No, i've never attempted a penalty reclaim, what's the procedure (or a link to a brief guide)?

Hi A couple of years ago, before I met her, my girlfriend had a Capital One card, like a lot of other people, she fell on bad times and couldn't repay and defaulted. She lives in the South of the UK and I live in the North, she's planning on moving up to mine and wants to have a clean slate so about 6 months ago, we wrote to Capital One offering to settle the account. Cap One wrote back saying that the account had been sold on but did not say who at the time but that the DCA would be in touch shortly. This week she has received a letter from Cap One which looks like a valid assignment to agent letter, the agent in question is Arrow Global Guernsey Ltd. A day later she received a letter from Arrow Global notifying her of the assignment BUT saying that she should direct all communication to Westcot Credit Services Ltd. I must say, this is the first time i've personally seen an OC's assignment letter and a DCA following up the assignment. Firstly, is this a valid assignment chain, neither letter refers to any statute etc but Cap One's does have AG's address on it and AG's address on their letter matches. Secondly, is a CCA still valid in this case given that she offered to settle before xmas which kind of admits liability of the debt and if we can CCA, do we serve it on Westcot or Arrow? Third, I think i'm right in assuming she still has the right to make a full-and-final settlement offer to them, she doesn't want to get into the £5 per month and the amount is only a couple of hundred anyway. All help greafully received. Thanks

So, just a quick update as there hasn't been any activity for some time now (no doubt they'll remember when they think i've forgotten). So, nothing back from my CCA, as predicted SAR to Citi proved unfruitful and i'm still getting the runaround. I sent the account in dispute as promised to them, no reply, i've even followed it up a month later with a cease and decist if they can't prove that which they say, however, I did notice something interesting while looking over my credit file which I think they'd hope I hadn't noticed. I looked at my most recent and noticed that the current balance and default balance had listed to HFO had changed, naturally I won't quote actual figures here, however, I remembered that they were significantly different some time back so I went back to June of last year and noticed that the records on my file aren't accurate. There are two entries for the same thing, one to HFO and one to Citi, both bear the same start date and account type, however, Citi's shows a current balance of a much lower balance than the default balance - circa 1k different, then skip on to HFO's listing, both current and default are the higher value. Both have "file made up to" dates identical as well. First of all, wouldn't this mean that the OC still had an interest in this debt at this point - meaning that HFO's "purchase" in 2006 doesn't exist? I've noticed that these two accounts are still being maintained to roughly the same date with differing balances on them. Curious!!!! Anyone had this before?

Envelopes are being kept and have also been scanned into my system, i'm assuming it's the postmark and originating sorting office that's the important bit here which builds a case against any sent on vs postmark date incongruity issues.

Formister, if your compensation etc is significant and valid, you can initiate a claim against them and keep pushing it like they do in kind. IMHO, it's the same as if any debtor owes you money realistically. I've pushed at banks and got paid out. I usually find that taking their own template letter of threats and sending it back to them usually gets them into a bit of a tizz. United Utilities paid back over £1000 in fees on top of damages after they got it completely wrong about a bill for the business I was involved in that started this whole thing off, they kept insisting we hadn't paid, came and disconnected our water and electric supply despite having been sent several copies of statements to proove it had been paid. They effectively shut us down for the weekend, we got a very significant amount in lost business plus my professional time in dealing with them in an out of court settlement with a non-disclosure of specifics agreement. They reconnected us on the Monday and tried to get away with just an apology but we thanked them for their attention to the matter but made it very clear we would not be deterred from compensation for loss of business due to their 'mistake' - all this over a payment of £200 they couldn't find.

Hi DB, yes, i'm guessing this will all come unhinged when they tie themselves in knots over who owns the debt. Surely though, for newer 'purchases', can't they get it right which would then strengthen the noose re my last post (#75) about OFT guidelines.

Thanks Formister, all of you are very helpful and the only way we learn is to share our experiences. I did have one open question, I was reading another thread which mentioned that CCA74, s77/s78 isn't as valid as we believe in securing proof of debt and doesn't provide some of the protections against dispute and that technically, DCA's are complying when they only send a copy of the application form/t&c. I had a look at the OFT site on s77/78/79 here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/cca/unenforceable-credit-agreements It says we can get a copy of the agreement, a statement and copies of "certain other documents mentioned in the agreement". It goes on to say they cannot make the debtor pay the debt prematurely, get a court judgement, take back hired or used security in the agreement but it then says they can ask you to pay what you owe, send a default notice, pass info to a credit reference agency, pass information to a debt collector, sell the debt, take the case to court. Doesn't some of that contradict itself? There's a useful PDF here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT1272.pdf specifically about s77/78/79. I suggest we read and understand 2.16 onwards as it sounds to me like we're partially relying on something we belive they have to do but in fact they don't. This is particularly worrying as it doesn't really put a burden of proof upon the creditor. It does ask them to explain why, if they reconsitute a copy of the agreement. There's been a case recently, Carey v HSBC Bank PLC [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) where, if I read it right, the judge ruled that the agreement was still enforceable (in that particular case) without a signature.

A solicitor friend of mine used to just say to me with regards to pushy legal firms, "the quicker you get them into court, the quicker you can make an idiot of them". I remember doing some work on a server at the firm the worked for and I was doing an upgrade on his office PC when a call came in, he was very polite with the people that called him regarding a case, he simply said to them, "I believe this is simply a matter for a judge to decide, I look forward to meeting you in court at your earliest convenience". His firm has a stupidly high win rate on this basis as the other side usually backs down as they are hoping you don't actually want to go to court.

My guess with the 12 years versus 6 for SAR bit if my experience in industry is right is an (cough, ahem, thinking outloud) 'falsehood', i'm sure I read the phrase "any and all" documentation somewhere relating to an SAR which if DCA and/or OC rely on this to enforce with but there's information withheld or unavailable, a clever solicitor could steer a judge to order the remaining data which they probably won't be able to produce, the case could probably proposed for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient supporting evidence. Result - DCA 0, Consumer 1! But that's a whole other debate mi amigo!

Of course, i'm preparing a pre-emptive-strike letter to them which will of course remind them of their CCA request deadline seeing as they like to remind us of deadlines. As suggested earlier, i'll be asking for details of the sale/assignment, who exactly owns it now including company numbers, copy of contract to which I am apparently bound, terms and conditions etc. I wouldn't normally talk to them at all but there's been mixed feelings in other threads about whether you should answer to them or not, I have some pretty sophisticated telecoms technology attached to my landline which does inbound CLI matching and routes all the DCA's I have on record to a generic message which starts with a very loud beep and a 5 second pause then instructs them to write to me at the address they have on file, they are advised that each attempt to call me is logged and they are played a audio number (eg 36) which is the number of times they have concurrently rung me, this call, one-sided though it is is also recorded so I can get any background chatter there might be. HFO are upto 76 so far and the worst is their agent actually listens to the entire message including the number of times called. It automatically adds the call to an activity log in a database based on their caller ID. I wish I could do this with my mobile.

Lol, thanks Formister, i've been reading all the CP2 stuff - if you're a HitchHikers fan, it's like the BabelFish and God, one proves the existense of the other but they try to deny it. It's with Citi, not BC, the original contract was 1997 so good luck pulling the docs from back then, they'll have been destroyed under the 7 year rule probably by now much like some old medical notes from my childhood which I needed desperately when I started having a problem with my eye.

CCA passes deadline on 11/01/2011, dispute letter already prepared ready to go. Is there a correct format for reporting these sorts of things to the OFT? I've never had to get them involved in anything before so any advice here would be extremely helpful.

Yeah, in my dealings with other DCA's i've had the same letter churned out to me several times, I found a great template letter which I amended very slightly which points out a few facts about their inability to read post sent back to them. I had this with Phillips not long ago with something that was sold down a long chain from Ruthbridge which i'd originally CCA'd to Zinc to Uncle Tom Cobbly and then to Phillips, the same threats every two weeks to the day, I replied rec del each time and still the threats churned out (obviously to push me into calling which I won't do). Finally a letter to the MD at their non-po-box address with copies of original letters, proof of posting and proof of delivery got this all stopped and the dish ran away with its tail between its legs so to speak. No doubt it'll be sent to someone else but that in itself proves their inability to substantiate their claim.

Ok, here's both as PDFs so they should be more readable. 00 - Initial Demand Letter 2010-12-14 - desensitised.pdf 02 - Second demand 72hr notice 2010-12-20 - desensitised.pdf

Good idea, didn't think of that, will do and re-post both

And here's the second one received while my CCA was being snail-mailed to them.

Sorry, first upload didn't go as planned so deleted and re-added, system keeps shrinking my images to 216 wide though.

Scan and desensitised version of first letter received from the HFO Threat-O-Matic from 14-12-2010 received 16-12-2010

Hi Everybody. Firstly, happy new year to one and all. Been away for a week, just a quick update and sinisterly to bump my post count to 20 so I can upload scans of the letters so far. Nothing in the mailbox as yet, am drafting the SAR to Citi which will go on Tuesday and a pre-emptive-strike for specifics about the assignment as suggested. Had an attempted phonecall last week (27th) from a different number with the usual bad caller ID, very snotty woman on other end, got her to hang up in the end, she tried to claim that "this matter had to be discussed right now on the phone", I politely replied with "only in writing please" and she kept saying that the time had passed for letters and it had to be resolved today, she told me she had already sent me many letters earlier this year to my address (she gave me my current address which i've been at for nearly 3 years but still definite lies as the letter a couple of weeks ago was the first i'd heard from them). I just kept insisting that she put everything in writing so that my solicitor could deal with it from here on, the line went very quiet with some foreign language muttering probably from a supervisor at which point she just said, "i'll have to go now" and hung up. Small victory in some ways, she was quite adamant that she had to resolve the matter on that day but when I said it was in the hands of my solicitor she went away, interesting, didn't even ask to confirm my solicitor's details which would be the norm in my experience, just hung up. Haven't had a call since and I was getting about 6 a day. Right, time to scan and black-out some letters.

Absolutely! And more fuel to us all to educate those being victimised. I learned very early on in my career that fact, determination and honesty will prevail over those that wish to poison our society and undermine our due process. I'll scan and blackout the couple of letters i've had so far when i get back to the office this week. As coledog suggested, i'll write and ask for T&C etc. i'm keeping an extremely accurate transaction log of letters inc reg del refs, calls received etc, letters sent, response sequence etc, full scan copies of all letters and envelopes, hours spent on research and dealing with them. Just like any solicitor, costs start at first enquiry

@DonkeyB: Your comments, experiences and expertise are well received Sir. It is not my intention to make an accusation in court and having had to sue on several occasions, I fully understand that full evidence is required unless you want to burden yourself with the penalties which go along with it. I was merely thinking aloud as people do from time to time as their practice of (can i use this word?) creating paperwork from what i have read, should it be proven under the guidelines of our legal system could be considered that way. Strictly thinking aloud again, you mention constant complaints, how many does it take to get them to actually pull a license? Can a request for the number of complaints be made as this must surely be public record. Additionnaly, if they put an alleged truth to someone and subsequently (when realising what a mess they've made for themselves) claim it was an "admin error", surely this must force a withdrawl of said evidence/statement. Surely there must also be a limit on the number of times they can make these "admin" errors before their case becomes null. I'm not used to bodies preporting to know and use the laws have such little regard for them Win or lose, It is most certainly my intention to assist in the gathering of evidence in any way possible in the exposure of this company, their practices, disregard for the law, abuse of the system, misery to individuals that goes on and if such evidence and lobbying results in the removal of license, cease of trading and bankruptcy of some individuals who were fully aware of said actions then i will rest easy knowing that the law does work. sounds like somebody has to stop them!

@Coledog: The claim of it being owned by HFO Capital was made in their first letter to me. They claim it was sold to them in August 2006. I was still in discussion with Citi at this time to try and settle, I made a written complaint about their conduct and treating people attempting to act responsibly back then after I got a collections letter. I referred the collector back to Citi and although i never received a reply or confirmation, I had not heard anything regarding this one until the discovery (fishing for identity confirmation) calls started a few months ago. I am akway extremely dubious of any company ringing up and asking for somebody by their full name. I'll be happy to attach some scans as soon as i have enough posts to do so. I'm away for a few days over xmas but will issue the SAR to Citi upon my return

Hi Coledog, I would never avoid a ligitimate debt, i had a legitimate complaint wuth each creditor whereby they refused to discuss and restructure the debt and simply passed it all onto various collectors. Unfortunately at the time, I wasn't as savvy as I am now and when i complained to them back in 2006 after the first wave of letters and calls at 7am i was told they have no record of such a conversation and that I would have to deal with their agent from now on. I have never received an NoA from either Citi or HFO. If i dig hard i may be able to find a letter from someone else (DLC i think) saying they were instructed by, however, at the time i used to bin all this tripe as as far as i was concerned, Citi had behaved irresponsibly and the complaint had been unanswered by them. Heres a law point re acknowledgement, if you reply to a letter from a DCA saying that you have a complaint ongoing or otherwise, does this not itself acknowledge your debt and can be retained against it becoming Statute Barred? paragraph removed Its that kind of thing that will bring the HFO house of cards down quicker than all the basic cases the courts throw out.

@sillygirl1: not anymore and my target would be to get that down to 2%!

If Bart et al are HFO lurkers, they'll know i'm away even though there's enough ambiguity in my posts to disguise my identity, I'm half expecting an N1 in my mailbox when i get back next week. Whats the procedure for getting it stayed or cancelled, if its like any other court claim i enter a defence that there's a query unanswered. However, the last person who took me to court i just said fine and forced them into court, they tried to revoke the claim and i got them to withdraw with prejudice so they couldn't file again. That cost them £14k hehehe. In the real world you shouldn't initiate court action unless you believe you actually have a case. However, HFO don't live in the real world which is why i'm surprised that the courts will still hear their cases. Hear this HFO, i look forward to our day in court, rush it as much as you like, the quicker you do it, the less reliable your evidence will be and the sillier you will look, i will prove you cannot claim and my counterclaim for damages will be the very next docket.