spamheed
-
Posts
3,200 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by spamheed
-
and so I shall, as and when they have made a demand after being made aware of the status of the account
-
next debt sold to crapest - CCS chasing
spamheed replied to Lal122436's topic in Mail order catalogues
At the end of the day only you and the courts can dictate how much you can afford to pay (if at all) thi lot are obviously stamping their feet and making a lot of threats and noise in the hope you will become scared enough to make a payment. How much are we actually talking about? how much is owed? have they added any charges or inflated the debt in any way? has the debt increased since they took it over? Are you 100% certain that these "people" have a right to claim such payments? have you ever requested a copy of the agreements from them? if not, then maybe it is time to do so? -
I have no intention of allowing these parasites to obtain judgement against me, however OFT are neither use nor ornament when it comes to Debt Collection. At the moment they haven't actually done anything other than buy a load of accounts, as far as they are concerned they are acting in good faith. Once they have been informed that they have bought a pup, depending on their actions from that point onwards, this will dictate my own actions
-
It does sound as if the options are: To immediately declare to them that the account is in default to the OC and has been so for quite some time and let them flap their gums around it To send them a prove it letter on the basis that I have never (ever) had a BC account of any kind and let them attempt to enforce or at least provide some kind of paper trail To ignore them and let them dig themselves a hole by making demands on a non existent account Wait until they begin a court action for the non existent account and go after them for costs To pay them lots of money that they have no entitlement to (only joking) I shall ponder over these options for a while
-
if the letter is in your name and addressed to you correctly, then send them a prove it letter, do not acknowledge the debt as if it has been over 6 years it is surely statute barred. Do not telephone them under any circumstance
-
Thay are all the same company, they just use the different letterheads to instil a sense of urgency at the fact the accounts are being "progressed" through their systems. Until they respond to your request do nothing......you are entitled to query every such debt and they are obliged to respond
-
Hi beachy Not aware of the Debenhams store card issue - how did that play out?
-
I understand that due to the way the account has been handled and the t&c have been varied they have virtually no chance of being able to enforce, but we'll have to see
-
Many people do have multi function printers which have a copy function though
-
Egg CC
-
assuming this is straightforward consumer debt and not a CCJ or secured debt if no payment was made, nor any acknowledgement made (in writing) then the debt is indeed statute barred and you should notify them that this is the case
-
It looks like Marlin have been busy buying all sorts of "last chance" debts, either SB or soon to be SB. I got a letter from BC late last week with an NOA for Marlins, all of the details on the NOA pertain to BC incl a BC account number. Funniest thing, I've never ever had a BC acount and had placed my original account in Dispute long before BC bought it (still unfulfilled CCA request) account has been dead for at least five and a half years, will become SB at the back end of the year will await further contact from Marlin with interest
-
So I approached Cap One prior to xmas with a claim on PPI misselling, I reckoned about £100 + interest + 8%, they've offered £90+interest+8%, close enough as not to matter. I have checked all of the statements for this account and there is about £400 in late charges and overlimit charges, ranging from £15, £18 and £20 and dated as far back as 2004. Question: given that this card is long closed and settled, would it be prudent to accept the PPI offer and then go after the charges refund once the cheque has cleared, would they be likely to concede charges as easily as they have PPI?
-
Some might say that if they aren't actively persuing the debt, let sleeping dogs lie and wait for the statute barred clock to run its course. Either way, whether you pay this debt or not, it will remain on your credit file for a aperiod of 6 years from default Alternatively if you don't wish to do this, then you should CCA Cabot
-
Northern Rock to repay £270m to loan customers
spamheed replied to 42man's topic in Home Repossessions
Yes I received a letter before christmas telling me they would let me have a difinitive outcome within eight week, if you haven't yet heard, it may be worth giving them a call, just to see if your loan was included in this issue -
Of course every story has two sides:
-
Cabot like to "conceal" their notice of assignment on the back of their "welcome to Cabot" letter, which is what they did to me, when I wriote back to refute their claims, they had proof of my receipt of their "NOA" sneaky beggars:!: it would be worth a minute to take a look
-
Northern Rock to repay £270m to loan customers
spamheed replied to 42man's topic in Home Repossessions
Yes this is true, excuse my use of the word "aren't" instead of "weren't" Since the NRAM issue only involves loans taken out before 2008, the CCA restriction still applies and there are no loans over £25k included in their compensation plan, this has also been reported in the media -
Northern Rock to repay £270m to loan customers
spamheed replied to 42man's topic in Home Repossessions
Loans over £25k aren't covered by CCA, so there would be no requirement for any such statements to be issued, let alone be accurate, I believe that all of the loans involved in this situation have to be covered by the CCA for any compensation payment to be made, ergo, the loans would be under £25k. The media is reporting that NRAM will be sending out letters immediately and that it was only the new oversight processes that found such a basic error -
Northern Rock to repay £270m to loan customers
spamheed replied to 42man's topic in Home Repossessions
I have been advised that breaching the CCA by failing to include mandatory information on the statements can be rectified by removing any charges and/or interest applied to the loan during the period of the breach and sending amended/correct statements. This I believe, is what NRAM are doing -
Northern Rock to repay £270m to loan customers
spamheed replied to 42man's topic in Home Repossessions
I believe that this is the case, at least to some extent as it is to do with the mandatory information not being included in the statement. -
Northern Rock to repay £270m to loan customers
spamheed replied to 42man's topic in Home Repossessions
apparently the issue lies with the statements issued by NRAM after NR was taken over, which under the CCA were required to contain the full amount owed and the breakdown of same. the statements which were issued did not contain this info, so interest could not be charged. How this could be construed as making the CCA unenforceable, I don't know (yet) Up to now the only realistic argument that I have heard against the unsecured element of a Together Mortgage would be under CPUTR, basically making it impossible to move from NR without incurring a punitive interest rate on the unsecured lending. But on it's own I cannot see this being a winner. -
Northern Rock to repay £270m to loan customers
spamheed replied to 42man's topic in Home Repossessions
According to the news this morning, this relates to unsecured loans taken out prior to 2008 and includes a large number of Together mortgages, they are reckoning on an average amount of £1770+ being paid out to individuals, basically any interest or charges applied to the loan since 2008 I have a live Together morgage with an £18k unsecured element, would be interested if this is to be offset against the loan amount, effectively reducing the amount owed. It would be interesting to hear the legal implications of such an error from an enforceability angle - like a lot of Together Mortgage holders, I am unable to move as the loan element would attract an interest rate in excess of 11% -
I have no issues in dealing with this, they, in their many carnations have sent dozens of letters over the years and have never had so much as a button out of me and never shall they. This came from one of the infamous Three mobile accounts, trying to take payments after the contract had ended and been terminated, I told them when I received the very first letter that they had bought a dud, but they wouldn't listen, I still have the original bills showing the final payments and letters from Three demanding less than Lowells. They would be on a costly hiding to nowt if they took this further and they know it. so they keep on sending the threatograms, but now with a slight change from the usual alleged phantom payment miraculously preventing the alleged debt becoming Statute Barred. it does become SB in a short while, hence their hiking up the number of letters, emails and texts, but as I've never hidden, they have had every chance to take me to court and declined each opportunity.
-
pre christmas increase in activity
spamheed replied to janis6670's topic in Debt Collection Agencies
Are you not aware that is is your duty to pay people you don't know, rather than give your kids a nice Christmas
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS