Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tonster

  1. Hi Again I have 2 accounts with Moorcroft (one is a Lloyds CC) and I have at least 5 letters on each account threatening legal action usually headed 'Notice of Intended Litigation' but they are full of we may, we might etc.... Lloyds/Moorcroft have provided nothing with my signature on at all , just a load of generic junk and it's 15 months since the original CCA request!! I gave up replying to the Moorcroft letters and they gave up calling a while ago and just send letters every so often.
  2. Hi All The prescribed terms are missing from the document they have sent you on here (APR, credit limit, repayment terms) it would depend on what if anything else they sent and whether the prescribed terms were on the back and if they could prove it. The prescribed terms need to be contained within the sig doc. Any additional T&C's that are sent that were not part of the signature document do not make this app form enforecable as they are not signed by the debtor. Tonster
  3. Hi I just received a letter from them following some calls from India re an MBNA card debt (that they bought from Halifax, some chance of them having the original then) First letter from them already offering 40% discount so they must already know they are on to a loser! Tonster
  4. The first thing to do is to complete the acknowledgement of service, this can be done on-line preferably straight away, instructions will be with the claim pack this then gives you an additional 14 days to put in your defence (total of 33 days from the date on the claim). (14 AOS+14 extra+5 days service) Then you have time for them to reply to your CPR request and still complete the defence. In the quite possible scenario that they send nothing or nothing useful or complete you can then put in a holding or embaressed defence.
  5. 1st credit (No valid CCA's, 4 accounts, letter ping pong for a while, now only 1 way, them to me now including we can offer 60% discount letters!) Moorcroft (No valid CCA's 3 accounts, same as above) Capquest (No valid CCA, returned to OC) Sainsburys Bank (No valid CCA but Claim issued anyway, defence entered, they missed deadline, case stayed) Egg (2 accounts)
  6. Not enforceable, the total amount of credit should be present and it isn't. It is virtually the same as mine (except mine doesn't have the PPI)
  7. Yes, that was the thread I had spotted. But although I have learnt a lot over the last 12 months I am still wary on giving advice on other threads as I am still learning. I have about 12 creditors in total all at various stages (mainly now at the 'send me letter after letter that I file and ignore stage) and I am muddling through with advice from here and reading thread after thread but when your advice is instantly opposed it knocks you a bit Cheers
  8. That was quick, it's there now, I realised straight away that I forgot the link and you still beat me to it!
  9. Hi Hardup Not ignored, just not managed to get round to it yet, will do later Cheers Tonster
  10. I thought so, thank you. I have been trying to get this point across on another thread for someone else but another cagger (possibly troll from other threads I have read) keeps arguing against this, perhaps take a look? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/256871-egg-laon-agreement-compliant.html
  11. Can I clarify? It is because it is missing the amount of credit that makes it unenforceable isn't it? Is that a prescribed term?
  12. From what I have read on this site and in the following sticky link a term stating the amount of credit for a fixed Sum Credit Agreement (loan as in this case) is prescribed in paragraph 2 of schedule 6 and so is protected by section 127(3) or am I being completely thick? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html
  13. In fact if you look again at the agreement the total amount you mention '£30428.50' is excluding any interest/credit and if you look at the repayments 60*612.11 = 36726.60 which is obviously the full amount repayable. This charge for credit should be stated and it isn't which makes this agreement unenforceable because it lacks the prescribed terms.
  14. I'm not sure it does. The total amount in this case is the total loan added to the PPI, nowhere does it show what the charge for credit is anywhere and that should be on the agreement and it isn't.
  15. Hi Bazooka I thought as much and am pretty confident with all my credit card CCA's but just wanted a second opinion as it is a loan agreement (I have 2 such one's with Egg both identical) and am less familiar. I had read all of the stuff but still reasonably novice (but learning very quickly) so wanted another pair of eyes!! Thanks Tonster
  16. Hi All Can you help with the enforceability of this agreement? I think because it is missing the amount of credit and total amount payable and only shows the original loan amount it would be unenforceable? But I would like a second or third opinion. Thanks Tonster Egg Loan Agreement.pdf
  17. Hi All I have a very similar agreement but without the PPI but you mention that the prescribed terms are there (amount of credit and repayment obligation) but I don't see the amount of credit anywhere, nor is there on mine, so wouldn't that make the agreement unenforceable on that basis? Tonster
  18. I am not sure of the procedure for ensuring this gets looked at again but I guess one of the more knowledgable caggers could help, but clearly the fact that the agreement is unenforceable means the rest of the arguments should be academic as it fails on this point immediately and the DJ however it happens needs to be reminded of the case law backing this up.
  19. I guess you could respectfully point him to the law regarding Wilson and respectfully ask for him to re-consider the point???
  20. Hi SF It sounds like you say he had made his mind up and not having been in court yet myself (although it's coming) I guess you have to say something along the lines of 'respectfully sir, can I direct you to the case of Wilson v etc etc' and also to be able to counter the argument that the Manchester case is irrelevant as that was for a section 78 request and only dealt with what could be sent in response to that request and not what needs to be produced in court and CCA 1974 127 (3) ruling is still in effect and Wilson case supports that (by House of Lords). I guess he wasn't happy that you were speaking on behalf of your wife and sounds like he decided to give you a hard time right from the off. Perhaps more experienced caggers could give a steer on how to get that enforeability re-looked at in the next hearing as this is crucial and you have case law from the highest court to back it up, the judge needs directing to that case. (will it def be the same judge?) Tonster
  21. Hi SF I guess you have to bring up the enforceability of the agreement again at the next hearing as the judge was clearly wrong and you didn't get chance to argue the point. In the Wilson case the judge said: “ In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 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 s127(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. The court is therefore barred from issuing an enforcement order under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in accordance with sections 65 and 127(3) as it then was, and the claimant’s claim must fail. So the T&C's are almost an irrelevance as the prescribed terms cannot be in the T&C's they need to be in the signature document which they clearly aren't. Don't know if this will help but it seems to me that the judge has ridden right through this judgement from the House of Lords. I am interested in your case as my partner has exactly the same app form as you do and that is also with Cabot although they haven't issued a claim yet.
  22. Hi Isn't it true now that they can only go for an order for sale if the debt is for over £25K? Recent change by the new government. Tony
  23. Hi I have just received the exact same letter from Connaught for 2 of my cards (originally 1st crudit originally barclaycard) although I think 1st crudit and connaught are one and the same. They must have flicked the switch on the threatogram button again. Tonster
  24. Just for info, DLC are Hillesden Securities they are one and the same, I am going through the same thing with them as well.
  25. Interesting question though, can a company search through your credit file without your permission? DLC have done this to me and told me they have seen me paying off other accounts and so now have gone for an increase in their payments. Can they do this or does it go against Data Protection rules?
  • Create New...