My Egg card minimum payment varies in percentage of the balance from one month to the next. One month around 2.5%, the next around 3%. I challenged them on this (because they're annoying me!) and I got this little gem: I think I read somewhere that the parties to a contract are entitled to an amount of certainty, i.e. 2% of the total, not 1% plus whatever interest they feel like charging that month. Can anyone shed any light on this? Any opinions or advice? I am thinking of disputing the account, cancelling the direct debit, and having the usual arguments with them. None of my other creditors are getting anywhere near the full contract amount (BC and Amex get 0) I haven't actually done anything at al yetl, except moan at them a bit:roll:

Newman & Co. They were the first and the worst.

Just got a notice of intended litigation from Moorcroft. Will be working 'til the weekend but will try to scan it then. Not sure whether to send them a "get lost" letter or a CPR request for the alleged contract. Will point out my acceptance of their unlawful recission as well. Oh well, here we go again.

Since they don't seem to be able to at the moment, I should be able to get them to put that on hold (hopefully forever!). If that works I might be able to pay the others.

If they sue me can I still insist that they produce the original? They say they don't have it, even though it was signed and returned by fax. I did apply on the internet, but had to print, sign and return that contract to get the money. Am I right to say it's a paper contract because they wouldn't part with the money until they received the signed document? Or would their "internet application" story win?

Hi rapterman, you normally need at least £200 surplus for an IVA. If you fail to make a payment you can be made bankrupt anyway. If you get a pay rise or lump sum they can take it. IVAs are not usually favoured unless you have assets to protect or a job you can't do if you're bankrupt e.g. politician, insolvency practioner etc.

brilliant, thanks again DD.

Hi, I'm likely to be sued on a debt around £4000 quite soon, and am likely to lose. It's a loan from 2008. It's quite likely I will end up with a CCJ. I am looking at the possibility of going bankrupt on a total debt somewhere over £38000. Is the potential CCJ a problem? Does it make any difference at all? I only started thinking about bankruptcy in the last couple of days. Both credit cards have backed off (£10k and £5k) but the rest is a problem. A £10k loan may be unenforceable, but that still leaves over £13k. Brief history my wife hasn't been able to get work for over a year. Damage to budget £600pm. I don't get overtime any more. Damage £500. So overall we are £1100 a month worse off. Normal bills leave me with a surplus of £100 a month. Of course when the receiver is done, it will be more than that as I'll probably lose the car etc. Any advice on the CCJ issue, or any other would be appreciated. I'm also worried about my company pension; it would probably be better to spend the rest of my working life paying CCJs than lose my pension.

The restons letters above are horrifying to read. They can't possibly serve a default notice on an account that's already been terminated, can they? At first sight I'd call that fraud. Am I missing something?

Better still, is there a standard form letter similar to the one above, that would allow me to get disclosure before proceedings start? I like the above letter, but I will be using the ordinary legal procedures that anyone else would (!) and with things like 'name of legal fiction' it seems it's not quite what I want, but very close. The point of me requesting disclosure before they initiate proceedings is to find out whether or not I have a good case, and so avoid unnecessary litigation.

That's my point BB, I am only willing to pay the OC, not some dirtbag DCA. Problem is I'm very close to being sued by a DCA and the last thing I want to do is fund something as disgusting as the debt collection industry. Not that I'd defend the banking industry of course:roll: diddydicky, I don't deny that the DCA is working for the bank, but I don't want deal with (or worse - pay) the DCA.

Looking at contract law, if the contract says "cash loan" like this one does on page 2 of the PDF: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/250385-barclays-agreement-enforceable.html which implies the lending of real money that actually existed (including pre-existing money of account i.e. not necessarily bank notes, just money in the bank) could this be an actionable misrepresentation if: 1. The money didn't exist before the date of the loan application. 2. The money was somehow created by the bank as a result of the loan agreement. 3. The misrepresentation induced me to enter the agreement on terms I would never have agreed to if I had known about this. (This one is definite!) I note that "mere silence" is not accepted as misrepresentation, but it does say "cash loan" on the agreement. Although if it's not enforceable that could save all the trouble as I could make an affordable arrangement for the others.

Thanks again DD, I was a bit concerned about the "powerless DCA" idea. Can I use a pre-action CPR request to oblige them to disclose all the necessary info? Agreement, default notice etc... I'm thinking in terms of a pre-action letter similar to the one OMOH posted above, but without any "freeman" bits added. Also, is there any reason not to serve such a notice to the OC as well or instead?

Thanks DD. Can you successfully argue privity of contract with them? I know privity is overruled if there is a term in the contract that states that a DCA can be involved, but I'm thinking in terms of making them prove their right to be involved by showing the contract. i.e. saying "show me the contract that gives you authority to deal with this - or get lost" I've tried this twice but got no replies, just more form letters.

Have they really bought it? If so, they will have a "deed of assignment." If they have this and it has been done properly, then they do own the debt and they can sue you on it. The "It's been paid" argument won't stand in court. Personally I would suggest you start a new thread and post up some details. If you scan the CCA and deed of assignment etc, as well as any default notices you might find you can win quite easily if they've made mistakes. People on CAG are very helpful and they know a hell of a lot. If you want a new idea to gain respect on here, you will have to back it up with sound legal reasoning. P.S. I would recommend a basic contract law book such as nutshells.

priority one, I'd like to clarify one thing, not to endorse this as it often does lead to trouble, just to explain. OMOH is not saying "I don't live here" or "Moved away" etc. NC-RTS is "NO CONTRACT" return to sender. It's more like saying "Get lost I'm not having anything to do with you." It is based on the idea that the DCA has no contract with you and you won't contract with them by talking to them, writing to them, or otherwise. Make of that what you will. Threads like this usually result in arguments even on tpuc, and I'm not going be drawn in. I just didn't want to see the topic misunderstood.

The idea is they are using the Magna Carta 1215, section 61. What they are doing is referred to now as Lawful Rebellion, although MC1215 does not use that specific phrase. MC1215 sec 61 allows for a petition to the Queen for redress of grievances concerning her government; she is allowed 40 days to sort the problems out. After 40 days, if the grievances remain, people can withdraw allegience from the Queen and all those acting on her behalf, which means we can lawful refuse to co-operate with all those claiming authority, including courts, police, tax people etc. Sec 61 speaks of 5 barons petitioning the queen, but sec 1 says all rights in MC are extended to all freemen. "freeman" means those who are not "villeins" or serfs. In "The Rule of Law" (p10) Judge Tom Bingham says the Magna Carta was annulled (repealed) by the pope after a few months. But then the pope's authority to do this could be questioned. There is a lot of room for argument on this, but IMO it's really off-topic for CAG, it's better leave that discussion on TPUC. Just thought a very short background on this might be of interest to some.

Example here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/251379-help-threat-legal-action.html#post2824570 So they're not really powerless then....

People on this forum often say things like "debt collectors are powerless, don't worry about them" OR "DCA's cannot take you to court, unless you contract with them, either through unconditionally agreeing to pay whilst talking to them on the phone or a written letter with your consent/signature." Is this really true? Are they really powerless? Is it provable to the point you write a "you're only a DCA, get lost" letter?

subbing

That could cause me some problems:( The reason I thought I was safe with this is that they insisted that a paper contract be signed and returned before they would release the money. So even though I applied online, there was still a paper contract. Does that change anything? If this one is enforceable should I look at something like an IVA or bankruptcy? Both are really bad, but I don't want to spend 20 years or more paying this off:confused:

Hi, the new clowns are called Debt Managers Ltd. 19 Heriot Row, Edinburgh. Letter is headed "NOTICE OF LEGAL ACTION" "Your failure to respond to previous letters [not true - see above] has resulted in your account being passed to this department for court action and our solicitors may prepare the court papers within seven days. If you wish to avoid legal action you must pay in full today.....alternatively you must immediately telephone our legal manager on 0844 842 5295" Signed SUPERVISOR, COURT DEPARTMENT. These idiots don't normally bother me, but there is a pattern here where my letters are ignored and I just receive continuous threats. TBH their attempt to scare me is actually working this time. I think they would win this is court as it's from 2008, and was about to try to negotiate something with the OC (Barclays) because I want to avoid that. What I don't want to do is pay these creeps anything, as their approach is one letter followed by a threat. I am thinking about complaining to the FOS about this, for what good it might do.

Barclays in-house DCA have been chasing a loan, and I responded with 4 separate letters all of which were ignored. Barclays complaints dept denied any letters had been received but confirmed the address was correct. Without replying to a single letter, they have involved another dca. I pointed out to the new clowns that they are not privy to any contract I've seen, so they'd better send a copy along with a reference number I can actually recognise. Today I got a threat of legal action from the new dca. I don't really know how to respond, but can't ignore them as solictors will be next.

bump

Hi, I'm a bit worried about an agreement I thought was unenforceable. The signature is not on the same page as the prescribed terms. In the light of the recent Carey case, I'm concerned this might not make it unenforceable. Can anyone take a look please:-) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/250385-barclays-agreement-enforceable.html