Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shinobi101

  1. Does anyone know if we can use a letter rogatory(statement of facts or statement of agreement) backed up by an affidavit in negative averment in support of letter rogatory. The idea is to get a "default judgement" if they can't rebut the affidavit. I got the info here: Tpuc.org Forum • View topic - Certificate of Dishonor What do you think? Can we do this to Amex?
  2. A solicitor can witness an affidavit (can't they?) Amex must surely have something of a legal team. A statutory declaration is only £5. They can't charge any more than that. I wouldn't expect witnessing an affidavit to be too expensive. Any statement made under penalty of perjury should be good enough.
  3. Nice one shadow. I'll just copy and paste that. I'll include it in my first letter, along with poking fun at Newmans, and pointing out the lack of a CCA, and their dodgy DN. Now I'm dealing with AIC, I can remind them they've already been slapped down in court over a dodgy DN.
  4. Still don't really get the securitisation thing, but having finally dispensed with Newman DCA, Amex are trying it on again using AIC. I thought it would be good to raise the securitsation question. How do you ask it? I could say "Has it been securitised?" or demand proof that it hasn't. Can anyone give me an idea exactly what to ask, or post what they said etc. I want them to squirm a bit, if possible.
  5. Then today I got a letter from AIC claiming that they are now collecting this debt.
  6. I sent this and have not heard from them since: WITHOUT PREJUDICE Thank you for your letter of 17/06/09, the contents of which have been noted. With regard to what you call my ‘alleged terms,’ you respond as if this was the first mention of them. It is in fact the third. If your subordinate (Mr King) did not know how to respond, then he should have sought your advice sooner. Your points numbered 1 – 7 rest on the tenuous assumption that the unsigned document headed “CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974” is in fact signed, when the copy you sent me clearly isn’t. Without a correctly executed agreement you have no basis for action. As you have consistently refused to show me a correctly executed agreement with both signature and all prescribed terms exists, I can only assume this does not exist. The courts are prohibited by s127(3) of CCA1974 from enforcing the alleged agreement based on the documentation you have supplied. If a correctly executed agreement existed, Amex would then become entitled to the total amount £146 as given on the faulty (and therefore ineffective) default notice issued on 21st April 2009, which did not allow, within the notice itself, for postal service. If I receive a valid agreement, I will be prepared to offer American Express the aforementioned £146 as full and final settlement of the alleged debt, provided I receive a letter direct from Amex, in their envelope and on their own headed paper, confirming they accept this as full and final settlement. Notwithstanding the above, you have failed to respond correctly to my legal request to supply me a true copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement for the above account. The document that you are obliged to send me is a true copy of the executed agreement that contained all of the prescribed terms, all other required terms and statutory notices and was signed by both your company and myself as defined in section 61(1) of CCA 74 and subsequent Statutory Instruments. If the executed agreement contained any reference to any other document, you are also obliged to send me a copy of that document. In addition a full statement of this account should have been sent to me detailing all debits and credits to the account. Furthermore: You are aware that the Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for a request for a true copy of a credit agreement to be carried out before your client enters into a default situation. This limit has expired. As you are no doubt aware section 77(6) states: If the creditor fails to comply with Subsection (1) (a) He is not entitled , while the default continues, to enforce the agreement. Therefore this account has become unenforceable at law. You have failed to comply with a lawful request for a true, signed copy of the said agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it, and failed to provide any of the other documentation requested. Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS. Furthermore I shall counterclaim that any such action constitutes unlawful harassment. Please note you may also consider this letter as a statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies. Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right.’ You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends. Should you not respond within 14 days I expect that this means you agree to remove all such data. Furthermore you should be aware that a creditor is not permitted to take ANY Action against an account whilst it remains in dispute. The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies. * You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. * You may not add further interest or any charges to the account. * You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency. * The account may not passed to a third party! I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit. You have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint. I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.
  7. After reading the above, their "team leader" had verbal diarrhoea: We write in response to your letter dated 15th June 2009, the content of which has been noted. We have already issued to you and explained the signed Agreement in which it clearly states in signature box contains the phrase "This is a Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Sign it only if you want to be legally bound by its terms". Please note that any-contract between American Express and ourselves-is privy only to us and would not need to be produced unless the debt had been sold (Deed of Assignment). Furthermore, ff it is that you doubt our involvement and/or our validity as a Third Party for American Express, we would assume that you might have contacted them in order to confirm - however, it is apparent that you have not. Please also allow us to respond to your alleged 'terms': 1. Newman & Co are not a Third Party interloper. We are a Third Party assigned by and work on behalf of American Express as outlined in section 7.2 of your Terms & Conditions. [not signed - remember?] 2. Our Legal standing is that we work on behalf of American Express and not in a debt buying capacity. As such, American Express and in-turn Newman & Co reserve the right the pursue the outstanding balance via the regulated channels. 3. We have access to your entire account history with American Express and are in constant contact with them and so although we have only recently been assigned your account, it is safe to say that we now have first hand knowledge of the account. 4. You 'dispute' the validity of the account however you have previously paid this account up to March 2009. As such, we would question why after making payment to the account, then claiming financial difficulty that you would then dispute the validity of the account. As I am sure you will appreciate, this only suggests that due to your inability to pay that you are now simply attempting to avoid paying. 5. You refer to 'damages' - please refer to point 1. 6. Any negative information will remain on your Credit file simply due to the fact that you have failed to maintain payment to your account. 7. This matter will be pursued by either ourselves, American Express or any other appointed Third Party working on American Express's behalf. This is our final response to your queries and as such, our recommendation to our client will be that they persue this matter legally.
  8. My response was perhaps a little overcomplicated?? (The tacit contract is formed over 3 letters) I wrote to you on 16th May 2009, and again on 1st June 2009 requesting verification of your claim including a lawful contract, validation of the debt (the actual accounting), a signed invoice and proof of agency, to validate the debt, within ten (10) days. Apart from having obtained an application form from American Express, you have not even attempted to provide the information requested, which would have been easy if your claim was genuine. I can only assume you understand these requests as you did not even once request clarification. You have instead accused me of delaying and avoidance tactics whilst clearly using these yourself. As you have failed to provide the documentation within the ten (10) days requested in my last correspondence, we are now in agreement to; and have a lawfully binding tacit contract comprising, the following terms: 1. That you are a third party interloper; 2. That you have no legal standing; 3. That you have no first-hand knowledge of this matter; 4. That your claim is fraudulent; 5. That any damages I suffer, you will be held culpable; 6. That any negative remarks made to a credit reference agency will be removed; 7. You will no longer pursue this matter any further.
  9. They then said this: Despite our previous correspondence, the outstanding amount remains unpaid. PLEASE ACT NOW Contact us immediately on 0845 605 4202 on receipt of this letter. Failure to act now may result in your file being passed to Copes Solicitors for legal proceedings, which may increase the debt owed. AND THIS: We are in receipt of your letter, dated 8th June 2009. We have today sent you notification of intended Legal Action. It is apparent that you are intent on delaying repayment of this matter by utilising the CCA 1974 avoidance tactics as advertised on the Internet. Therefore, we have no option but to commence the Legal process. This is our final communication on the matter. Should you wish to submit a SAR request to American Express then that is your prerogative, however it will not halt the collection process of this account. ON THE SAME DAY! I was a little confused.
  10. Updating. After their last BS letter, I sent this: With reference to your letter dated 4th June 2009, I find it remarkable that you accuse me of “delaying tactics” when it is you who refuse to authenticate your claim. You do not appear to read letters properly, as I requested other information besides a contract. These requests were not even acknowledged. I assume you have copies on file, if you wish to re-read any of them. Since you are refusing to provide validation of your claim, I have no choice but to send a Subject Access Request to American Express. They are obliged under the Data Protection Act to provide the information requested within 40 days. When I receive the correct documentation, then I will be happy to negotiate such payment as is possible under the circumstances. Although it should be noted that American Express have refused negotiation, and an offer of payment once already. If your claim was genuine, I do not think you would have any trouble with such a simple request. If the requested documentation exists, then I simply do not understand the reason for your refusal to provide it. Your comment about agreeing to be bound by CCA1974 must obviously include s127(3). Your comment about the default notice simply doesn’t make sense. You appear to imply that once the default notice is posted you can commence collection. This is clearly not the case, and I suggest you re-check your facts in this matter. With respect to OFT guidelines, by belief that no money (or very little) is owed to Amex is entirely genuine, for reasons including, but not limited to: (1) Your refusal or inability to show me a valid agreement, and (2) The faulty default notice. With reference to your comment about “who the debt is owed to,” no debt is owed by me to you. You claim American Express as the original creditor, and as such, any monies lawfully owed could be owed only to them. It is my hope to avoid unnecessary litigation, as this can be resolved by negotiation as long as you are prepared to provide adequate validation of your claim. I am considering making an offer to Amex, however I would prefer to receive their documentation first.
  11. Maybe it's about time you sent a DCA after them. If they haven't paid in 6 months they must be in default by now
  12. Bump. I'll probably find out soon enough, but if barclays know how to write a DN, I'll need to negotitate a bit more.
  13. I also like SP's letter above. Warning about the dog is good as well. Make it clear a visit would result in a call to the police if they didn't leave immediately, followed by a complaint to the OFT. Or: I am the proud owner of 2 machine guns and more live ammo than I know what to do with. Please send your entire staff at your earliest convenience.
  14. Maybe a change of number (new one ex-directory)? Or an answerphone message like "If you think I owe you money, you have already been told I will deal with you in writing only."
  15. Whatever else you do, make it clear you will not discuss anything with them on your doorstep. You will not accept documents that could be posted. You will not pay them anything. Therefore they will gain absolutely nothing from visiting, they will just waste their time.
  16. I had a phone call saying loan would go into default soon. Told them to deal in writing only from now on. Does anyone know if Barclays loan default notices are any good?
  17. Just an uneducated opinion here, but I think there is a risk if you let them know they've screwed up the DN before they officially terminated (by sending TN) they might try to wriggle out of it with garbage like "we only said we MAY terminate..." and issue a second DN. Personally, I'd feel safer with them acknowledging the termination before telling them what they're up against. Although if they're anything like amex it'll go over their heads anyway. Totally agree with BRW's comment above:
  18. If you've complained to anyone outside of Abbey, e.g. OFT then I would get a photocopy or scan & print and forward the threat as part of your complaint. i.e. you are being harrassed/threatened when there is a clear dispute on the account.
  19. I have an overdraft with Barclays (around £2800) I have taken my business away from Barclays (in anger) because they let Barclaycard take a missed payment. I have also moved. Barclays will, of course, chase this overdraft (and 3 loans) but haven't started yet. How do you start in dealing with an overdraft. Do you always have to pay them? Or can they be knocked back like some credit cards? I can negotiate payment to a point, but don't want to give them anything I don't have to.
  20. Can you really demand proof like that? I'll have to use that along with their non-existent agreement and faulty DN;-)
  21. The defendants used it to buy a house. Apparently they won! Your house is real. The "money" used to buy it may not have been. These concepts can be very hard to deal with at first. I'm still struggling with "If a bank creates funds like this out of nothing, why would any other bank ever accept it?" Nothing of value changes hands, just numbers moving around on accounts. Also, virtually all money is created as debt, and loaned at interest. It is therefore mathematically impossible to pay it all back. The funds to cover the interest are simply not created. There is a booklet from the federal reserve bank of chicago called "modern money mechanics" (available as pdf) which describes this in some detail. Here's a quote from the bottom of page 6: IMHO, the only way this wouldn't apply in the UK, is if we didn't use fractional reserve banking.
  22. Surely the fractional reserved banking system works the same way the world over? Surely what is an "utter failure of consideration" on the part of the bank in the US, would be the same here? If the bank literally created the "funds" out of nothing, then they are taking no risk at all in lending them to you, as they are nothing more than an accounting entry. They could write off a loan made this way with no loss of anything they ever actually had. Even if not binding, do you think the affidavit might be acceptable as evidence, at least to justify demanding proof that the bank actually did lend real money?
  23. HOLD ON... Many of us are being chased and harrassed mericlessly for loans which are nothing more than an accounting entry. This probably doen't apply to all loans, but those which are created this way, the bank can lose nothing if you don't pay, as they had nothing to start with. They can create "money" for a loan from nothing, charge you interest on it, and take your house if don't pay back the nothing they didn't lend you. Any thoughts??
  • Create New...