problems with halifax

[underdog13]

That's a good point babydoll; they would all look the same, wouldn't they?

 

Maybe all you good people with dodgy paste jobs on the rear of your application forms, sorry 'agreements', should make an enmass complaint about the fraudulent tactics Halifax are using?

 

BTW, found out today that anything creds send you under a section 77 or 78 response is legally binding:D

[babydoll0141917]

Wish they wud take us all to court at the same time ..can u imagine the judge saying yep enforcable ..not enforcable..nor is ures ..but ures is etc etc ..what mayhem that wud be

[babydoll0141917]

Also what were the over limit/late charges for 2001 agreements?? it says 20.00 pounds on mine

[citizenB]

Also what were the over limit/late charges for 2001 agreements?? it says 20.00 pounds on mine

 

The revised charges of £12.00 were introduced around mid 2006

[sussex1]

My 'agreement' from Halifax differs a little to yours as there was no terms added to the back, my T&Cs were in a seperate booklet and although the application form says refer to the T&C, as it does not have any prescribed terms on the signature document, I'm thinking (hoping) it's uneneforceable.

 

It will be interesting to see what response (if any, knowing Halifax) you get to your letter, Sussex1 -please keep us posted:)

 

 

Ive had nothing back from Halifax but have had a load of calls and letters from BOS, I know i shouldn't but spoke to them today, they said it is the law that i have to speak to them and then sarted to ask if I was a homeowner. After telling them where to go decided to call Halifax. They can't tell me if they have my letter(even though I know they have signed for it) and say they have a backlog and will be in touch.

Is there a more forecful letter to send BOS who have not listened to the usual account in dispute letter?

thanks

[citizenB]

Sussex, did you send the Halifax letter via Recorded or Special Delivery ? If I read the posts correct, you only wrote to them around the 6th November.. 2 days for delivery, possibly a week for your letter to land on someone's desk. You are looking at the end of the month for a reply.

 

I have just seen that you know they have received the letter.. so I am afraid you are just going to have wait for the reply.

 

I assume you are referring to Blair Oliver & Scott when you say BOS ?.

 

If you have a non compliant agreement/application form or no document at all, you can make a complaint to the OFT using bankfodder's letter. You can amend the letter to incorporate both Halifax and Blair Oliver. Then send a copy of the OFT letter to both Halifax and Blair Oliver Scott advising them what you have done. There is no quick fix here.. you just have to keep plodding away .

 

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

[sussex1]

Sussex, did you send the Halifax letter via Recorded or Special Delivery ? If I read the posts correct, you only wrote to them around the 6th November.. 2 days for delivery, possibly a week for your letter to land on someone's desk. You are looking at the end of the month for a reply.

 

I have just seen that you know they have received the letter.. so I am afraid you are just going to have wait for the reply.

 

I know they got it and i'm happy for them to take their time in replying

 

I assume you are referring to Blair Oliver & Scott when you say BOS ?.

 

yes its them that are bugging me as they shouldn't even have it whilst its in dispute..although when you realise how dumb they are when you speak to them it can cheer you up a little!

 

thanks

[underdog13]

The old chestnut of asking whether you are a homeowner - they all come that one.

 

It's the law that you have to speak to them on the phone!?! Where is that written - in the book of Git? What a bunch of Haliprats.

[kennyruss]

ok guys

 

I have gathered together some front pages from Halifax "agreements"

 

The first thing I notice that out of the 6 logos at the top, 3 are in line 3 are indented left, in some of the forms why would your sex be "not given" and why would I go to the bother of filling out my sort code and account number but not filling in my bank name??

 

dosent make sense and most of these listed below have the same strange occurrences

 

kennyruss 2001

Image of HALAGREE1 - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

 

babydoll 2001

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s168/lisa5_01/P1010060-1.jpg

 

Majorpaine 2005

http://i383.photobucket.com/albums/oo278/ubiquitas/HBOS_front-1.jpg

 

sussex1 2004

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm223/sussex1/halifax2-2.jpg

 

peanut17 2003

http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr282/pedro1978/halscan3001.jpg

 

shirei12 2001

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj135/noname12/hx.jpg

 

I was going to do the same for the back pages, as there seems to be 2 distinct types

 

kenny

[underdog13]

Wow, you all got actual agreements (even if they don't have any prescribed terms:p), all I got was an application form.

 

Did you receive your 'agreements' in response to a CCA request, or did you have to send a SAR?

[kennyruss]

Wow, you all got actual agreements (even if they don't have any prescribed terms:p), all I got was an application form.

 

Did you receive your 'agreements' in response to a CCA request, or did you have to send a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)?

 

mine was a CCA request and tbh is it an agreement.. I am actually looking at the just sign here box on mine it looks squint.... could be nothing, but something just to fishy about this document

 

kenny

[underdog13]

Hmmm, I see what you mean - I've never seen genuine paperwork with wonky logos on it. Fishy, all right; probably a load of codswallop

[sussex1]

Wow, you all got actual agreements (even if they don't have any prescribed terms:p), all I got was an application form.

 

what makes you think its an agreement? That would pretty much go against the whole thread

[underdog13]

I didn't mean it was an actual enforceable 'agreement' per se; just that it wasn't the initial application form. Blimey, didn't mean to upset anyone!

Edited November 17, 2008 by underdog13

[sussex1]

I didn't mean it was an actual enforceable 'agreement' per se; just that it wasn't the initial application form. Blimey, didn't mean to upset anyone!

 

Sorry, if i worded last message wrongly, i'm not at all upset with what you said just surprised that you say it is an agreement when throughout it has been argued it is some type of application, probably I think sent after a phone call application. In the sig box it states i understsand halifax may use credit agencies to assess my application

What on it leads you to think it is an agreement whether emforceable or not?

thanks

[babydoll0141917]

Mine was just a CCA request underdog..and what you said sussex1 mine was def sent after a phone call application..mine was done on the phone ..as i said in previous post...surely all our agreements wud be the same if they were genuine

[babydoll0141917]

And kenny if yours is an agreement like you say sure alll ours must be agreements then ?? mmmmmmmmmm

[citizenB]

Wow, you all got actual agreements (even if they don't have any prescribed terms:p), all I got was an application form.

 

Did you receive your 'agreements' in response to a CCA request, or did you have to send a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)?

 

Wow, you all got actual agreements (even if they don't have any prescribed terms:p), all I got was an application form.

 

what makes you think its an agreement? That would pretty much go against the whole thread

 

I didn't mean it was an actual enforceable 'agreement' per se; just that it wasn't the initial application form. Blimey, didn't mean to upset anyone!

 

I am sure underdog wasnt implying that any of the DOCUMENTS were enforceable by referring to them as AGREEMENTS. You will see he/she has put quote marks around the word 'agreement' .. something I would normally do as well to denote a comment made sarcastically

 

One thing that has been cleared up for me by kenny linking to several documents is that these were all telephone applications.. Yes..? In which case, when you SAR Halifax.... specifically request the tape / transcript of the call you made in your list of requirements. Can you recall if there was any printing on the backs of these forms when you received them for signature?

[babydoll0141917]

Hi citizen...2001 is quiet a way back for my memory lol..but if im honest i dont remember there being Conditions Of Use at the back of mine..but there again my memory aint what it use to be and yep mine was a telephone app i can remember that bit!!

[citizenB]

Hi citizen...2001 is quiet a way back for my memory lol..but if im honest i dont remember there being Conditions Of Use at the back of mine..but there again my memory aint what it use to be and yep mine was a telephone app i can remember that bit!!

 

Yep, I understand what you are saying. Unfortuantely, very few people would have thought to photocopy the papework before returning it, which kind of makes it very easy for creditors/dcas to "create" paperwork and say this is how it was.... sigh.......... !!

[kennyruss]

citizenb,

 

how are you so certain that these were telephone applications??

 

I cant honestly remember

 

certainly some good input on this thread now...

 

kenny

[babydoll0141917]

Ditto Citizen!! i wish i knew then what i knew now!! i will send the letter creditcardmug kindly gave and see where that gets me!! looks like Haliprats will be inundated with alot of the same letters lol..and see where that gets me ..!!

[babydoll0141917]

I remember mine was kenny ..i remember talking to the guy on the phone( thats one thing i do remember) it was a complimenty card that went with my cashcard...when i paid money in on my cashcard in 2001 the cashier said there is a complimentry credit card that goes with the cashcard would i be intrested..i wasnt really but said ok ,,she said some one from haliprats wud ring me and they did !!

[atwozee]

what makes you think its an agreement? That would pretty much go against the whole thread

 

It does say that it is an approved application – and it clearly states that it is an agreement.

 

Lots of the applications sent out by creditors in response to a s78 request are purely applications – that’s why there is some confusion.

 

The important thing is that the prescribed terms are not on the signature page and are not referred to on the back – which makes you think they supplied a separate copy or booklet of t&c’s.

 

Write to them and tell them you are not happy and you believe there is a problem with the agreement and you want to clear it up by seeing a copy of the original. Ask them to make the original available at your local branch. Try to flush them out as to whether they have the original or not.

 

It’s going to be a lot easier to tackle them knowing for sure if they have the original or not and more importantly if the prescribed terms are on the back.

 

However – in your case sussex you don’t need to worry anyway because the invalid DN provides you with a complete defence in court – no need to worry about the agreement anyway.

 

But don’t tell them – because whilst the agreement is still active i.e. they haven’t made a demand for the full balance or issued proceedings against you which would automatically terminate the agreement – they still have the opportunity to issue you with another valid DN.

 

If you feel like you are banging your head against a brick wall that’s because you are – I don’t think they read the letters we send let alone understand them.

 

Gone are the days when the creditor just rolled over and wiped away your debts – there’s to much at stake now so they have to fight back. Be patient and give them enough rope to hang themselves with.

[babydoll0141917]

I was asked all the questions that was on the app..the next thing the app arrived on the door mat for me to sign ..i just dont recall the Conditions Of Use being on the back..they may of been but there was nothing on the front of the doc to say they were!!