Jump to content

jonni2bad

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    8,544
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by jonni2bad

  1. This topic was closed on 11 March 2019.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  2. This topic was closed on 10 March 2019.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  3. This topic was closed on 08 March 2019.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  4. This topic was closed on 2019-03-08.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  5. This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  6. This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

    If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

    If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

    - Consumer Action Group

  7. In 2006, two people got chatting over an archaic web 'bulletin board' and found that they both had a particular dislike of the banking system, and the way in which it imposed charges against the very people who were funding it.

     

    They decided that it might be time to plant a little acorn...

     

    I'm no longer a regular visitor to the site, so it was - in passing - my first view on membership levels for quite a while. I don't know when, precisely, it happened - but there are now more than 1/3 million registered members.

     

    That's one almighty effin oak tree.

     

    Just thought it was worth a mention - and hope it hasn't already been talked to death elsewhere...

  8. so in other words ......just ignore them?

     

    You can certainly choose not to talk to them on the phone and if you haven't already done so, make it clear to them, in writing, that you do not wish to discuss any aspect of the supposed debt with them on the phone.

     

    ...I don't want to do anything that comes back to haunt me later on, but this is certainly not damaging my credit record now as it is not on there...

     

    Have you requested details of your credit files from all THREE credit reference agencies? If not, then just because it doesn't show on one, it doesn't necessarily follow that it won't be showing on another. I would advise doing this sooner rather than later.

     

    What you need to establish is whether or not the debt they refer to is indeed yours - if it isn't then your actions must be very different to the situation where you are sure it is your debt.

     

    Presuming that this is a debt you recognise, your next steps will be to clarify that they have provided all the necessary documents relating to your CCA request and also to a full statement of account.

     

    In this manner, you will hopefully be able to identify if the agreement they have is valid in terms of the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act and if they have applied charges to your account which may be challenged by a separate process.

     

    I would advise you to draw up a plan of action and follow individual parts of that to establish your position.

     

    Purely for example purposes....

     

    A. Write to them demanding that they cease telephone calls

    B. Decide if they have provided the full details you requested - if not, write again and highlight their failings, demanding the items you need.

    C. Sift through the statements you have / they supply and mark all payments which have been added to your account (i.e. default / late fees etc etc)

    and so on...

     

    Give yourself a course of action to follow.

  9. For reference, here is a copy of the letter they sent out (this one being to me).

     

    I have seen others and the only difference is the specifics of the person involved - name and address, claim number and debt value etc.

     

    COPES.pdf

     

    My complaint to the SRA was based upon there being multiple examples of this letter, rather than specifically about my own letter, so hopefully it will act to highlight the true nature of Cope's tactics.

     

    As the great Jim Royle would say, "Admin error my ****"

  10. Hi - Some pointers for you from those in the know;

     

    Not producing the agreement and their arguments...

     

    If they wish to enforce the agreement then they should be able to provide it. It is unfair on the debtor for the court to merely accept it was signed and it was "ok" without seeing it. Also, there are the usual suspects such as data protection, money laundering and company laws.

     

    A sample of a recent Defence on this subject...

    In light of the absence of any evidence; I would like to remind your client of the legal requirements upon it to keep records, in particular on the part of the original creditor.

     

    For example according to sections 221 and 222 of the Companies Act 1985, a public company is required to maintain records for a period of six years (section 222(5)(b)). As a loan agreement is active until the agreement is terminated, I would suggest that all the payment records (and other documents making up the file - including the agreement/application etc) would be "live" until the account is paid, or terminated - thus, the full file should be retained for at least six years after the termination.

     

    This interpretation is repeated by Inland Revenue legislation that requires prime documents to be retained for a period of six years - AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. That would mean some files need to be retained for up to seven years. The relevant legislation is found in Schedule 18 of the Finance Act 1998 (paragraph 21) - of particular significance is sub-paragraph (6).

    Finally, key documents/application forms etc must be kept until 5 years after that business relationship has ended. This is a requirement of The Money Laundering Regulations 1993, 2003 and 2007.

     

    The Claimant suggests that the Rankine case has merit here - as a reason for not needing to supply the original credit agreement.

     

    Professor Goode rebuts that suggestion on the case commentary...

     

    The court's strident and blunt approach is to be welcomed. This includes the statement at paragraph 9 that the Consumer Credit Act was introduced to protect the individual unsophisticated in financial affairs in contracts with unscrupulous and sophisticated financial institutions. It was not designed to help individuals in the financial services business make money out of financial institutions through exploiting its undoubted technicalities. In the latter regard, the court did not hesitate to dismiss the Rankines' various arguments in a commensurate tone.

     

     

    However, with respect, it is submitted that Mr Justice Simon Brown QC was mistaken when he stated, at paragraph 16:

    'In the Tesco case, where they are seeking enforcement, section 78(6) of the Act does not have the effect contended for by the Rankines. First, the prohibition is against a creditor 'under an agreement'. The agreement was at an end. Therefore there is no reason why there cannot be enforcement. Secondly, the word 'enforce' is not descriptive of the commencement of proceedings. Bringing proceedings during a time when the agreement has been brought to an end is only a step taken with a view to enforcement. It is not actually enforcement.'

    The grounds for questioning the statement are the following:

     

    • (ii) The Agreements Regulations identify 'creditor' and 'debtor' with reference to their respective descriptions irrespective of the status of the agreement. In other words, the expressions are used to identify the relevant parties under, or to, the agreement.

    • (iii) The expression 'enforce an agreement' is utilised in the Act to mean to take steps to assert one's rights under the agreement, regardless of whether the agreement has come into force, is still extant or has been ended. Thus, section 65 of the Act uses the expression 'enforceable' when referring to whether an improperly executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor on an order of the court. Section 127 refers to enforcement orders in the case of infringement. Applying for an order under this section might amount to seeking enforcement of the agreement, as the heading to Part IX also suggests, namely: 'Enforcement of certain regulated agreements and securities'.

     

    Are there any exceptions to having to provide proof of Default Notice?

     

    NO - NOT ONE!

     

    Are there any exceptions to having to provide proof of Assignment and/or proof of delivery ?

     

    NO - they need to show the debt was assigned correctly, this would be the deed and the notice in tandem. See below

    2 -Perfection of the assignment.

     

    2.1. I have never received a notice of assignment according in all respects with s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

     

    2.2 I respectfully submit to the court that steps to ensure service of a notice of assignment are only adequate if the requirements of s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 are complied with regard to either (a) personal service or (b) postal service.

     

    2.3 Since the claimant explicitly states the notice was “sent” it is assumed that this was done via the postal service.

     

    The requirements for service via the post are

     

    Law Of Property Act (1925) s196

    .

    Regulations respecting notices.

     

    (4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

     

    Is the Claimant entitled to bring a case in this country?

     

    Does the firm named as the owner of the debt have an OFT licence? Worth checking

     

    See the lead story here HETHERINGTON: Daughter in tears over debt threat

  11. A brief history of events is as follows (at least I think it is!!!)

     

    Let me know if this is not correct...

    1. Debt assigned Oct 07

     

    2. Two separate claims issued c. March 2008

     

    3. Defendant had not sought help and made 'partial admission' in original defence (query - where is this?)

     

    4. Claimant wrote to Defendant advising that CCA not applicable

     

    5. Court set payment at £184 pcm - Defendant not able to afford and sought help - found CAG...

     

    6. Defendant applied for set aside on basis that Claimant misrepresented CCA and set aside granted. DJ told him privately to seek help with CCA law.

     

    7. Claimant has admitted that CCA agreements no longer exist for these accounts but stated

     

    "...However, Sections 77- 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states that should a true copy of the Agreement not be received within 12 days after the request then the Default cannot be enforced. This account is a terminated Agreement and therefore sections 77-79 are not relevant to this action."

     

    8. Amended defence filed July 2008

     

    9. No Default Notice or Assignment evidence provided - no proof of delivery provided.

     

    10. Claimant replied to amended Defence July 2008 - post 3

     

    However, Sections 77- 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states that should a true copy of the Agreement not be received within 12 days after the request then the Default cannot be enforced. This account is a terminated Agreement and therefore sections 77-79 are not relevant to this action.

     

    10. Midland Bank, now part of HSBC Bank pic, supplied the Defendant with

    two credit cards which he used to make purchases. He had the benefit of

    the credit and the purchases he made with the credit cards. Midland Bank

    and HSBC Bank plc would not have provided the credit cards without first

    executing credit agreements with the Defendant.

     

    The statements further confirm the Defendant's acceptance and affirmation of the terms of the credit agreements when he used the credit cards for his own benefit. The Claimant has therefore proved that the credit agreements were made and that credit was provided under them to the Defendant.

     

    11. As to paragraphs 16 to 18, the credit agreements to which this

    consolidated claim relates were opened on 13th February 1987 and 3rd

    November 1989 respectively. As both of these documents are over 20

    years old HSBC Bank plc no longer retains a copy of the original

    agreements as the standard retention period for documents is six years.

     

    11. Court Order March 2009 for stay - until 15 May 2009 - following submission of AQs

     

    12. Claimant refused face-to-face meeting and insisted on telephone calls - Defendant rejected.

     

    13. Claimant proposed Tomlin Order with reduced settlement figures - user rejected proposal

     

    14. January 2009 - Defendant wrote to Claimant offering without prejudice £1000 F+F with conditions attached

     

    15. Rejected

     

    16. Recent amended Tomlin Order proposed by Claimant rejected by Defendant.

×
×
  • Create New...