Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

B3rty

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by B3rty

  1. Sorry, I'm not being evasive. It's an old MBNA CC debt that's now owned by Cabot, I have a copy of the original agreement which I obtained from MBNA about 10 years ago and there are no prescribed terms so it can't be enforced by the court. I entered into an agreement to make payments and have made these for the last 6/7 years every month with out fail and ignore any correspondence from them to review, This letter is a little different because it gave me 14 days to call them or they would instruct a solicitor ( in-house paralegal I expect) to pursue the debt. My question was to see if these letters lead anywhere or just fizzle out as most do. I am aware that once you reply or answer a call then it triggers you to the top of their " pester" list, however, if they push this across to their legal dept i may need help to compose a suitable letter. B
  2. Yes, I am not a won't pay just a can't pay.
  3. Hi Andy Thanks, I'm not too fussed about the claim as I've dealt with them before, albeit a few years ago and it was just a feeler to see if these letters get followed up so i could prepare myself. I had the letter a couple of weeks ago and they put a 14 day deadline on it. The debts under £2k so I feel it may be just blustering to get me to call and agree a higher monthly payment. The irony is I'm not really much better off than when we agreed it 6/7 years ago, so I could call them and go through the rigmaroll of the income and expenditure, its just that i dont see why I should. B
  4. Hi I haven't been here for a while and therefore a little out of touch with current practice. Thanks to the help of CAG I managed to win my battles with DCAs quite a few years ago. I have an old credit card debt which is off my credit file and owned by Cabot and for 6/7 years have paid them a nominal amount each month. They send the odd letter asking me to up the payment but I never respond as these are computer generated and I prefer to let sleeping dogs lay. Just had one threatening potential legal action if I don't contact them. I just wondered if they every follow through or if this is best ignored. They don't stand a cat in hells chance of a CCJ as its an old CCA agreement without prescribed terms, however, I do acknowledged the debt and I am making payments. Just interested to know if anyone's had one these and whether they do follow up? Thanks B.
  5. Hey that's interesting is that a fact. If the debt is off the credit file it can be put back on?
  6. Sorry my assumption is they can report to CRAs using the same default date. I edited the post above before I saw your reply ....the statute bared will be later because I made payments after default. If debt is not on your files now it can't be put back.
  7. Yes default date is Oct so falls off file then. It's actually come off from the credit file since the last one I looked at and I assume will re appear with these clowns.....the SB will be later because I attempted to make payments following default for about a year.
  8. Yes nothing showing there yet although the default was nearly six years ago so all they could do would be show that date
  9. Haven't been on here for ages and most of my accounts are dropping off the credit files. Just had a letter out the blue from Arrow to say they have taken assignment from Phoenix for one that’s got a couple of months to go don’t think its statute bared for a year or so. I thought all these fun and games had finished years ago however just want to be prepared as I know these are the lower life of the DCA world. Has anyone had a similar situation and what’s their letter process? I can challenge this quite easily and if it went to Northampton would get to local court as I have kept all my correspondence and have a letter to say they cant pursue however just want to get prepared and who knows maybe have a little fun.Berty
  10. Actually s61 says the word contained for the PTs and that the T&Cs must be embodied The words contained and embodied are clarified in Goodes Consumer Credit Law and Practice volume 2, 2B 5.121 and I have used this twice to win my own personal case admitidly prior to Carey but I would still be confident of this as a legal argument along with Hustanger and Wilson v FCT Admittedly this was a county court case but this worth quoting IN the Leeds County Court Mitchell V RBS Judge Langan said In my judgment, the point with which I have just been dealing is not properly to be characterised as a new point on which the bank can present itself as being taken by surprise. I refer to four documents. First, on 3rd November 2008, when the defendant was acting as a litigant in person, in the request to have the default judgment set aside he said this: 'As the court is aware, in the absence of all the prescribed terms being embodied, it will render a document unenforceable in court. These terms must be contained within the agreement, and not in a separate document headed 'Terms and Conditions', or words to that effect' PS: PT provided me with the Goode reference and guidance when I was in court with 1st Credit & Marlin ...long time ago I know but I am sure still relevant.
  11. Just going back to the SAR question if they are not able to provide a copy of the original doc or its too much " disproportionate" effort ( aren't they all!) they can provide the raw data This is what they use to get out of providing it. This is DPA 1998 s 8(2)
  12. Just a quick point if you are going to send them a prove it letter ( I personally wouldn't ) what ever you do don't send a s.78 request with a cheque for the £1 as this could be put on file as a payment and start the clock ticking again, its a common DCA trick.
  13. Jameson:- one of the SAR loopholes is they can just provide the raw data rather than the copies of letters if these are not on file or easily obtainable Its in section 7 of the DPA and this is from section 8
  14. You know 127(3) backed up by Wilson v Hurstanger and Wilson V FCT is a very strong legal argument and if presented correctly should be a robust defence against any enforcement without a signed agreement. Part of the issue is how to present a strong legal argument as relying on the Wakesman judgement as an argument in your favour is always going to be hard work.
  15. Bit late now I know but did you present 127(3) backed up by Wilson v Hurstanger and Wilson v FCT which is from a higher court?
  16. I know...I was searching for other info and this post showed which at the time looked like it was a new one and spookily I was using that stuff so posted it up before I realised how old it was.... B
  17. Try this amended one....don't forget this letter is a spanner in the works and if the debt is not statute barred they can chase all they wan't however as you have proved it would be unwise to take you to court...however what its says is you wont lay down and take it , you have already stopped court action and know enough to be a problem to them in the future. This also asks them to deal with it as a complaint under their complaints procedure so they are now working to a time line and believe me they will just send it back to littlewoods, who will probably repeat the process a few more times.
  18. Alan This is quite common as the accounts get passed around Try this letter which has worked for me in the past
  19. 127(3) is a defence against enforcement brought by them against you through the courts so in a way they are right because you are not challenging the enforceability through the court, and as we know following Carey they can provide a reconstituted agreement for a s78 request so the only time this is relevant is if they litigate against you. Up until that point they can chase, send the usual plethora of threats you can refuse payment but its still stalemate.
  20. Is this still relevant after the recent judgements showing that they can still chase even when they can't enforce?
  21. Alan.. that's great news, You need to write to them now and acknowledge their reply and request they remove your data from their system as any would be in breach of principal one of the Data Protection Act plus ask them to remove any adverse information from credit reference agencies who they may have reported information too. Ask them to confirm within 14 days that this has been adhered to and any failure to do so could result in legal action and a report to the Information Commissioners Office ( ICO). Berty
  22. Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1569) Quote: 1 Citation, commencement and interpretation (1) These Regulations may be cited as the Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 and shall come into operation on 19th May 1985. (2) In these Regulations, "the Act" means the Consumer Credit Act 1974. UK Parliament SIs 1980-1989/1983/1551-1600/Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1569)/2 Prescribed period 2 Prescribed period The period of 12 working days is hereby prescribed for the purposes of each provision of the Act specified in Column 1 of the Schedule to these Regulations relating to the duty indicated in Column 2 in relation to regulated agreements. UK Parliament SIs 1980-1989/1983/1551-1600/Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1569)/SCHEDULE Sections of the Act in respect of which a period of 12 working days is prescribed relating to duties in relation to regulated agreements SCHEDULE SECTIONS OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF WHICH A PERIOD OF 12 WORKING DAYS IS PRESCRIBED RELATING TO DUTIES IN RELATION TO REGULATED AGREEMENTS Regulation 2 Section of theAct Duty (1) (2) 77(1) Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement. 78(1) Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement. 79(1) Duty to give information to hirer under consumer hire agreement. 103(1) Duty to give debtor or hirer under a regulated agreement termination statement or serve counter-notice. 107(1) Duty to give information to surety under fixed-sum credit agreement. 108(1) Duty to give information to surety under running-account credit agreement. 109(1) Duty to give information to surety under consumer hire agreement. 110(1) Duty to give debtor or hirer copy of any security instrument executed in
  23. Don't worry Carters now know you are defending and odds are they will back off..so just a case of wait and see.
×
×
  • Create New...