Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


89 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. Totally agree! having been a member of CAG for so long and reading so many threads i think the majority of people have valid complaints against DCA's. It baffles me as to why they don't follow through with a legitimate complaint to the OFT as it's only a simple email listing grievances and signing a consent form. The more people complain, the more we will see anouncements like this. Regards PB68.
  2. Looks like the OFT are finally growing some teeth. http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2011/98-11 PB68.
  3. Yes you are correct, they now deem the account to be no longer " in dispute", however, i tend to disagree. SI 1983/1557 (180) explains explicitly what "copy documents" should contain and various proviso's!. It also basically insinuates that a copy of an application form is not acceptable as opposed to the "true copy" of the agreement in my opinion. I have a letter already compiled and i will send it if need be. Thanks for your continued input Regards PB68.
  4. Hi all, update for you m2ae. Good old RBS's CCA department have sent me a letter informing me that the enclosed paperwork fulfils their obligations under s78 of CCA1974. They have just sent me another copy of the original application form, and on another piece of paper entitled "reverse side of agreement" they have their T&C's!. On the top of the paper labelled " T&C's" is written in ink "reverse side copy of application form" they have also sent a copy of their current T&C's. Are these people being blatantly dumb or are they just relying on the probability that the debtor isn't clued up on CCA1974. To be honest their reply isn't worth a response as i will be submitting the PPI claim within the next week or so. Also it looks like they are trying to sweep the CPUTR letter under the carpet as there has been no mention of that request i made, which given the facts now speaks volumes to me. Regards PB68.
  5. i would never instigate legal action being the claimant especially after reading some of the judicial rulings and other experiences of CAG members. Regards PB68.
  6. I insinuated in my letter that possible legal action was an option for me as opposed to involving FOS, basically to see what kind of response i would get as in my opinion with the evidence i have regarding them involving 2 DCA's on a disputed account and the account included PPI was in my favour after speaking to FOS in detail about them!. The thing that really gets my goat is that even though they know they're in the wrong they still try and defend their actions and their acting DCA's also. Unfortunately for them i will have the last laugh when i submit my PPI claim as in my opinion i am owed 9 years of payments which should cover the outstanding debt easily and their PPI department (UK Insurance LTD) which is part of RBS have already stated the claim will be back dated, so in effect they will be paying my debt for me or do they think i should pay the Insurers and the outstanding balance too?. Regards PB68.
  7. Oh and thanks for supplying them links m2ae, i have already subbed to the " recon" one as i subscribe to most of P1's threads. Both threads make interesting reading. Regards PB68.
  8. Hi, sorry for the late reply, i basically sent them a snotty letter when i found out the Account had PPI and also threatened possible legal action as the debt should have been paid years ago. They replied asking me to submit another s78 request and they would send the Agreement, that was when i sent P1's CPUTR letter!. Anyway i have an update which arrived today and in summary they state that the debt collectors (I.J, AIC, APEX) all acted in a lawful manner, they were correct in stating that the request should have been made to the OC as the DCA's do not hold any information regarding Agreements!. They have also stated that under the circumstances they do not declare the Account being " in dispute" any longer and sent a copy of the original Application Form dated 1996. They are also under the circumstances prepared to satisfy my s78 request free of charge this time and have forwarded all details to their appropriate department. So in summary it looks like they have ignored the CPUTR letter but will possibly supply a recon to satisfy the s78 request!. They have also stated that they want me to contact their insolvency and client support team to arrange payment ( they have more chance of knitting fog than me phoning them). Nothing mentioned whatsoever about the fact i am submitting a PPI claim which should pay the lot off. Regards, PB68.
  9. Well m2ae it seems you and others were correct, heard absolutely zip from RBS regarding the CPUTR letter i sent which speaks volumes to me!. Looks like they were going to supply a "Recon Agreement" to satisfy my s78 request for the actual Agreement. However their PPI Department have been in touch twice regarding me claiming on the PPI to cover the outstanding debt, they seem very keen for me to submit my claim form which i will do once i have the relevant information. Regards PB68.
  10. Well guys had a response today from FOS!. HSBC are prepared to offer me a refund of the PPI premiums of £370.21 as full and final settlement to this dispute, which includes interest also. FOS are not prepared to consider any form of action against the several DCA's involved as they have no regulatory or supervisory powers over them, so it looks like this shower will get away with all the pathetic letters they have sent me proving their inadaquescies. I have to let them know wether i am prepared to accept this offer within 14 days otherwise they will close the file!. Not quite sure what to do here really as in my opinion alls they are offering is what they rightfully owe me anyway. Could do with a few opinions on this, fellow caggers. Regards PB68.
  11. RoyalIrish follow the following link and click the PDF file under " Dealing with debt" click "in Debt dealing with your creditors, it gives you various options there. http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/guidanceleaflets/Guides.htm Regards PB68.
  12. I think Brigadier means the onus is on the claimant to provide proof of any violations. Regards PB68.
  13. Excellent advice m2ae, i have sorted the letter and its ready to send, so we will see what they come back with if anything. Its good that we have people like yourself and others giving advice on CAG, especially given the fact you are experts in your own fields!. Watch this space guys and we will see what transpires, i will keep you informed. Regards PB68. P.S i have nudged your star m2ae.
  14. Hi folks, Just a quick update although nothing of great importance!. FOS's Adjudicator called me wanting to discuss the matter further regarding my complaint and stated that he wouldn't be surprised if First Direct/HSBC supplied a letter detailing the limitation act as the debt is so old, however they haven't supplied one as yet. I stated that the account was only sold last year because i kicked up a fuss and the limitation act states that they should have details of the debt for a period of six years after the account was closed with them. Anyway he said he will discuss this further with one of his colleagues. He also gave me his direct line number if i need to contact him. I also stated that this is a typical ploy by the bank i.e you have an account with them, possibly a loan and credit card too, then when you lose your job through redundancy or ill health they merge every account you have into your current account thus giving you an unauthorised overdraft which is subject to interest charges and fee's, then they instruct their in-house DCA (FV-1/Metropolitan Collections) to demand payment and claim Part v exemption. Will update the thread when i have more info . Regards PB68.
  15. So Brigadier and BD you think they are phishing for info? this could be true as i have written proof of their violations, however they aint getting any info from me as to what info i have. I stipulated in my letter of complaint that the evidence i have speaks for itself, maybe this is why they want to know!. m2ae many thanks for your advice, if i do send the CPUTR (ammended) letter that P1 supplied do they have to comply by sending the Agreement or do they just have to acknowledge they have the original?. I am not really bothered about this dispute as in my opinion it's in my favour although it grips my s*it when they know there is PPI included and they aren't bothered about the fact the debt should have been settled years ago. Thanks guys your input is always appreciated!. Regards PB68.
  • Create New...