Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by catquest

  1. I'm being pestered by the Lloyds Mortgage department to prove how I will repay my Interest Only mortgage in 5 years' time. There is nothing in the original agreement which says I have to provide proof during the currency of the agreement ( I am aware that nowadays they want the proof before even giving an interest only mortgage but that certainly wasn't the case 10 years ago ) Any thoughts on the legal position ?
  2. Actually one advantage of sending them a letter saying it's statute barred and you don't intend to pay is that most of them ( in fairness, in my experience ) will then confirm that they are stopping any further requests for payment as the FCA CONC rules require this.
  3. Noddle seem to list normal long term loans under "Short Term" on the basis that the lender provides daily information under a new system called MODA. Is that legitimate ?
  4. The new rules will hit Bailiffs hard with their exorbitant card charges .
  5. The problem here is that the OP paid £ 1 for several years towards the debt. Blueboy how did you find out that they had paid it towards the balance ?
  6. Remember the important cases which make it clear that mentioning an account in correspondence ( eg a section 77/78 request ) while at the same time not admitting the debt does not count as acknowledgement : Good v Parry, Surrendra Overseas v Shri Lanka, Re Flynn .
  7. I've had this as well - how does it actually work in terms of what the purchaser paid for the debt - do they get their money back ?
  8. If they send you a reconstruction ( and they would use that in court with a witness claiming it was the correct agreement at the time ) then you will need to find some evidence in the T&Cs which shows it can't be your card ( eg look out for special interest rates for Premier Football tickets ). By the way I found out from a Barclays SAR that they told MKDP that a debt is s78 unenforceable at the point of sale.
  9. Could have been an unpaid cheque which was guaranteed by a card which the bank had cancelled
  10. Arrow have a habit of passing debts around various DCAs. I suspect they can't get the CCA especially if it was Egg pre Barclays. You can ignore their letters .
  11. I just looked at an old Citicard agreement - this states that if the cardholder ends the agreement ( which Wandsworth did with his 5th Nov letter ) then the full balance is payable immediately. No default notice is required in such a case. However the Barclays agreement I have simply says "the agreement continues until all amounts you owe have been paid "
  12. It starts from the last payment date if an account is already in arrears. If up to 9 October the account was fine then the cause of action ( leaving aside the DN problem for the moment ) was the first missed payment date, presumably some time in November. Also you acknowledged the debt in a letter ( 5th Nov ? ) when informing Barclays that you were using a Debt Management Company to clear your debt.
  13. I suspect most agreements that people are dealing with have not ended. Barclaycard say in their terms and conditions that the agreement continues until the full balance is paid off.
  14. Yes indeed, but if they have no agreement especially if asked for under s78, then it's unenforceable and I am sure the defence could be amended on that point if necessary, this is highly technical though
  15. The lack of a response to s78 request is a vital part of the defence. In my experience of Barclays SARs they have all the data ie statement copies and copies of default notices from Mercers. They will also know the start date of the agreement . For the purposes of their claim they could provide a reconstituted copy of the agreement. The difference in default date between Hoist and Barclays is familiar, not sure how Hoist choose that date, Barclays choose the date of sale. Incidentally I also noticed from SARs that Barclays inform Hoist that an account is "s78 unenforceable" Did you never get the letters from Hoist saying " we are still trying to get a copy of your agreement " ?
  16. This is total nonsense - a defence should be based on every possible angle - the judge and barristers will then agree on which is the most important part and start with that. There are blogs by one of the most successful lawyers in consumer credit law and you will see that in almost all cases there are multiple issues entered into the defence.
  17. Did you ever make a formal request under s77/78 paying the £ 1 fee ? Remember lack of the original signed agreement does not make it unenforceable but they have to come up with a true copy of your agreement.
  18. You said earlier the default notice was issued 7th May. I assume 24th May is the date by which you had to rectify the breach ? ( usually 17 days later to allow for service )
  19. Barclays had a habit of sending default notices from Mercers like confetti without actually meaning to enforce them. They try desperately to come to a payment arrangement. When this fails, they sell the account and only then do they report it as defaulted with CRAs.
  20. The old MBNA agreements ( and perhaps some card agreements even now) stated that the full balance became payable on a breach of the agreement. In such a case some have argued that contractually the SB did start with the first missed payment date and the issue of a DN is only a statutory provision, this was successfully argued in the case Swansea Council v Glass. However more recent agreements usually state that statutory requiremnts have to be followed BEFORE the full balance is due.
  21. Let's see if they can actually come up with the agreement. Barclays can ( in my experience ) come up with a generic agreement which doesn't correspond to the real thing ( eg look out for Premier Football terms which had a reduced interest for purchasing tickets )
  22. The date of 29th July is irrelevant, that's when they decided to place the default on the CRAs. The relevent date for SB purposes is 24 May, that's when the full balance became payable in principle. Your own copy is sufficient proof, you can also get another one by SAR from Barclays but I suspect it's too late for that as they take 40 days to produce it.
  23. There are several decisions, eg Surrendra v Sri Lanka and Re Flynn which confirm that mentioning an alleged account without actually admitting liability does NOT constitute an acknowledgement
  24. It is relevant because the main issue in all cases is : when exactly did the full balance become payable ? Barclays are saying in their agreements that there has to be a serious breach of the agreement but they will follow legal requirements before asking the full balance ( ie issue default notice ) In BMW v Hart there had to be a termination notice first.
  • Create New...