Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rosierose

  1. I don't think the police would be interested, or at least I've not heard of the police intervening in this sort of thing before. HBOS know that their tactics aren't lawful, which is why they have settled harassment claims - both the cause celebres of a couple of years back, and no doubt a few that never made the headlines. Though I must say, I'm on good terms with our community policing bod. Really nice bloke, but like he says "my job is arresting people" I suppose an action (injunction) under s3 of the PfHA would have more merit now that the bank have admitted they have no agreement, but even so, I'm not altogether sure which track it might be allocated and now that this seems to have stopped, well, what's the point? I'm afraid I'm not terribly up to date with the unfairness test contained within the 2006 CCA, but I do recall reading somewhere about the harassment of debtors under unenforceable agreements being pertinent. If someone knows the right bit I’d be grateful.
  2. Quick update... They issued a default notice in August. Which was dated incorrectly (either that or first class post took tens days). It also contains the wrong amount - due to the penalty charges apllied. After a few standard "our charges are fair letters," low and behold I finally received a letter in response.... that was quick! Nearly four months! In the letter they admit they don't have an agreement but claim that even though the agreement (what agreement?) is unenforceable that they can apply for an enforcement order. Does this smell a bit of Rankine? They claim that they have the right to publish my data without an agreement. And here's the surreal part about this: thay have already stopped publishing any data. That's just odd, unless they plan to start processing again soon. Also they claim to have called me only 4 times??????? Jeez. I have over a thousand calls logged as text messages on my mobile alone! Disregarding the calls to my and my father's land lines. Oh yes, and for the past week, the calls have stopped. I don't think this is over yet somehow. If they play true to form I expect them to initiate a small claim in the next month or two. Then the fun really begins :grin:
  3. I know I'm being lazy here, but can you quote the reg's on this for me please?
  4. I can only echo your comments Magda. To my certain knowledge HBOS in particular use this tactic. It is a shameful indictment of the moral standards of these companies and the bodies supposedly employed to protect our rights as consumers that this practice continues without penalty or redress.
  5. What will happen? Most probably not a thing. They will continue as before but please do as 42 and HtH say. Record any calls you answer if at all possible. The call centre staff can be fairly abusive, as I'm sure you know and recordings of their language/attitude will be grist-to-the-mill when it comes time to reckon up in a while. If you haven't already, read the press coverage of Halifax's bullying tactics. I did hear a figure of £7K+costs in regard to the Turner case, but can't recall where it came from now. Perhaps someone with a better memory than me will help clarify this. Banks have and are settling claims out of court for harassment and defamation, but these settlements will invariably come with gagging clauses, so we won't necessarily hear about them here. IMO the more people that press for damages when dealing with Halifax the sooner their behaviour will be checked.
  6. It's probably best if you can give a bit more information. How old is the debt, when it was defaulted etc., There are a few people here who have fought and won against HBOS, myself included. I've no experience of Capquest, though I do know others have/are dealing with them.
  7. Well, I received a letter from a Mr Greig (hence forth referred to as 'Old Greg') telling me that HBOS had acquitted their responsibility under Section 78 by sending the generic t&c's they seem to be sending everyone these days. They have also continued harassing both me and my father I had given them an 'out' in my last letter - just asking them for the removal of the data which they have chosen not to do. That was sent yesterday. The calls are all logged though we refuse to answer them these days. I would think that they'll continue as they have done - refusing to send a copy and harassing us as they have done up until now. We'll see...
  8. Just in case you didn't know, this is what HBOS send in reply to almost all s78 requests. It has the same wording no matter when an agreement might have been dated. The interest rates often seem to be random. I've had three, all with differing rates - for one account
  9. I would have thought the same would apply then, though I am no expert. On second thoughts.. why not read the Act; doesn't it say that a default notice should be served if a creditor would wish to enforce early payment etc., .... Best to have a look. Rosie
  10. Hi Alamand If you paid the £100 within the required period then they would have had to issue a second notice.
  11. For those of you who know the battle my OH had (and won with the help of you lot) against this lot, welcome back This fight originated when a building firm retained my credit card details and took money from my account without my permission. The bank refused to refund the money which has lead to a stand-off. Background.... I signed the agreement in my local branch and they duly gave a copy to me. I was in a rush at the time, but recall the piece of paper I signed was almost certainly blank. The "copy" I was given at the time was just a blank sheet of paper with my signature. Of course, I have put my concerns in writing to the bank, but they have only written one letter in response, saying they'll get in touch in a month or so. Imagine my surprise when a 'copy' agreement showed up in the post with interest rates and prescribed terms (sans signature box and dates). Then two others show up, both from different offices showing differing interest rates. I seem to recall letter from the OFT saying that a creditor cannot conjecture agreements. That they must have an original? Well, true to form, HBOS have started the telephone harassment. Calling my mobile around 5 times a day and house phone about the same. What really annoyed me was two calls to my fathers home. Bless him, he's a total pussycat but this really is going too far! So... I have an improperly executed agreement at the very least which the bank is persuing anyway; the bank has now started processing late payment markers against my CRA file and harassment. I am seriously considering an injunction under section 3 of the PfHA. If anyone has brought such an action I'd be very grateful for a POC. Do you have to prove harassment first - I take it the civil standard is sufficient? Rosie
  12. Par for the course for HBOS is to chance a claim if the debt is over a certain amount - on the basis that most people out there crumble at the first sight of something form the court. I don't know exactly what the figure is, probably a few thousand. The way it goes with them is this: You request agreement they fail to respond and start harassing you for payment You get the illegible copy and write inform them of their continuing default They continue to harass despite this 6 months after your last payment they send an ineffective default notice and a month later register the default with the CRA's Then they either pass/sell the debt to a DCA or issue a claim It really is a pretty dysfunctional organisation at the best of times, so whether they actually have an enforceable agreement will most likely never have been mentioned to the person actually issuing the proceedings. The level of training given to those at the coal face is shambolic. However, I wouldn't worry. With what you have, you can easily put together a defence which would stop any claim they might issue long before it got to a hearing. If they issue a default I would press hard for compensation for the damage to your financial reputation. You never know, if enough people actually do this they may just start to take their statutory obligations seriously.
  13. Rosie says never trust a man who wears a rug http://chrisdale.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/2008-04-e-5723a.jpg
  14. Hi Mark There are plenty of defences you can amend to your circumstances in the Debt/Legalities section. I don't want to undermine what your saying, but I don't believe s59 really applies to an application form. Application forms can be agreements given the correct terms etc. Its quite possible, that given a defence, Halifax will fold - But even though Blair Oliver and Scott are hopeless there are some within HBOS with the nous to check and retrieve the original templates for documents of around the age yours is. Presenting your application with the rest of the agreement could sway a judge. The reason I point this out is to suggest an addition to your defence to the effect that their response to your s78 request is binding under s172. Rosie
  15. I don't know for sure, but I would think that if you have a provable case they would back out before a hearing. Remember, Paul? Unhappy, Have you made a counter offer? Who have you been dealing with at Trinity Road? Which case law have you been using as the basis of your argument?
  16. Hi Shorty It would be best to go for the removal of all erroneous data rather than just the defaults. I'm not completely au fait with telecoms though there are some useful threads here. Its quite likely that Sander & Kay and Next don't have any agreements. So I would tend to use that as the basis for the default removal. Remember, in order to default there must be an agreement. Without it the default on your file would not only be inaccurate but also provably damaging to your financial reputation. Have a look at: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/115630-pricing-default.html
  17. The notice period is incorrect. See Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co
  18. Perhaps, you should take the time to read some of the threads of people who have been in similar circumstances, DM. It may ease your worries a little. Believe me, you hold all the cards in this situation. If what you say is true HBOS have absolutely no hope enforcing in court. The fact that they are so unreasonable in refusing your F&F settlement offer is ultimately their loss!
  19. If my experience is anything to go by, the T&C's they have sent are NOT your agreement. The application form is. I wonder... if the print out (T&C's) differ in any of the prescribed terms whether Sainsbury's might have committed fraud. It's worth looking in to. Certainly others here are having problems with creditors 'recreating' agreements - though these have largely been where the original has been lost. You now have the original, so its worth comparing them. Did you check the default notice?
  20. Quite apart from the fact that they remain in default it is important to say that the rate of interest is a Prescribed Term for a credit agreement. The lack of it would render your agreement irredeemably unenforceable. This is good news as their reply is binding upon them. If they decide to bring an action the court would be precluded from finding against you. The T&C's that they have sent you are a ruse, nothing more. They cut & paste addresses and names into them and send them to anyone that requests an agreement. If it were me I wouldn't offer them a penny and just hold tight for now - Double check your agreement to make sure there is no interest rate. If its not there they don't have a chance of enforcing.
  21. I can only mirror dpick's comments. A default is a function of Sections 87-89 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In order to issue a default there must be an agreement regulated by the Act and there must be a default notice that satisfies the requirements set down in those sections. Put simply, no agreement = no authority to issue a default = damage to financial reputation = $$$ See "Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - 1996 4 All ER 1192" and "Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co [2001] GCCR 2255" IMO, Littlewoods have set themselves up for a fall here.
  • Create New...