Jump to content

robinredbreast

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

56 Excellent

1 Follower

About robinredbreast

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Sound advice .... so your next move is request a cca scan and post up - whereby everyone will give their opinion if its an iffy CCA we will tell them that & accept unlawful repudiation if its an ok CCA .. we still accept unlawful repudiation and see what their next move is .... then we plot your next move ... Robin .. x
  2. Hi, Ok ... AA DN - dated (Friday) 14 Aug 2010 & you say sent 2nd class - which means 4 day delivery period from getting into postal system. Written on a Friday - so wouldn't have gone into the mail system until Monday (IMHO) which gives us a date of 16 August 2010 plus 4 days travelling time gives us earliest delivery of Fri 20 Aug or latest delivery time of Sat 21 Aug 2010. (lets use the 21st ) plus 14 prescribed calender days for remedy gives us a remedy date of Sat 4 September 2010 - but we have a bank holiday in this time frame on Monday 30 May 2010 - so that takes it
  3. No ... errors or omissisons from or under the CCA74, no matter WHEN the agreement is from means that it MAY be unenforceable in court - its just that post 2007 Creditors tended to be aware of the faults and tightend up the CCAs .... but there are still errors in post 2007 CCAs .. and yours may be one of them.. Have you posted the CCA up for everyone to have a look at ? Robin x
  4. Now we're talking ..... but we may need to proceed with caution .... A DN is the legal opportunity for you the Debtor, being in breach of your original credit agreement in having missed payment(s), to remedy the breach/default by paying the outstanding monies, whereby the agreement is treated as if the default never happened ... (i.e in-effect putting you back to the start ... whereby if you default again the cycle re-starts). However, 9 days into your service period, they demand the full amount. That means that in paying the full amount you wouldn't be putting the ball back to sqaur
  5. HI BB, Sorry the link doesn't work. Having had a read though other threads, I have established that if they claim no formal notification was required or issued by them, and that the only regulation is through the T&Cs issued via branch and with the bank account. Then by virtue of this admission (which I shall SAR them on I think its heading to court), the haven't complied with the OFT directive - which dictates that a letter is issued by the bank to the account holder, advising them of the amout of OD, charges, and method of termination - and if the bank does this they obt
  6. In this boat myself, OD with a bank ... when the OD commenced the bank needed to have sent you a letter giving information on the amount of authorised OD, the monthly & annual interest rate, and how the OD may be withdrawn. They need to send you one of these every time the OD is amended, either increased or decreased. Then, as far as I understand ... when/if the OD was/became unauthorised - which it would have been when they pulled the plug, they have to supply you within 3 months of this, a further letter giving you full details of the interest being applied (which will be high
  7. In this case the bank themselves have claimed that the only part of the acct regulated by the CCA is the issue of a DN, which must be do so under the terms of the CCA for them to benefit from it. The issue of DN is not in question .. its been established that they need one, sent one 87(1), and its defective. The question is their continued assertion that the acct is not regulated in any way by the CCA (apart from the issue of the DN) - and a suitable response... although to be honest I'm just going to draft a letter which I think suits and send it off.
  8. Agree with Ford ... although not strictly compliant as yes the parts you have highlighted should be underscored - if this is the only error, and you have a correctly executed agreement as well, I can't see a Judge (should it go to court) rule in your favour. Sorry, I know not probably what you wanted to hear ... !! Have you had your agreement checked out to make sure its correctly executed ? Robin x.
  9. Yes ... I;ve already had s 87(1) DN issued by the bank - which fails in its compliance to the regulations regarding time for remedy, no numeric figure given for the amount to satisfy the DN, the amount to satisfy itself is disputed as incorrect, and also other layout issues. Already discussed earlier in this thread. Had a CRA confirm partially regulated by CCA. Had a default registered with CRAs for the total OD, only in July when the bank confirmed they were withdrawning the remaining part of the authorised od facility - which is why the amount requested in the DN is disputed.
  10. Roxburghe today reared their head again .. with a chasing letter and a "we are considering what action to take" threat .. My thoughts are to bang on with the "oh yes it is regulated" to the bank ... and just ignore rox. Comments guys ... ??
  11. We have a response from them ... I had requested a copy of the original bank acc application and agreement, explained to them that the OD facility is regualted by the CCA74, and accordingly I req a true copy of the agreement relating to the odraft, the agreement of which they claim in breach in the DN already issued by them. They have responded ... " As overdrafts are exempt from the formal content requirements of te CCA and are governed by the terms and conditions of the account, we have returned your £1.00 payment for a copy of the agreement. Unfortunately we are unable to provide
  12. Hi guys ... Update .... they have now registered a default with CRAs 31 Jul ... as I obviously didn't repay the remaining authorised half of the OD they wanted payment of by 25 Jul. They haven't replied to my challenge to their "oh no it isn't regualted" letter .... heard nothing from the DCA either .. up to now ... Update as and when peeps....
  13. Back again ... M&S have replied quoting the same load of balls, pres terms are allowed to be in the t&cs under 61(b) ... etc .. They have now told me that they did not need to have a new agreement executed when they replaced a chargecard with a credit card, as the OFT told them all they needed to do was issue a variation of t&cs document ... can this be right ... surely not ? (even so what they have sent is a load of cr*p anyway ... so makes little difference) Robinx
  14. Thanks for the input on this guys ... On the "are they ... aren't they" regulated saga ... I can only go on what I've been told by other Caggers, the Coutts Case, Experian, and the Bank themselves ... 1. Caggers have told me which parts of the act regualted ODs - and that whilst no "cca" as we know them for credit cards are available, the bank have a liability to issued with a letter explaining the basis of the OD, interest, terms for revoking etc ... 2 .Coutts case confirms OD are regulated under The Act (part V excemption allowed) 3. Experian, when asked why an unregulat
×
×
  • Create New...