I JUST GOT THE EXACT SAME LETTER OF CAPONE WHEN I MENTIONED PPI AND MY AGREEMENT WHICH IS IN DISPUTE WAS DATED 2000 ... LOL UNBELIVABLE!!!!!!!!:eek::eek: FOS complaint stats for Jan-June 09 state that 98% of Ins claims against 'em were UPHELD

I Mean To Say - You Would Think It Was A Simple Thing To Tackle For Any Professional Business . All I Have Said To Cl Is That The Agreement Numbers dont Match and They Have Not Got Back To Me. How Hard Can This Be???

Most interesting stuff re PPI I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ON HERE IF ANYONE FANCIES A PEEP... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/229424-ppi-concerns.html#post2540213

I am unsure about a few points concerning PPI, which seems a grey area. I would appreciate help on these points. 1) Some CAG posters seem to believe that reclaiming PPI is a dangerous admission of a disputed debt and I bet the ’not very helpful’ at FOS would support this softer stance.However, others take the opinion that the PPI should be reclaimed as it helps to make a debt more unenforceable as a s18 multiple loan, meaning terms on the agreement are NOT properly stated. 2) If one has say a disputed account for say 10 thousand quid but only a fraction has been paid off – then are we claiming only for the small percentage of PPI on the fraction that has been paid off or THE WHOLE LOT AS STATED ON THE AGREEMENT ? I only ask as I was thinking about one account I am currently fighting. It was originally for 18k but payments had brought it down to 13k. However on the CCA docs (which we are disputing as being the wrong agreement number anyway in this case) the whole PPI comes to about 5K Not sure how this works AND I SHOULD ADD THE ALL MY ACCOUNTS ARE IN DISPUTE DUE TO NO OR IMPROPER CCA REQESTSED DOCUMENTATION. payment stopped to these accounts back in summer. If I recall correctly the Martin Lewis site just suggested that one bangs in a misselling claim letter and lets them do the calculations – but I may be wrong. For me – I currently see PPI as a lever to get aggressive creditors to potentially drop a file, although I have not yet proved this to myself. PPI amounts may come to more than a debt is worth at times So this can apparently be useful or so I am informed. I just need to get a SIMPLE LAYMEN'S handle on all this lot so I can see what I am doing for when I SAR more sharks. I like to be in control of the shots. HELPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!

Always do - dont know any other way ...

Time For Some Sport........

To add insult to injury CAPONE has just sent this letter whilst I am waiting for them to answer my complaint (from August) that they have failed to provide anything more than a terms sheet. This is for the smaller account worth around 200 quid.. It seems they have no copy of an agreemant so they gave it to a DCA....... As promised this then rolls up I can handle them.

CB - many thanks for this - I shall hang on a SHORT while to see what comes in as you say . Q Ok, I have edited the above to include other questions which have been raised. At this point I would not send them a lengthy letter. You now need to get that SAR off and work out how much PPI you have paid to date. Sadly, if they are only going to provide you with 6 years and the account has been open for 9 then you are going to have to "guess" at some of the earlier figures and force them to provide you with a more accurate figure

Yip I reckon my letter from some while back about this PPI point made them get a little bit sensitive........ I have reasonably granted you sufficient time to provide me with a properly executed copy of the alleged credit agreement. Today I was dismayed to only receive from youa somewhat shabby application form along with 5 pages of possibly unrelated terms and conditions. I believe that you are now seeking to confuse this simple issue and trying to mislead me. I have to inform you that this latest literature is clearly not a copy of an enforceable agreement (i.e. no legally-required prescribed terms within the corners of a single document) and in fact quite valueless for either your purpose, in relation to enforceability, or in fact my purpose, to examine the alleged document that I continue to request from you. As you must be aware, the application form that you have forwarded to me does not conform to sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and would consequently only be enforceable by a court under s65. However, it would appear from what little I can determine from the document that prescribed terms are absent/unattached, which means that a court would be prevented from enforcing it under s127(3). Kindly note for clarity: This untidy little application form is NOT a copy of any alleged executed credit agreement, as you erroneously claim, and is therefore absolutely worthless. We appear to be at an unproductive impasse in this matter, and clearly you remain in default of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on this matter, regardless of your problematic claims to the reverse. The alleged original properly executed agreement is the document that you would require to produce in support of any county court exploit against me, and the same document that I would make a court application for you to produce if you failed to respond to such a request under a CPR31.16 prior to my seeking to commence proceedings against yourselves. It would consequently seem to me to be entirely in line with the overriding principles of the CPR for us to make every endeavour to reconcile matters in adult fashion outside the court system. In continuance of this purpose therefore, I would suggest that this matter can be disposed of without further delay by you allowing me to inspect the alleged original and properly executed agreement. Consequently, the issue can be resolved one way or the other. Normal principle requires that any such document is inspected in situ- I am prepared to travel a reasonable distance to inspect this document. On the other hand, I am prepared to pay the reasonable costs of having such documents couriered to the local branch of Capital One (or a local solicitors office) for me to inspect therein. I can think of no legitimate reason, if it is your honest ambition to have this matter dealt with without further delay, why you should not agree to this most sensible request. If however it is the case that you do not possess a properly executed agreement (as you appear to indicate by previously obstructive correspondence/ persistent lack of requested material) then it would be far more sagacious, for all concerned, for you to openly admit to this fact now and then we may be able to transfer this disputed issue to an appropriate conclusion. As you are aware from previous correspondence, my financial circumstances are inadequate yet I am attentive to my consumer rights and your trade-orientated responsibilities herein. I have always been happy to continue with my £1.00 token payments to creditors with legitimate accounts to be addressed. I will not disburse funds however into dubious accounts, lacking legitimate signed/enforceable documentation; an issue that appears to be most doubtful - as in this particular case. I respectfully put it to you: would you blissfully pay funds demanded to any challenging company that was only able to provide you with you their generalised terms sheets and insignificant application forms lacking essential prescribed terms – would anyone in fact? I must politely draw your attention to a recent disastrous legal conflict for another company if you are somehow hoping to rely of such imperfect data to pursue this matter. BANK OF SCOTLAND -v- ROBERT MITCHELL 1st June 2009. APPROVED JUDGMENT MoneySavingExpert.com Forums - View Single Post - Credit-card written off at Leeds County Court June 2009 Apart from the vital issue that this long-standing matter accentuates regarding unenforceability, I must respectfully also highlight the Personal Protection Insurance element that has now come to light, relating to the alleged account you claim to be mine. If it is subsequently proved beyond all doubt that I do have any liability then this PP insurance would, due to my circumstances, most unquestionably have been missold and therefore subject to official investigation by the appropriate regulatory bodies. This PPI element would obviously be counterclaimed by me for reasonable reimbursement against your company. Perhaps you could now therefore provide full details regarding PPI on the alleged account to me ASAP, so that I may have this vital axis professionally scrutinised even further? The following link, regarding your serious malfunction concerning PPI misselling, would seem somewhat appropriate to underline in at this point: FSA fines Capital One for PPI sales failures FSA fines Capital One for PPI sales failures I am also writing in relation to the unwanted telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing and distressing. I have requested, in my Formal Complaints to you of 7th August and 25th August 2009, that I desire contact from you to be IN WRITING ONLY. I deem your unnecessary phone calls to be in breach of unfair trading practice under OFT guidelines. Although you have still not provided me with the reasonably requested copy documentation, you are now apparently embarking on a quest of harassment and intimidation via calling me on the telephone even though you are fully aware that the accounts are disputed. I reiterate that I require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only. I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine. Please note that another company, Barclaycard, has recently fallen foul in this respect. Ofcom fines Barclaycard maximum penalty for silent calls Ofcom fines Barclaycard maximum penalty for silent calls - Brand Republic News - Brand Republic Pursuit of alleged debts, without enforceable documentation, is both unjust and in breach of OFT guidelines on unfair practice. OFT guidelines state: Deceptive and/or unfair methods 2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair. 2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt. I now reserve the right to escalate my complaints (dependant of course on your next response) to the governing authorities, unless I have a full explanation/positive response regarding your unwarranted trading activities herein within 14 days of you receiving this letter. You boldly declare in your letter of 27th August 2009: “You clearly have a valid and enforceable credit agreement with Capital One”. However, despite my numerous requests you have failed to provide a suitable copy of the original document you allege to hold and which I believe you do not possess. This is quite illogical for if you sincerely desire this issue to be finally cleared up then all you have to do is copy the alleged agreement you say you hold and send it to me for proper inspection. Why have you not done this; can it be this difficult for you to comply with this reasonable consumer request? As you are fully aware an application form, without properly prescribed terms, in utterly worthless to either you or me in cases of potential litigation. Therefore, can we please have some honesty herein in light of this? Companies presenting microfiched or badly copied (not “easily legible”) application forms, sheets of unsigned terms and conditions, the lack of critical prescribed terms within the 'four corners' of any signed document, multiple loans agreements (coming under CCA s18 scrutiny) posing as single agreements, via unfair additions of PPI without proper consultation in the initial stages of conception or worse and trying to pass them off as a properly executed CCA agreement will most definitely not be adequate to meet justified, contemporary consumer requests and more importantly enforceability criteria, which you cite in your letter. I honestly cannot see why you would wish to draw out this unacceptable fiasco if you can in fact truthfully deliver the correct documentation, which I have reasonably been asking for since 27th July 2009 I am quite amazed that decision makers at Capital One apparently have nothing better to do than chase up old accounts that are nearly 10 year old and without enforceable material at hand. And now with the inclusion of the PPI element herein this makes such a farcical pursuit by Capital One even more illogical and in fact quite rash. Due to Capital One’s ongoing failure to provide enforceable agreement material in this instance, it would seem both logical and in good business sense for you to immediately close this very elderly file and therefore save both parties present yet more inconvenience, effort and postage expense. Alternatively, if you feel strongly impelled to prolong the inevitable farce then kindly provide the ‘frequently’ requested material (plus also all PPI details) rather than yet again wasting both parties time with more of the same old misleading spin like that of which I have received today. ------ And 2 other letter telling them not to be silly over the application form they sent to us yet STILL they write back with mush...........

Sorry about the snazzy ****aso - like edit above in the ist image. Had a wee bit of trouble with photobucket... Should I not also add a bit to capone about the unknown number etc? Asterisk edit above has just editd out the name of a famous artist - funny bit of net censorship that .. P I SS A S O

Of deary me..... I told Capone that the application form was no use and went to great lengths to explain why. So I got this back...... It is clearly a waste of time explaining the law to them and they have ignored the fact that this one has an unknow number on the application form too. Now what?

CB - thanks I have now reminded OFT what BC are playing at. Pressing poor defenseless mites like me for cash, whilst not providing any CCA docs is not cricket.

TWITS ARE ON ABOUT THE OLD PAYMENT - WHICH WAS DITCHED BACK IN SUMMER BEFORE THEY FAILED TO GIVE US ANY PROPER AGREEMENT DOCS AND BEFORE IT FELL INTO DISPUTE. BC have ignored all letters/complaints just saying that their daft terms sheet was all they needed to give me. May be their departments are not communicating so maybe I will just sent them this... Dear xxxxxxxx I write regarding your peculiar demand for payment, dated 12 Oct.09. Have your superiors not made you aware that this account is subject to a Formal Complaint and is in dispute? I presented a request on xxxJuly for a properly executed copy of the alleged agreement. No such documentation has been provided by Barclaycard. The law makes it clear that you are prohibited from mounting such collection activity, whilst an account is in dispute. All you have sent to me has been quite illegible and worthless terms and condition sheets, which in no way complies with your trading obligations under the CCA. Moreover, my complaint of 16 September 2009 has been ignored by your company. I have written to you concerning this account 4 times (xxxJuly 2009, xxxxxxx 2009, 1xxxAugust 2009 and today) very reasonably explaining this issue, yet Barclaycard appears to imagine it is are above the law in this respect. Your unfair activities, which I am advised contravene trade regulations, are now being reported to the authorities.

Of deary me. I just got the following note off BC . They are well aware that they have only sent me a terms sheet and that the account is in dispute.I also made a formal complaint last month..... I like the bit that says - pament due £0.00 I had also prevously complained to OFT. What do I say to this nonsense now?

Yes - I may just do that thanks Vint, I have however pointed out to them that the one they sent seems to be someone elses or a bogus reconstruction. and that they could be breaching the Data Protection Act .

Eh - so what do I say to that and where exactly does it leave them? Are they allowed to change agreement numbers at will then ask us to pay without questioning such an action? What does they law say on this? Far we we are aware we never signed such a thing. Oddly enough I seem to be getting a collection of sharks chasing me for unknown numbers on agreements now.....

I have now checked several times again...... I asked for the copy docs of an agreement number which started with 98......... The agreement number on the microfiched scans they sent to me starts with 34......... The number is certanly not the same and I have never seen anything to say it was changed for any reason. All I have is a Notice of Assignment from a while backfrom CL saying they took the agreement ( 98........) from GE. So why did they respond to my CCA request with the wrongly numbered copy agreement? Am I supposed to pay up and smile when the number is not the same as the one being chased by them? Still waiting for them to give a reason about this significant problem, rather than typical DCA threats to pay up or else. Mystery? Anyone else seen such a thing?

Vint - many thanks - I HAVE ALSO HIT THEM WITH ONE VERY LIKE YOURS AND I SHALL STUDY BOTH TO SEE IF ANYTHING HAS BEEN MISSED OUT BY ME NOW.

Well spotted CB - that number which starts 362..... IS THE SAME ONE AS AT THE BASE OF THE FORM THAT IS UNKNOWN.

ALTHOUGH I HAVE BLOCKED OUT THE NUMBER AT THE BASE OF THE APPLICATION FORM IT IS A 16 DIGIT NUMBER AND TOTALLY DIFFERANT TO THE REGULAR NUMBER ON ALL LETTERS OVER THIS ACCOUNT WHICH IS ALSO 16 DIGIT NUMBER. I HAVE MENTIONED THIS TO CAPONE BUT THEY HAVE NOT REPLIED ABOUT IT. DOES THIS MEAN THAT THEY HAVE RECONSTRUCTED A FORM WITH THE WRONG NUMBER ON FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S ACCOUNT? I HAVE ALSO WRITTEN TO TELL THEM THAT THIS FORM IS ALSO NOT AN ENFORCABLE AGREEMENT - FOR IT HOLDS NO PRESCRIBED TERMS.

Yep - as predicted the nice capone folks have now ignored my formal complaint and started to ring us once again. This is of course excellent news as they have failed to provide anything but the crappy application form above which is 9 years old.

I just am not sure of the right thing to say here guys yet!

Thanks citizebB I was most pleased with this result. I also wish to know what to answer to the following. Their solicitor stated that although the collection activity would cease as they had no proper agreement, non- payment in respect to an "undisputed balance" would be reported to a licenced credit ref agency who would record it for a period of 6 years. This seems quite wrong when they cannot furnish me with a signed agreement copy. Is this legal to be penalised when their is no agreement? They also ask what my intentions will be regarding "future payments to this account." Second word is - OFF! Opinions and suggestion for a follow up would be nice.....? To be honest, credit ref means little to me as I tend to be cash only so their threat is rather feeble. Nevertheless, my victory shows that without a correct agreement such bossy firms are stuffed! They pile on huge credit charges and interest and in the end it amounts to more than any good ever ordered .. They got very nasty so I played them at their own game.

Oooooh - just had a letter off JD William's solicitor saying the on the basis of no signed agreement collection activity will cease.

"This looks suspiciously like a Bank of Scotland loan document." Yes CB - Retail Financial Services is a venture between GE Capital Bank and the BOS. This explained the likeness you are suspicous of.