Could someone help me draft complaint letter to Blair Oliver Scott?

[ssparry]

My brain is absolutely done in, been running around afte hypo energetic toddler since 6.45 this morning and I really can't think properly! I am trying to report Blair Oliver Scott for not responding to CCA request in June 07. they have since sent 1 demand for mney and sent me to IQOR and now to Robinson Way & Co.

 

So, I am carrying out my promise and reporting them, conatcted Trading Standards who sent me to Consumer Direct who sent me to Debtline who sent me back to Trading Standards who sent me back to Consumer direct. Consumer Direct have now said to complain to DCA, if no reply or unsatisfactory then go to FOS.

 

Still with me!? See why my head is done in!

 

I know what to say but my baby brain is still on and I can't think of any good wording that makes me sound as though I mean business!

 

Basically I want a CCA or don't if you see what I mean!

[mrmarmite]

tell robin way to FO, STATE that this debt is NOT enforcalble refer them to blair letter sent, ORDER robbin way to return it to previous as it in dispute (breach of the DPA) very firmly tell them that you DO NOT expect to hear from them again, should they ignore they will be reported to the ICO, TS, and OFT and you will be very happy to take legal action against robbing way for harrassement and they trying to obtail monies from you that they have NO legal right to collect.

 

that will shut them up for 5 mins.

and yes me like diskman dave, a great robbing way fan

[Hopeful1]

I have not had any experience with the companies you have mentioned but i have posted below a letter i have used with others. Feel free to make any adaptions. It is one i found on this site earlier in the year:

 

Dear Sirs

 

Ref: XXXX

 

On DATE I wrote to you requesting a copy of the credit agreement you allegedly hold in my name, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Sections 77-79). On DATE a member of your staff signed for delivery of my written request, and I have an electronic proof of delivery showing his/her signature and the date.

 

A copy of the credit agreement should have then been supplied to me within 12 working days.

 

To date you have failed to respond to my request.

 

I still require you to send me a true copy of the original credit agreement that allegedly exists. As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law. I have made a reasonable and lawful request for a true signed copy allowed by the Act. Indeed, The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) states that “if a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid request within a period of 12 days (not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all. This prevents enforcement with or without a court order. If a default lasts for a month (for example a calendar month) it constitutes an offence.

 

I must advise you that any account I hold with you is now in legal dispute. Whilst the account remains in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, nor make any further charges to the account.

 

I expect no other communication from you in respect of this matter except for confirmation of compliance with my requests.

As suggested earlier, i would then write to the others to state the acc. is in dispute.

[ssparry]

Thank you! Have done letters to both parties and shall be sent Recorded in the morning.

[Monty2007]

Why bother, they won't respond. I CCA'd BOS six months ago and never received a reply, I reported them to the FOS but they have not done anything to resolve the matter.

[Hopeful1]

Why bother, they won't respond. I CCA'd BOS six months ago and never received a reply, I reported them to the FOS but they have not done anything to resolve the matter.

 

Letters are frequently ignored and legally it's not always necessary to respond. I, however, do tend to respond as it makes me feel like i've done everything i can and that i am in control of the situation. In my experience the companies without agreements eventually get bored of making threats when they know you have some knowledge.

 

Like everything it's a personal decision and up to the individual to decide

[Tigerbaby]

I have not had any experience with the companies you have mentioned but i have posted below a letter i have used with others. Feel free to make any adaptions. It is one i found on this site earlier in the year:

 

Indeed, The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) states that “if a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid request within a period of 12 days (not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all. This prevents enforcement with or without a court order. If a default lasts for a month (for example a calendar month) it constitutes an offence.

 

Where can I find this on the OFT website?

[OnMyWayOut]

Indeed, The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) states that “if a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid request within a period of 12 days (not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all. This prevents enforcement with or without a court order.

That red bit is interesting - it seems to say that even if an enforceable agreement turns up later, if it wasn't delivered within the required timeframe it is still unenforceable!

 

Is this correct??

[Tigerbaby]

I've looked up the consumer credit act 1974 sections 77-79 and from what I can make of it, it means that if a creditor doesn't respond to a CCA request within 12 working days (day of receipt counts as 0),

"(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enfore the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence."

 

I assume that it would give ample grounds to dispute an agreement if it suddenly turned up either while the default continued or once the creditor had already committed an offence.

 

The law's a bit fuzzy and I'd appreciate any expert on this forum commenting on it/my interpretation.

[OnMyWayOut]

That's the way I've always understood it - it's just that the OFT guidance seems like it might contradict this. Where did it come from (not the OFT, I realise that much , but which document/website link, etc.)?

[Hopeful1]

I've looked up the consumer credit act 1974 sections 77-79 and from what I can make of it, it means that if a creditor doesn't respond to a CCA request within 12 working days (day of receipt counts as 0),

"(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enfore the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence."

 

I assume that it would give ample grounds to dispute an agreement if it suddenly turned up either while the default continued or once the creditor had already committed an offence.

 

The law's a bit fuzzy and I'd appreciate any expert on this forum commenting on it/my interpretation.

 

I am no expert but can offer my understanding:

 

The creditor can enforce the agreement once it turns up. If the creditor is in the post 30 days zone and you refused to acknowledge it, they could only enforce it through the courts.

 

At one point, creditors weren't too keen to go to court, but these days county court summons are being distributed like confetti.

[Tigerbaby]

Would look a bit odd though if it took the creditor more than a month to "find" the agreement and I imagine that, especially in case of a DCA, a judge might frown upon a "delay" that's gone beyond the 30-day mark and thus, has become an offence.

As I've read on another thread, once a DCA offers the client a discount if he/she pays the full amount within a certain timeframe, they don't make these kinds of offer out of humanitarian considerations but because the original agreement for whatever reason isn't enforceable and they know it.

Similarly, "not being able to get hold of" the original agreement or, a reluctance to part with it could well mean the same.

 

To OnMyWayOut: I've surfed from the OFT website to google, typed in "consumer credit act 1974 77-79" and there are a couple of links - I think the one I've gone to was Money Saving Expert or something like that - but anyway, try: http://www.john.antell.name/CCA1974.htm

Also, it might be worth speaking with a financial advisor (you can trust) to see if your agreement is FAIR. For example, if you can show that you've been treated unfairly, you can advise your creditor that you'll complain to the FSA or Financial Ombudsman and I don't think that any creditor, not to mention DCA will look forward to this. Anyway, that's the advice I've got re. my personal mess with C®apQuest aka Clydesdale aka TIC (as the broker). At present, I'm still waiting for the CCA I've requested from C®apQuest on 26/6 and for good measure, I've requested the original agreement plus all relevant copies from Clydesdale bank last week.

Unless their copies look very different from mine, they probably know that I haven't been treated fairly when the agreement was drawn up, to say the very least.

[Hopeful1]

Hi Tigerbaby

 

May 2007 - sent CCA request to solicitors who had been collecting payments on behalf of HFC.

 

By Feb 2008 i had still not received anything despite several letters and a S.A.R.

 

Next thing i received a county court claim.

 

I submitted my defence based on no documents and made complaints to various bodies and my local MP.

 

Lo and behold the agreement, default notice and god knows what else turned up.

 

The agreement is enforceable and has left me with a court case to battle with very little to fight with.

 

The docs had obviously been archived and i don't know if they just couldn't be bothered to look for them before.

 

So, whilst it doesn't seem right it happens. As the legislation says, if the agreement is found after the 30 day period it can be enforced via court..hence the position i'm in now.

[Tigerbaby]

Hi, Hopeful1,

 

Are you sure the agreement is enforceable? Show it to a financial advisor you can trust and there may be something missing that gives you grounds for a complaint on the basis that you've been treated unfairly. For example, did they offer you PPI and did they check if you can afford repayment based on your income/expenses? Or did they simply check your credit rating (as they've done with me) and once they found that's okay they gave you the loan? Was the person who sold you the loan qualified as a financial advisor? Also, I think, they ought to have given you the right to withdraw within 7 or 14 days (not sure about that) after you had signed the agreement.

There are quite a lot of bits and pieces that should be included in a contract that's considered fair to the consumer. Problem is, the law's not hard and fast but at the same time, that should give you an advantage, especially now that the OFT has drawn up the consumer protection from unfair trading regulations. You might easily find something there you can use because these regs cover quite a lot of ground.

I mean, having archived the relevant documents is a rather lousy excuse or are they claiming they haven't got computers?

[Hopeful1]

Hi, Hopeful1,

 

Are you sure the agreement is enforceable? Show it to a financial advisor you can trust and there may be something missing that gives you grounds for a complaint on the basis that you've been treated unfairly. For example, did they offer you PPI and did they check if you can afford repayment based on your income/expenses? Or did they simply check your credit rating (as they've done with me) and once they found that's okay they gave you the loan? Was the person who sold you the loan qualified as a financial advisor? Also, I think, they ought to have given you the right to withdraw within 7 or 14 days (not sure about that) after you had signed the agreement.

There are quite a lot of bits and pieces that should be included in a contract that's considered fair to the consumer. Problem is, the law's not hard and fast but at the same time, that should give you an advantage, especially now that the OFT has drawn up the consumer protection from unfair trading regulations. You might easily find something there you can use because these regs cover quite a lot of ground.

I mean, having archived the relevant documents is a rather lousy excuse or are they claiming they haven't got computers?

 

There are certainly arguments to be had around the sale of the loan and PPI, but the bottom line is, as the document itself stands it is enforceable. Whatever the reason they have for such a huge delay they found it. I had made many complaints about their behaviour and most (though not all) were satisfied that albeit late, they had met their obligations.

 

All i am trying to do is warn people of the possible outcomes. It is important that people are aware of this so that they can be prepared.

[Tigerbaby]

So, what you're saying is that despite them not having supplied the documents within the required time frame and despite the fact that the loan agreement wasn't fair to you, they managed to drag you to court and the judge ruled in their favor? Not to mention that neither the OFT, TS, nor your local MP clamped down on them? So where does that leave the consumer? Did you get advice from CAB?

[palomino]

I've looked up the consumer credit act 1974 sections 77-79 and from what I can make of it, it means that if a creditor doesn't respond to a CCA request within 12 working days (day of receipt counts as 0),

"(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enfore the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence."

 

I assume that it would give ample grounds to dispute an agreement if it suddenly turned up either while the default continued or once the creditor had already committed an offence.

 

The law's a bit fuzzy and I'd appreciate any expert on this forum commenting on it/my interpretation.

 

 

This bit of the Act was amended earlier this year - the offence clause has disappeared. You appear to have quoted the old version.

[palomino]

This bit of the Act was amended earlier this year - the offence clause has disappeared. You appear to have quoted the old version.

 

... which is understandable since the old version is still there on the Government's statute law website.

 

I found the amendments here - The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (No. 1277) - Statute Law Database .

Edited August 9, 2008 by palomino
Added link

[Tigerbaby]

I've read the amendments which don't leave me any the wiser. It seems to mean that there's no time limit for the creditor to supply a CCA the debtor has requested. He only can't enforce the agreement while the default continues but if say, he "finds" the documents within a year he can convince a court to issue a summons to the debtor.

Quite frankly, I can't see much consumer protection in this amendment.

[palomino]

I've read the amendments which don't leave me any the wiser. It seems to mean that there's no time limit for the creditor to supply a CCA the debtor has requested. He only can't enforce the agreement while the default continues but if say, he "finds" the documents within a year he can convince a court to issue a summons to the debtor.

Quite frankly, I can't see much consumer protection in this amendment.

 

I can see your point of view, however there are other points of view as well.

For instance, if you incurred a debt under an agreement that was subsequently located and found to be compliant then it is reasonable that that the principal provision of the agreement applies - you repay the amount owing.

There are other provisions of the agreement which could also apply such as being able to sell the debt, making reports to credit reference agencies, applying charges etc.

If you don't think these are fair then why did you sign the agreement in the first place? Unfortunately naivete and ignorance of the law and its consequences are not a legal defence.

 

In the context of your comment the concept of 'consumer protection' should apply more at the time the agreement was signed, not when it was enforced. While you might think it is the task of the lender to protect borrowers in some way there is also a presumption that adults are responsible for their own conduct. As an analogy if you were intending to climb Mount Everest you would carry out considerable planning and preparation taking account of the risks involved and your own capabilities. You could be expected to carry out a similar exercise when borrowing money, although few people do so in practice.

[Tigerbaby]

I can see your point of view, however there are other points of view as well.

For instance, if you incurred a debt under an agreement that was subsequently located and found to be compliant then it is reasonable that that the principal provision of the agreement applies - you repay the amount owing.

There are other provisions of the agreement which could also apply such as being able to sell the debt, making reports to credit reference agencies, applying charges etc.

If you don't think these are fair then why did you sign the agreement in the first place? Unfortunately naivete and ignorance of the law and its consequences are not a legal defence.

 

In the context of your comment the concept of 'consumer protection' should apply more at the time the agreement was signed, not when it was enforced. While you might think it is the task of the lender to protect borrowers in some way there is also a presumption that adults are responsible for their own conduct. As an analogy if you were intending to climb Mount Everest you would carry out considerable planning and preparation taking account of the risks involved and your own capabilities. You could be expected to carry out a similar exercise when borrowing money, although few people do so in practice.

 

Well, in my case it was a bit more complicated. When signing up for a driving instructor course, the lady who'd conducted the introduction offered me a one-year interest-free loan to cover the course fees that had to be paid in advance and there and then brokered it with Clydesdale Finance. About 8 months into the course I sustained RSI on my left hand as a consequence of instructions given and asked for a refund as I couldn't continue. They let me wait until the repayment date had been and gone and then sent me a letter refusing the refund which according to DSA business code of practice, I would have been entitled to.

To take your analogy, if I had known that I'd sustain RSI I certainly wouldn't have signed up for this course and consequently, wouldn't have taken out he loan which, by the way, was directly transferred to their bank account.

[palomino]

That's not quite the right interpretation of my analogy.

If you had anticipated that some physical problem might occur you could have asked about it in the context of the agreement (do I have to continue payments yes/no?) and might have avoided the situation . Alternatively you might (for instance) have taken out PPI.

 

It isn't about knowing that something will happen. Rather it is making suitable provision in case the unexpected happens.

 

In your specific instance you appear to have been treated unfairly. Did you formally complain in writing setting out your concerns? When the RSI was diagnosed did you notify the course organiser in writing that you were unable to continue? Did you send it by recorded delivery?

 

Again, see the provision for the unexpected : everything in writing and sent by recorded delivery.

[Tigerbaby]

I certainly did inform the course provider in writing including a doctor's letter and asked for a refund. Once the repayment date had passed (and they'd had about 2 months since I had reported the injury) they replied denying me a refund but offering me to attend the course indefinitely which in case of RSI is of course totally useless. I panicked and consulted a solicitor who wrote to the course provider and Clydesdale Finance but didn't get any reply despite a couple of reminders he'd sent. Clydesdale Finance kept sending me letters upping the charges. Finally, another couple of months later, he notified them that he's closing the file as due to their lack of response he assumed the issue was resolved. A couple of weeks later he received a letter by the course provider saying they'd consider giving me a refund if I surrendered my driving licence.

As for anticipating the injury, I'd never had RSI or anything comparable before.

[palomino]

You seem to have done the right things.

 

I would suggest it is now your turn. Lodge a claim in the County Court (small claims track) for the recovery of the money, together with all your expenses.

I'm surprised your solicitor hasn't suggested this, although he may not have for cost reasons (you have to pay his fees).

 

Lodging a claim is quite straightforward. If you're near a County Court then go and ask for the papers need to make a claim. There are several things including pamphlets of advice notes so (in my local Court anyway) they having everything bundled up in an envelope which they just hand to you.

The small claims track is designed to be simple and user-friendly for people such as yourself. Have a look through the papers and then start on writing out your claim. Include all the facts you have stated here - it is best to do this in chronological order. Add on all your costs - the claimed amount, your costs in making the claim (stationery, postage and research time) and attending court (travel). Were there any costs for the doctor's certificate? These can be added.

 

Then you can add in all the charges the finance company made - you these on their statements.

 

When you've done all this (it will take while to do it all) take it back to the Court. You do have to pay a fee which is partly based on how much you are claiming (this will be in one of the pamphlets).

 

 

If you're not near a Court then ring your nearest on and ask them to post the relevant forms and pamphlets out to you. The phone number for your local court can be found here - The requested resource (/HMCSCourtFinder/tiles/Her Majesty's Courts Service - Court Information and Addresses) is not available .

You might even be able to find the forms etc. on the same website.

 

Good luck!

[Tigerbaby]

My solicitor closed the file about a year ago, his reason being that I throw good money after bad. Clydesdale Finance claimed they'd never received his correspondence although they contradicted this by sending me a letter which made it obvious that they had and had just been waiting for the reaction of the course provider. I then sent Clydesdale a letter asking which amount would clear the debt. What they asked for was almost double the original amount (not even 6 months after the repayment date). They then sold the debt to Barclays who half a year later sold it to CapQuest. They as yet haven't sent me the CCA which I had requested on 26/6. Now, two financial advisers have independently told me that the way this loan had been drawn up constituted unfair treatment because (a) they didn't offer me PPI, (b) they didn't ask me to fill out an affordability guide but only checked my credit rating, and © I hadn't been advised by a financial advisor as the lady brokering the loan was a secretary of the course provider. Consequently, on 29/7 I've asked Clydesdale bank by recorded delivery for the agreement including all their copies as I suspect that the paperwork they hold might look a bit different from mine. With the help of someone on this forum, I've also drawn up a letter to the course provider or to be precise, the company that owns them, asking them to repay me the full amount the creditor now requests (by now it's more than double the original amount) minus £ 250 for part 1 of the course (theory) which I had completed as a goodwill gesture. In this letter, I give them 7 days to reply and 14 days to repay me before I'd consider filing a court claim which might include a negligence claim (by now, I've had to get two steroid injections, the first one end of last year, the second one a couple of weeks ago because this injury has compromised mobility and been very painful). I haven't sent it yet because I want to know exactly where I stand with the credit agreement and also, I'd like to be sure about how to file a negligence claim. I've now got altogether four doctor's letters, two by the doctor who had eventually referred me and two by the lady who's twice injected me.

Another interesting aspect of this sorry business is that the course provider at the time I signed the agreement did not have a consumer credit licence but the company that owns them did. Needless to say, the course provider did not disclose the fact that they are owned by another company and instead, gave the impression that they are a company acting in their own right.

So, the question now is, what to claim (solicitor's fees and fees for doctor's letters are the easy part) and when (wait for CapQuest or Clydesdale to send me the CCA and if so, how long?).