Nothing from the Co-Operative until Today when Moorcroft Debt Recovery limited sent me a demand for Full Payment or Legal Action...... Should I send them a copy of the letter above and the usual 'Bugger off its a disputed account letter'? Thanks St

Latest from Uncle Fred...seems hes ignoring everything I send them.. Any idea of a stern and final response? tino_0001.pdf

Would the template letter referring to an account in dispute be adequate?

This dispute has been going on for a while now and was taking over by a solicitor. For a while now EGG have sold the debt to Uncle Fred, who has been rebuffed by myself personally with all copies sent to the solicitor. Now this has arrived from carter Solicitors...what should I do in response?? The case is still under dispute and they have been told so.... Carter.pdf

Thanks for this. 1. Im going to respond to the offer of a 50% drop with a 20p in the pound offer. 2. Can you help with how I can respond to the baliff letter?? I was going to make them an offer, but if they are being illegal, then I should respond in the correct manner. Help please?? Thanks S

Good Afternoon Caggers, Attached is Two copies of recent correspondence from TWO different DCAs concerning two outstanding CCard debts. One you can see is offering me a 50% unsolicited reduction in the debt and the other not. Any advice on how I should proceed? I am tempted to ask for a 30p in the pound reduction for both... Cheers S Doc2 (1).pdf Doc2.pdf

Ive posted this as a response.... Dear Sir/Madam I write in connection with a credit card account referenced above which remains in dispute. In Feb 2009 I requested a copy of the credit card agreement for the account referenced above in accordance with Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. What I was sent doesn’t resemble an agreement in any sense. This application form and subsequent sheet does not fulfil the requirements for a copy of an executed agreement under the terms of the Act and is unenforceable in law. I refer you to my letter dated 16/11/09 for further details. Furthermore, in Sept 2009 and recently in April 2010 you sent me an invalid Default Notices in connection with this disputed account. The date by which to remedy the breach of the alleged agreement is given on the Notice as 14 days from the date on the Notice when in fact under the Consumer Credit Act 1974( as ammended in 2006) the time that must be given to remedy a breach of agreement is 14 days after the date of service. The date of service in law is deemed to be 2 days after the date on the Notice if it was if sent by 1st Class post and 4 days after the date on the Notice if it was sent by 2nd class post. There then must be 14 clear days after the date of service allowed to remedy the breach. All the Bank did was set a date 14 days from the date on the Notice, rendering the Notice unlawful as it did not allow sufficient time for the alleged breach to be remedied. The Bank then terminated the alleged agreement, unlawfully rescinding the disputed account. The Bank then entered an unlawful default on my credit reports as they did not serve me with a valid Default Notice before terminating the disputed account. The Information Commisioner is clear that all entries to credit reference reports must be made in accordance with a recognised industry standard. The Bank's actions have in my case not only fallen well short of the recognised standard but have been in clear breach of the consumer credit and data protection laws. Unless the Bank can provide me with documentation in which I gave the Bank my express written permission to process my personal data, I require them to cease all use of my personal data with immediate effect and remove all entries from my credit reference reports. It will not be good enough to assert that I must have signed it – I require clear documentary proof of written permission. The Bank has 21 days to reply and action as necessary. Failure to do so will result in further action from me, including but not limited to, formal complaints to the Information Commissioner and the Office of Fair Trading Consumer Credit Licence Fitness Department re gross misuse of my personal data and blatant breaches of the consumer credit laws. I look forward to hearing from you. I trust this out lines the situation

Pompey, Could you post the useful links please when you get a chance? Thanks

It is obvious that my Default notices are both faulty and have the subsequent termination notices also. I would like to reply to the Co-op as they are getting quite sinister now. Does a template exist in response to dodgy defaults?

This is what is confusing...The Account was terminated on the 9th September 2009 (see attachement) and yet they took money from another account last week to fund it. I will dig out the associated Default that came with that (why do they do this twice???) Coop Term.pdf

This is the Default and Term letters sent to me from Smile.... ...Are these OK/Not OK? if not, how do I respond? Cheers S CoOp_Term&Default.pdf

Guys much appreciated. I am just gutted they have done this and was preventable as I didnt move the accounts. It was two months of Child Tax credits they lifted. I'm more annoyed with myself over the matter. All it has done effectively is to make me more determined to fight them!

cheers, will look this up. I didnt think they could touch Benefits or an account in dispute

The account is in dispute and Yes I did send the letter. The money they took was Child Benefit.

However, if the account is in dispute, can they do this???

will do....should have forseen it personally. Just need to check my default notices etc and post them so I can send a more informed response

I have downloaded the T&C's from the smile site and I think section 13.10 allows them to do this...bugga! smile_terms_and_conditions[1].pdf

I have been told by Smile to respond with a payment plan and that they have taken 271 pounds from another account I have with them towards the allleged debt. Can they do this if the debt is in dispute?

After browsing through the web I noticed a claim from these guys saying that the High Court has ruled that an exact copy of your agreement does not have to be reproduced and that the companies CAN reconstitute one from Archives. True??? Can you write-off your debts? Credit Issues seem confused - Investigations

Debt write-off loophole closed by court - MoneySavingExpert News What impact does this have, or is it Old news??

I think the Default notice served is also illegal - NO DATE ON IT And they have terminated the agreement.... Does this mean they can get naff all???

Ok, thanks for the advice. I will write back with the following; (comment accordingly by all means!!!) Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for your correspondance dated 28th October 2009 which provided the apparent copy of a credit agreement you claim to be legitimate under the CCA 1973. I also trust that the supplied copy is one which you will be reliant upon as evidence of the alleged debt. I also note that this correspondance clarifies your position on the matter. I would like to point out TWO main points that are subsequently evident on the agreement provided; Firstly, the documents are illegable and cannot be clearly read and scrutinised effectivley. This is backed up by law in the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents)Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) which clearly state 2 Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms (1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the background medium upon which the information is displayed. The document provided is clearly not legible and any alledged prescribed terms cannot be scrutinised. Secondly, the documents are not clearly linked and cannot. Two points of Law clearly state; (1) The case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 confirms that the prescribed terms must be within the agreement document itself and cannot be contained in a separate document and simply be referred to; "33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 [of the Agreement Regulations] is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1." Additionally From Consumer Law book by John Keith Mcleod , barrister, professor of law, 2002 Edition, that applies to agreements of this age. To clarify concerning 61(a) of the CCA 1974: This section clearly requires that a regulated agreement including a credit token agreement must comply with the following requirements; 1. it must be in the prescribed form as to the Agreement Regulations. 2. On the SAME side as the signatures, the document itself must contain the terms prescribed in the agreement regulations (reg 6(1)): the credit limit, the rate of interest and a term stating how the financial obligations of the debtor is discharged and these must be stated together as a whole that will ensure that the larger list is included in the actual agreement rather than any document referred to in it. The regulation makes it clear that the absence of these terms takes an agreement outside the dispensing power of the court. As a result I can confirm that this my position on the matter and that the supplied agreement for which you stand by, is illegable, illegal and therfore unenforcable under the CCA 1973. Kind regards

Well, its more than 5K..... I didnt think the amount made a difference. My CF is already trashed as a result of my three pending cases.

Smiles response......sounds like a last ditched attempt. They also supplied the exact same set of sheets as attached above. coop_0001.pdf coop_0002.pdf

Latest correspondence from Crap 1...... cap1_0001.pdf cap1_0002.pdf