Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sand-Dancer0191

  1. At what point can you say.."This debt has been terminated" I have a dca chasing me for a debt.The dca requires full payment via bankers draft etc.etc. No NOA has been produced and no D/N produced.IN fact I have NOT signed an agreement (I ok'd it online) But no doc's were ever produced... Am I right in assuming that demands from dca and the fact that I cannot deal with the original creditor renders this as terminated by the original creditor....RE:- mcguffick & rbs. Any other cases or links would be great..The more info the better (whether I'm right or wrong) Sand-Dancer
  2. I therefore request that any costs incurred by the claimant be disallowed. (In cases of clear unreasonableness, a lender may not be allowed to add costs to the security (Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1992] 4 All ER 588, CA)).
  3. don't know if this is any help..... Phoenix Recoveries vs D Kotecha - Court of Appeal PHOENIX RECOVERIES (UK) LTD SARL v DEVENDRA KOTECHA (2011) CA (Civ Div) (Thorpe LJ, Lloyd LJ, Patten LJ) 26/1/2011 CONSUMER LAW CONSUMER CREDIT : CREDIT CARDS : CREDITORS' POWERS AND DUTIES : REGULATED AGREEMENTS : CREDITOR'S COMPLIANCE WITH DEBTOR'S REQUEST FOR COPY OF REGULATED CREDIT AGREEMENT : ENTITLEMENT TO ENFORCE DEBT : CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 : s.78(1) CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 : s.78(6) CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 A creditor had failed to satisfy a debtor's request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s.78(1) for a copy of a credit card agreement as it had not, on the evidence, included the original, actual terms and conditions in respect of interest rates then in force. The creditor was, accordingly, not entitled to proceed to enforce the debt under s.78(6). The appellant (K) appealed against a decision of the judge allowing a claim by the respondent company (P) for amounts due under a credit card agreement. That agreement, which was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, had been entered into by K and a bank (B) in 1998. K was then issued with a credit card which he used extensively. B subsequently merged with another bank (H) and H took over B's credit card business. In 2007, K made a request under s.78(1) of the Act for a copy of the credit card agreement. H supplied an incomplete version and following K's further request it sent a copy of what it contended were the terms and conditions incorporated into the agreement. K disputed whether that version of the terms and conditions was correct. H later sent a default notice and issued proceedings against K, alleging that he was in breach of the agreement. H then assigned the claim to P, who was substituted as a party. K, then acting in person, defended the action on the ground that, because the s.78(1) request was not complied with, P could not enforce the agreement pursuant to s.78(6) of the Act. The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that the appropriate records had been supplied by P. She therefore held that P had satisfied the s.78(1) request and that it was not precluded from enforcing the debt. K contended that there was no credible evidence that the documents set out as evidence by P were the same as those which had been used in the agreement between him and B. He submitted, inter alia, that a scanned copy of B's leaflet inviting him to apply for the credit card clearly set out an annual percentage rate (APR) of 9.9 per cent for balance transfers, reverting to 16.9 per cent after six months, and 18.7 per cent APR for cash withdrawals, whereas by contrast the terms and conditions given in evidence by P sent out in terms rates of 20.9 per cent APR for balance transfers and 22.8 per cent for cash withdrawals. It was accepted that that point had not been before the judge, although it was discernible from the papers. HELD: Interest rates were a term of central importance in credit card agreements. There was a strong case that the interest charges which would have been specified in the terms and conditions when B and K made the agreement in 1998 were those in the leaflet and not those which appeared in P's evidence. Under s.78(1), a creditor was required to set out the actual, original terms and conditions of the agreement at the time it was made. In those circumstances, P had not proved that that obligation was satisfied, and it was therefore not entitled to progress to enforce the debt against K under s.78(6). Appeal allowed Counsel: For the appellant: Kelly Pennifer For the respondent: Guy Sims
  4. Don't know if this is any help http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=25493&d=1299086651
  5. My mortgage Co has lost the ID provided when I took the loan out. (passport/drivers licence/birth cert etc) ALL their copies of these doc are missing. They cannot talk when I phone as they can't verify who I am etc....data protection They want me to fax copies to them (which I won't) Now as I can't pay over the phone by debit card ....they are issuing a court claim for repo.. This has gone on for a while and its starting to get serious....As are the arrears...How do I stand with this legally
  6. That is IMO where this comes in (copied) Re: Notice of Assignment/ the law of Property Act/Arrow Global work of fellow cagger nicklee The Assignment of the Debt 19. If the Claimant was not zzzzzzzzzzzz Bank then it is not admitted that there was a lawful assignment. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the assignment was lawful and is put to strict proof that sufficient notice thereof was served upon myself. Without this proof the Claimant has no standing before the court. 20. The Law of Property Act 1925 is the relevant act that deals with the assignment of debts. Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:- 136. Legal assignments of things in action. — (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice— 21. However, it is Section 196(4) that prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post:- 196. Regulations respecting notices. (4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered. 22. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery). 23. For the assignment of a debt to be effective and so giving the Claimant a right of action a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action. 24. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824) 25. It is further averred that to be valid the the alleged notice of assignment must accurately describe the assignment including the date (W F Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke & another [1956] 2 ALL ER 169).
  7. Try a writen complaint to these :-http://www.csaconsumers-uk.com/page/i-have-a-complaint I would also complain to the OFT as it is against their rules on document retention. The problem is IF you still owe money/ you can stop paying until dispute is settled ...they don't like that. BUT if you have setted the account and owe them nothing....then they will use every trick avail to stall or not pay you. This is just one reason why they are up to their necks in it. Just a thought.....I read on here that the FSA or fsca (something like that) are doing a deal with welcome on PPI claims/issues If anyone else has links please
  8. There is also a question about the letter of assignment..without it they have collected unlawfully and enforced it unlawfully I would seek further advice on this point....
  9. SAR welcome for all the details on this account. Reclaim ppi/medicare etc plus default fee's etc WITH interest
  10. (Best bet is to knucle down and pay up what you owe.) what a statement The issues are NOT the repaying of what you owe BUT THE RECLAIMING OF WHAT HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM YOU
  11. ""The letter from ICO states that Welcome had got nothing in my previous surname. This i find quite funny because i didnt remarry until 2001 and the accounts were from before that"" Nothing in previous surname....Therefor NO debt in that name.I would be happy with that UNLESS the debts are paid and accounts closed and you are reclaiming ppi etc. Need a bit more info on this
  12. ""ascot brookes claiming that welcome finance are starting bancrupcy proceedings, not only did they claim that our debt would be exsponged, but they also claimed that regardless of the fact that we made a claim on our PPI that it is still claimable, (which we will need to pay them 25% of if we win)"" WOW .....I believe that that is one desperate claims company trying to get a slice of your ppi claim. A statement like that from them should be reported to the OFT Question this WHY pay a company like this when YOU have done the work and have already submitted the claim
  13. I would say yes to the SAR and find out what other charges turn up.Which you can also reclaim. The PPi issue is no problem...I believe you have 6 years to make a claim. I wouldn't accept or reject the ppi claim form.I would just misslay it...
  14. As they havn't sent ALL info requested send a letter to welcome putting account in dispute. Ignore DCA while welcome are dealing with the claim. Total and claim all charges as DX has said plus the ppi etc HOLD this back as your ace...file it away nice and safe ""They have just sent proof that the PPI and accident plan was never authorised! It looks like they have taken the liberty of filling in the insurance tick boxes and signature box themselves."":whoo:
  15. I had a strong feeling they would quote the"" McGuffick V Royal Bank of Scotland"".The DCA's are starting to use this as a case ref.. It does NOT apply here..McGuffic was the claimant therefore different rules apply. The principles of enforcement action in this area are judged by the OFT to be similar to those applying to statute barred debt. If sections 77, 78 or 79 cannot be complied with so the debt cannot be enforced in the courts, this does not mean that the debt disappears, and it is perfectly acceptable for a creditor to seek to pursue the debt. It is also acceptable, in this context, to register accurately any arrears or default with a credit reference agency. However, if they were to threaten court action, knowing that judgment will not be possible and that therefore court action will not actually be taken, this would be judged by the OFT to be misleading and oppressive. Also this point needs reporting ""14 days to avoid any further recovery action being taken.""Plus what BB said
  16. post back as return to sender..costs them more
  17. Quote:- Rockwell Debt Collection are saying that i still have a legal obligation to pay them the oustanding and original debt! But surely if they cannot find the CCA then there isnt a debt is there. Quote:- In a sense, they are correct, you do still owe the money. But without a copy of your credit agreement, they cannot at any time threaten court action, they cannot instigate legal proceedings......they can get down on bended knees & beg you to pay, but if you say no, there is absolutely nothing they can do. Both quotes are correct as stated in McGuffick v The Royal Bank Of Scotland(2009)EWHC2386....BUT I believe this was based on the CCA2006.Which is not retrospective... Your debt would I believe fall under the CCA1974....BIG..BIG difference so the quote from debbbsy is the one I would opt for here. And yes the letters will continue...Do what you want with them...I personally post back as return to sender / costs them more money that way:lol:
  18. As doh said...... Dont forget the internets power for spreading the word just look at wiki leaks etc.
  19. These notes refer to the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c.14) which received Royal Assent on 30 March 2006 Section 6: Statements to be provided in relation to fixed-sum credit agreements 23 Section 6inserts a new section 77A after section 77 of the 1974 Act. Section 77A will require creditors in regulated fixed-sum credit agreements to provide debtors with annual statements in the specified form, the first of which is required within one year of the day after the date on which the agreement was made. 24. If a creditor does not give the debtor an annual statement when required to do so, then he is not entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of his noncompliance and the debtor is not liable to pay any interest during this period. The debtor is also not liable to pay any default sum (see note in respect of section 18 below) that would have become payable during the period of non-compliance or would have become payable after the end of that period in connection with a breach of the agreement occurring during that period. A creditor will not be required to give the debtor an annual statement if there are no further sums payable under the agreement.
  20. charlie.....give link or info on ""Positive Money""
  21. Ok..so they have proof...Now I think a SAR to welcome is in order. (1) to reclaim missold ppi (if you have it) (2) reclaim the charges (which you will have) (3) to compare their final figure against MKRR (both figures must be the same) also as you havn't heard from them for 4 years...the FINAL figures can only be from oct 08 as below.. since Oct 2008 the creditor must provide a yearly statement and also regular Notice of Arrears (six monthly) without which they are not entitled to enforce any debt, and lose the right to claim any arrears that may have become due during the period of non-compliance.
  • Create New...