Jump to content

scrambledbyegg

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About scrambledbyegg

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Yeah I've had the "what have we done wrong" one too, a classic! Since I've rejected the original debtors response I probably do need to point that out to Robinson Way. As to pointing out the OFT to them, I just think that these tactics need challenging at every turn until DCAs and Debtors stop. I know (thanks to this forum) of these underhand tactics, but this may trick other people into ringing them where they can try and exert pressure. My whole mess now started when I was defaulted within the timescales and scared into repaying more than I could afford (3 times the original repa
  2. Received this the other day from Robinson Way, the account is in dispute with the original creditor. Looks like they are trying to say there may be identity fraud on the account to get me to ring them regarding the account. What kind of activity could it possibly be? Somebody fraudulently repaying the disputed account off! I'm going to write back mentioning the OFT ruling about miss leading tactics. r_w_10_12_10_ed.pdf
  3. CHeers for the input I'll remove the stuff about the CRA. I thought Egg couldn't sell a disputed account? It wasn't just the validity of the agreement, under a DPA request I found that they passed the account to a DCA before the default notice was up, it even shows me phoning them and them stating that it had been defaulted. At the time I didn't understand it all and it was only later thanks to this site that I followed it up. When AK first got in contact I asked them for an NOA, the rep on the phone refused and stated that I had no right to see one. I'll limit the letter to this, v
  4. I am proposing to send the following for now. One point I don't make is their cover letter has a different agreement number, think I'll save that for now. I am in receipt of your letter dated xx November 2010. On the xx of May 2010 I wrote to you stating that the account was in dispute and that Egg had failed to respond to a CCA request dating back 2008. Rather than taking the appropriate action and returning the account to Egg for resolution, you took it upon yourselves to full fill the now grossly overdue request. Despite knowingly being in dispute of my CCA request, in Octo
  5. Its lokk like they have been busy I got the same too a day later. Few things, I beleive these Egg Agreements are unenforceable, mine had miss-sold PPI and the terms were not split so it is a multiple agreement. I too had paid CQ off bit and the figure AK are quoting is about a grand higher than the level at the last payment (which I have from a previous DPA request). My account was also in dispute with Egg which they never followed up for a good few years before I heard from these jokers. Also I have documents to show that before the default period was up Egg had already assigned a DCA to
  6. Well Mint responded with my claim that the agreement was unenforceable since it contained sums for fixed use and some for free use, ie. lump sum premium for PPI (miss-sold in my opinion) and the loan. mint_MA1_red.pdf mint_MA2_red.pdf
  7. Well Mint/RBS rejected my miss-sold PPI claim today despite admitting that is was a single premium policy and that they had no record of my pre-existing medical condition not had they asked about. It was my fault for not reading the terms and conditions! They also rejected any notion that their staff would imply that the loan had more chance of being accepted if I took the PPI. On to the FSA I guess.
  8. All good points, and a lot to think about. Just to be clear, its not just a case of me being awkward, I am self employed and owe the HMRC back taxes, so I may disposable income is dependent upon payment agreements with HMRC, this info I consider to be none of Ardens business. This DCA troubles me a lot, they also are trying to levy 6% interest, but I can find no reference to that in the original text, which is another reason to challenge the agreement I guess. I may just fill out some arbitrary numbers and send it off, obviously with the conclusion that 150 is too much. On a lighter no
  9. The thing is the offer is for £150 which is the same I pay for a similar debt with another account, so I think its reasonable. The issue I have with sending a breakdown is I am currently contesting some alleged debts, so if I put down no repayments for them and I end up paying then the info will be invalid, however, I don't want to put down what repayments may be as it may be construed as accepting liability for the ones I am contesting. I will write back again with the offer and inform them that I am going to complain to the RFT as I believe they are trying to be misleading w.r.t. DPA. Wha
  10. Here is the letter in question, its very subtle wording, it seems to only imply a right to demand information, all so interesting to note that they say they were being paid, not Mint, are arden part of Mint? They fail to mention that the alleged contract would appear to be a multiple multiple agreement since it includes PPI.arden_ed.pdf
  11. Arden on behalf of Mint have been pestering to agree repayments for a multiple agreement loan. I have made several "without prejudice" offers which they refuse to accept unless I provide them with details of my income and out goings. I have refused to do this and told them so on several occasions. They have now sent a letter stating that I must comply since they have a right to demand such information under the data protection act! Is this true?
  12. The second offer cam today with "contractual" interest, which is about 45% of what I believe 8% would be (the loan was 2001). I had intended to stick this one out and try for the full, but the car I just bought turned out to be a dog, so better to take the money and get a decent motor since getting to work depends upon it. I am torn between saying well done Egg (for being so quick and easy) or suspicious for them being so. I'll post on the PPI successes when the cash actually arrives, seeing is always believing with the finance industry!
  13. Quick Update I sent the form off with "only in relation to load xxx" written on it and have been patiently waiting for my account to be credited. The past few days I have had to reminders from Egg asking me to return the acceptance form (little keen perhaps) so I called up to ask if they had received it since it has been nearly two weeks. They said they had, noting it was for one loan only and that they had also sent out an offer for the first loan! That is very efficient since I hadn't even mentioned it to them yet! I am waiting for their letter so don't know what the offer is yet. M
  14. Having read about multiple agreements, does anyone agree with me that this is and therefore not enforceable?mint1.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...