Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by majorclanger100

  1. Hi seriously fed up Yeah the same thing has happened to us with an old Abbey (MBNA) credit card - we got the same letter as you. Certainly sounds like financial machinations, as you say - and a bit of the old 'tax efficiency'..! Arrow tried it on with this one three years ago though and are now seriously in the poo. MBNA had (rather stupidly) included an internal memo saying 'the original credit agreement has been destroyed' with our SAR - when the debt was assigned to Arrow we told them to clear off because there was no way they were ever going to be able to produce an agreement. Of course they did try to reconstruct an agreement, but this related to the current MBNA terms and conditions (with the £12 penalty charges), not the 2004 t & cs we had - blatant attempt to mislead. Now they are back and I am very much looking forward to the battle! Good luck with your fights chaps! MC
  2. It is very good to see that those poor bankers at RBS are getting bonuses totalling £950m despite making a loss of £1.13bn - we really aren't 'all in this together' are we, Mr Cameron?! Here is an illustration of bank charges being levied at a ridiculous level. I am lucky not to be in financial hardship, but it is pretty easy to see that for someone where money is really tight this sort of shennanigans could totally destroy their finances (as Woolwich did to me six years ago). In October 2009 I stupidly agreed to sign up for a Natwest Advantage account - you pay a flat charge of £12.95 a month for this account which comes with some benefits like insurance, etc. I didn't use the account for a while, as I stuck with our joint account, but paid the monthly fee on time just to maintain the benefits. In January 2010 I miscalculated the monthly fee due and underpaid it by £2.50 - i.e. I was overdrawn for the grand total of £2.50 for a few hours until I realised my mistake and paid in money to correct it. I rang Natwest and was assured there wouldn't be any charges. The next month Natwest applied a £35 charge - this meant that there weren't enough funds in the account for a cheque for £20 to clear, so further charges applied. I paid in enough money to cover the £35 charge and ensured there was enough of a balance for the cheque to clear. I rang Natwest and once again they said no further charges would apply. You can guess the rest - Natwest have continued to pile on charges, despite telling me they weren't going to. I have paid the monthly account charge without fail, but due to the penalty charges the account is now £389.00 in arrears. Natwest have told me they are now applying a £6.00 charge per day. All this for a £2.50 unauthorised overdraft for 3 hours!!! We have paid billions of pounds in taxpayer support to bail out these immoral scumbags, yet they still fleece the British people at every opportunity and are as smug as they ever were, despite creating an economic crash which has left the country ruined and many people in financial hardship from which they might never recover. I deal with bankers in the City on occasion and there is little doubt that many take pleasure from the situation - they feel they have got away with it and the 'little people' will always pay for their stupidity and greed. Due to the actions of Natwest I have moved my joint account, car insurance, and business accounts from them - this has cost them far more than the £389 they are trying to fleece me for. I am also pursuing a mis-selling complaint against them for misadvising me about the benefits of the account, which is also likely to cost them. I wish the best to all who continue to struggle in this economic climate and let's keep fighting the banks to ensure that this type of legalised robbery cannot continue. It's all down to the Govan Law Centre and their brave stand now!!! MC
  3. Just wondering whether anyone has had any luck complaining about LCS Solicitors, which are the 'legal division' of 1st Credit? LCS are not registered with the Law Society and I cannot find any information about their principal, R D Marr. I know they are simply a division of 1st Crud and all their letters and phone calls are made by 1st Crud collection monkeys, but surely they are guilty of misrepresentation - both breaching the OFT debt collection guidelines and the Solicitors Regulation Authority Solicitors' Code of Conduct (not that they appear to be registered solicitors, of course!). Any thoughts would be very welcome. Thanks MC
  4. ROFL Bazooka Boo Oh that is brilliant - made my day! Thanks for all your advice guys - very helpful. You can sure see how cases like Beryl Brazier's happen. My poor mum-in-law is getting extremely depressed about this - she has got her family around her for support but when you are ill and elderly this sort of bullying is bound to impact on you. And DCAs know this - they are nothing better than gutter-****. MC
  5. It might be worth threatening MoreThan by claiming they've breached the Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) proviso of the FSA guidelines for general insurance. This would be in relation to them offering a much higher premium to your mother-in-law for renewal of the same risk than they have offered for new business. This is unjustified - the vast majority of the administrative costs of an insurance policy for an insurer are incurred during new business stage - renewals are where you make your money, hence why underwriters fight to retain profitable business. The beauty of TCF is that the FSA has never really defined it - which is why most insurers are extremely scared of customers threatening to complain under it. The insurance industry is pretty well regulated and takes it all very seriously - unlike the banks, etc! It might not work but if your mother-in-law is going to complain to MoreThan anyway I'd be tempted to include TCF in the complaint. Do let us know how you get on. Best wishes, MC
  6. It never rains but it pours.... My poor mum-in-law is now getting several calls a day from another DCA - these are automated messages asking if she is Mrs So-and-So - if she is could she press 1, if not could she press 2... She actually isn't this person so we can only assume they've got their details wrong (what a surprise ). She has got herself in a right state - understandably, as this is nothing more than harassment. I've had some cr*p from DCAs in my time but this one takes the biscuit. What part of the OFT guidance concerning DCAs not chasing people when they are not sure they are the debtor does this DCA decide they are exempt from...? Anyway I hope this DCA is wearing brown trousers when I get hold of them.....
  7. oh now we've received a threat of court action from 1st Credit and are getting the usual threatening phone calls and voicetext messages left on the answerphone. I am tempted to let them take me to court and then absolutely screw them for costs, but at what point do I notify them of the unlawful recission?
  8. Thanks very much for your advice, Miss Muppet. Luckily we didn't pay anything to 1st Credit - largely because they started being all 1st Creditish and therefore we decided they weren't getting a bean! Funny to reflect that if they'd been reasonable and polite we'd have paid instalments and therefore this account wouldn't be dead as a dodo. Hoist by their own petard, methinks!!! MC
  9. Thanks for the replies everyone. Don't worry, as they won't get away with this - the whole family is furious about their actions, so have a cunning plan!!! We've contacted the police and are also taking legal advice (thanks for the suggestion about exploring whether this might be a case of criminal extortion, Jimbo). I remember the tragic case of poor Mrs Brazier - an example of how these **** can push people into absolute desperation. Those of us lucky enough to have support from CAG may have lost our fear of DCAs and can see them for what they are, but sadly there are still plenty of people who are easily bullied and intimidated.
  10. Damn! I've done some digging through our files and it looks like we got into some correspondence with 1st Credit the first time they dealt with the account (post DN and termination) which included an offer of monthly payments... Does this mean that we've effectively accepted continuance of the agreement, despite the unlawful recission? Luckily the agreement is still unenforceable!!
  11. Another horror story caused by a DCA bully-boy (cannot idenitfy at this stage as we have got our MP involved and are looking at legal action and media exposure). The DCA which owns the debt has a track record of pursuing people who are the wrong debtor. My mother-in-law is 79, disabled, in very poor health and vulnerable. Back in 2007 she had a heart bypass operation and whilst we were staying with her whilst she was recuperating at home we noticed she was getting phone calls that were distressing her. Eventually she told us she had been paying £5.00 a month to a DCA since 2002, wasn't sure what the debt was for (she has no other debt) but now the DCA was demanding higher payments and wouldn't accept her plea that she was not in any physical or mental state to sort this out. I ended up speaking to the DCA with her permission and they were unbelievable (usual bully boy moron on the other end of the phone) - they only agreed to stop calling when I threatened to call the police. The DCA told me the debt was for a electronics store card and for £2,500, which they were collecting for another DCA who owned the debt (having been assigned to them by the OC). I was pretty sure this was not her debt so we CCA'd the DCA and did not receive anything back. The DCA eventually responded to an e-mail and confirmed they couldn't supply any paperwork - no agreement, no statements and no NOA. 3 years later another DCA has contacted my mother-in-law. They have stated they are collecting for the DCA who owns the debt and threatened court action and sent a series of extremely threatening letters - and started the phone calls. I sent them a reminder that the owning DCA had failed to provide a copy of the agreement in 2007 and also sent authorisation under the DPA from my mother-in-law that they only deal with me, as the whole issue is distressing her. We have now received a letter from the owning DCA - they have sent this to my mother-in-law, despite her request they deal only with me. They have admitted they cannot provide any paperwork relating to the debt, but as payments were made this debt had been acknowledged and therefore, although they weren't going to take legal action at the moment, the debt still needs to be paid. It is pretty clear that the owning DCA are well aware, and have been since the origjnal CCA request in 2007, that they cannot supply the agreement. However they have appointed another DCA to threaten legal action, and are still implying that they can take legal action themselves - all the time without an agreement. They have also provided data to two third parties without express permission from my mother-in-law (i.e. in the absence of an agreement) so have breached the DPA. At the moment the phone calls continue and the owning DCA refuses to deal with me - clearly they think they are going to get more money by harassing a sick and vulnerable OAP.
  12. Just wondered whether anyone had a bit of advice/useful comments to make about this one, please?! We've just been contacted by our old mates 1st Credit for a debt that goes back some years. We defaulted back in 2007 and the OC sent a default notice which gave 14 days to remedy, but no allowance for postage, and then we received a demand from a debt collector dated the last day of the 14 days demanding the full amount outstanding under the account. The OC then sent us a letter saying they wouldn't default us if we paid the arrears, but I'd already sent a letter accepting the unlawful recission of contract (honest guv ) We haven't heard a dicky bird from anyone until now, but did do a CCA request back in 2007 and apart from the unlawful recission issue most of the amount outstanding is charges and the agreement is unforceable as it is a multiple agreement and fails on most counts! 1st Credit say the account has been novated to them and therefore they are now the creditors. However presumably once recission has occurred there is no way of resurrecting the agreement for another party? I could use the charges and CCA unforceability as an argument but thought the unlawful recission would kill this stone dead the fastest (not that 1st Credit will probably take any notice of it - that'll be another nail in their coffin when I dob them in yet again :)) Many thanks MC
  13. I agree with vusys1 - make a complaint to your insurer and ask them to sort out Enterprise. I've had a couple of appalling experiences with Enterprise myself - to me their staff appear poorly trained and often lack any sense of customer service. However when I complained direct to the managing director (having had no luck with anyone else) they dealt very efficiently with my complaint. I wouldn't ever use them again, even if specified by my insurer, but it might be worth you making a formal complaint to their head office as well as trying to get your insurer to sort it out. Best of luck
  14. Thanks for the advice The DCA in question is our old friends Aktiv Krapital
  15. Sorry to bump but please could someone advise on this one? Thanks!
  16. oh we all love the GLC! Well done!:D:D I'm a bit thick with the s140 of the CCA argument though, as didn't this come into force in 2008 - where does that leave those of us with charges before 2007/2008? I know I'm jumping the gun a bit but I can't wait to start planning my next attack on those smug gits at Barclays!!!
  17. Hi MrShed & Hightail I think you've posted on the wrong thread but I'll reply here anyway if the OP doesn't mind? It is a common misconception that a property owner accidentally causing damage to another property (water leak, etc) must somehow be financially responsible. MrShed says that if the leak came from their property then it's their fault. Not at law it isn't. I have seen hundreds of these claims in the 20 years I've been an underwriter and not one has been successfully recovered against the property owner - insurers won't even try (and I've seen some big ones in my time!). You have to remember than an insurance policy is a legal contract and operates within the arena of UK law. MrShed states that you don't need to be negligent or morally 'at fault' to be responsible. This may be the case in everyday life but this is most certainly not the case in law - and any such claim would operate within the law of property. Such a claim would only be successful if you could prove on the balance of probability that the neighbour had been negligent (the tort of negligence being specifically the failure in the property owner's duty of care to his/her neighbour) and therefore you suffered a loss as a result. A water leak from a flat which was accidental, sudden and unforeseen would fall entirely outside this definition. No liability would attach. You state that a claim should be considered under nuisance. In law the tort of nuisance is defined as the continuous, unlawful and indirect interference (of the neighbour's enjoyment of his or her property, etc). Clearly an accidental water leak doesn't remotely fall within this definition either, especially as some degree of forseeability has to be proved. There is a very big difference between the handbrake cable snapping in your car and it rolling into another one (in which case your motor insurers would certainly pay out) and a case of an accidental leak from a property. Motor insurance and liability to third parties is governed by the Road Traffic Act and other statutes - there is no remote comparison as these operate in a different area of law. Finding someone to blame (and therefore claim against) for every unfortunate event that happens in life seems to be an all too common attitude nowadays - thanks to the US for that. Sometimes it can just be a genuine accident and thankfully UK law still recognises that. Sorry for getting on my soapbox Best wishes. MC
  18. Hi Tom87 I agree with you entirely. I work as an insurance underwriter and there are a surprising number of people in the industry who think that disclosure of material fact places an unfair burden on the consumer and a loophole for insurers to avoid paying claims. There have been cases where insurers reject claims for totally unconnected non-disclosure - such as life insurance not paying out because a previous non-routine health check hasn't been disclosed at proposal stage for instance (ridiculous if the results of the health check are normal and the death is accident-related). If the insurer wants certain information then it isn't too hard to put together a set of questions for the proposed client to answer - I really hope that this time the Law Commission are taken seriously and there are some reforms because this is long overdue! MC
  19. Under the Financial Services Authority regulation regime of general insurers there is a requirement to 'Treat Customers Fairly' (TCF). The FSA hasn't defined TCF so most insurers and brokers are pretty scared of it (the FSA is has much more muscle in the insurance industry than it did with the banks, for instance). My suggestion would be to issue a formal letter of complaint to your old insurer. With-holding your proof of no claims discount is clearly a breach of TCF so I'd threaten them with reporting this to the FSA unless they send proof immediately. Something along the lines of 'you are clearly operating a renewal process which is to the detriment of consumers and therefore a breach of Treating Customers Fairly' should do the trick!!! I had similar problems with my previous motor insurer last month and they moved pretty quick when I threatened them with this. As Mossycat says you shouldn't be left uninsured due to failure to provide proof - your new insurer will increase the premium by removing the discount until proof is received (and should then refund this) Hope this helps - good luck !
  20. insurers won't attempt to pursue the people that caused the escape of water because in order to recover the costs they'd generally have to prove negligence. If the damage was caused as a result of a fortuitous event (burst pipe, etc) then there is really nowhere to go with this - your customer could attempt to obtain their uninsured losses from the people upstairs, but is unlikely to be successful.
  21. I wonder if I could have your views on the following, if possible, because I can't work out the implications of this (if any) other than possibly being a breach of the OFT debt collection guidelines Are there implications for a DCA to claim they've been assigned a debt some 9 months before a notice of assignment is issued (by them, not the OC). I have a letter from the DCA stating that the debt was assigned in July 2007 (and they pursud aggressive debt collection activity from that date on that basis). As a result of an SAR I've received a notice of assignment (not received at the time) dated 9 months later in April 2008 stating that the assignment was from that date , and have now had a letter from the DCA's solicitor confirming that the assignment actually took place in April 2008. Thanks!
  22. Unfortunately it isn't quite as simple as if the insurance company didn't ask him about convictions then he's OK. There is a long-established legal principle in the insurance industry of disclosure of material fact (material fact is defined as any circumstance which may influence an underwriter in his/her decision). The Marine Insurance Act 1906 defines this principle. Your mate's insurers would argue that they would not have insured him in the first place if they'd known about the convictions. Your mate had a legal duty to disclose this - unfortunately not knowing that he had a duty to disclose is no defence, and there is no legal requirement upon the insurer to ask the question. If non-disclosure has occurred his insurer has the right to cancel the policy from the start date. Having said that if the conviction is covered under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act then that might be a different story- there is a bit of a grey area here (although a lot of insurers ignore the ROA and won't insure anyone with convictions, no matter how old). The Law Commission have recently announced a proposal that insurance contract law is outdated and needs reforming, particularly in relation to disclosure of material fact, but that is probably no consolation! He needs to make a complaint to the insurer and, if that doesn't work, then go to the Financial Ombudsman Service. He may have a case against the owners of the upstairs flat, but only if he can prove negligence (for instance if there had been an ongoing leak which they'd been made aware of and done nothing about, etc) Sorry that this is bad news
  23. Thanks for your contributions everybody Sorry Angrycat I haven't got access to a scanner at the moment so can't post up a copy of the letter. However the text is exactly as per my original post other than a paragraph saying that my 'debt' has been 'escalated to the Pre-Litigation Department where a decision will be made' (I'm quaking in my boots ). Good old Cabot - they are excellent entertainment at times aren't they?! :D:D
  24. I've been dealing with Cabot for a couple of years ago now on three accounts so am used to their delightful standard letters, however have just received one I've never seen before which is the most blatant breach of the OFT guidelines I've ever come across from any DCA. If anyone else receives this please report Cabot to the OFT under the CPUT regulations (as I am just about to do ). The letter is from the Cabot 'Pre Litigation Department' and states: 'If you do not respond now one of the following options will occur: a Warrant of Execution - this instructs bailiffs to remove items from your home and sell them to repay your debt a Charging Order - a Charge will be placed on your property, which means if you sell your property the Charge will have to be repaid from the proceeds an Attachment of Earnings Order - this is a method by which money will be deducted from your wages in order to repay your debt an Order to Obtain Information - you will have to attend Court to be questioned under oath by a Court Officer an External Debt Collection Agency or Legal Agency calling on you' Of course the key word is 'will' (this is my highlight - all other words are in bold as per the Cabot letter) as there is no mention that the above may only occur if Cabot have obtained a Court order first which I have failed to comply with. This letter is clearly designed to intimidate, particularly evident by the use of the highlighted words, and to harass vulnerable debtors. It is a sad indictment of the failure of the UK regulatory system that Cabot are prepared to breach the OFT guidelines so blatantly - clearly they know there will be little or no consequence as a result. In my case Cabot are still in breach of a CCA request, in that all they have sent me is a almost entirely illegible document. They have not stopped collection activity, so I would welcome time in Court. Cabot operate the most blatantly unlawfully of any of the DCAs I've dealt with (and there have been a few ), but the good news is that they seem almost entirely incompetent, so let's keep fighting these b******s!!!!! Good luck to all my fellow CAGers :D:D
  25. A few weeks ago I CCA’d Cabot on an old account they are trying to collect on. They responded with a copy agreement which has been so poorly photocopied and reduced that it is almost entirely unreadable – you can just about make out my name at the top but nothing else (no figures, no T & Cs, etc). I wrote back to Cabot placing the account in dispute and telling them until such time they could provide a readable and enforceable agreement I didn’t expect to hear from them again. Cabot have replied this week, stating in their letter that as the time of entering the agreement the terms were clearly legible to me then they would be continuing collection activity. They also said that as the ‘application details’ and my signature on the agreement are legible then this also means the account cannot be in dispute. Clearly they believe the CCA 1974 does not apply to them. I nearly wet myself laughing when I received this, as this is clearly a blatant attempt to misrepresent the legal position and therefore a breach of the OFT guidelines and can result in a CPUT complaint. Cabot sent a 30% full and final settlement offer for the same account at the same time, so clearly they aren’t totally confident of their position…!
  • Create New...