , again looking at what has been uploaded across different forums there seems to be a lot of variation

popped you into the cap1 forum.

I believe #v8 there are lots of threads here too

dx

It seems at some point they had an address in Euston Rd London that then changed to Nottingham , does anyone know when this was?

Capital One filed the change of address to Nottingham at Companies house on 19 November 2010.

Stigman

Thanks Stigman, makes interesting reading then as it suggests a cut and paste job. My agreement dated 2005 clearly says between me and Cap 1 in Nottm

I asked because i have seen others from around that date that mention London as the address

Thanks Dx

I've been looking through the threads on here and other places and there seem very few like mine.

Acc opened Dec 2005 and started missing payments Dec 2006 , went into a DMP Jan 2007

There seems to have been a very long wait between going into the DMP and termination

as Cap 1 claim it to be defaulted with the CRA 15/10/2008 which is also the date they confirm a 'statement of default' was issued.

I don't have the DN ,

have asked the DMP company for it but they haven't come back to me .

I have DN's from other credit cards that defaulted in 2007

so I suspect they never issued a compliant DN but of course without it I can't prove it.

My reasons for getting on top of this is that I was sent a LBA and responded with a CCA request to Lowell

and a request for info from Lowell solicitors , I have had a notice that it is now on hold pending further instruction.

last payment was jan or Feb 2012 so a while to go yet

dec 2005 twill be v10 T&C's

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?430610-Lowells-Cap1-2005-CCA-return-fold-App-Form-V10-T-amp-C-s-enforceable

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-0964707606882478:652l7hswbgv&ie=UTF-8&q=cap1&sa=Search+CAG#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=v%20T%26C%20cap1

Thanks Dx

I just need to find the dates that other versions were introduced , esp V14

I will have a search tomorrow, my PC is running so slowly at the moment

about 09/09 for V14

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=cap1+v14&sa=Search+CAG#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=cap1%20v14&gsc.page=1

Hi

In early June I received a LBA from Lowell solicitors regarding a Cap 1 account.

I replied to the LBA asking for

1) The agreement

2) The NOA

3) The DN

4) A statement of account

I also sent a CCA request to Lowell

The letter to the solicitors was received and responded to saying they would refer to client

The CCA request was received, the cheque cashed but no response

Today I received two letters from the solicitors

1) Included a statement of account and supposedly the NOA although in fact it was a letter from lowell saying if i didnt respond they would pass it to the solicitors and the other was a letter of acting from the solicitors . It also said they were still waiting for the DN

2) The same statement of account and a letter saying there was no actual DN but they had enclosed a copy of the DN template - in fact they hadn't

Both letters have asked that i contact them although as you can see the language has changed from will issue to may issue a claim

The CCA request is still outstanding and was referred to as being outstanding

In my original letter I did say i would respond within 14 days from receipt of their letter

My question is

Do I respond telling them that they have not supplied the agreement , the DN, the NOA even though they claim to have sent the DN and NOA and that the S78 request is outstanding

OR

Do I just keep quiet and ignore them

Thanks

Anxiety has kicked in again today, so any help would be much appreciated.

Lowell_Solicitor_18082016 Edit.pdf

Typically the wisdom of recent times is never respond to a failed CCA request

Cheers DX

That is always my thought or at least not to chase one up.

Of course I am trying to make sure that a claim isn't issued

They tend to issue a claim anyway hoping you cave in! later they tend to run = they act as if they are at a daily wedding with confetti (N1s)

If they have failed to send the CCA, as DX says, ignore, don't tell them.

As for the letters they have sent you, which one is the NOA? Because all I can see is three missives that Lowlifes have printed?

If they have failed to send the CCA, as DX says, ignore, don't tell them.

 

As for the letters they have sent you, which one is the NOA? Because all I can see is three missives that Lowlifes have printed?

Apart from the statement , that is all they sent with that letter. They are either incompetent or pretending that they are NOA's.

In the other letter - which I can not upload because for some reason I can only have 997 Kb of storage - they sent another copy of the statement and claimed that sent a standard DN . There was no DN standard or otherwise.

I suppose these were the bits that I was wondering if I should query

i.e their failure to respond, to my response to their LBA

If what they have sent you in response to your request is the above, then IMO that'll have the judges rolling in the aisles!

How these clowns are still able to practice is beyond me, definitely worthy of a complaint to the SRA, TS, and your local MP.

you'll have to pop back and delete some earlier uploads

if you scroll right up the top

and on the right you'll see user CP

click that

then scroll down

on the left you'll see

attachments

click that

scroll down again

youll see something like

Page 3 of 3

First123 last[hit last on the right

that start ticking boxes to delete uploads

Thanks DX

It is something that I tried to address a while ago with CitB and Andyorch

For some reason that can not be figured out, storage limit is only 996 KB . Even if I delete everything ( which I think I already had done) they was not enough space for the two documents

well check it out and let us know.

prob a hangover from one of your 150+ clones days I suspect

Now I can not even find the upload attachment- I did find one small attachment to remove.

Only 150 - I was told it was more

You can not call me anything but persistant - sadly at that time there were a couple of people I trusted who it turns out are as mad as boxes of frogs. Mind you , i was probably as mad as them in those days

there have been some issues

you should be able to attach now ok

no pm to siteteam is being investigated still I think

Nope

Still can't attach

In fact even worse as I can not even see what attachments I have in the control panel

But PM's seem to be working

Ta

I know that the advice was not to chase the CCA request which I didn't, however I did chase the responses from Lowell solicitors

If we remember they claimed to have sent me a statement of account, NOA and generic default notice and all they had sent me was a statement of account, they have now sent me a generic default notice that really couldn't be relied on , it does not satisfy the requirements of the CCA , or thats my thinking . They also say they are waiting for the NOA and the agreement which shows that they lied on the previous letter.

They are a bunch of clowns and if they think I am making an offer of payment without an agreement and NOA they have another think coming. In addition , should things get heavier i will be asking for the deed of assignment and while I know all the arguments they will use, letting them know I would be seeking sight of it should it go to court may just slow them down.

I now have some evidence that not only are they incompetent but also lie

I am in two minds as to what to do about this, I am reluctant to complain at the moment, although will be happy to Jan 31sr 2018 which is my SB date on nearly all my debts.

They will laugh at you if you ask for the deed of assignment, simply because it is a confidential document between two corporations.

TBH, if you keep poking the nest, then they're going to retaliate, they think that they have you against the ropes and are scared, so they pull out all the stops now and send any document they can to pile on the pressure.

They will laugh at you if you ask for the deed of assignment, simply because it is a confidential document between two corporations.

 

TBH, if you keep poking the nest, then they're going to retaliate, they think that they have you against the ropes and are scared, so they pull out all the stops now and send any document they can to pile on the pressure.

Indeed , I am now waiting for their next move. Until they provide a compliant agreement or send another LBA I will not be corresponding with them. The deed is indeed a sensitive document and I realise that only a judge can order its disclosure. What I want to find out is, can disclosure be ordered in the SCT as opposed to fast or multi track.

There may be lots of real reasons why they do not want me to see the deed because unless I have seen it I can not tell if they actually have the right to issue a claim against me. This is not FMOTL stuff, this is legal stuff. There is precedent to say that I should be shown the deed although that precedent does say that not relevant data can be redacted.

The deed is indeed a sensitive document and I realise that only a judge can order its disclosure. What I want to find out is, can disclosure be ordered in the SCT as opposed to fast or multi track.

There may be lots of real reasons why they do not want me to see the deed because unless I have seen it I can not tell if they actually have the right to issue a claim against me. This is not FMOTL stuff, this is legal stuff. There is precedent to say that I should be shown the deed although that precedent does say that not relevant data can be redacted.

I fully understand, and that is something I wouldn't be able to advise, as I have no personal experience of this ever happening.

Although I do know that most, if not all, requests for said document, are ridiculed, perhaps because of the FMOTL garbage that precedes it!?