Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

Co-Op Ex Northern Rock- Is this enforceable?


roygoodbeat
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3015 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

I have been following this forum for a while and sent the co-op a section 77-78 request for my credit agreement.

This is what they have returned.

 

Is this enforceable? If not, what should my reply be?

 

Sorry, I thought that I could place an attachment but cannot.

Does anyone know a site I can upload documents to for viewing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, here is the alleged agreement that they say is my credit agreement. Is this enforceable?

 

http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/roygoodbeat/COPNORTHERNROCK.jpg

 

Hi

 

Here is acopy of my agreement which Co-Op claim to be the CCA. Is this enforceable??

 

http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/roygoodbeat/COPCCCARD.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is all they have sent, then in my opinion, it is unenforceable. Notwithstanding the legibility issue, there are no prescribed terms present. Send them a letter along the lines of:

 

The Co-operative Bank

(address)

Account: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I wrote to you recently requesting a true copy of any alleged signed, executed credit agreement in relation to the above account.

I note your response to this request in your reply received on the xxx. Thus far I have only received a poor copy of an “Application Form”therefore my request remains outstanding. An application form, like the one you sent in your reply, does not constitute a true copy of any properly executed and legally enforceable credit agreement that may or may not have been signed by me on the opening of this account. An application neither confirms that I am liable for any alleged debt to you, nor gives me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’.

In addition, the document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974, The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. I have not written them here for you as I am sure you are well aware of them, suffice to say none of these terms are present in the document.

I specifically would like to draw your attention to the following extract from the Consumer Credit Act 1974:

S127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor.

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

In addition, you have not provided all the documentation required to comply with my s.78 CCA request and whilst in default you cannot enforce the account lawfully. The agreement on its own is not enough as you should be aware, if the executed agreement contains any reference to any other document, you are obliged to send me a copy of that document, namely the Terms and Conditions referred to on the “Application Form”.

May I remind you that whilst this account remains in dispute for the reasons outlined above, you may not, while the default continues, enforce the agreement, nor:

 

1) You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

2) You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.

3) You may not pass the account to a third party.

4) You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency. The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. Any such attempts to share my data without my consent (given in the form of a signed credit agreement) will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

Should you not be in possession of a correctly executed, legally binding agreement, as outlined above, may I respectfully suggest that the balance on this account be returned to zero, and any liability discharged, and any entries which refer to missing payments be removed from Credit Reference Agencies to whom you report.

I trust this outlines the situation and explains why your reply was unacceptable.

Yours sincerely,

roygoodbeat

 

amend to suit, best of luck. In my experience they will pass this to Pheonix, then Fredrickson, then they will realise they havent got a cat in hells chance, and it will all go quiet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Griffin - it's an application form, pure & simple. It even states that it is, along the top!

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The address I have been using is balloon st, Manchester.

 

I have been requesting a copy of my CCA from Co-op (ex N/R) for months now, 3 times they have sent me a copy of the application.

I have now threatened them with Court and FOS.

 

Today out of the blue, no mention of CCA or anything else, just stating that I was one of the lucky ones chosen if I can come up with £3100 within 15 days they will slash my balance by 50% and that will be the CC settled and closed.

 

I don't have £3100 but do you think this is a conincidence or are they genuinly offering to cut customers balances????????????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Response as predicted, this will suffice:

 

Complaints Department,

Fredrickson International Ltd,

PO Box 260,

Weybridge,

 

Surrey, KT13 0YH

 

Your Ref: xxxxxx Account Number : xxxxxx

FORMAL COMPLAINT ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir/Madam,

Complaint against Fredrickson International for pursuing an alleged debt in dispute, in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, The Data Protection Act 1998, the CPUTR 2008 and OFT Guidelines.

I note the contents of your letter dated XXX and received by myself on the XXX.

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with The co-operative Bank and has been since XXX following The co-operative Banks failure to provide me with a copy of the original Credit Card Agreement relating to the account that satisfies the provisions of The Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Not only is this in breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the CPUTR 2008.

 

As The co-operative Bank are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, OFT Collection Guidelines have been breached, I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default, enforcement action is NOT permitted; under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to The co-operative Bank for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as Fredrickson International cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If Fredrickson International chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Services and possible court action.

 

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines.

 

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter and I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully,

roygoodbeat

Cc: The Office of Fair Trading,

Credit Licence Fitness Department,

Room 1 C/5,

Fleetbank House,

2 – 6 Salisbury Square,

London,

EC4 8JX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Co-Op loan that has been running for a few years. I applied for a top up last year and they issued a new loan, consolidating the old one. I received a copy of my Loan agreements. It would appear the original one was unenforceable as it had defects on it. They have replaced this with an enforceable one.

 

I am sure there is nothing I can do on this. Am I correct??

 

Secondly, I had an old loan with the Co-op which I repaid. At the time I was told I had to take the insurance as it was part of the agreement. At one point I wanted to cancel this part of the loan , but they said no. Since paid it off. Again, I assume there is nothing I can do about this as it was paid off about 3/ 4 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No to the first

 

The second you need to get the T&C's of the PPI and check to see if it would actually have paid out if you had required it, then you may have a case

 

you can get the info by sending the coop a sar for the old account, they have to by law keep all records for 6 years

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received A Letter Today Stating That In Accordance With The Cca 1974 They Have Provided All They Need To (application Form), And That They Will Continue To Rely On This Documentation, And That If They Do Not Receive Paynment They Will Refer This To Debt Recovery.

 

Any Advice Greatly Appreciated!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a co-op (ex northern rock) credit card. When we applied for the CCA they told us they didn't have it but the fact that we'd reclaimed unfair charges was enough for them to pursue the case and proved that an agreement was in place. We pointed out that the reason for requesting the CCA was to make sure it complied with all terms and conditions. The balance was just over £8k. That was 2 years ago and we've not heard anything more from them and the entry on our credit file has been totally removed. - - - Moral of the story - - - -Stick to your guns!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ours was 8-9 years old. From what i can work out no paperwork was transferred to co-op from NR and it all depends on whether NR have kept details or can be bothered to look for them!

Good luck with yours!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOOKING FOR SOME HELP OUT THERE, (THE SAGA CONTINUES).

GOT ANOTHER LETTER TODAY FROM CO-OP REGARDING MY N/R CC, THEY ARE SAYING THAT WHAT THEY HAVE SUPPLIED HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CCA 1974 AND ATTACHED A SET OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

 

i AM LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION FORM AGAIN AND THERE IS NO % RATE, NO SIGNATURE FROM N/R, NO MONTHLY AMOUNTS ETC.

 

ANY IDEAS TO NEXT STEP!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pinky - ask them for the entire document, there is a reverse to your page. They have just sent me one although I am unsure if it is actually the reverse. I am going to request the true copy in its entirety under CPR. Better that you make sure they don't have everything before it gets rough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I got some internet t&c's printed off with the year 2000 (my application date) scribbled on in pencil. Like I am going to believe that!!

 

They have also sent a letter saying they will not communicate any further on this subject. I bet if I sent a letter saying I want to pay the alleged balance off in full they would communicate.

 

Dumb asses

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...