Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mike220359

  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 should be heard in a higher Court than the County Level (see section 141) so if I were one of those nice 'Solicitors' who had fielded the cases in the first case place it would be more than fruitful for them to have the decision set aside. There again, it might not be such a fast buck to do this. Additionally, be aware that each of these files were when the Debtor was the Claimant - the onus of proof therefore was on the Debtor to proove the Claim, it is alot easier to Defend when in this situation, you have to proove nothing. Remember he talks about Claims not Defences. I'm afraid these cases were arguably il-advised from the outset, I just hope it hasn't cost them any money! Remember the decision has no effect on any other aspect of the CCA or its associated SI's and there is more than enough protection for us, provided you argue the case appropriatley. Not withstnading the above, remember that before c.May 2008, non-copliance with section 77-79 after the prescribed period they committed an offence, if they added interest to the account when in default, proceeds of crime - unlawful enrichment. And (I would argue) a good item to bring up in an unfair relationship argument.
  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 finding out there rights. As regards claiming back the interest its a matter of starting court action ,they're not going to give it back if you just ask. Remeber there is more than one way to skin a cat!!! Mike
  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 are unable to profit from unlawful activity, so all interest and charges that have been applied during the breech is unlawful enrichment for which you are entitled to be refunded to the account, with statutory interest. I took them, settled with out liability, you'll have to PM me for details. The second option is to wait until thay default you which they probably will -vexatious act, they cannot enforce whilst in breech of section 78 which includes default issue. They have therefore brought the 'contract between you' to a close without warrent, since you have merely been enforcing your rights unnder law and they have been acting outside it. Now you have them, you rescind the contract under the CCA, they have a prescribed period to reply otherwise they commit another offence. Then you sue them for breech of contract and full recission of the arrangement between you. That allows you to reclaim, all interest & charges (with stautory interest) to place you both in a situation that existed before the 'agreement' was reached, but it also allows you to claim compensation for their breech, the fact that they have posted and erroneous default marker on your record, incidentally, I have read on another thread that a colleague is actually taking the CRA to court as well for allowing the compant to post defamoatory material, since the OFTs recent guidelines has cancelled the CRAs cop out of 'we asked them (the bank) if it was true and they said it was' Anyway hope this helps. Mike
  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 an argue in court that this does not comply with requirements of the act, but not at this stage) 'subject to approval' it is therefore a 'pre contractual agreement' under section 59 of the CCA and therefore non-enforceable under any circumstances. PM Peterbard on this matter, but tip me scales if its helped! Regards, Mike ps I would have thought Naomi would have been a little cheesed off with sending out this 'documentation' still its not Monument that have to defend it in court its Barclays' team, I wouldn't be very happy if I were they.
  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 enforce the agreement, and he/she told them so. Didn't stop them trying to and they began charging interest and default charges until July 2007. First one DCA were 'employed' they got short shrift and a complaint to the Ombudsman who didnt find in his/her favour because he/she hadnt lost any money but in its investigation provided him/her with some intersting information to help his/her court matters. Then they defaulted him/her in July 2007 and closed the account all whilst they couldnt enforce the agreement. Oh dear, wrong information on the default notice too and wrong info on the CRAs, but he/she will deal with that one soon. Ok I hear you say it's only their word against Monuments that they are still in default but it isn't, took them to court earlier this year to claim restitution for their unjust enrichment whilst in breech of Section 78, they settled on the court steps for full amount credited to the account, plus damages. Claimed back unfair charges had them recredited to the account plus damages. Took them to FOS for PPI and had all and interest credited to account. He/sherescinded the contract earlier this year because of the unwarrented breech of contract and behaviour, when he/she is able will take them to court for full restitution. Talk about arse and elbow. Now here's a meaty bit in the disclosure mecahnism he/she asked for a copy of the original agreement and all correspondance to Trading Standards. Lo & behold they produce the T & Cs and two letters to TS, obviously they provided the reply card to them too, but TS (for once) were on the ball and asked for the T & Cs which they received about a week later, but they werent sent to him/her! So there we have it, they recognise that they didnt provide the T & Cs to TS but not to him/her, its laughable. And to add even more fuel to the fire, the T & Cs are dated September 2003, he/she took the account out in 2001! So he/she will be moving onto TS in due course. When he/she has the full story all the info will be displayed on a designated thread. BTW Compucredit have a convuluted arrangement with Raphaels Bank which allows the forrmer to use the latters FSA registration I dont quite understand it but there we are, but that explains why all CRA entries are headed Raphaels Bank (CCT UK) or the like. All proceedings should be sent to Compucredit's head office as detailed in Drob's post 37 of this thread. You will get an acknowledgment of service and an intention to defend and all correspondance will then be transfrerred to Barclays Litigation Department. (One poster on another thread posted the contract of exchange between Barclays and Compucredit in 2007, which made the former responsible for all legal proceedings and costs as part of the agreement), you will (hopefully) get to have exchanges with a Sharon Daboul who is very nice and sounds an absolute babe (sorry sexist!!!!), who will basically be going through the motions. The Barclays team know that they havent got a leg to stand on but they have to do it, but the information that they provide you during disclosure is absolute dynamite. Hope this helps.
  13. Can you scan the offending article. Mike
  14. Got your email with all the info, I dont reply on here very much these days because I find it very difficult to trust people especially when dealing with cases centreing on the organisms at Rosyth, but PM me and see wher we go from there. All info will be treated confidentially. Mike
  15. Cnat believe that they are trying to pass this on, still ) and I'm playing devils advocate here) they could argue that this is a true copy of the original agreement according to the SI of 1983, But look at the penalty fees they are stuck at £12, when we all know that they werent reduced until 06/07, so haow can it be the original. Words fail me. Mike
  16. Attachment still not there Mike
  17. If it is over six years old it is statute barred unless the company has been in contact with you in the interim. In th meantime you must act quickly to get this sorted out by getting it stopped, do you actually owe the money, if not then they are on a sticky wicket, suggest you read the following from the insolvency help line? Legal Issues Explained - Statutory Demand But as I said I'm pretty sure that this is staute barred. Mike
  18. No prescribed terms, the trouble is Blair et al, will deem that they have complied with the cca, by providing this piece of paper, and they will start their usual battle of harassment. However, stand your ground they will not take you to court and if they do contest it, by asking for the original agreement, I'm guessing that this scan is of a scan or photocopy from the Halifax. I'm guessing that they dont have the original document to save space theyve scanned it. If they cannot produce the original to the court, then the case will be struck out. Mike
  19. copy the letter to the oft and the fos for adjudication
  20. Since my last update, sent in a claim for all the charges applied to the account between foundation and breech of section 78 began in September of 2006. Had a reply offering to settle by crediting the claim to the account, providing that I dropped claim and the matter remained confidential. Wrote back, er no, you can credit the charges and interest (that is what I wanted) but the damages and costs you can forward to me by cheque. Also reminded them of the lack of time they had, looks like I'm going to court. The FOS action regardging PPI is still ongoing as is the complaint against Westcot for their threats. I'm just about to begin actionagainst Frederickson for their involvement. Second claim served last week against Monument to refund all interest and charges to the account whilst the account is in dispute, found a wonderful legal doctrine to put in my particulars of claim Res ipsa loquitur (it speaks for itself). Amounts to a tidy sum and so do the damages claimed. I wonder how Barclays' litigation team will deal with this one. After Xmas will come the big one the behaviour of Monument and the unwarrented posting of a default om my file Westchester case and Kpohraror case will be the nails in their coffin. Mike
  21. Well done, one of my cases delivered last week, another early next, and two complaints to the FOS. News soon I hope Mike
  22. This is a good point and is where you must have a good argument. Say Mike220359 (The creditor) has an improperly executed credit card agreement with Paul (The debtor), now over time Mike has given a replacement card to Paul from time to time. With the replacement card under section 85 of the CCA Mike must give a copy of the executed agreement to Paul. If (as u Know) I dont then I cannot enforce the agreement blah blah blah. Now after a further month Mike commits an offence, however enforcement may resume should production of the agreement be produced. If the original agreement was improperly executed at the foundation there is no way that section 85 can be complied with therefore Mike would be committing an offence, even though he may not realise it. As an aside under section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006, (dealin with abuse of position) you can commit fraud by ommision as well as by action! Now, if Mike has added interest and or charges following the issue of the new card, then he has been unjustly enriched, so Paul can ask for restitution of those sums plus 8% (not contracted rates, since we are talking about restitution). The court could indeed enforce the agreement but under section 127 of the CCA, it can adjust the outstanding amount, and since the debttor has been prejudiced because of the unjust enrichicment of the creditor the outstanding sum must be reduced. QED Its not about avoiding debt its about preventing lenders making a profit when they have not abided by the rules that they have to follow. In this situation you havent done anything wrong, it is them, they just try and make it look like you are a scheming debt avoiding scrounger. Be Strong they're wrong. PS I'm using this tack with a couple at the moment, results published when succesful! Mike
  • Create New...