Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Zodiac


Everything posted by IainHL

  1. btm, my understanding is that it was totally repealed (unlike the s.127 bit which does still apply retrospectively). Note F3 on this page refers: Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database. F3 S. 78(6)(b) and preceding word repealed (26.5.2008 ) by The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1277), regs. 30(1)(3), Sch. 2 para. 20, Sch. 4 Pt. 1 (with savings in reg. 28(2)(3))
  2. sfu, is the get-out for the creditors here not in section (4)?: When they send you the credit token (the card) it normally comes in a carrier that has the enough on it to make it a "true copy" of the agreement, does it not?
  3. Lonwaydown, although a bit of a hypothetical answer, none of the DCAs would have any teeth in the light of a letter from the Co-op stating they don't have the agreement. The problem for you is how much of a pita they make themselves while you chase them off with that letter. And how many more DCAs you have to go through before 6 years elapses, the Co-op actually agree to a write off/short settlement, or (least likely) the Co-op actually take you to court.
  4. krysp, I did something similar myself 3 years ago. I sacked Promise Debt Solutions, who had set up my DMP in October 2006, mainly because I would pay them by SO on the 1st of each month, and they wouldn't send out the money until the 22nd. Then for some of my creditors they weren't paying electronically, but were sending cheques! This meant some creditors didn't get their payment in the month and would start phoning me. All my creditors were prepared to give me their bank account details, so I set up multiple Standing Orders to each of them on the 1st from my account. Not a problem for me to have the same amount of money going out on 8 SOs each month as there was on one, and they are happy because they are getting their money quicker. If you really need the certainty that the money is in your account and the SOs are not going to bounce, resulting in charges, you could set them up as Faster Payment Transfers, if they are available on internet banking with your bank. Then you just need to be disciplined in ensuring the payments are made each month. Finally, you will need to be prepared to do the renegotiation with your creditors, normally once every 6 months or so. Most of mine these days accept a letter stating what I will do, I have not filled in a financial statement for over 2 years. It might be best to insist they contact you in writing, I find it easier to deal with in this way, otherwise they keep on trying to phone until you answer. Then when you do they will try to push your payments up, and can be a right pain in the a***. I find the process by letter far more amenable.
  5. EOS-5D, here is the link to that thread I referred to above: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/259892-m-money-gothia-now.html.
  6. Hello EOS-5D, I see you are currently with Jayne Ellett. Have you had any letters from Graham Officer at all? His name always makes me chuckle. Anyway these letters are just the standard posturing by M&S. They will not admit that they haven't got any legs to stand on, so the only recourse open to you really is to stop paying and bat away the DCAs, as long as you can take the hit on your credit file. I am one year into this process with M&S, and am prepared to wait for six years if need be. I have basically told them to put up and take me to court, so far they appear to be reluctant to do so. I posted the form of words I used on another thread earlier this week. It also had an interesting statement about how internally they have written off all chargecard to credit card conversions (I can't recall if your is one of these?). I will see if I can find it and post a link. I do notice from your posts that you had a default notice with the use of "14 days". That makes it defective, the regulations state that the default notice must contain a date.
  7. Technically, yes they would. But since when have Welcome ever been any good at following the proper processes?
  8. Mum2Four, what UtN says is quite true. Unfortunately it will not stop them trying everything they can to convince you that they _do_ have an enforceable agreement, have "consulted their legal team", etc. Do not believe them. Unfortunately this is one where you will have to be prepared for the long haul, maybe even having to wait up till the 6 years until it is statue barred (which behoves you to stop making payments and send them an "I do not acknowledge any debt to your company" letter). I am one year down the line on this, and many letters have gone back and forth to M&SFS and the two DCAs they have tried so far. You may wish to consider putting this in one of your letters to M&SFS and/or Gothia: That is a very interesting statement UtN, are you able to point to its source?
  9. A lovely non-compliant Default Notice! Now, subsequent to that have they ever demanded the full balance outstanding in any way?
  10. emanevs, the account is terminated when the creditor sends you a termination notice, or by their actions indicates that they consider the account to be terminated. Such actions would include, for example, a demand for the full sum outstanding (since they are asking for monies not yet due to them), selling the debt to a third party, or commencing court proceedings.
  11. There is no limit to the number of default notices they can issue prior to termination. After all, you might miss some payments, get a default notice, take the action required to remedy the account as stated in the default notice, miss some more payments, etc...
  12. As I said way back here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-finance/109794-welcome-finance-422.html#post2431344, although the Greater Manchester Pension Fund had holdings in Cattles valued at GBP 17,879,659 in 2008, the loss in value of GBP 17 million is nothing in the context of the pension funds total holdings of over GBP 7.4 billion.
  13. Well done tnook! Have they sent you a cheque, or did they insist on applying the refund to your account?
  14. That is a gobsmackingly low percentage. I think I'm with dawnytrish on this, it gives a starting point for a F&F. Thanks for the information gandalf.
  15. I seriously doubt that! Really Steven? Can there be anyone in the debt collection industry that is unaware of the toxic bag that would be a Welcome debt portfolio?
  16. Congratulations DB. I bet that news is a great weight off your mind! I wish you well in sorting out costs and hope you get a reasonable sum out of them for all your wasted time and effort.
  17. pwg, my understanding of this is that the bulk of Welcome's loans were probably short term. 2, 3 maybe 4 years, car loans and personal loans. Since they stopped lending in 2009 that means these loans will have run their normal course by 2012/2013. Therefore it is Welcome's intention to collect these loans over the normal course of their life. As for those of us who have longer term loans (I guess most probably secured loans), we will most probably find ourselves with someone else owning the loan, and we will have to make our payments (or not!) to them. For those loans where there is some sort of dispute Welcome will have 2 options really. The first is to agree to write them off. The second would be to sell them to companies that are prepared to buy them, the latter being aware of the problems they are likely to be inheriting. It will be their call as to whether they think they will be able to collect enough money to make a profit on their purchase. You may think that is unlikely, however there are many more non-CAGgers than CAGgers in this country, and they would probably only have to collect 20% (maybe less) of the book value of the loans they purchased to make that profit.
  18. Martel, well I have never heard of Part 31.12, though I don't doubt it must exist, since there is at least up to .16 in Part 31! Also the header makes reference to CPR 16.4(2), but nowhere is it mentioned in the body of the letter. What you have above isn't really suitable for your circumstances, since they have only sent a LBA, not actually issued a claim yet. See this link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/255329-cpr-18-cpr-31-a.html for the difference between Parts 18 and 31.14. And in this link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html for those words I was talking about wrapping around your CPR Part 31.16 request.
  19. It would seem to me to be a good idea since they are the ones who are now threatening action. There is a form of words you can use around a Part 31.16 request, firstly pointing out that you are making the request because they have intimated action, and then saying you need the information because it will assist you in determining your response to any such action they may institute. If you look around at some Part 31.16 letters I am sure you will find the words I mean.
  20. Martel, I don't feel able to give you absolute advice since your case seems very complex. Where does the LBA come from? Is it some part of central Welcome (Ruddington or Lenton), in which case I would be inclined to believe that the person sending it may know what they are doing, rather than if it came from a local office where the knowledge tneds to be somewhat less (like sending a Default Notice headed "without prejudice"!). If they do start action then indeed they will have to respond to requests made under CPR protocols. However, since they have very specifically pointed to starting action you are able to make a request under CPR Part 31.16 for the sort of documents they would be relying on as part of their claim. Also, have you thought of complaining to the ICO about Welcome's refusal to comply with your Subject Access Request? At least they would give a ruling on whose interpretation was corrrect.
  21. I guess not. Unless you have any other agreements with RBS that you may be disputing now or in the future. It's up to you. If you feel there is nothing untoward that could happen to it just sign your response to them normally. If you want to protect yourself against all eventualities use Signguard.
  22. If MKRR do truly now own the debt you should have received a Notice of Assignment. Ideally this should have come from the selling company, but it seems generally comes from the purchasing one. You basically want to see that NoA, if it exists. I've been trying to think of the best way to get it. I don't think there is any provision for it to be provided to you under a CCA request. If it has been sold Welcome should respond to your CCA request telling you this and returning your postal order. You could then send the CCA request to MKRR. So I agree, send the CCA and SAR requests to Welcome, and write a letter to MKRR asking them to prove they now own the debt. Tell them you have not received a NoA and want a copy of it.
  23. That seems a nonsense answer to me. I understood that generally speaking all institutions report to all 3 agencies. The question comes as to which particular agency a company uses for the search they perform when you apply for credit. As for going to Welcome to sort out the incorrect reporting that seems poor advice too. If you tell Experian there is an error on your report ("this loan from Welcome showing as started in 2006 was settled in 2008", you don't want them to correct it any further than that do you? ), they should investigate with the company concerned. While they do so they will probably put a Notice of Correction on your report ("the accuracy of this entry is disputed and lenders should take care when using the information contained in this entry", or something like that. Personally I would submit the query using the online form. It gives you the opportunity to explain clearly and in detail the nature of the problem. I think their turnround time for online queries is 2 weeks.
  24. Was it your real signature you used on the SAR, or did you follow normal advice and print your name? I have seen a few threads recently where NatWest have been playing the signature game with CCA/SAR requests. The best advice I can give in these circumstances is to use the CAG digital signature service: Protect your signature with SignGuard. It does cost a (small) amount of money, but seems to me to be the surest way of getting what you want from NatWest without a lot of stalling, or providing them with a signature they could lift and use elsewhere.
  25. Yes, my partner and I have had variations of that letter from HSBC, NatWest and Halifax. Please understand that it is them stating their opinion, your opinion of course differs. The next step is to submit a claim. Of course the wording in their letters is designed to put you off going to court. I find the reference to the OFT deciding not to persue court action particularly specious. My understanding is that since the claim is about an unfair relationship the OFT felt that they could not litigate on that, and rather would have to leave it to the individual to argue how the unfair relationship had affected them personally. Personally, I intend to file court claims in early June, probably after seeing how things go in Glasgow.
  • Create New...