Jump to content

seriously fed up

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,344
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

seriously fed up last won the day on September 8 2012

seriously fed up had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,107 Excellent

About seriously fed up

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder
  1. I would just ignore them. All of mine have been extinguished for more than a year now - indeed they dont even appear on my credit file any more - but one or two stagger in every so when. They are under a statutory obligation to do this if they hope to collect the debt, but on the other hand that they do this wont change the fact that they have no means of enforcement any longer. Consider it junk mail in this situation?
  2. Hope someone can advise me here, as Retail isnt something I know much about. Recently I did some sums and as we take BT Sports, and they let you pay your line rental a year in advance with a discount, I reckoned that as BT Sports would be free with their Broadband I would be cheaper terminating Sky Talk and Broadband by about £5.00 or so a month, and as well as that I would have more Broadband width (about 50% more). This morning I got a letter from Sky telling me that as I had backed out of an 18 month contract for their Broadband within the minimum term of 18 months I was due to pay them £54.00 to cover their loss. My problem initially was that for the life of me I couldnt remember signing up for a minimum 18 month deal other than when I went to Sky, which was ages ago now. A bit of research online however pointed me in the right direction. In August last year any time I was watching Sky Sports (which we take) there was a nag on the screen to "activate Sky Sports 5" by pressing the red button - at the same time you agree to take their Broadband for 18 months. But no sig., no sign of any t&cs (other than 18 months - I THINK this was mentioned) The only indication of my agreement was pressing the red button. Can they do this? The other thing I might mention is that I am so ****ed off with Sky that I might just terminate TV as well. This would probably mean going back to Virgin, who are about as bad. BT TV is crap unless you are into stuff like Netflix. I might just try telling them that I am off unless they cancel the demand for the fifty quid. Any thoughts?
  3. At some point your lender will have registered a default. As long as you dont "acknowledge" the debt for either five years (in Scotland) or six years (in England) from the date of the default then the debt is said to be statute barred. What constitutes acknowledgement is the issue, and that concerns whether you have paid them anything since the date of default. If you have made a section 77/8 request you would pay £1.00. They will sometimes try to make out that this is you acknowledging which is the last thing it is. There is also a charge for getting your records under DPA (£10). You need to watch that - but neither would be an acknowledgement of the debt. They will still chase the debt up - either them or the bunch of goons they have set on you. But that has nothing to do at all with acknowledging the debt. As ajs has found, this is sometimes more likely nearer the point statute barred kicks in. That is about it, as far as I know. There is a letter in the Library if you get a demand for payment of a statute barred debt. Different ones for Scotland and England. Hope that helps.
  4. when you say statute barred, what do you mean ajs? Do you mean six years (if you are in England), or five years (if you are in Scotland)? Mine passed the latter last year, and will be past the former in no more than four months. Not heard a squeak from them recently, but then I still have the request for the original Egg agreement out with them, so no much they can do if all they have is the Barclaycard agreement which wasnt much use since Egg had taken the card from me by then.
  5. really well done . Obviously, despite what they always claim, these people really dont know their humerus from their posterior
  6. I got one which was headed Barclays, but I wrote back telling them there was no signature and I had no such agreement with Barclays. Or is it the original Egg agreement?
  7. Yes I got that one as well just the other day. The first thing I did when they notified they had taken the account on from B'card and Egg before that, was to advise them that I had never signed an agreement with B'card (which I never did) and didnt recognise the account number as one I had used (which I hadnt since Egg had cancelled the card a year or two before), and asked them to provide evidence of this. I sent this letter on 1st March and had heard nothing since. There is a legal obligation on them to provide an annual statement, and this is it. I have written back to them, enclosing a copy of my 1st March letter, advising them that in the absence of any response from them, my situation remains as before (ie I am disputing their evidence that I owe them anything). . I dont know if you have gone down that sort of route, but if not I would be inclined to ignore this letter
  8. Hi Delilasahb - this sounds a bit like the molehill sketch - Monty P? - you know the one where the guy batters down one molehill with a big hammer and another one pops up behind him, so he knocks that down and another one comes up beside him. One thing that occurs to do, is get hold of a copy of your credit file (there are three of them - equifax, experian and call credit). You can get the basic report for very little - couple of pounds - ordering via their website. Thing to watch out for here ('cause I fell for it) is that they will try to register you with an ongoing service where you can check your credit score etc when you want, and they will notify you when someone makes a search of your credit history or something changes etc. This costs about £10 a month and isnt really worth it imo. BUT they do make it harder for you just to get your credit history. The other annoying thing is that not all lenders use the same credit ref agencies - I found the most comprehensive one for me (ie it might be different for you) was call credit. Once you have a copy of this, check to see when the account was defaulted. Assuming that date is more than five years ago, and that your do hear from their sols again (and lets not forget they have said you will be hearing from a solicitor, which doesnt mean they are taking you to court - some solicitors chase up debts using means other than court), then I would send them a copy of your credit report showing the default date, and suggesting that should they move the case to court you will argue that its then up to them - using your payment records - to show that you have acknowledged the debt since then. Other thing to remember is that statute barred in England is six years and I wouldnt be too sure how many folk in Cabot will be aware of that. Their solicitors might just send it back to Cabot and tell them to forget it.
  9. Looks to me as if there are two things here I assume you are in the situation that I was in - you signed up for a Chargecard which you used for some time, and then (2003?) they sent you a Mastercard with nothing to sign for it. Santander v Mayhew simply formalises that this was madness on their part, with a total failure to recognise the requirements of the CCA and what the consequences would be. However, this all only makes the account not enforceable by a court - it doesnt make it go away. But, if they know you are well aware of its unenforceability and that they can huff and puff as much as they want, wouldnt you think they would go bully someone else who might not be quite as well informed as you are? They will try for a bit though the threat of an agent calling on you. Easiest way of dealing with this is to send them a letter telling them not to bother, pointing to law of trespass etc. Not sure that they are saying that the alternative agency would be unregistered - just another one along to harass you on something that they wont be able to collect on. If you havent already done it, I would follow fletch70's advice
  10. I would wait and see what happens next. There are many worse things that can happen to you besides the removal of a default from your record. I would wait and see what happens next. Hopefully nothing. If it does start up again (and this thread has been quiet for nearly 18 months now) then you know what to do - show us the goods. If they are going to press on you wont have long to wait, but removing the default and setting a DCA on you does seem a bit contradictory.
  11. While I tend to agree with the advice about wasps nests and sticks, I think we need to be clear here that what I think AJS would be doing is to dispute whether or not the debt is enforceable - do they have the paperwork to allow the court to make an enforcement order? Its perfectly possible - though not guaranteed - that AJS could show that the charges made by Egg were excessive and thus unlawful, and, in the event that the current owner of the debt sought enforcement of the debt that AJS could successfully dispute the enforceability of their paperwork - particularly if they are unable to produce a signed agreement that satisfies s61.
  12. I suspect what they will get from Barclays is a standard set of T&Cs - which I never got btw (just the "hello letter" with some Q&As, but no T&Cs) and they will say "this is your lot". At that point it will be necessary to write back to them to say "no this isnt the original agreement" - perhaps quoting Carey at them. This will require them to go back to Egg (possibly via Barclays), and I wouldnt be too sure how much of anything they will get there. As you say, they may even struggle to prove the last payment data so if someone asserts that its statute barred - with some evidence of this (eg Egg would only take payment by d/d remember so bank statements would suffice for this, I think) - then it really puts them on the rack.
  13. let us know when this arrives - give us an idea of how cooperative Barclays are being in all of this.
  14. that, as I recall is true as well, since failing to show that "approved limit" doesnt meet the requirements of stating a credit limit isnt the same thing (as Marlin would have to do) as showing that it does (that's the law for you! ) On the other hand, the language I recall being used in the judgement was that it was obvious in ordinary language that approved limit was the same as credit limit. So .................. One thing that occurred to me is that while I am sure Barclays bought these accounts at a discount (and I am no less sure that Marlin bought them at an even deeper discount) why did Barclays never bring any actions? Why did the whole thing die a death for at least two years? Why did Barclays not take any action? If you are right and Marlin are chancers (and I mean this in relation to the normal level of chanciness typical of DCAs) then that is what they will be doing - taking a chance that respondents wont defend, but with no certainty of success (if there was a reasonable certainty would Barclays not have chased this) and they can make enough out of it that way. Another thing to remember is the requirement in Carey that a lender, when faced with a s77 request, should provide not just the current agreement (which I would guess they would say is the Barclay's one, though for anyone like me who was terminated by Egg and never got a Barclays card I am not sure of the status of that as an agreement - agreement for what?) but also the orginal - the very first - one. That is going to mean going back to Egg. Now the advantage that Waksman gave them in Carey is that they can produce a reconstruction of even the Egg agreement, but it should include the Egg account number and I expect (hope?) that they could well have problems with getting that. If Barclay's dont have it then I think they will struggle getting that information out of what remains of Egg.
  15. Just one thing about the case round "approved limit" that was, I think, heard at Cardiff (High Court?). You are right that it was indeed lost, but - and I cant remember why - the outcome was never published so it would become a precedent in a lower court. Therefore, if someone raises the same issues then Marlin would have to start again and hope to succeed - and more importantly the same issues could be raised. Now Marlin may well issue claims, relying on the Judge Lottery - I have little experience of them to date (so far, other than the letter and a couple of phone calls) - but I would agree as a matter of policy in dealing with people like this that its always better to err on the side of caution and I for one wont be poking any bees' nests either.
×
×
  • Create New...