HBOS and OH's card debt

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi MMM,

 

So sorry to hear you have been poorly. Hope you are now on the mend.

 

Lexis is on her hols and hopefully having a brilliant time. I'm sure she'll tell us all about it soon.

 

Take care,

 

Love,

 

DDx

[lexis200]

Hey all:)

 

I did have a superb time thanks DD. Disneyworld was just brilliant and our villa was lovely. We did end up having to drag the kids away from our pool to go to the parks though - one of our conversations in the last week was along the lines of 'well mummy and daddy want to go to Disney again, so you're coming whether you like it or not!'

 

Of course we now can't afford to eat, heat the house, use the water etc, but never mind, it was soooo worth it. I know OH's dad would be happy with how some of his money was spent as it made us very happy after a long time of rotten luck, and we couldn't possibly have afforded it without it!

 

As a little update on this, Wescot are still banging on but not getting anywhere:rolleyes: I would love to know what BOS have spent chasing this completely unenforceable account - 2 years, 4 or 5 DCA's, multiple letters and calls from BOS, all for an account of about 2k. It's completely mental really isn't it?!

 

ps - I hope you are better now MMM and that it wasn't a serious problem xx

[angel_1]

hiya lexis and milly and daniela and all friends on the thread

 

gosh its been a huge time since i caught up with you all so very glad you had a fab holiday and we are still kind of surviving - i really will catch up with all your own individual threads - still looking for a job, and still hanging in with my own battles

 

anyway i will be hanging about a bit more so hugs to you all and keep positive wishing you all a lovely sunny day

 

cheers angel x:)

[lexis200]

Hey angel:)

 

Glad you're still holding on; it's all good if you're managing to be positive - that's the kicker if you lose the optimism.

 

OH had a letter from Wescot today. After last weeks threat of imminent court action and big burly men turning up at my door (actually I was quite looking forward to that one;)), the letter that came today is offering what could be a 'substantial reduction' in his debt if he calls them to talk.

 

Glad to see they're still playing good DCA bad DCA:)

[lexis200]

Ok, new player on the field is...Nelson Guest and Partners Solicitors, acting on behalf of Wescot.

 

So after threatening court 2 weeks ago, offering OH a substantial discount last week, this week Wescot have passed it onto a solicitor. I wish they'd show some consistency!

 

Anyway, I was wondering if Wescot can actually issue proceedings? I thought it was only the actual creditor who could do that, but the letter definitely calls Wescot their 'client' and then goes onto say they will have to instruct their client to issue proceedings.

 

I just need to know if I can add that into my letter, or if I should ignore that point and tell them what's what with the rest of it?

 

ps - they do state 'we believe that, if possible, court proceedings should be avoided'. Hmm, would that be because a) they have no enforceable agreement b) they cocked up on the DN/Termination c) they owe more in unlawful charges than OH 'owes' on the account d)they've been knowingly sending mail to the wrong address e) they are using threats they know they can not follow through on or f) all of the above?!

[lexis200]

Right, this is for Wescot, and I'm just doing one for the sols. Then they can either bugger off or try taking OH to court as I'm not responding to any other c*ap from them.

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOU OR ANY COMPANY

YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT

 

I am in receipt of your recent two letters, and a letter from Nelson Guest Solicitors sent on your behalf.

 

Please refer to my letter of the 19th April which you received on the 20th April but have not actually bothered to respond to. It very clearly sets out my position and also revokes any permission for you or any representatives you employ to visit my home.

 

You should by now have contacted the Bank of Scotland to find out exactly why you have absolutely no legal rights or merit to any court action you may bring. If you have not done this despite the clear instructions set out in my previous letter then I would suggest you take the time to do your job lawfully and actually check details of the files you are sent rather than sending spurious threats of legal action and doorstep callers, neither of which you are at liberty to enforce.

 

Any further letters from you that do not simply inform me of your intention to close your files on me and return my information to the Bank of Scotland will be noted and filed but will not be responded to.

[Undercover-Elsa]

That's a corker!

[lexis200]

How's this for the sols? I've not had the need or inclination to write anything other than a standard bog-off letter for a while, so if I've messed up on sections or protocols that I've quoted please please let me know!

 

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOU OR ANY COMPANY

YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated 14th June.

 

Your threat of court action on behalf of your client Wescot does not have any merit. Wescot do not have any legal right to issue proceedings against me, given that the Bank of Scotland (BOS) does not hold a signed enforceable agreement relating to this account. They do hold an illegible application form, but it has absolutely no prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA), and as such they, and any third party they see fit to instruct, are precluded from any court action under s127(3) of the CCA.

 

For your information, I sent a request under the Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction - Protocols paragraph 4.6(a) and (d)for sight of an enforceable agreement to Blair, Oliver and Scott in March 2009 after they sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution on this account on behalf of BOS. To date they have not responded to this. I have also not had sight of any supposed agreement despite requests under the CCA, a Subject Access Request and repeated letters from me.

 

In addition to this, in January 2009 BOS sent not one, but two default notices to me. Unfortunately among other things, they neglected to allow the required 14 days for remedy in either of these notices, and then went onto terminate the account. Due to the inadequacies within the default notice, the termination of this account based on this ineffective default notice is rendered unlawful and BOS relinquished their rights under section 87(1) to claim the outstanding balance. As such (if there was any enforceable agreement, which there is not), I would only be liable to pay the arrears stated on the default notice.

 

I have on more than one occasion spelled out the issues with this account to BOS and each of the DCA's they have chosen to harass me on an unenforceable, unlawfully terminated account. I include Wescot in this, so if they have not informed you of these issues may I suggest you clarify matters with both them and BOS.

 

If you choose to continue with this course of action, despite having no legal merit to any proceedings you may wish to bring, please inform me who I should send the request for provision of documents under CPR 31.14 which will allow me sight of exactly what documents you/Wescot/BOS are relying on for any court action.

 

I look forward to your prompt reply.

Edited June 16, 2010 by lexis200

[lexis200]

Hey Elsa:)

 

Thanks - I hope it works this time! Even if it doesn't I'm done with replying to them unless it's a proper claim form!

 

Hope you're all better now?

 

Lexis xx

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Lexis,

 

Great letters!

 

I had Nelson Guest once but I can't remember for which account. It wasn't BOS. I think they work a lot with Wescot. Have they given a genuine telephone number for their offices, or is it a Wescot one?

 

Nearly all of these solicitors write the letters for tuppence, or allow their headed paper to be used, and you always have to reply to the DCA.

 

DDxx

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Hon,

Getting there! Still quite painful to sit at PC for long (and NO it's not PILES!!! ).

 

Only wee change I'd make to that cracking letter is to add the phrase unlawful repudiation rather than just unlawful.

Let's hope they get the 'kin message eventually!

 

Elsa x

[lexis200]

Hi Hon,

Getting there! Still quite painful to sit at PC for long (and NO it's not PILES!!! ).Sounds like you're protesting just a bit too much there ...are you sure you wouldn't like a rubber ring?

 

Only wee change I'd make to that cracking letter is to add the phrase unlawful repudiation rather than just unlawful.

Let's hope they get the 'kin message eventually!

 

Elsa x

 

Thanks for that, I'll change that bit and stick it in the post tomorrow:) x

[lexis200]

Hi Lexis,

 

Great letters!

 

I had Nelson Guest once but I can't remember for which account. It wasn't BOS. I think they work a lot with Wescot. Have they given a genuine telephone number for their offices, or is it a Wescot one? Nope, you're right, it's Wescots:rolleyes:

 

Nearly all of these solicitors write the letters for tuppence, or allow their headed paper to be used, and you always have to reply to the DCA. Bang on again! Right at the bottom of the letter, underneath their details and the blurb saying they're members of the SRA, in tiny tiny writing, is a bit saying that calls to Wescot may be recorded. This is spookily similar to the Wescot letters which states at the very bottom, in tiny tiny writing, that calls to them may be recorded. That and the codes on the bottom of the letter templates end with the same set of letters.

 

DDxx

 

I'd not have picked up on that had you not mentioned it DD, but you're quite right, it looks very much like the sols just allow their letterheads to be used. I wonder if the SRA would frown on this abuse of a solicitors name in order to threaten people for money?

 

x

 

edit - funny thing this, the sols are based in kent, and yet the envelope is apparently from Hull. Oddly, Wescot are based in Hull and have the same returns address. I'm just thinking about adding this on to see if they come back with anything interesting -

 

Lastly, I note that the layout, format and text of your letter is strikingly similar to that of Wescots. The template codes used make use of the same letter sets, the letters are folded in exactly the same manner, the information regarding calls being monitored is in the same type and place, and last but not least, although your offices are based in Kent, the return address on the envelope is that of Wescots.

 

Please confirm that you have actually had sight of the letter bearing your name that threatens me with court action, and if so, why it has Wescot's return address and not yours. Or, is it your standard practise to allow any company to use both your headed paper and your name when sending legal threats?

 

Worth doing or not?

Edited June 16, 2010 by lexis200

[Undercover-Elsa]

Only one way to find out...

FIIIIIGGHHHHHTTTT!!!!

 

Rubber ring? RUBBER ring? In this weather? How very dare you!!

 

[lexis200]

hehe:) you could always have one of my posh cushions if you'd prefer;)

[vint1954]

Hi Lexis,

 

I guess that Westcot can use a solicitor as part of their collection process, but if it went to court, BOS would have to be on the claim form if they still own the debt.

 

Vint

[Desperate Daniella]

I think that's a good idea, Lexis.

 

They are not the only solicitors who do this. It's a disgraceful practice.

 

It's a good point about the SRA. I might get on to them about this.

 

DDx

[keefyboy]

I have hads the same letter from the solicitors but this was for LlyodsTsb account, once again reply to Westcots in Hull, so it seems several companies are now using Westcot who are (dare I say) PRETENDING to be solicitors as well....

 

Something else I would be very interested in seeing was, if a company states on its correspondance and calls that the call may be recorded for Training or Quality control (or something similar to that)purposes, could they use that recording in court? Surely if they state it is for Training or Quality control, then its use for anything else would be illegal?

 

I would love to take one of these on in court if they relied on a taped call as evidence.

Edited June 21, 2010 by keefyboy
replacement word

[Desperate Daniella]

And on another thread Wescots have started court proceedings against a cagger who almost certainly has a statute barred alleged debt, and they are asking her to disclose the documents.

[lexis200]

Hi Lexis,

 

I guess that Westcot can use a solicitor as part of their collection process, but if it went to court, BOS would have to be on the claim form if they still own the debt.

 

Vint

 

Thanks Vint, it's always confused me that they threaten court when I was sure they couldn't action it themselves. Makes sense if they threaten and then BOS take the reins. What doesn't make sense is that all the DCA's seem to say they will be the ones taking court action, not their 'client' the OC; or is that the part where the OC would then step in if they had a shred of a case:confused:

[lexis200]

I have hads the same letter from the solicitors but this was for LlyodsTsb account, once again reply to Westcots in Hull, so it seems several companies are now using Westcot who are (dare I say) PRETENDING to be solicitors as well....

 

Something else I would be very interested in seeing was, if a company states on its correspondance and calls that the call may be recorded for Training or Quality control (or something similar to that)purposes, could they use that recording in court? Surely if they state it is for Training or Quality control, then its use for anything else would be illegal?

 

I would love to take one of these on in court if they relied on a taped call as evidence.

 

And on another thread Wescots have started court proceedings against a cagger who almost certainly has a statute barred alleged debt, and they are asking her to disclose the documents.

 

Interesting isn't it that they throw all of this around like they are big boys...

 

Doubtless any questions raised in my letters will go ignored, but it is interesting about a solicitor allowing their name (and therefore their threats) to be used, apparently without them having set sight on what it is they are threatening.

 

I wonder if PT would be able to cast a light on whether this is something that it is worth complaining about to the SRA? Mind you, I'm sure it's come up time and again on here so I can't believe it's not been covered somewhere along the way!

[citizenB]

Ok, new player on the field is...Nelson Guest and Partners Solicitors, acting on behalf of Wescot.

 

So after threatening court 2 weeks ago, offering OH a substantial discount last week, this week Wescot have passed it onto a solicitor. I wish they'd show some consistency!

 

Anyway, I was wondering if Wescot can actually issue proceedings? I thought it was only the actual creditor who could do that, but the letter definitely calls Wescot their 'client' and then goes onto say they will have to instruct their client to issue proceedings.

 

I just need to know if I can add that into my letter, or if I should ignore that point and tell them what's what with the rest of it?

 

ps - they do state 'we believe that, if possible, court proceedings should be avoided'. Hmm, would that be because a) they have no enforceable agreement b) they cocked up on the DN/Termination c) they owe more in unlawful charges than OH 'owes' on the account d)they've been knowingly sending mail to the wrong address e) they are using threats they know they can not follow through on or f) all of the above?!

 

Hi Lexis, Nelson Guest, are I think a "bucket shop" operation. If you read their letter it will tell you respond to Wescot.. not them.

 

You are correct in thinking that unless Wescot have actually been assigned the account, which they havent as they refer to "their client - BOS", then they will not be able to take action against you in their own name.

 

I find it is worth reminding them of the OFT Censure of Mackenzie Hall in 2009, where the OFT specifically points out that Mack Hall were not permitted to make the kind of threats that Wescot have made via Nelson Guest whilst in default of a s78 request and where the DCA had been advised of this in writing. There is a thread on CAG somewhere with the full censure which would be worth printing out and including with any letter to Wescot:)

[lexis200]

Hey CB, long time no see:) Hope it's all chugging along ok?

 

Thanks for the info, I'll have a hunt round and find that to add to my quotes collection!

[citizenB]

Hi Lexis, all is well thank you.

[lexis200]

Letters sent to Wescot and NG, but I was having a little trawl on t'internet today and found that although NG use this address on their letter - PO box 90, sidcup, kent, da15 8lg - when I searched for them under this address I got nothing, but a credit check site came up and on that they are listed as being at 80 Sidcup high street, sidcup, kent, da14 6ds.

 

I'm just wondering if I should whip off a copy to them at that address just on the offchance that the po box one is used for all the debt stuff and thus ignored?

 

Any thoughts?