Pass the buck time again Just got this.......

OK - HERE WE GO. CAPONE HAVE SENT THIS LETTER BELOW - ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT THE AGREEMENT NUMBER IS ALIEN TO ME... NEVER HEARD OF IT! I THINK THEY ARE REFEREING TO THIS THOUGH. Thet informed me with ref to PPI that this product was sold to me during a “telephone conversation in 2001”. So I said........ Therefore, you will no doubt have a recording of that call in order to prove this? Please confirm. However, I find it rather odd that the application form you have provided and which you assert is an authentic copy, is dated summer of 2000 – how very odd! I am sure you are in a position to explain this inconsistency to me? What fun I shall have when I get my PPI claim in action...... Naturally - they ignored all ref to the agreement being crap due to a silly app form.........

I think I will go on the offensive with the no DN issue. Sorta....... Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119 I need legislation for when NO DN exists at all................ No signed agreement anyway but....... They may have given in - but I have not!!!!!

I have been moaning about one in particular I have that has the wrong agreement number for yonks....... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/218262-cl-finance-questioner-5.html I mentioned if to CL and they said eh - we dont know the answer to that one And it was ME that mentioned the possibility of a modifying agreement - not them. Wonderful - they expect us to pay up on dodgy numbered loans and when we ask why the number is wrong they cannot oblige us. lol ....

ok - so I am now studying the CCA Schedule 1 (keeping in mind that we have a form here that holds a differant agreement number to the one always used.) Requests for a Modifying Agreement (is this was to be the excuse of the creditor(s) also fell on deaf ears as well. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/171945-modified-credit-card-agreements.html#post2618972 The box under the APR 18.9 (relating to application for insurance cover) is not filled in - is this a term error I can highlight? I actually find this box a little misleading. Could they therefore NOT have later filled this box in to suit themselves? There is also no rights to cancel although it would have been a courier affair.

I for one am utterly disgusted in the way FOS has dealt with valid complaints I have sent to them. They are exceptionally happy to accept illegible application forms as concrete proof the a DCA may continue to hunt one without mercy or without challenge. They also told me that once a bank is "satisfied" that it is correct about a debt then a debt is no longer considered in dispute, just because a debtor considers it to be so. This is plain silly, utterly biased in favour of the lender and outrageous. All this flies in the face of OFT guidelines and the law and MUST be stopped. FOS is clearly acting over and above their remit as an impartial (lol) body. They will "impartially" listen to your many detailed complaints and then smugly tell you that a DCA is acting quite properly/professionally in line with the internal collection procedures; i.e. ringing you against your wishes at all hours and writing baloney to you on a regular basis. They will tell you that they are NOT a legal body but they will tell you that a shark is legally- entitled to pursue you with nothing more than an unreadable application form for proof of an alleged agreement- a worthless form that may or may NOT have been accepted many years ago. They have taken the side on banks and aggressive DCAs and this can only harm millions of ordinary consumers. I cannot express my revulsion for this coterie. I hope that even more whistleblowers come out and expose them for what they are – a banker puppet! My advice is to recreate an A4 application form that is illegible (the harder to read the better). Then roll over it with a muddy car tyre. Next send a red-letter demand to some DCA manager for a million quid and when they refuse to pay you tell them to grumble to FOS. Now if FOS is consistent they will impartially examine the muddy application form and tell the DCA gaffer that they cannot help them as a valid and enforceable agreement obviously exists...... Jeez - don’t get me going on this lot........... Chocolate teapots are more use to consumers.

Game on I got this off RBS These are the reasons it was missold I was self employed at the time and they were fully aware of this. I had my own business insurance (being self-employed) therefore PPI would never have been appropriate to me. Moreover, I believe that on the basis that I had business insurance any prospective claim in the PPI field may potentially have never been accepted by the PPI seller. I was never given any appropriate professional, unbiased advice or choice over this product by them. I had no idea what PPI actually even was, what it entailed and the huge monetary costs to me associated with its addition to any policy.I was given the overall and grossly confusing impression that PPI was an indispensable component that one had to accept without question. This I believe to be unfair and extremely misleading. I was not ever informed that I could obtain cheaper alternative PPI elsewhere, if required either. I told them that I noted that this latter concern has now been the subject of an enquiry by the Competition Commissioners Office who were especially critical of PPI. I have serious doubts that I ever even said yes to any PPI product, believing that any tick box or whatever used on any application form may have been ticked already, before I saw this. In fact this belief is supported by the fact that the unsigned Personal Application Form, relating to this account, has been filled in by THEM – not me. I also mentioned ............... FOS statistics for Jan-June 09 illustrate that a huge 94% of insurance complaints against RBS were upheld. They may not like that bit too much. Any bank-crushing PPI tips always appreciated folks....... Cheers Q:)

Just wondering if the following applies to this Goode, Consumer Credit Law and Practice, paras: 30.102-30.103. In relation to position of Signatures and Prescribed T&C It is clear that s61(1)(a) is referring to the prospective regulated agreement, so that its requirements must be fulfilled by that document and not just by another document to which it refers This is Further interpreted by John McCloud, PhD, LLB, Barrister, Professor of Law, University of Liverpool: On the same side as the signatures the document itself must contain the terms prescribed in the Agreement Regulations [Reg 6(1)]. To the extent that these rules refer to information which must be stated ‘together and as a whole’, that will ensure the larger list is included in the actual agreement rather than any document referred to in it. With the microfiched doc on my initial post we have terms on a second page that are not clearly linked to the first page. I believe that the original doc may have been destroyed as they admitted that they held such microfiched docs for "stoarge" purposes. However, in view of the above I still have not had any satisfactoty answer of any party as to why they sent a doc holding a differant agreement number from the one used on all previous corresspondence and being persued by them. Where does this leave them? Muddle ?

Fair enough - I will therefore keep this one in reserve just in case ever needed in future. All grist to the mill. Plently of other concerns on the go however as previously stated, but my nature is to constantly seek out weaknesses to exploit to good ends.

Steven - thanks for the kind advice, dissapointing though it may be. I had been told that seperate signature boxes were required with the s18 thing but never mind. Nevertheless, Several other things are applicable including wrong agreement number on the doc, DN issues, missold PPI, illegible in parts, two pages that are not connected etc. Oh yes - and no rights of cancellation either..

Or maybe just hang around for nearly six years until it's SB? I can be patient - if I try hard!

FOS seem to think that constant collection activity is quite acceptable when they believe a debt exists - even when its legally unenforceable and is nothing more that an illegible application form. This is NOT good enough as it is contrary to what the law says. FOS also tell us they are NOT a legal body, yet their so-called adjudications (lol ), in favour of the banks that hold crappy application forms as agreements, are in essence making a legal stance. They play both ends to the middle and, like the sharks they protect, they appear to be self-preserving, coterie designed to give lip-service to pressing consumer concerns. ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THIS COTERIE MUST BE BYPASSED. This body is in my opinion a puppet for the banker and one that needs replacing fast. Is it any wonder that so many of us are treated like criminals when FOS gives the sharks such a message to pursue? Of course the banks know that FOS is their friend because they always tell us that if we are unhappy with their handling of a complaint we can always run to FOS… As if! This cosy relationship MUST be smashed so that consumers get a fair hearing. I note that others agree too. Disgusted consumers turn on ‘shoddy’ complaints watchdog - Times Online The Establishment knows how to pull the strings and how to quell dissent and hates to be proved wrong - hence these puppet organisations who we are told to run to in times of need. Of course every blue moon they suprise us by presenting a class case IN FAVOR of some desperate consumer. They gives the impression that they are fine and noble and the heroes to run to when banks get nasty - the truth is however in the opposite.... However, OFT recently helped to make a DCA cower down, say sorry and send a disputed agreement back to a dictatorial bank for me - so they are in my good books at present. lol..

Eron And it appears that FOS are very happy to support the DCAs in their quests for payments; even when no enforcable agreement exists. I was told by a guy from there that so long as they have one's signature on any old piece of paper such as an illegible application form, plus a few old bank statements that clearly equates with an enforcable debt according to FOS. Its pathetic but true, flies in the face of OFT guidlines too (and CCA law) and this absurd stance MUST be challenged and changed as it is totally anti-consumer.

Hiya Vint This was a just a lump loan and I have written to all three parties to try and get some sense out of them. I have asked HBOS for the PPI back as Santander/GE say it was their baby. I FEEL THAT GE WANT DISTANCE HERE AS THEY HAVE BEEN BADLY FINED FOR PPI MISSELLING BEFORE. However CL say they had total assignment/ownership but ran off when I used the PPI word (I.E. - EH NOWT TO DO WITH US MATE - GO ASK THE OTHER 2). No sure about this "full amount of PPI charged bit" as all I have is the debatable agreement they sent (as on my first post) toting up to about 6k. So do I just say I require the 6k plus 8% please back?:-? Sorry - but I was never good with figures. I used the CAG calc to arrive at the above figures with basic PPI figures plus interest..... I am waiting to see what the 3 companies say about all this too. I THINK ALL CONCERNED ARE IN A MUDDLE OVER IT.

Hiya Vint This was a just a lump loan and I have written to all three parties to try and get some sense out of them. I have asked HBOS for the PPI back as Santander say it was their baby. However CL say they had total assignment/ownership but ran off when I used the PPI word. No sure about this "full amount of PPI charged bit" as all I have is the debatable agreement they sent (as on my first post) toting up to about 6k. So do I just say I require the 6k plus 8% please back?:-? Sorry - but I was never good with figures. I am waiting to see what the 3 companies say about all this too.

Thanks Landy - I may take it further as I am sure he will start again when teh mood strikes him. I have the police log number for the offence etc so.

On my initial post on this thread I banged up the illegible application form that Worst Crud had sent to me. I complained to FOS and this below is their latest offering.. Is it me or are they having a go at CAG etc in the last paragraph on the first page? It seems that so long as a shark sends one a battered up scan of 'anything' with your signature on then that good enough for FOS to tell the sharks to keep feeding .. I shall write back but opinions would be nice...... I have serious doubts about the FOS (sharks best friend) and I know this has recently been the subject of debate in the press following an FOS whistleblower ratting them out ........ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article6925373.ece

Not Too Sure If I Have This Right ? Is the lump sum shown on the CCA earlier the sum we calculate like this?

PPI CHARGE £5,875.80 03/02/2005 1760 8% £2,275.11 £5,875.80 £2,275.11 £8,150.91

Nice little victory here. I had complained to OFT about the unfair activities of CapQuest via chasing an account in dispute. OFT showed great interest in this particular outfit. So in rolls a letter to say they have now closed the file and sent it back to CAPONE with sincere apologies. Sweet! TO BE FAIR I HAVE A BIT OF AN ARGIE BARGIE WITH A VERY PUSHY CAPPEST CLOWN ON THE BLOWER WHO THOUGHT HE COULD GET THE BETTER OF ME BY TALKING OVER ME. OFT WANTED ALL DETAILS OF THIS CALL ...This I felt compelled to tell them all about - in some details!!! Now I just need OFT to do the same with his masters voice at CAPONE HQ. I have already written a shortie response about only wishing communication in writing only - but I may also cut into your neat letter above Vint - thanks. I may also remind them that their Heavies (as above) have just seen fit to ditch the file, give a VERY crawling apology and push it right back into CAPONES dictatorial face! This shows what Capone have - NOTHING!

I have been waiting for over a month for them to get SAR to me. They owe me a lot of PPI too.

And the second letter off Capone is equally misleading - they never sent any signed signature page of an agreement - but just an application form. Nowt - zero - ziltch, agreement. 2nd page of the standardished nonesense... Now the interesting this is that although they say they will now just ignore me and send in the dogs - they have ignored the following ....... Following the issue of an invalid Default Notice Capital One has unlawfully rescinded the alleged agreement by terminating the same. Still, what do they care about such matters.. Looks like I shall be batting back the sharks from this one for evermore......

I am not surprised about teh FOS as they have proved to me that they ignore the fact that banks have NO proper agreement and go along with the bank claim that such worthless things as app forms are properly-executed agreements. I have pointed out in great depth to Capone that they have NO agreements with me, due to only supplying illegible app forms. However they have ignored this and threatened me as below. They attitude is to therefore continue to harrass me until I give them dosh. Of course the apathetic FOS would back them and not me for they have a magic app forms but is this fair, is it lawful? Wrong - they sent an illegible application form and bits of some terms and agreement that could have related to anyone. This is page two.... I really makes you wonder if its all worth it for a few hundred quid at times - but but no fear - I do not give in to bullies........

Just ripped through the statements of HFC (got back to 03) and they have a lot of PPI added.

"You need to be absolutely confident in your arguments." Well thats ok then - coz I'm always right!!!