HBOS and OH's card debt

[lexis200]

Thanks again CB - I think the first para of the highlighted bit is from one of my earlier letters to them; it looks very familiar:D

 

I may as well chuck it at them again though seeing as it didn't go in the first time they read it:rolleyes:

[lexis200]

Another call just taken...

 

At least this one was polite. When I said everything had to be in writing though, she used the usual line of 'we need to speak to mr lexis so will have to keep phoning'. I told her that as they had been informed on numerous occasions this was blatantly against the banking code that they are under (I hope that's right??), and that as this was a private line the continued phone calls were nothing short of harassment.

 

Anyway, she did end up saying calls would be held for 10 days, which I'll believe when I see it. Or rather when I don't hear it! I did also mention though that once calls started again we would be having the exact same conversation, so it might be worth noting it down for the next person phoning:)

[lexis200]

Ho hum

 

I'm going to have to update that letter to include 3 sets of the same duplicate letter, as another couple arrived today. Only standard ones stating that the account is in arrears and to pay now or they're going to take the batteries from the remote control or some equally diabolical punishment, but annoying nonetheless.

[millymollymoo]

Wishing you lots of luck with Blair too!

 

Milly X

[lexis200]

Thanks mmm:)

[citizenB]

Thanks again CB - I think the first para of the highlighted bit is from one of my earlier letters to them; it looks very familiar:D

 

I may as well chuck it at them again though seeing as it didn't go in the first time they read it

 

For maximum effect.. include a brick in the envelope

 

Ho hum

 

I'm going to have to update that letter to include 3 sets of the same duplicate letter, as another couple arrived today. Only standard ones stating that the account is in arrears and to pay now or they're going to take the batteries from the remote control or some equally diabolical punishment, but annoying nonetheless.

 

COuld possibly be that they are trying to look busy to avoid losing their jobs, Barclaycard are shedding a few hundred peeps. Who know where the Credit crunch will hit next

[lexis200]

COuld possibly be that they are trying to look busy to avoid losing their jobs

Is it wrong that the thought of these people -and I mean the ones who have no issues with the distress they cause and no wish to help those in need - possibly being on the receiving end of the shi*e they throw at us makes me feel all warm and fuzzy?

[rb2010]

Hi,

 

I'm quite new to this and feel like a bit of a fish out of water. Can anyone have a look at my thread and offer up some advice. I find my self in a similar situation. It would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

RB

 

here's my thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/177589-blair-oliver-scott-need.html

[lexis200]

Another letter giving 7 days to phone or else. Sent second class on the 14th:rolleyes:

[citizenB]

I think this could be classed as harassment ??. For goodness sake, they couldnt possibly have read and understood the last letter YOU sent them ?.

 

I received a letter from them today, it was in response to my letter of the 21st... of OCTOBER ?? Apart from which, the letter was actually sent to Westcott ?? Do you reckon the account has been handed back:cool:

[lexis200]

I reckon they need a slap round the head and to be told to behave like the professional company they supposedly are:rolleyes:

[lexis200]

I've got round to knocking up a PPI letter, so if anyone could take a look and point out any glaring errors I'd appreciate it!

 

It's based (heavily) on the template on here, but I have tweaked it for my own purposes!

 

Ref: My account

 

I believe I have been mis-sold a payment protection insurance policy and would like to request a full refund of my premiums, plus interest paid. I cancelled my policy in 2006 after being told I was not covered due to my job status (which had not changed since starting the policy), but have recently found out that I am entitled to claim back these charges, and the interest accumulated on them.

 

I bought a payment protection policy for my credit card payments in 2001, to cover me for unemployment if such a problem should arise.

 

I am a Director of a Limited company and therefore was not eligible for any payments from the PPI unless I closed my company.

 

My application form showed my job title as ‘Director’. However, I was not told at the time that as a Director I would not be able to make a claim on the PPI in the event of unemployment unless the company ceased trading. Had this been explained to me I would not have taken the policy out.

 

I only found this out on attempting to make a claim in 2006, when my company had not had business for some months and my income had dropped to nothing. After attempting to bring in business to no avail, I decided to use the policy I had paid for over the course of the previous 5 years, but was told I could not.

 

Insurers are under an obligation to ensure that the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and clearly, as my employment situation meant I was unable to claim on the policy without specific caveats being in place, you have not fulfilled this requirement.

 

I am requesting a full refund of all my insurance payments from July 2001, plus interest, which totals £6017.93. Please be aware I am only using this date as you have not furnished me with statements to the start of the account. In the circumstances I feel this is more than fair on my part. (not sure if I'm going to leave it at this, or if I'll push for the remaining statements - otherwise, how can they prove the brought forward balance??)

 

If I do not receive a favourable response from you I will pursue this claim through the Financial Ombudsman.

 

Thanks for looking:)

 

Lexis:)

[lexis200]

I've been trawling round trying to find any letters with a hint of a 'zero my account' in them, but haven't had any luck. So, I've amended the letter written last week and concocted my own paragraphs to that effect.

 

I know it's long, but I'd really appreciate comments on this as I'm trying to make my point as clear and watertight as possible. If anyone has any thoughts on the paras regarding what I want to happen to the account in particular, please shout. Oh, and salutations and sign-offs are included on my copy:)

 

I have recently sent you two letters, the first dated 7th October was signed for at your office on the 10th October; the second dated 14th November was signed for on the 18th November 2008.

 

It appears our letters crossed in the post, as I received your reply to my earlier letter on the 14th November.

 

However, your letter fails to address concerns raised in my first letter. My second letter, a formal complaint, has received no other acknowledgement save for a standard template letter thanking me for cancelling my direct debit.

 

You advise that two pages of an application, one page being illegible and both pages void of prescribed terms, and a set of current terms, fulfils your obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It does not and I quote from the Act :

 

78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [£1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer.

 

On the page that is not wholly illegible, the text refers to conditions ‘overleaf’. Your current terms are plainly not what are referred to here, therefore I still require the historic terms.

 

I am sure you are well aware that the document you have supplied is not an enforceable agreement. I am equally sure that you are aware that without a fully legible, signed agreement containing all the prescribed terms, you are not permitted to take any enforcement action.

 

Without the production of a document described as above, I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable for any alleged debt to you. Nor does it give me the chance to evaluate whether any agreement was "properly executed".

 

Additionally, sending an application form is a breach of the Act and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as, apart from the information that the regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement. For the avoidance of any doubt section 3(1) of the 1983 regulations shows that, subject to certain limited exceptions, any copy of an unexecuted agreement must be a ‘true copy’. This means that it must be identical to the agreement as presented or sent to the debtor for signature.

 

Section 3(2) of the same regulations states what may be excluded from copy documents: There may be omitted from any such copy- (a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations there under as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy.

 

What you have sent me does not have the required inclusions, and is not in the correct form.

 

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, as shown below.

 

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

 

The document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. I have not written them here for you as I’m sure you are well aware of them, suffice to say none of the terms are present in the document

 

I also am unable to read the information on one page of the Application form due to the utter illegibility of the copy. This in itself contravenes the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557).

 

Regulation 2 states:

2 Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms

(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the .

 

Of course, I have explained all this before, but I will re-iterate that my request remains outstanding.

 

I would now also like to make mention of your debt collection policy. I must ask why it is necessary to send two identical letters to me, dated and sent on the same day? This has happened not once, but three times. This can be considered as nothing less than harassment as there is no plausible reason for this to have occurred, save to attempt to scare me.

 

In addition to this, since the 9th December 2008 we have had at least 16 phonecalls from your company. When we have not been in, silent messages are picked up on our answerphone. When we have picked up, the calls have been silent. If either my partner or I have actually spoken to anyone, they have been told to write as I will not discuss financial matters over the phone. On the 13th January alone, I have had 5 calls from your agents which went as follows:

 

1) 9.19am – call too noisy to hear so I had to hang up.

2) 10.50am – call to my mobile. Caller advised to remove this number from your list as it is used for work

3) 1.26pm – call to my mobile. Caller advised as above, and told everything must be in writing

4) 4.41pm – call to home phone which my partner answered. ‘Simon’ started off by refusing to give his name, then went on to tell my partner that our number was generated by a computer, despite you previously being told not to call. It was suggested by my partner that the number should be removed to save further need for a harassment complaint.

5) 6pm – call to home phone which my partner answered. ‘Rachel’ also reluctant to give a name. She was informed that this was the 5th call today, and the 4th time they have been told not to phone. Rachel informed my partner she would call back later. Please be aware, if anyone by that name does call, I will be making a harassment complaint about her personally.

 

I would be interested to know why my legal request to be contacted only in writing is being ignored, and why your agents appear to be so poorly trained that they try to refuse to give their names?

 

On the 14th January at 9.14am my partner had another call, this time from ‘Aoiisha’ and again had to state that everything must be in writing, and that you had been told this on many occasions. My partner was told that calls would be held for 10 days, but would start again after that.

 

I am now advising you that I will give you 2 days from receiving this letter (which I will be able to track by Recorded delivery) to remove my number from your calling strategies. If I have a call from you after this, I will not only be reporting your company to OFCOM and Trading Standards for your appalling business practice and harassment, but I will also be charging you £5 for every phone call made, regardless of whether it is picked up or not.

 

I am doing this as my phone is my property, and you have been repeatedly informed not to use it, be it mobile or landline. You are required to stop phoning when a customer requests it as long as communication channels are kept open. I am willing to correspond via letter, and have told you this.

 

Despite being told so frequently that I will not discuss matters over the phone, I received a letter yesterday asking me to phone you ‘within 7 days’ to discuss the account.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that I will not discuss financial matters over the phone, this letter, with a strict timescale of 7 days, was dated the 14th January and sent by 2nd Class post. This cavalier attitude towards timescales concerns me greatly.

 

It has become very apparent that Bank of Scotland is not willing to address my completely sound contention that the application form you have sent me is in no way enforceable.

In addition to the fatal flaws within the application form you have sent me, memos included within the data request show that the historic terms are unavailable. As such you are unable to fully comply with my section 78 request as you cannot provide ‘any other document referred to in it’ This fact alone renders any action against me by your company unlawful, as according to subsection (6) :

If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement

In summary, not only does your default of my request preclude you from any enforcement action, but the application form you hold is completely unenforceable - a fact that it has become very apparent that Bank of Scotland are not willing to address.

 

In light of the above, and also your company’s complete refusal to answer my formal complaint, I now require the full balance to be reduced to zero, and any adverse markers placed with credit reference agencies to be removed. In addition, any and all data you hold pertaining to me is to be destroyed, and I require a written confirmation that this has occurred, and that this account will no longer be pursued by you or any other company in the future.

 

I require this as you have demonstrated fully now that you do not have any evidence that I am indebted to your company. In my recent Subject Access Request I specifically asked for any true copies of original agreements complete with any original terms and conditions. Nothing was forthcoming. If it is your contention that you did hold an agreement, evidence of this should have been included within the Subject Access Request, as is legally required when a company is asked for specific documents.

 

As you do not have a valid, signed, enforceable agreement, there has never been any contract between your company and myself. Therefore you have never had the right to process my data in any way, and any markers placed with credit reference agencies have as such been placed unlawfully.

 

I look forward to your prompt written response within 14 days from the date of receipt (this letter is being sent by Recorded delivery, so receipt will be shown on the Royal Mail website).

 

If I do not hear from you within this time I will be passing this matter on to the Financial Ombudsman Service and Trading Standards. Should this be anyone else, or should I be (gulp) threatening court?

 

[citizenB]

"I require this as you have demonstrated fully now that you do not have any evidence that I am indebted to your company. In my recent Subject Access Request I specifically asked for any true copies of original agreements complete with any original terms and conditions. Nothing was forthcoming. If it is your contention that you did hold an agreement, evidence of this should have been included within the Subject Access Request, as is legally required when a company is asked for specific documents."

 

You might be able to expand on this paragraph a bit.. They are able, via CCA, to omit certain bits as allowed in the act. However, as you rightly say.. when asked for SPECIFICs, via an Subject Access Request, they are obliged to provide them

 

 

Regulatory bodies to complain to are :. FOS, FSA, OFT, TS and in the case of the telephone calls.... OFCOM

 

In the case of the "silent" calls you could point out that OFCOM have taken this very seriously and some companies have been fined serious money in this respect.

 

Other than that, IMHO, you are good to go.

[lexis200]

Thanks CB:D

 

Had a little re-write of that para to include something along the lines you mention

 

I require this as you have demonstrated fully now that you do not have any evidence that I am indebted to your company, or that you have now, or have ever had a valid contract to state as much. In my recent Subject Access Request I specifically asked for “Full copies of all contracts which you believe exist or have existed between myself and your organisation, including true copies of any original documents and their original associated terms and conditions you hold in support of the same.” Nothing was forthcoming. I realise within the context of a section 78 request you may leave out certain salient points (albeit that these points do not include the historic terms or the prescribed terms, which are still required), but if it is your contention that you did hold an agreement with these inclusions, evidence of this should have been included within the Subject Access Request, as is legally required when a company is asked for specific documents.

Unless there's any point raised by tomorrow, I'll get that off before the weekend!

 

And, I think I might do a very similar one for the other BOS account, which also has diddly squat on the agreement side of things:)

[citizenB]

Perfect We will be writing Broadway scripts betwen us soon:cool:

[lexis200]

Absolutely!!

 

Just as long as I don't have to sing though - it does funny things to people; mostly it makes them run away very fast:lol:

[millymollymoo]

Hi lexis I hope you don't mind me subscribing as i am dealing with these idiots as well as their pseudonym Blair, Oliver Scott.

 

Your 'credit agreement' so called as an application has no prescribed terms from what I have read, you have referred to 'conditions overleaf' in your letter. If they sent them would that make the agreement enforceable?

 

I have receivd in my s.a.r a load of rubbish to as the credit agreement are photocopies but not wholly illegible, no prescribed terms at all, signed by me and them though. It refers to conditions overleaf [not sent with s.a.r].

 

That is why I am asking because if they send these on request,would the agreement become enforceable, my card was taken out jan 2002 and how could I disprove that the terms if they send them were not altered in any way as I could not possibly know if they were correct or not.

 

Also should these conditions of use be in the signature document or not as a bit confused.

 

Good luck with these monkeys.

 

Milly X

Edited January 22, 2009 by millymollymoo
sorry spelling

[lexis200]

Hi mmm, the more the merrier:)

 

Yes, this is still with BOS, but the other account is with BlairOS

 

I suspect if they sent the prescribed terms and they could link the two pages then yes, it would be enforceable (if they managed to also find a legible copy).

 

They're going to have a bit of a job doing this though, as they clearly state in the Subject Access Request (and also in the other BOS Subject Access Request we have) that historic terms are not available and can not be sent:D One of the reasons they gave was 'pre merger'. As far as I can see from a quick Google, this was around May 01, so unfortunately a bit before yours.

 

Did you specifically request copies of any contracts and original terms in your Subject Access Request? If you did and they haven't sent them, they either don't have them or are lining themselves up for a bit of a problem if it ever gets to court (from what I've read on here it seems to be a big issue if they don't comply with an Subject Access Request, then turn up with documents later)

 

If you didn't specifically request it (btw, I've fiddled with the Subject Access Request request to try and give them no wiggle room at all - if you would like a look just pm me:)), I'd be tempted to just chance it and say they haven't sent you all the documents related to your account and the application they have sent you. That way they will

a) send you out some rubbish - this time you know they have nothing as you have requested it leaving no room for error

b) send you out the actual terms:( maybe not desperate though, as the two pages will still have to link in some way

c) tell you they have nothing more to send you - excellent

d) ignore you completely 'till you have to inform the Information Commissioners Office

 

Whatever happens, I don't think you have anything to lose by asking.

 

My feeling from reading other BOS threads is that your account is a bit too old for them to have anything still relating to it. Of course that is just my thoughts, and nothing to get excited about;)

 

Other people may have different ideas though, so do ask around. If you've read any of my threads you'll probably see I'm a bit of a fraidy cat with all this. I like to be as close to positive as possible before I do anything drastic:oops:

 

I think the only conditions (relevant to enforceability that is) that have to be in place are the small set of prescribed terms - any other standard terms are over and above and I think can be seperate:confused:

 

HTH a bit, and good luck to you too!

 

Lexis:)

[millymollymoo]

Hi Lexis and thanks:)

 

You are fine because they categorically have stated they hold no historic terms.

 

in my case on my seperate CCA request.

 

I recieved these as my so called credit agreement, note the font size is different where they have headed parties to the agreement. then in differnt font size it has T & C's. Also another vital mistake is that the account was opened jan 2002, applied for december 01. at the very bottom of the T &C's it has a date ref being 04/02. how could they of been available in 01/02??

so these ARE NOT the historic T &C's they refer to in my CCA.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/171374-bank-scotland-terminated-without-post1932479.html#post1932479

 

and here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/171374-bank-scotland-terminated-without-post1932486.html#post1932486

ok I S.A.R'd them and receievd my pack yesterday.in it I received a completely way differnt 'credit agreement' no prescribed terms but signed. It is linked as it says ton not forget to send the 2 pages together. right so I now know there was only two pages to this agreement and absolutely no prescribed terms. I will post it up on my thread later.

the question I ask is in this agreement it mentions 'conditions of use' overleaf. and these were not provided , just the 2 photocopies. so presumably if there was something overleaf it could only have run to a page of terms on the back if you get my drift.

on the photocopies if there was writing on the back would this of shown through or not?

If not then whatever was overleaf should of been provided as I said if the reconstructed agreement they originally sent in request to the CCA were meant to be them, however waht proof would that be and which of the two shown in the links would it of been??

A bit confused but one is clearly a reconjectured reconstruction and nothing like the signed rubish agreement in my s.a.r and the other is quite clear conditions from April 02.

You lucky thing ,you have them over a barrel;)

milly X

[lexis200]

I've added quite a bit to the letter in order to try and get the result I'm after, and tweaked the parts I already had.

 

Oh, and if it looks familiar it's because I've nicked bits from my other BOS letter. Waste not want not and all that:)

 

I am writing in response to your letter dated 18th December 2008, received 23rd December 2008.

 

Unfortunately I am once again underwhelmed by your correspondence.

 

To state ‘there was a properly executed signed agreement’ and ‘I can confirm that the copy of the agreement was not illegible at the time of signing’ is bordering on ridiculous. Unless you provide me with the legible, signed copy of the agreement you allege you hold (sorry, that you allege you held), complete with all prescribed terms, you will be well aware that you have no power to enforce this account.

 

As a matter of interest, are you able to back up your claims by proving that you were indeed working for the Bank of Scotland, in the department where applications were received, in 1996? Are you further able to prove that you were witness to me signing a legible agreement including all prescribed terms? If not, then I have to ask how you can make such sweeping statements.

 

You advise that an illegible application form fulfils your obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It does not. and I quote from the Act :

 

78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [£1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer.

 

I am sure you are well aware that the document you have supplied is not an enforceable agreement. I am equally sure that you are aware that without a fully legible, signed agreement containing all the prescribed terms, you are not permitted to take any enforcement action.

 

Without the production of a document described as above, I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable for any alleged debt to you. Nor does it give me the chance to evaluate whether any agreement was "properly executed".

 

Additionally, sending an application form is a breach of the Act and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as, apart from the information that the regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement. For the avoidance of any doubt section 3(1) of the 1983 regulations shows that, subject to certain limited exceptions, any copy of an unexecuted agreement must be a ‘true copy’. This means that it must be identical to the agreement as presented or sent to the debtor for signature.

 

Section 3(2) of the same regulations states what may be excluded from copy documents: There may be omitted from any such copy- (a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations there under as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy.

 

What you have sent me does not have the required inclusions, is not in the correct form, and is illegible.

 

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, as shown below.

 

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

 

The document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are. I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. I have given these to you before so will not add them again; suffice to say none of the terms are present in the document

 

The illegibility of the copy in itself contravenes the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557).

 

Regulation 2 states:

2 Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms

(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the .

 

Of course, I have explained all this before, but as it appears these points are being wilfully overlooked, I must re-iterate that my request remains outstanding.

 

 

You asserted that you were going to send me a fourth copy of the application (you state application agreement, but again, as you know, the piece of paper you have sent 3 times to date is far from an agreement) within 14 to 21 days of your letter. As of today nothing has arrived.

 

I note your statement ‘In relations to Consumer Credit Act 1974 sections 77 and 78 there is no requirement to provide the original signed agreement.’ That is true. There is however a requirement to send it under the Civil Procedure Rules. I made a legal request under the CPR at the beginning of November following Blair Oliver Scott’s threat of legal action on behalf of your company, the Bank of Scotland. No agreement has been received. I also made a data request that specifically called for “Full copies of all contracts which you believe exist or have existed between myself and your organisation, including true copies of any original documents and their original associated terms and conditions you hold in support of the same” Once again, no agreement or historic terms were included.

 

This brings me to your next point, namely your quote ‘To clarify, Blair Oliver and Scott are not a third party, they are our internal debt collection agency’. If this is indeed the case, perhaps you can explain to me why every letter from them refers to you as ‘their client’. If they are part of your company, you cannot be their client, as they work with you not for you. Please confirm whether is it Blair Oliver and Scott, or you who is trying to mislead me with the information given.

 

With regards to your latest letter, it has become very apparent that Bank of Scotland is not willing to address my completely sound contention that the application form you have sent me is in no way enforceable. In fact, it appears that you are attempting to persuade me that your assurances of what would have been are enough to overrule the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. They are not.

In addition to the fatal flaws within the application form you have sent me, a memo included within the data request show that the historic terms are unavailable. As such you are unable to fully comply with my section 78 request as you cannot provide ‘any other document referred to in it’. Plainly there must have been other terms referred to, as it is not possible for all your terms and conditions to be written in the few lines visible on the paper you have sent me. This fact alone renders any action against me by your company unlawful, as according to subsection (6) :

If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement

In summary, not only does your default of my request preclude you from any enforcement action, but the application form you hold is completely unenforceable - a fact that it has become very apparent that Bank of Scotland are not willing to address.

 

In light of the above, I now require the full balance to be reduced to zero, and any adverse markers placed with credit reference agencies to be removed. In addition, any and all data you hold pertaining to me is to be destroyed, and I require a written confirmation that this has occurred, and that this account will no longer be pursued by you or any other company in the future.

 

As you do not have a valid, signed, legible, enforceable agreement, there is not now, nor can have ever been any contract between your company and myself. Therefore you do not now, nor have ever had the right to process my data in any way, and any markers placed with credit reference agencies have as such been placed unlawfully.

 

I require this course of action as you have demonstrated very clearly that you do not have an agreement showing that I am now, or ever have been indebted to your company. If it is your contention that you did hold a legible agreement with the required inclusions embodied within it, evidence of this should have been included within the SAR, as is legally required when a company is asked for specific documents. Failing this, you should have responded with the documents you allude to when I issued you with a request for information under the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

I look forward to your prompt written response within 14 days from the date of receipt (this letter is being sent by Recorded delivery, so receipt will be shown on the Royal Mail website).

 

If I do not hear from you within this time with a satisfactory offer of conclusion, I will be passing this matter on to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Financial Services Authority, the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards.

[lexis200]

No worries:)

 

Right, what jumps out at me first of all is that line in the covering letter "please also not we are not required to provide a copy of the original signed agreement under section 78..."

 

This niggles me every time I see it, as it just makes me very suspicious. Why go to the trouble of explaining what they can omit? Why not just send the real thing and save a load of paperwork?

 

I've had this with all but 2 of the agreements we've received so far. The only 2 who don't say it are looking pretty enforceable, and to me that speaks volumes.

 

AND, what's that statement in the Halifax letter all about "the executed credit agreement fulfils your request..."??? What executed agreement - they sent you an old blank form which looks suspiciously like the only place for a signature is on the cancellation page, to say you don't want the card!

 

Just going onto your thread now as I've seen BRW has been on and I want to see what his thoughts are:D

[millymollymoo]

Thanks lexis for your help on my thread. and for saving me another £10 to S.A.R Blair Witch!!!

 

MillY XXX

[underdog13]

Superb:) Would it be worth adding something about the CPUT regs as well? Even RBS have said they're worried by CPUT:D

[lexis200]

Thanks underdog:)

 

I'd love to, but I have embarrassingly little knowledge of them (it's the one bit I really haven't read up on).

 

Any ideas on where to point me for what I could use?

 

Thanks:)