Thanks, have looked at that letter before. Have been spending my 12 days composing my own "CCA compliance default letter" (gleaned from bits here and there, including the link you've posted) ..... and have a real cracker up my sleeve. PM

Robinson, Way & Company limited
London Scottish House
 Quays Reach
Carolina way Salford
M50 2ZY 

Request for information under section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 

 Dear Sir/Madam Re:− Account/Reference Number: XXXXXXXXXX With reference to the above agreement, I would be grateful if you would send me a true copy of this particular credit agreement. I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Section 77), I am entitled to receive a true and legible copy of my credit agreement (containing all the required prescribed terms) on request. 
I enclose a payment of £1.00 which represents the statutory fee payable under section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act. This sum is not to be assigned or used for any other purpose. I also understand a true copy of my credit agreement must under such statute be supplied within 12 working days. Should you fail to provide the agreement then under the Consumer Credit Act you will be unable to enforce any such agreement, or be entitled to any further payments whilst you continue to fail to comply with this request. If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties. Your attention is also drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b),6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR). I look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully XXXXXXX

I've just started a claim against Bank of Scotland / Robinson way. This relates to old loan (from year 2000), which was taken out, went into default, and I've had nothing but grief from Robinson Way and associated others (Wescot etc) ever since. My biggest bone of contention is the fact that despite numerous requests from myself, they have NEVER ever sent me any updates or statements of account; showing what I have paid, what the balances have been, whether any collection charges have ever been added, whether any interest has been added to such etc etc !! Never, Nada, no updates, no statements, and no way for me to measure what I have paid, and where I stand on this. Throughout all this, due to pressure from them, for about the last 2 years, I've been paying a token amount by DD. So decided last month, had enough, so to CCA them...... and I've also stopped the DD !! Sent the CCA (I'l post up in next post), and included a £1 postal order. Received back a letter last week, with the £1 postal order back, and a comp slip that simply stated they will be writing separately. Got the second letter today. Simply states that they are looking for the agreement, and in the meantime, the account has been temporarily put on delay? Will be interesting to see what happens next ? By most accounts, and reading what I have seen here, the next letter will be something along the lines of "... we have not yet found your agreement, but when we do we will then be enforcing it, and will expect full repayment back of the whole amount.... but in the meantime, we can offer you a full and final settlement figure of £xxx" Yeah, sure.... I'm really gonna fall for that one !! So without the agreement, I will not be paying a penny more. Plus, what, they don't realise, is that I DO have a copy of the agreement....... and have determined that under the CCA it breaks at least 3 statutory rules in the manner it is laid out. It is a multiple agreement for starters, and does not have the properly prescribed terms for each of the multiple parts. It does not give any options for the PPI, which is just lumped in. .... plus of course, my own copy, does not have my signature on it, and I doubt the original does either (if it even exists). So, even if they find the original, it is not enforceable. Plus if they try to bungle together something, I have an original to compare it to ...... and if a comp job, then it's gonna be a Fraud case !! I am also contemplating claiming back all the payments that I have actually made throughout the term. This would be under the contention that the agreement was improperly executed, and so unenforceable. Therefore any payments I have actually made, were only due to their claims that I was contractually obliged to make them..... which is of course mistaken !! Therefore, payments I made due to their various pressures to pay, whilst they were citing and relying upon an invalid agreement.... were made in mistake. So then it will be a case of considering a claim for restitution of my subsequent losses, and ALSO their own subsequent gains, based upon the laws of restitution and payments made under mistake (a la Sempra etc). So, lets just see what they come up with next ?? PM

wracking

I think we have covered a lot of 7 letter words, and maybe even end up going round in circles........ so..... shall we up the ante ? I suggest that we progress to eight letter words ? ie: to start off, someone now takes the last entry, changes a letter, and ALSO adds another. Then, we all work to the same rules.... but now with 8 letter words instead ?? Anybody ?? PM

Barring

My point here is; That once the loan is found to have been unenforceable all along, then you claim that as you've only just discovered the mistake, then any past payments were made whilst acting under said mistake. You then claim for e refund of any payments made whilst acting under the mistake, and for a restitution of a/ your subsequent losses, and b/ their subsequent gains.. Obviously you need to have the contract proven as unenforceable first, and should look at the multiple agreements thread as an example of situations where this is the case. regards PM

Thanks UK, Have partly read the book too..... however the only versions I have only ever seen online are shortened abridged versions.... likewise the link you've posted only goes as far as the first chapter, and the juicy bits I suppose require that you buy the book. Suppose, only right really, copyright and authors royalties and all that. What's your own learned view on the matter ? PM

Anybody gonna comment ??

Quote: Originally Posted by photoman IMHO, If an agreement is deemed as having been unenforceable all along, then any payments you as the supposed debtor actually made, would have been made (under duress and pressure from the creditor or DCA) as the result of a "mistake". ie: you were making payments to them under the mistaken presumption (due to their own assertions) that they were actually entitled to such. Therefore, you should then also be entitled to claim all such payments back, as they were made whilst you were acting under a "mistake". Also... in such circumstances, could one also claim for restitution of your further subsequent losses as a result of this mistake (ie: any interest incurred on the accounts used to make the payments, and/or losses from having been deprived your use of such sums) ? ... and... also claim for restitution of the creditors subsequent gains from their use of such sums ? Any thoughts anyone ?? PM Quote: Originally posted by Paulwlton IMO the mistake argument is devoid of merit. The debtor signed and received a copy of the agreement at the outset and therefore had the option of making payments under the terms of the agreement whether enforceable or not. Paul Quote: Originally posted by Photoman ah... but did they actually have a choice ? The creditor would in all likelihood have insisted upon a DD arrangement from the outset, plus they would also have actively chased the debtor for missed payments by citing and relying upon the terms of the agreement.... which despite the creditors assertions was not actually enforceable. Thus, the debtor was being made to make payments against an unenforceable agreement, by acting under the mistaken presumption that (due to the creditors assertions) they had an obligation to. PM Quote: Originally posted by Paulwlton Yes they had a choice - they either pay or don't pay on an uneforceable agreement. There are lots of members who have chosen not to pay because they have found their agreements to be unenforceable now that they've been educated. I know of a person who signed an unenforceable higher purchase agreement and never paid a penny from the outset... the gift from the creditor was a new motorhome. I think we're going slightly off topic here...don't want to distract from the multiple agreement discussion. PW Quote: Originally posted by Photoman Paul, I still think there is some good merit in my argument. My point is the fact that the debtor was not aware they had a choice. That was, perhaps not until such time as now, when they finally realise that the agreement was in fact unenforceable all along. Thus, all payments prior to your becoming aware of such a fact, were made whilst acting under a mistaken presumption. Okay, Whilst I still maintain this view, and still want and welcome comments from others, I also agree we are going off topic. Perhaps I will start a thread on this point, and post a link here. PM

Here are posts from other thread:

If a loan (or perhaps even a credit card), agreement is later found by yourself to be unenforceable, then would this mean that any payments made prior to your realisation, were actually made whilst acting under a mistaken presumption? ie: You made the payments under pressure from the provider, who insisted upon all such payments, by relying upon (even threatening to enforce) an agreement that was invalid and unenforceable. Thus your payments were made under duress and pressure by the provider, who claimed that the agreement was valid, whilst in fact it was not. If so, as I believe you can claim that you paid whilst acting under a mistake, we should be able to seek redress for such. Here are some thoughts and discussion from another thread,

meanders

Hi PT, Any comments on the multiple agreement aspect ? is it applicable in this case, and can it still be used at this stage ? PM

In laymans terms. The loan consists of 2 separate loans. The first is the loan of the money for your own use, as you wish. The second loan is for the insurance, which is and can only be used for the insurance. This means, that as part of the loan is for an unrestricted use, and the other part is only for a restricted use, then it is a "multiple agreement". Under law, any such agreement must make clear how the interest, and the repayments of each separate part have been calculated. It is not permissible for the lender to simply lump the two parts together, THEN add interest, THEN split it into repayments. The loan part must be laid down, with the interest that will be payable on such then listed, then the installments for such listed. Then SEPARATELY, the PPI loan must be listed in the same manner, ie: the amount of credit for the PPI, the interest payable on such, and the installments payable for such. Have a read of PT's thread, and see if you can use this. I don't know if you can appeal the judgement that it appears has already been given, or whether you will need to appeal it separately o these grounds. I'm sure someone (perhaps PT) will be able to advise on this point. Best regards. PM

I agree with this view on these grounds. The agreement should really be deemed unenforceable, due to the fact that it is a "multiple agreement". The jist of the argument in respect of contesting the validity of the agreement under the terms of of "multipe agreements" are as follows: (With acknowledgment to PT2537, who originally posted this) Quote (by PT): Ok so what does this mean, well, lets say you borrow £6000 from Nasty Banking Corp, the loan is for you to use as you like and therefore you would have fixed sum credit See s10 (1)(B) CCA, unrestricted use credit See s11 (2) CCA and finally it would be a debtor-creditor agreement as defined within s13 CCA Now if you add PPI to the loan, this changes things slightly, why? Well in my view if you borrow £6000 from Nasty Banking Corp and then you add a PPI policy for example adding another £1500 of credit you are turning it into a multiple agreement The PPI is fixed sum credit as set out in section 10 CCA but it is not unrestricted use, instead its restricted use credit ( See s11 CCA) as you do not have any say over its use, it is in effect only credit for the purchase of the PPI policy and additionally it is a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement as it would be undoubtedly underwritten by another specialist insurer and not the creditor and therefore it falls within the definition given in section 12 CCA So in effect what we have with the £6000 loan and the £1500 PPI is a multiple agreement with “part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned” This is because the £6000 is fixed sum, unrestricted use debtor creditor and the £1500 is fixed sum, restricted use Debtor-creditor-supplier Therefore since this type of agreement falls within s18, it means that as defined in s18 (2) CCA that the document is to be treated as 2 separate agreements and each agreement must have its own prescribed terms for each part Therefore each piece of credit must have its own term stating the amount of credit, repayments and all other statutory info, in addition the PPI policy would need to have a term stating the Cash Price of the policy, due to it being a restricted use debtor creditor supplier agreement. In essence there should be the following Loan Amount of Credit £6000 Repayments 60 payments of £XXXXXX Total amount payable £XXXXXXXX APR 16.9% PPI Amount of credit £1500 Repayments 60 payments of £XXXXXXX Total amount payable £ XXXXXXXXX Apr 16.9% Cash price of policy £1500 the agreement may not be set out exactly as above but that is to give you an idea of what it must contain If the agreement fails to correctly set matters out in accordance with s18 then the lender risks falling foul of the form and content requirements of section 60 CCA and could be improperly executed as set out within section 61(1) (a) CCA 1974 thus becoming unenforceable the main thing to remember is that you have two agreement within one document, so there must be a set of prescribed terms for each piece of credit, it is permissible to add the prescribed terms together and then state them as total amounts BUT they must be also stated in their separate parts. Here is the link to PT's thread on this matter: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/171037-multiple-agreements-falling-within.html PM

pardons

inwards

swearer

dreamer

I would simply call the bank, and request written confirmation of your arrangement. Ask that they put in writing that the payment your about to make will be accepted as the full and final one, with no further action to be taken on their behalf provided you make the payment. The ask for their account details, and make the payment by Direct Debit. (If you do not have an account in credit that will enable you to do this, then give the cash to someone who can). Then upon receipt of the letter, make the payment by direct debit and use their case reference number as reference. Then, you will have a letter confirming the arrangement, and a bank statement that confirms the payment as having been made. Any attempts to renege on the deal, claim further sums or claim that your payment was not received can be countered by evidence of the letter confirming the deal, and bank statements shoeing the payment as made. PM

bullies

clamped

Good job there's a..... "Checker" ..... around !!

Thats 2 letters changed, you little cheat ..... and I bet you thought nobody would notice heh !! .... so back to.... Chocked