Hi Jon, My letter to BOS, before the referred it to Blairs, basically mirrors what you said in yours, I even included a copy of the corres from Experian in which Experian confirmed that BOS had told them the acct is NOT a current acct but a credit card. Also made ref to the t&cs I recd just before it went into dispute, clearly stating acct was regulated under The Act (which mysteriously they have never sent me a "copy" in any copy docs sent .. funny that ... !!) Also confirmed to them that all the correspondence recd from them fraudulently claiming the acct to be a simple bank account, if necessary, would be presented before any Court, police, FSA and press, etc - in a demonstration of BOS deliberately trying conceal my legal rights, and pointly avoid their legal responsibilities, which are mandatory requirements under The Act ..... I will send my last letter to them .. again ... following this most recent letter from BOS enclosing yet another (yawn) copy of the same bloody application form, which is fake anyway, as the one I remember signing looked nothing like this ............ from memory that is ..........!!

Little update.... After Blair Scott being told that the acct is in dispute, they must have referred it back to Bank of Scot - from whom I today recd a letter from with yet another copy of the same (dodgy) application form and old t&cs - neither making no ref to CCA74. BOS covering letter says "we herewith provide as requested a copy of the agreement, past and present t&cs, and statements" - well thats wrong as there were no current t&cs, or statements enclosed - however thats not the important bit ...... Wait for it ....... They (now) confirm in their letter that the account IS regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - well you could have knocked me down with a feather .... This is obviously after they know that their little [problem]'s been rumbled .. which is even better because the docs sent still make no reference to the CCA74 at all, the "agreement" sent certainly has no heading stating credit agreement regualted under The Act, or any notification of redress available under The Act ... Which I think they will find takes us right back to square one - the acct is regulated under The Act, but nothing they have provided shows any compliance to the requirements of The Act .... and there's letter after letter I have from them saying its a bank acct, which is NOT and has NEVER been regulated by The Act ........ !!!!! Oooh what fun we will have in front of a Judge .... !!!:cool:

Ok ... sound advice guys .... I shall wait and see what happens, and will keep you up to date with what transpires .... !! Abs xx

Thanks ... I see now ... I thought that before a default could be registered with DCAs, the creditor had to have sent you a formal default notice allowing you to remedy etc before the default is registered. Following your kind help, I shall let things lie for now, as BSO are happily receiving my payments, and I may yet get a default and termination notice in the post. I think I shall just leave things until any court proceedings rear the head, then I shall go for the SAR, and take things from there. Once again , thanks for your advices .... you're learning everyday here at club CAG .... !!! Abs xx

Hi all, AA Loan - already had CCA examined which seems to be in order. Been in payment plan with them for about 6 mths - paying Blair Scott direct - and have maintained this side of this no problem. In June, recd an "you're in arrears notice". Nothing since ... Until today, when I took a peek at my experian record, and they have defaulted me - which I expected as I obviously haven't maintained my original agreement. BUT - I have not, nor ever, recd a default notice from them in respect of this account - and just wondered where that leaves me. I genuinely haven't recd a default notice, but I suppose it could have gone astray in the post, although to be fair I do receive my mail without any problems. But (playing Devils advocate here ..) could AA say well we sent you the DN, you knew you were in arrears on your account so must have known and expected a default to be on its way, and we can't be responsible if you don't receive the default notice we send you via post. Just a heads up on this really, if or when, BSO decide they're fed up with the reduced monthly payments and decide to go for the full amount or CCJ via the Court route. Thanks guys .. Abs xxx

Ok .. time for a little update on this ... You will recall Mint had admiited no agreement held, and that they knew they had no legal redress to pursue .... then decided they shouldn't have let me know that, and tried to retract it saying the individual had gotten confused on what the situation of the accout was .... Well, as you might guess I sent a letter reiterating the legal position of the them having no agreement, unable to process data .. etc.. etc... you get the picture ... also said that the attempt of a customer service clerk try to distance themselves from the admission of a Senior Recoveries Office was both simply both embarrasing and quite ludicrious .... Anyway, happended to be checking my credit ref file for any new defaults .... and to see what Mint were doing ... when I realised I couldn't find them ... I logged off, and went back on twice .... still no Mint Account registration, who were definately listed on there ... and showing arrears etc due to the dispute ... I was so confused that I pulled up the copy I had saved of my report in May .. and yes there they were ....!!! Have bizarre, they simply haven't responded to my last letter which well and truely put then in the picture, and I haven't been told by them that they had written off the account or anything of that nature. Could this be a mistake by Experian that they have removed by mistake, or (hope against hope!!!) have Mint threw in the towel !!! Anyone else had anything like this happen ? (by the way I've only got this far due to the immense help of the wonderful caggers!!) Abs x

Sound advice Pinky .... thank you.... Will update here as and when and keep all in the loop... Abs xx:)

Thanks Pinky ... The last contact with BSO was to say that the matter is still with FOS awaiting an Ombudsman to have a look, at which they were happy to put the case on hold until FOS replied. So, I will let this loose on them when they next contact me ..... which I envisage to be any time ... !! Can I ask another Question (sorry!), because the default is bogus, do I stilll owe them or should I offer to pay the arrears (net of charges etc), which were about 7 months worth, at the time the default was issued/account terminated? And if so, shall I offer first up, or just wait for BSO to request this themselves? Sorry to be so dim, this is the first default challenge I've given, so its virgin ground for me and I just want to make sure that I get it right first go.... !! Thanks for your help .... Abs xx

Thanks Vint - I have included ref to this in my letter, after kind prompting from yourself and Pinky ... !! Do you think the letter is good enough to go out? Also, does it go to Blair Scott Oliver, IF or both ? As always .. thank you for your advice ! Abs x:)

Hi, Have amended the letter, thanks Pinky. In your opinion is it ok to go? Does it represent my case in a well informed way and give a good representation of me? Also, does this to go Blair, IF or Blair & IF ? Vint, a loan jar is IFs take on a loan account. IF use offsetting, and term the different accounts you may have such as a current, savings account etc as Jars - the term Jar really just means account. As far as I'm aware its a term perculiar to Intelligent Finance. Thanks guys Abs xx

Hi all, I have cobbled together a letter regarding the bogus default notice from IF. I have addressed it to Blairs, as the are the ones that have written to me and are chasing payment .... or do I send it to direct to IF, and just let Blairs know that I have done this and that they should refer back to IF ..? Could you let me know if I have inc everything I need to, if it makes sense etc?? Many thanks guys.. Abs xxx:) (letter removed due to amendments)

Hi there, Just had a quick look at your post .... Firstly you need to scan this and post up so that it can be checked it meets the CCA74 in respect of prescribed terms etc.... However, from what you have posted I am assuming that the Hill Credit Carre Gold is some sort of payment protection ins (PPI), which appears to be front loaded ... i.e added in one lump sum from outset. This could be your first area to challenge .. especially where PPI is front loaded to the loan its a real no-no.... Main areas of contention are ... if the PPI wasn't suitable to your requirements, health or personal situation i.e they sold the ins policy, without correctly assessing your suitability, or if it was made mandatory with the loan and wasn't disclosed to you at inception etc ... you get the idea .... I think theres also something about secret commissions relating to PPI .... which also can render the agreement void. However, the first thing to have verified is if the agreement provided meets all the prescribed terms, if it does, then alls not lost as the PPI area could be your fall back dispute area .... So .... the first thing to do is scan and post up the agreement (minus personal details), and then you can take it from there .... Theres lots and lots of help and advice here on CAG, and you can be sure that everyone will try and help you as much as possible ... Abs x

Hi, Just had a quick look at the agreement you posted up ... I'm not a CCA expert, but from my own experiences and advice recd, the previous reply you had could be a little bit off course. This is my understanding .... a properly executed agreement must have the prescribed terms within the 4 corners of the agreement, BUT the agreement does not have to be limited to one page, but can run to several ... HOWEVER, if it does, then there must be clear reference made to this, and a noted relationship between each page forming the executed agreement, with the prescribed terms being within the noted pages forming the agreement, with your signature clearly noted. (nb - absence of the sig of the lender is not enough to render unenforceable on its own). From what I have seen, it does look as though the prescribed terms are all there i.e loan amount, total interest applicable (APR), term of loan and amount of monthly payment ... BUT and a BIG BUT ..... it looks from what I read that you took loan protection (PPI) and that this was added at outset ...(i.e front loaded) This can be a major area to challenge .. especially where it is front loaded to the loan, main areas of contention are ... if the PPI wasn't suitable to your requirements, health or personal situation i.e they sold the ins policy, without correctly assessing your suitability, or if it was made mandatory with the loan and wasn't disclosed to you at inception etc ... you get the idea .... I think theres also something about secret commissions relating to PPI .... which also can render the agreement void. However, I'm no expert on the PPI situation, but I know there has been a recent court case where an 8k debt was wiped by the courts because of the impropr sale of PPI. Have a read back on the recent threads as I know someones posted on this.... and you will get loads of usefull info if you read though it. I would also pop up a post to have one of the experts give you advice on the PPI, and if this is an area you'll be able to challenge the agreement on ... could be worth a shot as theres a hell of a stink at the moment regarding the mis selling of PPI in connection with finance....and could get you the result you want .. Anyhoo, I'm sure others will be soon be along to help and advise ... theres lots of help on here if you ask ... Good luck ..... !!

Good luck CM09 ... sounds as though we're at the same point, and although its not over for me by any means, if I can be of any help feel free to ask ... but I will continue to update this thread to keep everyone informed ....

Ok, time for an update on this little gem ... To cut a long story short, and if you have subbed the thread, you will know that BOS sent a copy cca, which is disputed on its authenticity, is registered with CRAs as a credit card, with the copy (app)agreement sent having no reference to the CCA74, with them claiming the agreement had no requirement to mention The Act as its a simple current account with an overdraft facility... so I have no rights, and they do not have to adhere to any aspect of the CCA74 at all .. Unfortunately for them, I had updated T&Cs routinely sent to me just before this went into dispute, which was clearly headed that the acct was regulated under the CCA74, and had reference to this all over the T&Cs sent. However, now in dispute, they deny its regulated under The Act, and they have kept sending me "current" T&Cs, which funnily enough don't make any ref to the acct's regulation under The Act. Anyway ..... I've been harping on the correctly executed agreement arguement with them, and they keep saying, no it isn't a regulated product, its a bank account so you have no rights. When questioned over the registering of the account with CRAs as a credit card, BOS have said that CRAs have limited account catagories, so they decided to register it as a credit card as they felt it a more accurate description of the overdraft requiring a minimum monthly payment ... !!! (takes your breath away doesn't it !!!) Well .... I wasn't having that, so wrote to Experian and asked if a financial provider can register an "alleged" bank account as a credit card even though they catagorically say its a current account .... well to put it midely Experian flipped, and told me they were going to investigate this directly with HBOS for an explanation .... and wait for it ... HBOS replied to them, saying that the account description was correct (i.e credit card), and that this account is an old Bank of Scotland Preference Account, it is not a current account !! (yes I have this letter safely saved in my file ..!!). So a long letter went off to BOS advising them that it has been proven they have been lying regarding the nature of the account, and its regulation under The Act, in a deliberate and willfull attempt to avoid their responsibilites and prevent me from exercising my rights under The Act, etc .. etc.. I have advised them that should this proceed to court, then I have full documenary evidence of their fraudulent behaviour and that they shall be reported to all agencies inc Police and FSA - who no doubt will seek to punish them to the full extent of legal and regulatory powers. Anyway as you might guess, no reply to this .. suprised .. not !! But on 11 Sept Albion Collections sent me a little collection letter on behalf of BOS, to which I naturally sent the "bemused" letter - no reply from them. Then over the past week or so Blair Scott O have appeared on the scene, but they like to telephone ... obviously I have refused to confirm security, and asked that they communicate in writing, as I do not discuss my financial matters over the telephone. They actually rang me on 3 consecutive days, and have agreed to sent a letter each time. With one of the callers saying, "I shall note that you have refused to confirm security, and discuss the matter, insisting on a letter, which won't look good for you, but you will continue to receive calls and we won't stop until you disucss the matter". I advised her that this was harrassment under collection activies, and she said "well its not, so I'll ignore your comment". Laugh I nearly did ...!! The point is ... BOS after my last letter end of Aug, obviously now know that they have been well and truly rumbled, and that they themselves have been forced to come clean on the acct being a credit card when cornered by Experian and no where to go, and have been forced to admit in writing that the account IS CORRECTLY REGISTERED AS A CREDIT CARD, AND THAT NO IT IS NOT A CURRENT ACCOUNT. Which is in direct contradiction to all the letters and assertions they have made to me .....(and others on here), hence we're now on the merry go round of DCAs .... Any comments??

Hi I also have a defective DN on a loan which has been terminated, and a default registered. I am trying to format a letter advising that its been incorrectly terminated, but struggling to find a template letter for this to make sure that what I send is correct and make sense. Not to hijack threat, as I think this will help all ... but could anyone help point me to where one may be, or give me a couple of ideas on how to start off my letter.... ?? Once I get going I'll probably be ok, its just how to start the letter that I would like some guidance on.... when I've completed it I will post up on a thread, for others to share and use as a guide to help them too .... Thanks guys ... Abs xx

Hi Pinky, Advice taken ... does that mean that I don't offer anything at all period as the account was terminated incorrectly? Pinky, would it be ok if when I've drafted a letter, you would have a look at it for me, to make sure that I've covered everything and that its correct - as I don't really know a great deal about defaults what it means if they're incorrect etc ... although I've made sometime today to have a read throught the info you advised me to get to grips with. Many thanks again for your patience and help ... it is really appreciated.... Abs xxx:)

Thanks Pinky ... I will have a good read through all the info, with thanks to you & everone for your help with this. The situation with the agreement is that I have prev been told by others on site, that although in an unusual format, a judge would probably uphold if the chips were down. That being said, if invalid do I offer just to pay the noted arrears to Blair, rather than the whole amount outstanding, and ask them to a remove the default and satisfy the acct or how do you normally proceed in this situation?

Hi all, I have checked my registr, and the defaullt has a registeration date of 31 May 2009, but this was only added to my account details on 2 Aug 09. They sent the default letter whilst this account was waiting for a decision with FOS. FOS have issued a decision, which I have referred to the Ombudsman, as the adjuicator refused to investigate basic stuff saying she did not see any benefit, as i had had the money I should be a responsible borrower and pay, and not try and use technical arguements to try and evade my responsibilies. Anyhoo....regarding the JAR reference .. IF work on an offsetting basis, and they give each element of your account JAR names, i.e you can sname your individual accounts if for example you have a loan, credit card etc. Anyway, this is with a debt collector Blair Scott Oliver, who have contacted me for payment .... but have put on hold for 30 days after I advised it was still with FOS. I just wondered if the default notice was valid or not ... interestingly the account still shows as live (all be it in arrears), when I log into my IF online banking facility .... How do I approach this, if the default is bogus where does that leave me?Are there any template letters I can utilise to take matters up with them? Many thanks guys for all your advices and help ..... Abs xx

:idea:Hi guys, Any chance of someone having a quick look over the default IF have served on me, which by they way a default has already been registered with CRAs. Blair Scott are on the case, but there is still a complaint going on with FOS, it being referred up to an ombudsman ... so have stalled them... but wondered if there was any probs with the default they sent. The default came by PPI mailsort, not recorded delivery, and I have pdf'd the envelope which was recd 3 June 09. Thanks if default letter.pdf

I will scan the whole booty tomorrow - they have already admitted they know they can not pursue with no agreement, but I suppose they now think its worth a bit of ignoring the law, just in case I'm happy to go along with whatever they tell me .... They have stated that the fact I have not previously questioned or cancelled the account, shows I agreed to the terms and to repay monies borrowed. Cerbs & Sparts I always value your very excellent advice .. Abs xxxx

Hi Cerbs .... love the baba ..... he has some great moves !!!! Does that mean M have left themselves up sh** creak without a paddle or armbands?? Abs xx:D

Exactly .... here is a transcipt from their letter .... "We do not consider this account to be in dispute and your indebtedness on this acccount remains due and payable, and we will be pursuing for the full repayment. All non payments have been recorderd on your credit file as has the default due to non payment. We require repayment of the debt you owe us and we do not consider it necessry to meet your unreasonable request you have now made (don't know what request they refer to ? Presume copy of singed agreement). If you dispute our legal right to have the money you borrowed from us repaid, you are free to bring the matter to the attention of the courts". I thank you .... Abs x .

HI Update on this ... following a collection letter from Triton, wrote to them telling them no agreement provided, and in fact Mint have already admitted unable to pursue. Well today recd a letter from Mint, saying that their letter of xxxxxx, (i.e the one saying we know we can't pursue), was sent in error, apologise for any confusion, and say that the individual concerned has now been sent for retraining (author of the infamous letter was actually a senior recoveries officer), this latest letter is from a cust svc clerk - which makes it even more laughable .... That also say they have satisfied my S78 request in sending the info on xxxx, which was a library copy of alleged t&c from the time, and that they do not consider the acct in dispute. In fact they actually only admitted no agreement existed following my S31.16 request.... so their waffling about s78 is somewhat pointless....as I already know they have no agreement. Anyhoo, they go on to say we reject your assertions under S10 of the DPA, we can pursue you, and also process your data, as the agreement you signed gave us permission to do so. They stated that if I dispute I owe the money, they invite me to commence court proceedings ... and in the meantime suggest I contact Triton to arrange a repayment schedule ..... So the upshot is :- 1. No copy of executed agreement held 2. Letter subsequently recd from them saying "we know we can't pursue you" 3. Retraction of letter saying "we know we can't pursue you" 4. Threat of data recording, and debt colletion activities to commence 5. If you dispute our right to pursue you for outstanding moines, take us (Mint) to court Love anyones comments on this absolute shambles Mint have created, and are now trying to desperately back peddle out of it..... Abs xx

Quick q on this ... Why do some creditors make you go through external debt agencies when making an offer .... I made my repayment offer direct with with Egg and they said that they would accept it on this occassion, but normally they demand that you go via proper debt agencies for a reduced offer to be accepted, or they won't accept your proposal. It just baffles me why they say this, when what can a debt agencey do different to you when completing a B.Planner? Can anyone explain why they take this stance? Abs x