action to take after s.77/s.78 CCA non compliance and being chased for debt?

[tomterm8]

If you have already got a CCJ, then the only hope whatsoever of removing the default would be to get the CCJ set aside. I can not see any situation - except where a CCJ is gained by fraud - where a libel or data protection suit would lie for data recorded by credit reference agencies for the period the CCJ is in force.

[tifo]

I think you're in for a long uncomfortable ride, you are going to have to prove every assertation and hope the judge doesn't follow the simple line that "you've already accepted liability"

 

I think i need to explain.

 

I have 3 CCJ's as i stated above in the state they are in. The creditor maintains a default each as well. One i am paying as per court order, the second i am not paying as they rejected my offer of payment and got a charging order, but the court declined to make an order to accept my offer and the third is on an account which was sold when i made a claim for charges back, but the bank was not asking me for payment before this.

 

In addition to this, i have many other defaults by DCA's that have had no court action taken against them, though have been threatened many times. For these accounts, there has been no s.77/s.78 compliance for a year now. It is for this lot i am starting action first as they are unenforceable until a full agreement is provided.

 

So, 3 CCJ's with defaults so enforced for the moment. Will look into set aside but no action yet.

 

About 15 defaults from DCA's on accounts which are currently unenforceable under s.127(3). Threats of court action regularly but no agreement from anyone. Will look into taking action on these and have them removed with compensation for harassment/defamation/damage from DCA's and CRA's.

[tomterm8]

Personally, I don't think a defamation case stands a chance in heck, in these circumstances.

 

Some people do win harassment cases, but frankly... if you want to take all these cases to court, they will take forever, and cost a fortune.

[tifo]

Personally, I don't think a defamation case stands a chance in heck, in these circumstances.

 

Some people do win harassment cases, but frankly... if you want to take all these cases to court, they will take forever, and cost a fortune.

 

Yes, i know . A lot of time and money which i haven't got spare.

 

I've been reading many threads on here where people get defaults removed because of no CCA compliance. After all, where is the agreement to let you do this i ask them?

 

I'm also kinda pee'd off with Lowell and their continuous threats so if that's not harassment, what is. From Financial to Hamptons to Red back round again. I've made a start on them as after their last letter of intention i sent a reply asking for all and everything they hold on me, as per pre action CPR, so that i can defend properly. Of course, they will ignore this but i intend to push it further. It's a matter of supply the docs now or shut up and remove those defaults and while you're at it, let's have some compensation for defaulting me.

 

Same with the other DCA's.

 

I'm looking at using £1000 + value of default using case and FOS guideline/cases but will settle for the £500 a judge may award.

 

The basis of all my cases will be to supply the agreement or remove the default with compensation. If they do supply it and it's enforced, then i claim charges back from them and that should clear up most of the accounts plus some to me.

 

At the moment, i'm losing all my refunds from the banks to the DCA's and am stuck with it as FOS agree. There's about £9k i am losing.

[RFC1872]

So what was the outcome of all the issues in this thread?

[tifo]

So what was the outcome of all the issues in this thread?

 

Nothing!

 

DCA's still chasing the debt (no court action) and letter tennis being played.

 

Trading Standards, ICO, OFT and FOS ignoring CCA non-compliance and subsequent chasing by the DCA and banks paying charges refunds to DCA's, this is OK according to the above organisations as the debt exists somewhere.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello tifo!

 

Trading Standards, Information Commissioners Office, OFT and FOS ignoring CCA non-compliance and subsequent chasing by the DCA and banks paying charges refunds to DCA's, this is OK according to the above organisations as the debt exists somewhere.

 

That is disgraceful, and it is good for people on CAG to be reminded of how things can drag on, and on, and yet the bankers and the DCAs are always allowed to get away with making up their own rules.

 

I appreciate this is an old Thread, but it seems the events are still ongoing.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[gizzagame]

Hi everyone

 

Sadly the credit repair site seems to be no longer available

 

"So you sent a consumer credit agreement request letter, and the £1 fee, 12 days passed nothing, 30 days passed nothing, what now ?

After this time the debt is unenforceable, and the company has committed a criminal offence under the consumer credit act 1974, for failing to comply with your request, before taking any further collection action, the company would have to apply to a court, which they do not do, as the courts do not look favourably upon companies who have already committed criminal offences".

 

Sorry to be a dunce but I've just registered having heard about the unenforceable issue with the CCA 1974 yesterday. I left a hello post on the welcome forum and have searched for further info, which brought me here.

 

I have 6 credit card companies on my case having had a change in financial circumstances through the credit crunch. I've tried to keep them happy and in the end have been giving them and Nat West (for a loan taken out last year) token payments of £1 each. They aren't happy and a couple are talking about securing against my house, specifically Nat West and MBNA. Most of the credit card debts are from cards taken out before 2006, but the loan was taken out in May last year. Which ones could become unenforceable?

 

What exactly does it mean if I send them a CCA agreement letter each and they fail to reply? Does the debt get written off? Does it sit on my credit file? Forgive me asking basic questions but my head is wrecked by the constant phone calls and hassle.

 

Many thanks

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Gizzagame!

 

I believe one of the Site Team has already pointed you in the right direction.

 

Best advice is therefore to read and read ASAP, and then Post your own Thread in a suitable Section.

 

This Thread is not the best place to start, so I'd advise you take a step back, line up the Debts on paper so you know where you are, and perhaps start a Thread on the one that is causing you the most grief.

 

Say, an MBNA or similar Credit Card for example.

 

Best advice I can give is to stop Paying all Debts but the ones that matter, i.e. your Mortgage. Once you have that under Control, then start work on the others.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[overdone]

it's Wilson v somebody..can't remember but if you check the general thread and "consumer credit act agreements" search for Wilson and you'll get it.

This is exactly what I am asking for on my thread, Debt collecting Industry, 1st cred, stat demand - overdone. Would love someone to post it there.

[PriorityOne]

Is this what you meant ?

In Mc Ginn v Grangewood Securities Ltd., April 2002, the Judge said

For present purposes the crucial provision is section 127(3), to which section 127(1) is expressly made subject. It provides:

 

“The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).”

 

It follows that in a case where there is no document signed by the debtor which contains all the prescribed terms of the agreement the court has no power to make an enforcement order. In such a case the effect of sections 65(1) and 127(3) of the Act is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor.

 

Wilson v Hurstanger, 2007

.... In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 signal that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.