Jump to content

Pliny the Penuriosus

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    480
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pliny the Penuriosus

  1. Another useless chocolate teapot of a so called regulator
  2. It most certainly does
  3. Sorry Willows they do know what they are doing. Its called jerking you around or trying to confuse things as they have no intention of complying with the law Robinson are wrong & they know it. If the 'own' the debt they also have the same obligations as Cap 1 under the law. If they don't have a properly executed signed agreement they cannot enforce the debt..............period
  4. See in red above If you really do want to fight you will have to follow previous advice? Until you decide to take the initiative this will go on & on
  5. They don't write they send an email along the lines of "is the information correct" the client (usually some kid in the office that day) responds "yes" & that's it. No "give us proof" nothing just their clients word. When I brought this to their attention their response has been "we are not geared up to investigate" My response "then you should NOT be collecting data which may be wrong thereby causing great distress & financial loss to consumers. You are not "fit for purpose"
  6. Blade if they have registered the default they 'own' the debt. Catch them out by sending MBNA a SAR
  7. spiritgirl Just to be clear I'm referring to a CCA request & NOT a DPA SAR
  8. ncf I'm sorry because of confidentiality I cant give you any more details at this time but I can assure you I have seen the summons in question. I can tell you the trial date is 27th July & it involves an ordinary consumer/debtor & a very well known national DCA Not sure were you get the idea it's not a criminal offence to fail to comply with a CCA section 77-78 request. If they default for 42 days a criminal offence is commited 77 & 78 Duty to give information to debtor under fixed or rolling–sum credit agreement (1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (5) A statement under subsection (4) shall be given within the prescribed period after the end of the period to which the statement relates. (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence. The only costs you risk are those of the defendant if you don't attend court otherwise it costs nothing but a stamp plus some time & trouble Don't forget if it was succesful the OFT would have to consider whether or not the are fit to hold a licence. Anyway if you have doubts wait until the current trial has been held before going ahead
  9. Spiritgirl Please note!! Have they committed a criminal offence such as failing to comply with a CCA request within 42 days. If so write to the local magistrates court. Supply them with the relevant CCA letters plus evidence of receipt & reference to the legislation asking that as the DCA have committed a criminal offence the court duly issue a summons for trial It has already been done by another consumer for non-compliance & the court has issued a summons with a trial date
  10. It is my understanding that the principal prescribed terms should be on the same page & above the signatures
  11. CRA's have a duty to ensure that the data they hold & process is accurate. However disgracefully they continually try & hide behind the fact that it's their client's who provide it. The ICO continually fail to bring these agencies to book When the fight with the banks is concluded they will be next to face the consumers wrath.
  12. Blondie the reason you employ professionals to conduct the transaction for you is to ensure that everything is done correctly & should it not be you have an indemnified professional from which to seek recompense. Should you undertake any of the searches etc yourself then you can't expect to be completely indemnified by your conveyancer for any incorrect info you have provided. Your desire to save a week could cost you dear in the long run
  13. Sparkie no one objects to anyone having a different opinion but you have expressed the same opinion repeatedly & have been advised by some knowledgeable members repeatedly that the creditors have no other recourse to enforcing a debt if they fail to comply with the CCA 1974. Yet you have continued to expound your theory which has no basis in either law or fact. It has also been mentioned that the government HAVE closed the loophole by removing s127 but only for agreements post April 2007 As much as they might like to they cannot ignore the 74 Act & make the 2006 changes retrospective & if they did it would be well & truly open to challenge in the courts. I am sorry if you take umbrage at being corrected or that you might be reported for posting misguided theories & misleading information which could do damage to the site by frightening newbies away but I remind you in your remarks you mention not member but 'members' I would hope that would give you food for thought. Anyway sorry to see you go & good luck in your endeavors with the banks
  14. Blonie sorry but your solicitor appears a bit of an ijit. The actual measurement/size of the property is a question she should be putting direct to the vendors. solicitor/conveyancer, not you. If you try & work it out, make a mistake & it later becomes an issue you will not be indemnified as it will be your fault not the vendors. As to your suggestion about accompanying the vendor whilst they measure, my advice is take no active part whatsoever for the reasons I have already stated. Get involved & if it later goes pear shaped you may find any damages claim greatly weakened
  15. After payment of 1/3 a court order is required to repossess the vehicle After payment of 1/2 you can return the vehicle to the lender without having to make any further payments. However the vehicle must be in good condition, fair wear & tear accepted, as if it isn't in good condition they are entitled to claim any repair costs.
  16. Quite right Ian Sparkie there is no recourse to common law for a creditor where there is an unenforceable agreement - see HOL Wilson - v - Secretary of State. This HOL case is why they have removed sec 127 of the CCA which gave this protection for all agreements signed before April 2007. There are tens of thousands of pre April 2007 unenforceable agreements out there which are only now coming to light because consumers are sick to death of being ripped off by the banks. Consumers are now using every legal means to challenge the banks & if that means the consumer is unduly enriched by not having to pay then sobeit As a direct result of their own avarice they are now reaping what they themselves have sown Sparkie I also seem to recall you posting this before & being corrected for it. If you do post such comments again I feel I will have no choice but to advise a Mod of your posting of mis-information
  17. Sparkie NO! NO! This is becoming like an urban myth. No the OFT haven't said anything of the sort. They have said they WON'T intervene if the charge is £12 or below but that even that may be unlawful (which it is) & it's for a court to decide
  18. If you were sold PPI when it was forseeable from the outset that you would retire during the contract period, You were mis sold the policy & are entitiled to a full refund of ALL the payments made & not just from the time of your retirement. This assuming it was a contract term policy & not just an annual policy (renewable each year)
  19. I also think 'fake' is a more apt word to use rather than conjectured
  20. Dave Not allowed to!! Since when did the rules/law stop them - never. They frequently take goods/property not belonging to the debtor Not when you hear about them doing such things as clamping motobility vehicles & the police refusing help claiming "it's a civil matter sir" The DCA's are peopled by ****
×
×
  • Create New...