HBOS and OH's card debt

[reallymadwoman]

I was once told by a lady at Blair et al that they don't have time to open post unless they think there's money in the envelope (hint: anything you send to Blair, mark 'Payment enclosed'). I am not at all surprised that they don't write their own letters though. If you send enough complaints you may eventually get a response, but it will be either from Bank of Scotland or Halifax. It doesn't actually seem to matter who the account was with originally though, it seems to be entirely random which letter head they use.

[reallymadwoman]

Me? I wouldn't do anything like mark envelopes 'payment enclosed' when there isn't or forget to put stamps on them. That would be mean.

I might sometimes forget to put the payment inside or forget to put the stamp on, but that's entirely due to my medical condition, honest.

[reallymadwoman]

Hi all

 

I've just had OH's CCA back and am hoping for some expert info!

 

Pics posted below (with any luck)...

 

I'm very dubious as to whether it's enforceable or not, as there are a few anomalies I can see, but I may be being pedantic.

 

FWIW, my thoughts are

 

-The front is dark grey but the back is pure white (strange)

In my opinion, they are not from the same document, but I would guess that they've stored a copy of the front and just added a 'generic' copy of the back.

-There are 2 distinct fold marks on the front, none on the back (odd)

-There is a code on the bottom of the back, but not on the front (so no referenced link between the pages) The repeat of the 'free bag' offer would imply that it is the same as the original though.

-They didn't send any t's and c's as referred to on the back (so not fully complied with request) Agree. Did they send a full statement of account?

 

BUT

 

-The prescribed terms do seem to be there, even though I can't see anything to link the two

-There's a strange mark present on the front and back - could that be because it's a genuine copy of two sides of the same doc, or could it be a problem with their copier? Probably the copier/printer.

 

Anyone with any thoughts on which combination of unenforceable/enforceable/compliant but not enforceable I might be looking at here?

 

Also, if it does look a bit iffy, would it be wise to send off for an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to see if a second agreement matches? Depending if the outstanding balance justifies a tenner, it can't hurt. Do not be fobbed off with just copies of statements and another copy of the agreement though. You should also get screen prints of the entire account history, including a reference to receiving your requests.

 

Thanks for any help!

 

Lexis:)

 

Oh, and we realised when this arrived that he never did get a sports bag from them:mad:

 

hali1.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

hali2.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

 

I think you may be on dodgy ground with this one. Playing devil's advocate (i.e. pretending to be a judge), I think there is sufficient evidence to link the two pages especially if someone from Halifax submits a witness statement saying they were. As such, the agreement appears to include all the prescribed terms. It also may be debatable whether they need to include 'terms and conditions' to comply with a CCA request as they have provided a copy of your agreement. I would certainly insist on seeing them, but I don't think it's grounds to say the agreement supplied is unenforceable.

 

If this was my account, assuming the balance makes it worthwhile, I would send for the SAR and see what comes back before deciding what to do next. There may be some charges on there at least.

[reallymadwoman]

Make sure you specify in your SAR 'all information' not just statements.

[reallymadwoman]

It has to be worth a try at getting the PPI back especially as they didn't pay out on a claim.

 

I've actually never done a claim for PPI or charges, so I can't really help on either.