Time To Take On Halifax Credit Card :)

[djgordyp]

 

I have received a letter from Blair Oliver & Scott today. Notice of Intended Court Action. It is dated 24th June and received just now.

What a coincidence. I received a similar letter on the same day (30th) dated the 23rd. I had 5 days to respond. How can I if they don't send it on time. I think their internal mail system needs an overhaul. The CCCS sent them a proposal on 27th May, two weeks later and BOS claim they never received it (common tactic of theirs apparently).

[citizenB]

Hi djgordyp, it appears to be a common tactic used by most of the OCs and DCAs. What is so frustrating is that you cant see from their envelopes when it was actually posted as there doesnt appear to be any franking information. I know that BRW is trying to break the codes/barcodes that appear on the envelopes. It just concerns me that should this go to court the OC/DCA is going to be credited with more honesty than they deserve.

[djgordyp]

It would probably be pointless asking them to use recorded delivery then.

[citizenB]

It would probably be pointless asking them to use recorded delivery then.

 

Hah.. I wouldnt waste your breath

[harrythehawk]

BOS are very devious. I have had a response to my CCA ....... Thank you for your payment ....... please contact us to avoid further action ....... in the past I would have got a letter straight off to correct their error but I guess that is what they want, content now that they have the request and any "mistake" by them is to my advantage, will let them get on with it and explain to the judge why said "payment" clearly marked fee and stapled to a CCA request has not been obvious enough for them ...... they know full well what they are doing, however I am older and wiser now .... knowledge is everything.

[citizenB]

BOS are very devious. I have had a response to my CCA ....... Thank you for your payment ....... please contact us to avoid further action ....... in the past I would have got a letter straight off to correct their error but I guess that is what they want, content now that they have the request and any "mistake" by them is to my advantage, will let them get on with it and explain to the judge why said "payment" clearly marked fee and stapled to a CCA request has not been obvious enough for them ...... they know full well what they are doing, however I am older and wiser now .... knowledge is everything.

 

I am discovering just HOW devious they are

[citizenB]

grrr, Halifax. I think I am about to implode.

 

January 2008, I CCA'd Halifax on behalf of OH.

 

Through February and March, a series of letters from Halifax advising various customer service managers were "looking into my complaint".

 

April, a copy application form so poorly reproduced it might just as well have been a blank sheet of paper was received. Halifax were asked for a decent copy.

 

Since April, various threatograms from Blair Oliver Scott were received and replied to.

 

I eventually made a complaint to the FOS who advised that they were unable to investigate the non compliance of the CCA 1974 that I should contact the Information Commissioners Office. As I hadnt requested this under the Data Protection Act, Information Commissioners Office werent prepared to investigate.

 

As I had received all of OH's statements (Halifax's idea of confirming the debt was valid) I didnt see the need to spend out £10.00 that could be best used elsewhere.

 

Further letter from Blair Oliver Scott advising Intended legal action so, I took advice from pt2357 and sent a 'Preaction Practice Direction - protocols 4.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules' letter.

 

This galvanised Halifax into finally taking me seriously and investigating my complaint.

 

The latest letter says.......

 

"Although I am unable to provide a copy of the signed agreement, I have sent you the documentation which fulfils our obligations under section 78 of the CCA under separate cover. This consists of copies of the terms and conditions for your account when it was opened and the current terms and conditions, a true copy of the original agreement (this guy had just said in the previous sentence that he was UNABLE to provide a copy and now he says he is sending it under separate cover ??) and copy statements for the life of the account. Whilst the agreement may be unenforceable it does not mean that the debt is invalid. COllections action will still be taken because we still hold you liable for the outstanding debt "

 

and

 

"You are correct to believe we cannot force you to make payments or take you to court without an enforcement order. We can and will however, continue with our normal collections activity. This may include contacting you and asking you for payments, registering information with credit reference agencies, defaulting your account and applying interest and charges in accordance with the agreed account conditions."

 

In the next post, I received 2 packages, containing copy statements, an extremely poor copy of terms and conditions that would have been in booklet form and terms and conditions from 06/07.

NO agreement/application

 

My question is. Should I reply and what can I say to the Halifax. Or wait until they make their next move. Should I make a further complaint to either Trading Standards or FOS??

 

Any advise would be most appreciated

[pt2537]

Fantastic, no agreement but they are still going to press you for the money.

 

Hmm i feel a call to Trading Standards is in order, make a complaint under the CPUT regs as they are pursuing you for a debt that they cannot provide the agreement for

 

Time for a bit of donkey filleting i think

[reallymadwoman]

Personally I would write back stating that no agreement was supplied in the package sent separately, and therefore you will accept their statement that they are unable to produce it. I would further say that as the alleged debt is unenforceable you will not enter in to any further correspondence.

 

I would expect they will either

a) let Blair and co keep sending threatograms for a while (but as soon as they send anything which threatens legal action, and they will, they are in breach of OFT guidelines and CPUTR for making misleading statements so you can complain) then give up when you ignore them completely

b) as above then sell the account to one of the bottom feeders who will be nicely seen off with a copy of the letter saying no agreement

c) sell the account to one of the DCAs who immediately issue proceedings in the hope that you will pay up, but without an agreement we all know how far that will get.

 

It's up to you whether you make any complaints at this stage, but personally I wouldn't as Blair and Co are certain to give you plenty of ammunition soon.

 

I would consider this game over.

[pt2537]

Actually, per Rankine v. Amex, you could apply for an injunction against them prohibiting enforcement;)

[citizenB]

Actually, per Rankine v. Amex, you could apply for an injunction against them prohibiting enforcement;)

 

 

Thank you pt... Umm, do you have a link to this please ?

 

RMW, thank you for looking in. It is much appreciated.

[pt2537]

News and Events : Articles : Judgment: Basil Rankine vs American Express Services Europe Limited

 

para 16;)

[citizenB]

Thank you pt. Will go and have a read of this.

 

Very annoying, I am unable to click your scales until I have spread it around a bit....

[angel_1]

hiya citizenb

 

have subsribed this thread and i have thanked pt2537 for you as you are always helping me, sorry if that is not allowed but im using my initiative, which by the ways always seems to get into some kind of trouble

 

i may need that link later on my journey so thanks pt - from me too

 

ciao for now laters - maz

[citizenB]

News and Events : Articles : Judgment: Basil Rankine vs American Express Services Europe Limited

 

para 16;)

 

Interesting and certainly worth thinking about.

 

I cannot believe the Rankines boasted about what they were doing and in a court as well. It makes you wonder if their brains are wired correctly ?

[citizenB]

Thank you maz, much appreciated.

[pt2537]

Interesting and certainly worth thinking about.

 

I cannot believe the Rankines boasted about what they were doing and in a court as well. It makes you wonder if their brains are wired correctly ?

short circuit i think;)

 

but it makes sense as a declaration on the enforceability would not be appropriate as until they supply the agreement the court has nothing to base its declaration on.

 

It is the case that only where you have an improperly executed agreement that is deficient in some way can the court say 100% its unenforceable

[citizenB]

Thanks pt. Understood.

[davey77]

Very envious of your 'we can't enforce this' letter! grrrr I've been after one of those for 2 years!

[citizenB]

Very envious of your 'we can't enforce this' letter! grrrr I've been after one of those for 2 years!

 

I guess, I can photoshop you a copy .. after all if they can do it..... !!

[citizenB]

Update

 

Not long after receiving the letter from Halifax advising that they couldnt enforce but would attempt to anyway, OH received a rather polite letter from Blair Oliver Scott asking him to make contact regarding a repayment plan, an offer he refused.

 

SAR sent beginning of October

 

October - Received a "your Immediate Action is Required" letter from Blair Oliver Scott, advising what action would be taken unless contact was made. Door to door collectors, Court action, etc. Filed under I

 

Sent Bankfodders complaint letter to OFT, enclosing a copy of the Halifax letter and Blair Oliver's threatogram. copied it to BOS:D

 

In response to SAR, received a letter from Halifax. "We refer to your recent enquiry regarding your account and was sorry to learn you are unhapy with us".. What

 

November - Received a "Do not Ignore" letter from BOS. Filed under I

November - Received a further "Your Immediate Action is Required " letter from BOS , again filed under I

 

January - Wescot Credit Services are recruited - Bright red banner across top of letter "DEBT NOTIFICATION"

Sent them X20's letter http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1800199.html

 

January - Received further letter from Halifax, apparently the letter I assumed they had sent in response to the SAR was in fact a response to thecopy of the OFT letter I sent to Blair Oliver Scott. This time they advise that having considered the content of the OFT letter, there is nothing they wish to add to their final response letter..

 

January - Wescot write advising they are conferring with their client and the account has been placed on hold.

 

March - Wescot, without prejudice 75% short settlement offer

March, same day, IQOR. "Their actions will continue regardless of whether the letter is read or not". They are going to get a judgement or decree entered..

 

Letters sent to both IQOR and Wescot, enclosing a copy of each other's letters , asking them to make their minds up who exactly were supposed to be acting for Halifax. Reminding them that it was against OFT guidelines for multiple agencies to be instructed advising also I was passing their letters on to the OFT. (reminds me.. I must do that )

 

Interesting.. the reply came from Blair Oliver Scott:confused: advising that IQOR are the instructed agents.

 

Yesterday, received letter from IQOR. "They note that I have a number of questions for their client, unfortunately they are unable to to comment on any of the events that have taken place prior to their involvement. Now make contact with IQOR regarding repayment of the account".

 

Ummm, I dont think so. What do other Caggers suggest ?

[slick132]

Hi CB,

 

Continue to file under "I" or send a quick letter to Halifax telling them to call off the dogs withing 7 days or formal complaints will be made, regarding all parties involved, to the FOS for formal investigation.

[davey77]

Is it LBA time CB?! Nothing short of Court Action is going to put a stop to this nonsense once and for all.

[citizenB]

Thanks slick:D

 

Davey, I have to go very slowly with OH. If it were for me, I would have sent LBA long time ago.

[davey77]

Ah i see. Then i guess just the 'get knotted' letter is in order.

 

As for the FOS.. you know what i think of them. If your complaint is anything to do with the supply of a credit agreement they will, at best say it's nothing to do with them, at worst, state that previous payments towards the debt are an acknowledgment of it and validate the accounts enforceability (no matter what response you have had re the CCA request. They won't take that into account.)