Jump to content

Mike220359

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

148 Excellent

About Mike220359

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I would love to have a copy Paul Mike
  2. removed the reply reason for removal to much information given and prying eyes.
  3. Thanx for the kind words, not all yet have been fulfilled but it will only be a matter of time with a bit of luck. I agree to some extent regarding the CCCS but when I contacted them some time ago they did give me alot of advice and also seemed to be respected by (most) of the creditors except Barclaycard unfortunatly, who really put me under the cosh. Though it must be said I wish i had known then what I know now! Regards, Mike
  4. Sorry mate I'm afraid your mistaken, the judgement said that for a SECTION 78 REQUEST ONLY (and I spose 77 and 79 as well), the creditor can re-create an 'original agreement' pastewise in order to satisfy the request, and so opening the floodgates to 'enforcement'. However, if you ignore such 'enforcement' viz harassment there is little the creditor can do unless they take you to court and if they haven't got the original agreement they can do diddly squat. Remember this ruling has no effect on any other aspect of the CCA as amended and is rather surprising really since no CCA associated case
  5. They will do anything they want and only pay lip service to your rights until you take them to court - at the end of the day, this is an unregulated industry which is looked over by the ICO which really does nothing to the big fish
  6. You are actually slightly wrong on this although the Section 78 has indeed been complied with as you say. In order that the agreement be 'properly executed' it does indeed have to be 'properly signed' in the manner dictated by a statutory instrument of 1983 - 1553 I think it is by both parties. Otherwise the agreement cannot be enforced without court intervention. And there you have the rub, no bank signature no enforcement by the bank, no interest nothing. That is why the banks are cra****g themselves at the moment, they know that people out there are only a hairs width away from findin
  7. Just asked the OFT through the FOI just how many complaints they have received regarding BOS, how many they have acted upon and what sanctions they have imposed. Mike
  8. With regard to the payment break plan, this was an automatic addition to the account after it was opened, in my case I didnt sign anything so I reported them to the Finacial Ombudsman service, they kicked and struggled abit, but in the end they refunded the full amount plus statutory interest. I take it that you are still being charged interest and alpplied penalty charges to the account whilst they are still in breech of section 78. You have two choices, at this point you can begin proceedings against them because they have broken the law and continue to do so, the law states that you ar
  9. It may be the correct address for Customer Services, but all submissions should be made to the head office at the Portland Building in deepest Sussex. Mike
  10. Thay tried to pass the T & Cs shown off as the original in my disclosure list, but didnt have the guts to argue in court settled 'without admission of liability'. Look at the evidence, on the T & Cs says that Monument is a subsidery of Barclays Bank, so why is the reply card stamped Providian National Bank? The reply card cites section 21, but this is missing in the T & Cs so if the latter were the originals the creditor has still not complied with Section 78 because it has not supplied [every] document refereed to in the agreement. And the Piece de whatever, it is stamped (we
  11. The apperance is very importnat, but if you can write it out I'll have a look Mike
  12. Sorry to but in on this one, but 'a friend' had a fair amount of doings with the organisms at CompuCredit t/a Monument and Ms Wort and Ms Croyer. He/she issued a section 78 request in August 2006! they ignored it until March 2007 after he/she complained to Trading Standards when they produced the famous 'reply card' that other users have been issued with, but nothing else. Coz he/she spose TS were involved they removed all the interest and charges accrued between August and that March. Now here's the meaty bit, they didnt include the T & C's, so they were still in default, so couldnt
×
×
  • Create New...