Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by payback68

  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.
  16. Some valuable information here for you beyondgrey :- Valid reasons to have your judgements 'set aside' (to be used on n244 form) Introduction To have your judgement set aside you will need to put forward a reason why. You must keep your reason as clear and simple as possible. We have listed quite a few valid reasons below. Were you given 28 days notice in order to pay? Were you living at the address when the summons and judgement took place? If you took out a loan or any form of credit were you in receipt of the Default Notice before receiving the summons. Did you receive the summons? They are not sent by recorded mail. Maybe you were unable to attend court and defend yourself. The judgement should not appear on the credit files if it was paid up within 28 days. If you agreed to settle 'out of court' with the plaintiff you should not have received a Judgement. If you did not receive any notification of the judgement/s made against you, then you can appeal. Did you agree with the full amount of the judgement at the time, but now only agree with part of the amount? Was the summons taken out against both yourself and another person jointly. If this is so, did you both receive your summons? It could have been that you were away from the time between the issue of the summons and entry of the judgement? Did you receive the summons on time for you to apply to the court. You have 21 days to reply to the court. If the summons was 21 days late then the judgement would have already been taken out against you? Did somebody use your name or address to obtain credit, which resulted in a County Court judgement without you knowing? Lastly... You can use any of the above reasons to have your judgements set aside. Remember that no correspondence sent by the courts or the plaintiff is ever recorded. In the majority of cases County Court Judgements fail to comply with every detail. This gives you the chance of having your judgement/s removed forever. Regards PB68. back
  17. Hi Guys, Many thanks for your comments. Thats a very good point BB39 as i am sick of informing them of their breaches when it's their job and they should be educated in the Guidelines etc. They have also stated/insinuated in their letter that i should write directly to them for the agreement as apparently they have it. If so why didn't they send it when i asked IJ for it as they must have informed the OC why they were bailing out. Besides this if they think i am going to send a £1 postal order a third time they can foxtrot oscar. BD not sure what you mean by " what do i know what they have missed". Thanks again for the advice Regards PB68.
  18. Hi all, i have a question, I have an account with RBS ( credit card) which goes back 10 years. Back in 2008 i sent the usual CCA request to Idiots & Jokers for compliance, they returned the postal order and the account back to RBS, the account entered into a dispute status shortly after. RBS then even though the account was disputed involved Mr Watson at AIC whom threatened legal action and placing a charging order on my property if i didnt pay the outstanding balance ( i have the letter to prove). I got shut of him with a simple letter and he passed the account back to RBS. They then instructed Apex to harrass me for the money owed. Apex had no alternative but to pass the account back to RBS also as i made a formal complaint to the OFT, which i made them aware of. Heard nothing since January 2009, however i found a carrier bag full of old statements ( gold dust). The account included PPI. Anyway i have written to RBS listing my grievances and asking them for a full explanation of their actions as the mis-sold PPI would have covered the payments on the account. They sent an arrogant letter stating that regardless the account having PPI on it they will still chase me for the balance owed. My question is have AIC & Apex violated and CPUTR Guidelines and if so which ones, also i would assume they have flaunted the OFT DCG aswell by insinuating they can take action when they obviously can't. I am in the middle of writing a detailed letter to RBS before i log a complaint with FOS as i have no intention of playing letter ping pong with them, so therefore i need as much information as possible which i can quote as they have stated that they do not depict AIC's & Apex's involvement as breaching any harassment laws, which i disagree with. Thanks in advance. Regards PB68.
  19. Hi Folks. Well this situation is becoming beyond a joke! FOS have all the information about the various companies involved which amounts to about 20 2 page letters i have written as well as copies of all correspondence the various DCA's have sent me. Newman's have come out of the woodwork and basically sent me two identical letters stating "Change of Ownership" of this debt, apparently Transcom now manage the debt but Arrow still own it, god this is getting more ridiculous by the day. They have also showed their severly diminished prowess and under educated office staffs capabilities by placing my D.O.B in the middle of my postcode!. It's like dealing with pre-school infants. One letter has no details whatsoever on it i.e Account number etc. (template) but the other has the Account number. They will be forwarded to FOS first thing Tuesday to be added to my dispute. Will update the thread hopefully within the next 3 weeks as thats what FOS have told me regarding their adjudicators decision. Regards PB68.
  20. Ghost i said RUNS a legitimate business, that means employees, besides this i was questioning your views of SB Accounts, nothing more nothing less!. Let me enlighten you and be blunt, so to speak: Under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 "an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued". Furthermore, The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that "continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970". Lets just agree to disagree shall we!. Regards PB68.
  21. Hi theghost, You have made some valid points however, i disagree with your statement, you may find it beneficial to read the following link which explains "The Limitation Act 1980" in detail and also refers to the OFT and their guidelines. http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=25_liability_for_debts_and_the_limitation_act Also having dealt with many DCA's and still dealing with them, i must admit i have never dealt with one who actually runs a "Legitimate Business". Just my personal opinion. Regards PB68.
  22. Hi Folks, Received a letter from Arrow after sending the amended letter to them that dx kindly posted by Elsa and they seem to have changed their tune slightly. Although they do state that they are not prepared to supply any paperwork whatsoever via correspondence and although they admit the debt is unenforceable the OFT guidelines allows them to still pursue me for the amount owed. They have also stated that they are aware of me making continued payments on the account to this day. What planet are they on? i cancelled all payments months ago!. First Direct will not comply whatsoever and keep on stating " we require a specimen signature" and return my letters. I will update the thread when i have more info as finally i have all the evidence and have resubmitted the complaint to FOS. Regards PB68.
  23. Hi folks just a quick update here. FOS do not deem Arrows response to my complaint is adequate and they have written to them on my behalf, they have 3 weeks to comply. First Direct annoyed me with their letter attempting to give me advice about setting up a payment plan with Arrow, so i basically replied to them stating my grievances and asked them to explain why they closed ranks on me and terminated every agreement i had with them and binned the PPI on the Loan. I also stated that their actions contributed to my illness back in 2000 and furthermore i have worked out from Bank Statements that within a 2 year period they charged me ( unfairly) £1168. They replied today and basically stated " regrettably we can't reply to your letter as it wasn't signed and we require a sample signature". they can Foxtrot Oscar. My reply to their letter will be, SEND YOUR FINAL RESPONSE! and i will be seeking Legal redress if need be via the courts for your total incompetence and the way you have conducted yourselves when my accounts were active. Will update the thread when i have more info guys:wink: Regards PB68.
  24. The point i am making is the fact overdrafts are covered by CCA1974. The exemption which was 74 (1) (b) was revoked on February 1st 1990, so the numerous DCA's who are using this as an exemption need to think again. Baz if you read the Coutts v Sebestyen link that nicklea has posted s17-22 it explains it all there. Regards PB68.
  • Create New...