HBOS and OH's card debt

[citizenB]

Oooh, I like it Lexis. In fact, I might even borrow parts of it. You might want to let the Information Commissioner know of the condition of the packing your documents arrived in.

 

Yes, I would agree that with holding payment is probably more implied than specified. Especially where it states.....

 

"(for clarity, the lack of a compliant credit agreement is a very clear dispute), under section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 you may not enforce the agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

You may not demand any payment on this account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. "

[lexis200]

Well thank you! >

 

Would you suggest removing the 'you may not demand payment' bit then, seeing as we're seemingly all agreed it's not an absolute. I thought I'd chance my arm with it, but if it looks very wrong I'll reprint that page!!

 

I didn't realise you could complain to anyone if your information was shoddily packed (thanks for that!) - should I put that in too, or just complain anyway as I honestly was pretty miffed:mad:

 

I'm just sending off another Bank of Scotland 'illegible application form' letter now. On this one though, in the covering letter they've very kindly added that they have provided all the info they are able to! I've asked for them to confirm that bit in writing:D

 

I hope hubbie appreciates all this work I'm doing for him!

[citizenB]

Nonono, leave that bit about not demanding payment IN because I think that is acceptable and is used by quite a few of the "in the know" peeps. With regard to the damaged packagine, absolutely complain to both the company AND the Information Commissioners Office.

 

If you feel uncomfortable with the "not demanding payment" then take it out.. The regs do say they are not allowed to enforce which much says the same thing IMHO.

[lexis200]

Ohhh okay, I misread your statement - thanks for clarifying. I'll get on redoing the front page to pop in a bit about complaining to the ICO too!

 

Thanks again for your help, you're a star!

[lexis200]

Okie dokie

 

OH had a letter on the 13th, apparently sent on the 8th and giving him 5 days to respond...honestly, if my kids behaved like this they'd be on the naughty step.

 

I've just knocked up a little reply to it, more so that he's seen to be reasonable if this gets litigious, but if anyone can have a look I'd appreciate it!

 

Thanks

 

Lexis:)

 

DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Thank you for your recent letter dated 8th October, received by me on the 13th October and giving me five days to contact you. I am sure this was simply an error on your part and not in any way intended to elicit a panic in me.

 

Despite the odd time scales, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume our letters crossed in the post. As you will now have read my letter of the 7th October, I will not expect any further contact from you.

 

I am disappointed that my letter dated 7th October 2008 appears to be insufficiently clear to enable your company to discern that this account is clearly in dispute.

Until such time as you are able to produce evidence that an enforceable agreement actually existed in the first place, you will be in no position to pursue this alleged debt at all, through the courts or otherwise. As you have already been informed, this account is currently in default of a legal request under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and as such is in dispute. You were made aware of this in July.

 

I will not waste my time further responding in full to yet another pointless letter that does not deal with the issue in hand, other than to again state that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you.

 

There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

 

As I stated in my previous letter to you, once I have a definitive answer from Bank of Scotland I will be in touch with you to discuss this matter further.

 

Hugs and kisses

 

Mr Lexis200

[citizenB]

nice one lexis.. please tell me .. you ARE going to leave the hugs n kisses in arent you:D

[lexis200]

Of course, I like to be friendly:D I might pop a little lippy print kiss on there too for good measure - although seeing as this is meant to be from hubby that may raise an eyebrow or two:lol:

 

Thanks for looking over it for me - I think I'm going to get this printed off and sent, as I have to go and find out how make a Roman Shield now...

[citizenB]

Of course, I like to be friendly:D I might pop a little lippy print kiss on there too for good measure - although seeing as this is meant to be from hubby that may raise an eyebrow or two:lol:

 

Thanks for looking over it for me - I think I'm going to get this printed off and sent, as I have to go and find out how make a Roman Shield now...

 

Should we ask ?? :grin:

[angel_1]

hahahh

 

lexis200 oh im going to be copying you,,,,hahah got bos on my radar now

 

yes as citizenb said,,,hiya by the way,,,,, should we need to ask about the Roman shield, you going to make it to hubby or something,,,hahhahah

like you going to be Cleopatra? oh sorry my zany humour no harm intended

 

hope it make s you laugh

 

i m going to start a thread on bos now, bore you there if you care to take a look laters

 

have fun! ciao for now MAZ

 

[TheChancellor]

Dont forget to add "This letter is valid even if not read by you" or any other old chestnuts you can think of.

 

Did you not know that the postmen are old & doddery in Fife?

 

Except the one that my sister uses to send cards, etc from up there as her letters arrive next day as I've pointed out to B.O.& Snott numerous times previously.

[lexis200]

How about 'This letter constitutes your agreement to shave your head and dye your nose blue'?

 

I wonder how many of them would actually do it:D

 

The Roman Shield - isn't it obvious??? I need it for when the doorstep callers drop by. I'm working on my oil pouring machine as we speak...

Just wait until I get hubby to answer the door to them in full Gladiators garb:D If only he looked like Brad Pitt in Troy;) >

 

ps - Have you got a linky for your thread maz?

[citizenB]

How about 'This letter constitutes your agreement to shave your head and dye your nose blue'?

 

I wonder how many of them would actually do it:D

 

The Roman Shield - isn't it obvious??? I need it for when the doorstep callers drop by. I'm working on my oil pouring machine as we speak...

Just wait until I get hubby to answer the door to them in full Gladiators garb:D If only he looked like Brad Pitt in Troy;) >

 

ps - Have you got a linky for your thread maz?

 

You can click on Maz's avatar you can then see the threads she has going.

 

Hmm, doorstep callers.. I can think of other stuff I would like to dump over them

[lexis200]

You can click on Maz's avatar you can then see the threads she has going. Thanks, off to do that now

 

Hmm, doorstep callers.. I can think of other stuff I would like to dump over them

Gosh, it sounds like you don't like them or something. Surely not:D

[sussex1]

subscribing similar issues with these morons

[lexis200]

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)

-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)

-They didn't send any t's and c's as referred to on the back (so not fully complied with request)

 

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?

 

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 SAR to see if a second agreement matches?

 

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

[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.

[lexis200]

Thanks for that RMW, it's pretty much as I thought. I certainly wouldn't be relying on the few points I found to take it to court - I was just hoping I'd missed something glaringly obvious;)

 

I'll get on and do an SAR though, as I had a look through the couple of years worth of statements OH has, and there's enough in charges to warrant getting the full set of statements available, so it's not a complete loss.

 

I'll also ask them for all the info they missed to be included - not because I think it'll do any good, but it gives them something to do doesn't it:D

 

Thanks again

 

Lexis:)

[reallymadwoman]

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

[lexis200]

Will do - I found a pretty comprehensive one a while ago (possibly by CurlyBen/PT??) so I'll use that. I don't think it gives them any wiggle room for 'forgetting' to include things, so cross fingers on that one.

 

I've just drafted a quick letter to Blair Oliver Scott (they manage the account) about the CCA, really only to keep in contact and make them work for their pound, as I'm hoping the bits I've asked for will be included in the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). I didn't think there'd be any harm in asking twice though.

 

Dear Cubicle worker

Re: non-compliance under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Thank you for the application form sent to me under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) which I requested on the 27th August. I eventually received this information nearly 5 weeks after the 12 working day deadline that you are afforded.

 

I note that to date you have not fully complied with my legal request. I am aware that section 78(1) of the Act sets out clearly what is required to comply with my request and quote “shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it” For clarification, with regards to my account, the Act requires that I should have received:

 

- A copy of the agreement

- Any terms and conditions from the time when the agreement was executed (as the terms are referred to within the agreement I do require the original terms to be sent, along with the current terms that you may provide).

- A statement of account as laid out within Section 78(1).

 

To send simply an application form with no other documentation is not compliant with the Act, and I look forward to receiving the rest of the information required shortly, thus avoiding the need for intervention from any governing bodies.

 

Yours etc

 

Does that look ok?

 

Thanks

 

Lexis:)

[lexis200]

Just a little update

 

My son's Roman Shield is all done (he painted it beautifully!) and was handed in today:D

 

I knew you'd all been waiting to hear about it;)

[lexis200]

Oh, and we had a phone call today regarding the complaint(s) sent a while ago. Very strange. She was just asking if we had anything else to add to the complaint, as she was about to start looking into it:confused:

 

No asking for payments, no threats, no nothing! At least OH (hopefully) got them to take the moby number off and only use the home one (which has the recording stuff on it).

[citizenB]

Just a little update

 

My son's Roman Shield is all done (he painted it beautifully!) and was handed in today:D

 

I knew you'd all been waiting to hear about it;)

 

Absolutely, Lexis

 

Was this Blair Oliver Scott who telephoned ?. Very strange indeed, but sounds positive.

[lexis200]

Right, we’ve got some movement again – a final response from BofS and a Notice of Intended Prosecution from BlairOS.

 

Firstly – please please someone tell me the prosecution bit isn’t desperately bad??!! I’m really hoping it’s not, but that’s primarily due to the dates (dated 23rd, but somehow didn’t reach OH until the 30th ). Surely it should have been sent more quickly/securely if it was a genuine threat?

 

Also the response from them is, as you would expect, somewhat lacking. I’ll type up the points one by one, with my comments. Any opinions on what they’ve said, and on my thoughts (whether they’re right or wrong!!) appreciated.

 

1) – I stated the envelope containing S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) info was ripped and contents exposed – the response:

‘…all members of the Post Office have to sign an Official Secrecy Act, and therefore can not disclose any information seen.

As the envelope… would have left the office in sound condition, you should take this matter up with the Post Office. However I have feedback (sic) your concerns to my colleague…’

I couldn’t care less if they have to sign an Official Secrecy Act, I simply don’t want anyone seeing my personal financial info, and I don’t think sending it very tightly packed in a standard paper window envelope offers enough security against either manhandling or weather.

More care should have been taken to secure OH’s details, and simply using an envelope designed to be stronger would have done it.

And just because they shouldn’t disclose it, doesn’t mean they won’t use any info seen – ie – bank account details, home and mobile number, name, address, age, gender etc.

 

2) – I stated I wanted to see a signed, executed agreement with original terms, not the illegible application and current terms sent – the response:

The information you acknowledge that you received…, fully complies with and meets the bank’s requirement in relations (sic) to the CCA1974. My colleague clearly explained this in his letter. You state in your subsequent letter that the copy of application (sic) was illegible, I would be happy to send out another copy of the application; however I am unable to supply the original to you.

What they’ve sent is a one page illegible application, with no prescribed terms. They sent this twice, then when I S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)’d them, sent the same application but this time with some current t’s and c’s.

This doesn’t comply with the CCA does it? I know it’s not valid/enforceable, but dis-regarding that, I’m sure it just doesn’t comply as it’s illegible and doesn’t have any original terms with it.

I feel the ‘my colleague clearly explained’ line is simply them thinking if they state it enough times it will become true.

 

3) – I stated account was in dispute due to lack of compliant agreement/non compliance of CCA request, and BlairOS were to cease communication – the response:

Blair Oliver and Scott have full authority to communicate in regards to your account. I acknowledge dealing with your complaint. However despite claiming to give the bank notice that the account is in dispute, you have given no valid reason to dispute the debt. Please note you have no contractual or statutory right to withhold payments…

For the avoidance of doubt, the CCA1974 does not prohibit collection activity when an account is in dispute. In addition, we are obliged to accurately reflect the conduct of the account with the relevant CRA’s.

If they don’t have a valid agreement, how can a third party have full authority to communicate?

Again, if they don’t have the agreement, how can I have no contractual right to withhold payments – there is no contract to be bound by!!!

Is them being in default of the CCA by sending the toot they have enough to put the account into dispute? I’m a bit confused by this, as I have another bank stating that although they are in default of the request they don’t see that as the account being in dispute??

While the CCA doesn’t prohibit collection activity, the OFT guidelines do frown on it, and they can’t make OH pay. Is there anything in the new rules that relates to this at all?

 

4) – I appreciate that this is not the response you were looking for but I would confirm that my final response today represents the Bank of Scotland’s final decision.

Gits.

 

So what now? This is their final response, but it’s all seemingly pointless drivel interspersed with untruths and buck-passing. Not to mention the appalling sentence structure, grammar and punctuation (that really irritates me – I mean ffs, if you’re in a position to decide peoples financial futures, at least learn to write correctly!!!!! I might make mistakes, but I’m not a supposedly professional company!)

 

I also find it a bit on the rude side that BlairOS (apparently) start legal proceedings when there’s an ongoing complaint - this letter was written well after the NIP was allegedly sent!

 

bosnip1.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Edited November 4, 2008 by lexis200
adding NIP

[citizenB]

lexis, I would make a formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Office regarding the packaging. Dont waste any more time on that issue with HBOS.

 

You say this is their final response, now is the time to make a formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. It will be a long drawn out saga from here, however they will provide you with a reference which should keep BOS and HBOS off your back at least until your complaint has been looked at by the Ombudsman. I guess it doesnt get more "In Dispute" than with the FOS.

 

As for the Notice of Intended court action. You could send BOS a letter along the lines of:

 

HBOS having failed to supply me with information requested has left me with no option but to make a formal complaint to the Ombudsman. Your letter will be passed to the FOS to aid their investigation.

 

You can also send Bankfodder's letter amending it to suit and to include both HBOS and BOS:D The more people who compain to the OFT the better. I sent a copy of the OFT letter to Blair Oliver scott, with a covering note

 

Your letter dated Xx XXX XXXXX was received today, Please find enclosed a copy of a letter I have today sent to the Office of Fair Trading. The letter is self explanatory.

 

The next correspondence I received was from HBOS saying they were looking into my complaint :D

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-protection-unfair-trading/147830-complaint-oft-respect-invalid.html#post1561080

[lexis200]

Thanks CB - as always very helpful:D

 

So to clarify, my plan of action is

 

-Complain to ICO about state of envelope containing SAR

-Escalate complaint about CCA to FOS- is this to state non-compliance with the request, or inadequate/illegible/unenforceable information sent?

-Write to BlairOS informing them formal complaint has been made to FOS - do I need to add anything about the timing of the NIP as the complaint was still open so nothing should have been done until it had been completed?

-Get the letter out to bos and blairos as per bankfodders cracker:D - thanks for pointing me to that one CB!

 

Do I also respond to HBOS' final letter? I realise I won't get a response from it, but would it help my cause if there's a letter on file stating the points I've raised in my last post - especially regarding the status of the account and non compliant CCA?

 

Lastly, I'm guessing from your reply that the NIP isn't too dreadful. Do I do anything other than send the letter telling them the complaint has gone to the FOS, like telling them there's no point in court action without valid CCA, and any action will be considered vexatious etc?

 

Sorry for all the questions! I haven't got to this stage with anyone else yet (although I think MBNA are going to be my next FOS letter unless they change pretty quickly), so I'm a bit unsure of myself:oops: