Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   Sorry I probably wasn't clear enough. He had lived in the flat until December 2022 with Dementia by this time it was unsafe for him to have capacity to live on his own and he had to move into a nursing home. We had left it too late to apply for power of attorney so approached a solicitor in March last year for Deputyship. We were still in the process of dealing with it by May 2024. He passed away a few weeks ago and the solicitor was contacted to halt the application and we will just pay the fees of what work he has done up until now. My wife was the named person on her dads bank account but we didn't have the ability to alter any direct debits hence the reasons for applying for Deputyship as we were having problems trying to stop some payments coming out of his account Eon being another difficult company. We kept his flat on from December 2022 - August 2023. it was at this point I contacted Sancutary housing to inform them he was no longer living in the flat, it had been cleared out and was ready for a new tenant and that he had Dementia and had moved into a nursing home December 2022 and explained the reasons why we kept it on. As the named person to speak on his behalf I asked them what proof they needed in order to give notice on the flat e.g proof of dementia and proof that he was living in a nursing home and anything else they wanted. The lady in the upstairs flat and some of the other residence in the street had asked about him and we had told them he had moved into a nursing home. The lady in the upstairs flat wanted his flat for medical reasons so asked us once we had given notice could be let her know and she'll ask them if she can have it. We explained the difficulties and it was left at that but I did tell her I would let her know once notice was given. I contacted the company by email a number of times and also telephone conversations and nobody followed it up and it wasn't till the end of February this year that the housing manager for the area wrote to our home address to ask about him that he had been to the flat a couple of times and nobody answered and he had asked some of the residence in the street and they hadn't seen him for sometime. There was an email address on the letter so I contacted him and copied in the last 2 emails I sent Sanctuary regarding me wanting to give notice on the flat for at least 9 months explaining that it went ignored as well as telephone calls. I also stated I wanted to have his rent payments returned from the date I wanted to give notice which was from August 2023 as the bank wouldn't let us stop the DD without POT or deputyship explaining we were in the process of Deputyship. He gave some excuse about not having POT to cancel on his behalf and spoke to someone in HR and said he would contact the nursing home to confirm he was there with Dementia and if it all checks out we can give notice on the flat which came to an end on the 22 March 2024. There was not mention of back payments for the rent already paid or the fact I had asked to give notice in August 2023. Despite someone living in the flat from 1st April they continue to take DD payments for the flat and have taken another 2 payments of £501. another concerning thing despite Eon not allowing us to cancel the DD to his account the lady upstairs informed Eon that she was moving into the flat February 2024 and Eon refunding the account to his bank and said in an email sorry you are leaving us and canceled his account. Something they wouldn't let us do but a stranger. She also changed her bank account to his address despite the fact notice hadn't been given on the flat yet. So we need to find out how much information Sanctuary actually had for her to tell her power company she was moving into the flat in February despite the housing manager only just getting in contact to find out where he was. So a complaint is going into Eon and Sanctuary and we are going to take advice and ask the bank to charge back the rent. My wife hasn't taken the death certificate to the bank yet to inform them of his passing.  
    • Yes, I believe the Starbucks was closed at the time the car was parked there 
    • hi lolerz many thanks for your reply and help. My 2 months has passed i was waiting until the court proceedings started. As i went through this process not that long ago, i shall look back at my old thread for how to respond. Ill get the docs scanned soon thanks.    
    • Dave, You're probably thinking along the same lines as me. The NTK says "The reason for issuing the charge notice is: Parking longer than allowed" From memory, I think one of their stupid rules is that if 'Bucks is closed, you're not allowed to park at all.
    • Yes, Nick is spot on. Also, can you remember if Starbucks was closed when you were there?  I ask as I'm trying to work out what MET reckon you did wrong.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Mint-Moorcroft-now First Credit !!!!


europa16
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5423 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The FOS have stated that it's up to a court to determine the enforceability. Invite Mint to take you to court to enforce the debt! Quote the relevant sections of the CCA once more and ask them to point out the prescribed terms on the "application". From reading other posts i'd guess either they or their sidekicks will huff and puff all the way to the court house and then not show. If they do show you'll have a watertight defence put together with the help of the more knowledgable contributors to this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive read exactly the same thing on here many times from many different posters, the FOS have no power/will to do anything, this is why the DCAs have no fear of them at all and happily send you a claim form when ever you complain.

The oft and trading standards appear to be not much better

Please note i have no legal training any advice i give comes from my own experience and from what i have learned on this site

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Another reply from the adjudicator's manager, after I replied back to their letter that I was unhappy.

I'll just post a few snippets..

 

"The Financial Ombudsman Service does not have an enforcement function under the Consumer Credit Act.."

So what exactly do they do for the consumer? Apparently, not much

 

"It is not our role to say whether your agreement with RBS was properly executed or not. Nor can we say if a court will enforce the agreement."

 

 

"It is not in dispute that you have had the benefit of the funds which make up the balance of your credit card account. So, in my view it is reasonable for RBS to try and recover the outstanding debt. I also consider that RBS is entitled to charge interest on the balance."

This totally flies in the face of OFT guidelines on debt recovery when an account is in dispute.

 

" This service cannot interfere in the legitimate exercise of any business' commercial judgement - unless there is evidence of maladministration. This would include any decisions RBS takes regarding how it goes about recovering the debt. Therefore, I am unable to say that RBS should not have passed your debt to a recovery agent."

Again, breach of OFT guidelines, whilst RBS have an APPLICATION FORM with no precribed terms within it.

 

When are they going to grow a pair, and look at these complaints serioulsy. They also think it's okay to be sending this data to the CRAs. Is there any advice for making the FOS sit up and take notice, or shall I just wait for RBS to make their next move? I'm trying to get the defaults on my credit file removed, and this is one of them. RBS can't even get the account number right on that 8-)

 

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are having problems with Trading Standards make a complaint to the Councils Chief Executive.

They have to respond then

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment I am dealing with the FOS, so TS isn't a high priority for me at the moment. But I will be in touch with them soon.

 

I've been looking through the terms and conditions and the application form again, and I noticed something which I'm not sure will help me. Within the application form, under the declaration heading, there is a statement - "I accept and agree to be bound by the general conditions applying to the card and set out separately...", but these conditions are set out in the T&Cs which were sent out separately (what I signed was a marketing mailshot, which you fill in, lick and send back).

 

I signed 6 days before RBS stamped (signed?) the doc, and I'm not sure when the card was sent out, but I assume the T&Cs came with it.

 

Looking at the regs concerning the cancellation of CCA agreements, it states that you can cancel within 5 days after you receive the second copy of the agreement which the creditor is obliged to send you.

 

So, are RBS saying they sent another copy of my application form with the terms and conditions, as they mistakenly think it's an agreement? I don't think so.

 

This probably can do nothing towards my argument, but it did get me thinking...

 

I don't want to sound desperate to the FOS, but I'm not sure what else I can throw into the bowl to convince them that RBS are wrong :-? and get them off their fence. They want a reply by 3rd September.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, what I am thinking of doing now is accept that RBS have fulfilled their end, in supplying what they think is a properly executed credit agreement (I know it's not), and see if they wish to take a chance in court on a totally unenforceable agreement. FOS have stated it would be up to the courts to decide, so let them ;)

 

I hope I'm not doing the wrong thing here, let me know if you do, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The T&C have to be part of the Document.

They cannot be seperate.

 

If they were not on the back of the application form you are OK.

 

My experiance with Natwest/RBS is that if they have an application form regardless of the contence they will not back down.

 

I have invited Natwest to take me to Court several times with there application form and to dat ethey have not.

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Europa - I have now got the stage where I have invited my remaining creditors to take me to court if they are so sure they have provided enforceable agreements - application forms, sets of T&C's of todays date etc etc is all any of them have provided, in fact Citi Cards merely sent T&C's and not even an application form. I merely send off the "carry on and do it then" letter to them.

 

Good luck - just remember, they can't have what you haven't got :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

RBS don't want to play any more, so they've passed the debt to Moorcroft to collect :mad:

Had a phone call from Moorcroft today asking for me, and wanting all my details before giving me more information. Didn't give it to them, despite them saying they were from moorcroft (can they do that?) but I guessed it had something to do with this, and told them to put it all in writing and that this account was in dispute with RBS, to which he stated that they'd written to me twice and it was now a legal matter??

 

Anyway, the letter turned up about 20 mins after he rang, and yep, it's RBS.

 

This is what was sent:

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd25/europa16/moorcroft.jpg

 

That doesn't give me much time to get a reply back off to them.

 

I am so annoyed with this, the FOS haven't totally finished with their investigation yet, and haven't replied to my last email, either.

 

not happy :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moorcroft are complete idiots, and have no knowledge or interest in the law they are trying to use against us, send them this, edit to suit,

 

Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd

 

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY OR ANY COMPANY YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your Reference:

 

I refer to your letter of DATE, I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with the xxxxxxxxx and has been since DATE.

Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998.

My letter to Bank of Scotland dated DATE outlined the fact that the documents they had sent to me do not conform to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and to date I have received nothing further to remedy this.

As xxxxxxxxxxxx are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, and OFT Collection Guidelines, I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the xxxxxxxxx for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

If Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing, as this is the only method by which I am prepared to respond.

Yours faithfully

Please note i have no legal training any advice i give comes from my own experience and from what i have learned on this site

Link to post
Share on other sites

CCM, I must have read your mind as that's pretty much the same I have just written in my reply to them :D I also added that I'll not speak to them and to put everything in writing from now on.

 

Lord knows what the muppets will send back. I'm expecting they'll try ringing again tomorrow, expecting me to go through their security questions again - erm....nope, don't think so :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Moorcroft actually sent me a non-standard threat-o-gram. I feel privileged :-D

 

Apparently Moorcroft have been in contact with RBS, who have stated that the FOS ruled in THEIR favour, therefore they want their money.

 

The FOS ruled that RBS could chase me for the money (against OFT guidelines, methinks), and that RBS complied with the CCA request (well, if they think that application form is their agreement, so be it) but they certainly did not rule on the enforceability of the agreement. I'm still waiting for the final response from the FOS 4 weeks after my phone call with them.

 

Is it even worth me writing back to Moorcroft telling where that statement, and the whole enforceability issue falls down. Or should I wait for the FOS to get in touch, and find out exactly what they said the RBS?

 

I could really do without this going all the way to court (I shake like a leaf at the slightest altercations:rolleyes:) but I will let it if I have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

similar situation except I gpt a reply from RBS (Mint and N Union) stating they were making use f some Clause 25 which allows them to not release my information as a result of my SAR!

 

FOS will be useless. Have complained to ICO but have not got much hope. Application form is not enforecable but it seems we are open to attack by DCAs forever and a day unless they take us to court?

 

Can we go to court and say 'this CCA is not enforceable'? Does that not make more sense? (This is where I get lost!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Euorpa, I've just made a similar complaint to the FOS about Sainsburys not providing a CCA which contains all the prescribed terms and conditions. They've told me they are waiting to pas this to an Adjudictor although going by the responses you've received from the FOS, I'm not holding out much hope for them to take this matter seriously. How disappointing - and that's with the Office of Fair Trading writing to me and telling that the FOS could help in situations such as this.

Bank and credit card reclaims - £9,806

Sainsburys CCA non-compliance with FOS;

Natwest reclaim of £340 in progress;

Egg credit card reclaim in progress

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Reading this really gets me angry because it is apparant that all relevant parties such as the ICO, FSO, TS etc will leave everything hanging so the banks ultimately do not have to pay out when legally they should.

 

One thing that mught be worth a try.

 

I'm sure that some of you would have seen or read about the Rankine case which basically sparked all of this. There is a video online when it made th enews in the Midlands and they also interviewed a guy from the CAB. He mentioned that there is a fund set up whereby they will help and assist individuals in court cases.

 

I don't know the ins and outs but if your case is cut and dried then it might be something that they could help you on.

 

Best to google 'Rankine unenforceable debt CCA video' I'm sure it will come up with any combination of that and youshould be able to get the exact terminolgy the guy used to help you.

 

Let me know if it's of any use,

 

Good luck,

 

BB

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I wrote to Moorcroft in reply to the letter that says RBS are in the right, stating exactly where the FOS ruled in their favour and where they did not - namely the fact they wouldn't intervene in the legality of the application form.

 

Before this, I found another account number on my Experian credit file that bore no relation to the account number on all my statements. So I SARed RBS (since Experian were useless) and got a nice letter saying they would forward all the data for my account soon (erm, but nothing about this account number thats appeared on my credit file :confused:).

 

I wrote back stating exactly which account number I wanted the data for - the bundle turned up today with the details of the account I already know about :evil: Including letters I wrote to RBS and customer notes since the account was put in dispute. There's one comment in there that's recent - that I want to take RBS to court!! What I actually said (and this was to moorcroft in my last letter was that I would happily let them take me to court to get the legality of the application form dealt with once and for all).

 

Are they going to try and use clause 25 to try and get out of supplying me with the data for this ghost account? There's no mention anywhere of this account, nor any mention of the account being handled by CMS Telford, where I'm presuming this account number originates.

 

It must exist, because they haven't denied it - I got one digit wrong in a letter to them a couple of months ago, and they were quick to point out it didn't show on their system.

 

They haven't complied with my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), sent the wrong details and half of those are missing (only from 2002). Oh, and I'm still not paying them, if all they've got is an application form *sighs* :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

An update...

 

With regards to the strange RBS card number on my Experian file, it turns out (according to Mint) that it is just an internal encryped number for use with the CRAs.

 

Moorcroft are stiil trying to get me to pay up. So far I've had a request for an income/expenditure balance and repayment proposal - which I said I would pay the grand total of zilch. Don't think they were to happy at that, becasue today I got a nice letter from Midal Legal Services. This goes as follows...

 

LITIGATION WARNING

 

We have been advised that you have failed to reach a repayment agreement with Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd concerning the above account and have been asked to prepare a file for review prior to commencement of any legal action.

 

To prevent further action you muct contact Moorcroft Debt Recovery Limited at the following address.

.

.

.

 

Failure to contact Moorcroft Debt Recovery Limited by the 09/12/08 may result in the issue of legal proceedings without further notice.

.

.

.

It is then signed my Mr M Dobson (Solicitor).

 

After a little digging, I know this is just another offshoot of Moorcroft, but Mr Dobson is on the Law Society's register. However, it certainly isn't under this company, and is at another address and company name - MLS Solicitors.

 

Anyone got any advice on how to proceed with this one, or should I just send him a "bog off" letter?

 

Perhaps I should point out what he should already know - this debt is unenforceable?

 

Thx :):)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

subbing...

Lowell Financial (Monument) No CCA - File Closed ** WON**:D

1st Credit (Citi Financial) No CCA - Credit Report Marked 'Satisfied' ** WON **:D

American Express No CCA - Pending

RBS Mint No CCA - Pending

CL Finance (Morgan Stanley) No CCA - In Court:eek:

HSBC - No CCA - In Court:eek:

Link Financial (MBNA) No CCA - Pending

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...