Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
    • The streaming giant also said it added 9.3 million subscribers in the first three months of the year.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Not Sure If This 1s Enforceable From Rbs???


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4949 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Had this card since 2004 not missed any payments until nov 2008 when i came into financial difficulties.. I cca'd them and this is what i had through along with 6 pages of t&cs and a standard letter you get when you receive your new card.. dont thik this is enforcable but could do with an expert to look over it please?.

33uzoef.jpg

Edited by ANDREAMOUR
updated info
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

im going to send this then....

Thank you for your response to my request under the Consumer Credit Act section 78.

 

I am pleased to see that you confirm this as a true copy of the original agreement executed by yourselves on the XXXXX.

 

As you must realise this agreement does not conform to sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer credit Act 1974 and would therefore only be enforceable by a court under s65. However, the absence of any prescribed terms means that a court would be prevented from enforcing it under s127(3)"

 

You had until (date here) to provide me with the true copy I requested. After that date you entered into default of my request and I am therefore advising that the matter is now in dispute . Whilst the matter is in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, make any further charges to the account or pass the account to anybody else.

 

Please note you may also consider this letter a statutory notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies including any defaults. Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’, you must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

 

Should you fail to respond within 21 days, I will expect that this means you agree to remove all such data

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I am looking at something very similar for a friend, his application form is the same as yours.

 

As what to do next? from reading other threads and yours it is clear that just writing back and saying it does not comply will generate a series of letters saying that they think is does.

 

I am thinking of writing to RBS saying that all payments will be stopped and if they think they have a case take my friend to court.

Dispatch, “We have a 911, Armed Robbery in progress, see Surplus Store corner of Peebles Drive and West 24th Street”

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you scan the default notice as that could be something to look at? Also when - if - were you defaulted - can you check with experian or something rather than rely on what triton say?

 

Triton stopped after one letter to me when I stated they had naughtily asked for whole amount but were not supposed to as I was not in default (yet!!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write back to both RBS and Triton and tell if they cannot produce a copy of the signed agreement and not an application form that complies with the ruling taken from Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd 04/04 2007, they can go and get lost and you are not paying another penny.

Qoted below...where the appeal court judges said this

 

sparkie

 

9. It is not necessary or rewarding to go on a grand tour of the legislation in order to explain the issues we have to decide. Put shortly section 60 (1) of the Act gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements. Section 61 (1) provides that a regulated agreement is not properly executed unless it is in a document containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to the regulations made under section 60 (1). An improperly executed agreement is enforceable against the debtor only on an order of the court (section 65 (1)), but no such an order can be made unless it contains all the prescribed terms (section 127 (3)).

 

 

33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.

I agree. The discretionary power under section 65 (1) to order enforcement of an agreement which does not comply with schedule 1 may be exercised on terms discharging the debtor from having to pay any sum payable under the agreement (section 127 (2)).

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Thanks for the reply it is very interesting. Do I need to quote all of the above or just notify them that they are still in default as they have not complied with the regulations? Is there a template letter for this here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andreamour, it looks the same as mine.

I'm no expert but I have been told on this site that the fact they have not named a date for remedy, but said 17 days after the date above makes it invalid.

I'm sure others will confirm if this is the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received the same Default Notice in April.I was told in my thread (by 42man) that mine was valid :?

I also presumed that they had to state a date for remedy, as saying 17days after the date of this letter is too vague.Do they mean from the next day? or the day after that? etc etc

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/183872-enforceable-cca.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not mention the defective DN in any correspondence just yet. They dont appear to have terminated the account or sold it on so this gives them the chance to issue a correct one!! Save it for then, as for now no executed CCCA is more than enough.

 

I am one letter behind you so will be following with interest.:)

 

My letter today from Mint is the same word for word as yours, but mine has come from Account Manager, Insolvency & Support!! Mines more scary than yours;)

 

I too only have a poor copy of an App Form supplied so will be altering a letter recently sent to Robinson, Way & Co and sending that off next week.

 

I always thought Triton made showers?

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi spartathisis

My lips are well and truly sealed about the dn ;)

I am just gonna sit back and wait to see what they throw at me next time.

Good luck with your case i will drop by and see how your getting on..

Have a good weekend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...