Thanks the_shadow

 

I went on noodle after reading your post and they're all on there (including on that shouldn't be so I will fight to get that one removed)

 

My credit score on Noodle is 1/5!, 720 on Credit Expert. I think my chances of getting credit are well and truely stuffed unless I can get them to removed the defaulted record from my file with an f&f.

Blimey theres a first!

Defaults are notoriously hard to get removed and you may have to play hardball with them in the F&F offers, they'll normally do anything BUT remove them. If the CRA wont remove the invalid default you mentioned then a complaint to the ICO should be made pretty sharpish!

You also need to at the very least do as DX states and work out how much you COULD reclaim from them in penalty charges etc, these amounts should be taken off the totals PRIOR to any F&F offer working out as they'll normally drop those amounts from the debts with no thought in any event.

Good luck

Dont forget there are three credit agencies (four with noddle but thats new and hardly anything appears on it at present), just because its not on one unfortunately doesnt mean they wont be on one of the others.

See the credit reference links in dx's signature above

S.

Congrats Bugsy123 et all, I'll change the title to show ** Discontinued **

S.

Well I havent been on here for almost 12 months.

 

Been very quiet as far as the dca is concerned, in fact nothing from them until a month ago when I suddenly received a letter from them sating that if I didnt ring them they intended to get either an attachment of earnings or a second charge on our house.

 

Kindly remined them that my cca request had not been forfilled, then last week they finally provided a copy of the cca & account statement, also enclosed was a letter stating I have seven days in which to ring them to discuss repayment, they are insisting that it has to discussed over the phone & wont entertain letters.

They have no right to demand such a thing, sending responses in writing slows down the process and ensures you are not put under undue pressure which is what they are trying to achieve here. DONT let them dictate how the communication will take place, if any. If you have a wish to negotiate with them then I would almost certainly keep things in writing as nothing said over the phone will ever be recorded at their end, unless you have a recording device and advise them at the start of a conversation that you are recording you cant trust anything they say.

The OFT debt guidelines state you can ask for communication to be in writing and as such if thats your wish tough on them. Remind them that they are dealing unfairly with you asking you to phone them and that you would prefer to have everything in writing so you can ask/seek advice from a third party (CAB, etc etc)

The OFT debt collection guidelines state it is an example of unfairness if a company is:-

Section 3.3 k:

ignoring or disregarding debtors' reasonable requests in respect of when, where and how to contact them

HTH

S.

Making an offer will indeed reset the SB date, you could try putting a without prejudice statement at the top but its just for show I'm afraid if they wish to disclose the offer in any future case.

S.

Then provide nothing, its for them to prove the debt is yours and that they can collect, not t'other way round. The fact its stat barred means they have no chance anyway as you clearly know not you are under no obligation to repay.

S.

Well one thing's for certain, whoever wrote that doesn't even have an 'O' level in law let alone English.

Agree

If you have letters that agree to the full and final including the removal of the charge then mistake on their part or not you could demand they refund the monies you have paid to clear the charge paid back to you as they have reneged on their "deal" and renegotiate the whole thing over imho.

S.

...so, though LoP 1025 asks for proof of postage, judges can choose to ignore that, or does this need to be pointed out for them to take into account? Else what is the law for, if the likes of Cabot are allowed to pick and choose what they wish to follow...?

 

Just for my sanity here please can someone reply to my post #208 above? Is the logic behind it flawed based on Andy's comments in #220?

Proof in small claims is based on probabilities not certainties I'm afraid... also proof of postage could just be a record in the database that a letter was sent, proof of receipt is something else entirely and the point is moot if you've admitted you received the notice of acknowledgement, THAT being the only thing the LoP is really concerned with, not the procedure you receive it as such.

S.

In most cases they dont have to, or retain a hard copy, the DJ would be happy to go along with " on the balance of probabilities " not all but most !!! But at the very least surley they must produce a screen shot that one was triggered.

 

Andy

Without at least an entry in the database the most they could say is that they would "normally" issue a default notice, or that the system will not let them advance with the debt without a DN being issued, they cannot give a definitive answer or rather shouldnt. Any other errors in paperwork or missed documentation would be a bonus and go to show unreliability in any statement of "normal processes" taking place imho.

S.

I have been having a problem with Lloyds TSB over mis-selling of PPI

 

this has involved

numerous letter to them and complaints

which as to be expected are all unfounded as far as they are concerned

 

However they did claim that the mis-selling of the PPI would be investigated and I would be contacted by the office dealing.

 

I have had no reply to this or anything else from Lloyds TSB since June 2011 apart from a letter stating that the matter is being handled by Wescot Credit Services.

They clearly are not taking the PPI complaint seriously, if you've not had the final response from them then after an 8 week period you are entitled to go direct to the FOS and complain, or if you are confident of the mis-selling you could issue court proceedings.

I have now started to receive letters from them

the most recent being that they will visit my address,

 

this does not particularly worry me as I have informed them they will have one chance to walk off my property.

 

I find it difficult to understand why Lloyds TSB have handed this to them

and would you think that they have sold this debt to Westcot

You COULD write back stating the account is in dispute in regards mis-selling of PPI and to butt out or you could just ignore, if they are just collecting on Lloyds behalf then they'll just pass it back if they get no joy. If they have purchased the debt then thats naughty as clearly some unresolved issues, against the new debt sales guidelines so worth a complaint to both Lloyds and Westcot with copies sent to the FOS imho for reference imho.

S.

Sounds like youre coping well with there tricks..

Stay strong

S.

But if the bank are silly enough to go to court without such letter(s) it might (should) be another story ..... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241052-Irwin-Mitchell-NastyWest-overdraft-claim-***-Won-With-Costs***

 

Cheers

Rob

Indeed, I've read your thread well done. SAR's can be worth there weight in gold

S.

Hi Andy,

 

No doc'ts visible with those links, for me at least.

Snap

Looks like they've been removed from photobucket

thewharg,

martinkeatings1 was last onsite 20th April, hopefully they'll return to give us an update when they can.

S.

According to earlier posts you were going to provide Cabot/court with the AQ last November?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?319638-h197-v-Cabot-(ex-Egg-)-Now-in-litigation-help-please.&p=3606053&viewfull=1#post3606053

S.

What they've sent back doesnt meet the requirements as per Carey vs HSBC and reconstructed s78 requirements, it must contain your name and address at the time the debt was taken out. It does NOT have to contain your signature however.

As to pre-post 2007 agreements, they can send back reconstruction for ANY agreement however if they wish to take you to court, they would have a much harder time with no pre-2007 agreement although it is down to the defence of the claim and the judge in case IMHO.

S.

I'm afraid its not personal, they (hsbc/metrolpolitan/dg solicitors) who are infact all the same people do this all the time on accounts they are collecting on, even if you ignore and they carry on the same repayment level you'll get a joke letter in say 3/6 months time stating "your agreed repayment level needs to be re-evaluated".

as CitB say's take control now.

S.

Shadow...

both the "NOA"s was sent by Cabot... both in post 49....

 

They are claiming that the 2nd one is a representation of the first one..

 

Molly:-)

Ok well they got more creative with the colour options in their printing thats for sure

I think what they are saying is... Any letter they sent had the details that were required by the LoP act, the format and layout of the letter doesnt matter as in their are no prescribed words/statements other than it makes clear the debt has been passed on.

S.

err, it is clear. assignee must arrange for notice of assignment to be given, s82a cca. for assignments wef 1/2/11. as i stated, just for info.

Sorry I'm not making my point very clear... the creditor must ensure its done yes but what I'm saying is its not clear to a debtor WHO has sent the NoA, we've seen creditors lend out their letterhead to all and sundry and send NoA's on behalf. As the LoP stands it doesnt matter who sends it just that it gets sent.

S.

The letters are totally different.

Anyway, it is this second letter they provided with the Amended POC, stating it is a representation of the first letter, which it isn't.

)

The NoA's are usually mail shots just like the default notices, and over time obviously they've changed. I presume the version they've sent is the latest version of the doc. Do they have any other differences, mentioning adding interest to the debt etc etc.

S.

just for info re wef 1/2/11?, see p71 in pdf here for eg http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?306183-Consumer-Credit-Directive

err yes as I stated its still not clear as both parties can tell you they just have to agree it, they dont have to tell you that they've made the arrangement to inform you.

S.

Ok, as you've said the time to claim a strikeout for non-compliance would have been after the first response imho.

As for the overdraft there is no signed agreement needed, an overdraft facility letter is all that would be required.

S.

Hmm could possibly be as the LoP act doesnt really state they have to do much to notify the debtor that the debt is now owned by someone else. The requirement is you are told, its not quite clear in the act who has to tell you just that you have to be advised.

If your NoA differs from them, it puts their evidence in question BUT it does mean you were told that debt was transferred.

S.

Brigg any chance of changing the thread " THEY DONT LIKE IT UP UM" Or somthing a bit more apt ta

haha dont encourage him, he'll do it you know

S.