AA99 v Capital One

[diddydicky]

i stand corrected- you are right - this would be in consequence of what was produced in response to 31.14

 

my point being that you can do just as much to put them on this "backfoot" in this way

[Stubie]

I think you are getting confused here... 31.14 is for requesting copies of documents mentioned in POC (if you want to check go here to the CPR rules website)

 

What I think youre confusing it with is querying any document produced under the CPR 33.2 Notice of relying on Hearsay evidence, of which microfiched documents would be one example and the ability to question a witness against that evidence via CPR 33.4.

 

I really must spend some time getting up to speed on CPR.

 

How the hell are you supposed to remember all the legislation and the reg and the rules. (pause to allow head to explode)

[diddydicky]

you have to take a large dose of "midnight oil" !!

[Stubie]

you mean brandy, surely:D

 

It does concern me a bit that we (I'm as guilty as anyone) tell all to DIY this process. Initially, the copy paste of letters etc is simple enough but as this process advances the required knowledge increases as does the necessity to be able to process the information.

 

In court, where this looks likely, in most cases to end, the ability to recall relevant statute, think laterally and in real time, and maintain composure will become a task beyond for all but the most committed.

 

Are we driving lambs to the slaughter?

 

I wonder?

[beachcomber60]

Hiya aa,

 

Said on your other thread that I was behind you regarding capquest, sure enough letter arrived this morning.

 

They have had a response from c1 following my query (? Mine wasnt a query it was a complaint) they have respond with any dispute has been resolved & payment now due in full.

 

How can my dispute by resolved when they refuse to respond to any letters that I send.

 

The cca is unenforceable (like all are)

 

Debitas threaten legal action, so I exercised MY rights and sent a CPR 31.16 as THEY said they were taking court action - that requedt was ignored without any form of acknowledgement apart from them returning the account to C1.

 

So how can C1 say any dispute has been resolved?

 

So like you, I'm trying to get capquest to return it to C1 as IT IS in dispute.

 

Regards,

 

Beachy

[diddydicky]

you mean brandy, surely:D

 

It does concern me a bit that we (I'm as guilty as anyone) tell all to DIY this process. Initially, the copy paste of letters etc is simple enough but as this process advances the required knowledge increases as does the necessity to be able to process the information.

 

In court, where this looks likely, in most cases to end, the ability to recall relevant statute, think laterally and in real time, and maintain composure will become a task beyond for all but the most committed.

 

Are we driving lambs to the slaughter?

 

I wonder?

 

the fact that you are on this site shows for a start that you have a certain amount of desire to sort this out yourself.

 

on the other hand what have you to lose as a LIP (Litigant in person) the court will cut you a certain amount of slack in terms of your performance - and the WORSE that can happen is a CCJ and the payments you would have been offering to make

 

i have found that when you read and re read and look at the responses to your posts it all starts falling into place

 

you can always take a friend.

 

The vast majority don't get to court (even if it is threatened)

[diddydicky]

Hiya aa,

 

Said on your other thread that I was behind you regarding capquest, sure enough letter arrived this morning.

 

They have had a response from c1 following my query (? Mine wasnt a query it was a complaint) they have respond with any dispute has been resolved & payment now due in full.

 

How can my dispute by resolved when they refuse to respond to any letters that I send.

 

The cca is unenforceable (like all are)

 

Debitas threaten legal action, so I exercised MY rights and sent a CPR 31.16 as THEY said they were taking court action - that requedt was ignored without any form of acknowledgement apart from them returning the account to C1.

 

So how can C1 say any dispute has been resolved?

 

So like you, I'm trying to get capquest to return it to C1 as IT IS in dispute.

 

Regards,

 

Beachy

 

again i may be corrected here but i think you are getting a defective agreement mixed up with the Sect 78 request.

 

If C1 have responded to your request even the agreement they sent is a defective agreement (they are not ALL defective ) then they have complied with your request and as such they are then not in default of cca sect 78 and are entitled to continue to demand payment.

 

whether they can substantiate their claim that the agreement is enforceable is not the same as being in default of sect 78.

[Stubie]

the fact that you are on this site shows for a start that you have a certain amount of desire to sort this out yourself.

 

on the other hand what have you to lose as a LIP (Litigant in person) the court will cut you a certain amount of slack in terms of your performance - and the WORSE that can happen is a CCJ and the payments you would have been offering to make

 

i have found that when you read and re read and look at the responses to your posts it all starts falling into place

 

you can always take a friend.

 

The vast majority don't get to court (even if it is threatened)

 

Yeah, I know what you are saying but I wasn't really referring to me.

 

I guess I'm more fortunate than some (MENSA accredited, post grad degree) but.........

 

I'm starting to sound condescending now, and I don't mean to.

 

There will be many people who read these threads and shoot off letters risking being out of their depth when the plot unfolds. As I say, not intended as condescending, but there will be many who rush in and don't grasp the full implications.

 

I accept that many won't go to court, but some do, and court is a traumatic concept to those who rarely, if ever, use the process. They are in an alien environment, up against a major corporation with skilled legal representation.

 

I realise that LiPs get some consideration in the court room and people should stand up for their rights. They should also realise, ahead of time, what the expectations are.

 

I appreciate that you and Shadow are well ahead of the game (and me:-)) and the research you have done will stand you in good stead (if it hasn't already). I have spend weeks reading thousands of posts + researching the relevant legislation, but still fall short at the moment. Court is some way off for me and is unlikely, based on the responses so far.

 

My concern is for the many who will take this process too lightly.

 

I also have a feeling that I will come to regret this post.

[beachcomber60]

again i may be corrected here but i think you are getting a defective agreement mixed up with the Sect 78 request.

 

If C1 have responded to your request even the agreement they sent is a defective agreement (they are not ALL defective ) then they have complied with your request and as such they are then not in default of cca sect 78 and are entitled to continue to demand payment.

 

whether they can substantiate their claim that the agreement is enforceable is not the same as being in default of sect 78.

 

So explain how you get a dca to return the account to the creditor?

 

My 'agreement' doesnt have the prescribed terms (confirmed by SITE TEAM), has unfair charges, which is grounds for a dispute. And they have ignored a cpr 31.16.

 

Apologises to aa99, although we are in the same mess with capquest!

[blind-as-a-bat]

So explain how you get a dca to return the account to the creditor?

 

My 'agreement' doesnt have the prescribed terms (confirmed by SITE TEAM), has unfair charges, which is grounds for a dispute. And they have ignored a cpr 31.16.

 

Apologises to aa99, although we are in the same mess with capquest!

 

That would depend if the DCA was acting as an agent, or wether the debt had been assigned to the DCA.

 

If there acting as agents, you just ignore them, as they have no legal power in there own right, but if the debt has been assigned it cant be returned to the OC, as it has been sold, it no longer belongs to the OC.

 

Thats putting it very simply, but it seems to me people are missing a point here, even if an account is in dispute, or in default of a CCA request, it can still be assigned.

 

So the question is who actually owns the debt right now beachcomber60

[beachcomber60]

That would depend if the DCA was acting as an agent, or wether the debt had been assigned to the DCA.

 

If there acting as agents, you just ignore them, as they have no legal power in there own right, but if the debt has been assigned it cant be returned to the OC, as it has been sold, it no longer belongs to the OC.

 

Thats putting it very simply, but it seems to me people are missing a point here, even if an account is in dispute, or in default of a CCA request, it can still be assigned.

 

So the question is who actually owns the debt right now beachcomber60

 

Thanks muchly,

 

Capone - capquest are acting as agents for their client (capone)

 

Beachy

[blind-as-a-bat]

Then they have nothing to return;-)

 

An agent cannot start, or threaten they will start legal action (well they shouldnt) as they cannot do so, only the OC, or the 'owner' of the debt can do that.

 

Now regarding in dispute, not in dispute ping pong game, if you are 100% shure it is unenforceable, which it sounds as if you are, there is nothing more to say to capone or capquest, end of story.

 

This is the trap i fell into, you feel like you have to respond, but once you have put in writing that the account is in dispute, validated in writing why, and until they correct the problem or whatever, the account will remain in dispute as far as your concerned, what more is there left to say?

 

Nothing!

 

Of course they will disagree, but if you know your right let them, they wont change there tune, niether will you, so your in a stalemate.

 

So sit back and wait, if they have the balls they will issue a court claim, if not they will eventually give up.

 

In the mean time all you can do is report them to OFT & TS for breach of guidelines, and hope they do there job

[diddydicky]

spot of BAAB

[beachcomber60]

Then they have nothing to return;-)

 

An agent cannot start, or threaten they will start legal action (well they shouldnt) as they cannot do so, only the OC, or the 'owner' of the debt can do that.

 

Now regarding in dispute, not in dispute ping pong game, if you are 100% shure it is unenforceable, which it sounds as if you are, there is nothing more to say to capone or capquest, end of story.

 

This is the trap i fell into, you feel like you have to respond, but once you have put in writing that the account is in dispute, validated in writing why, and until they correct the problem or whatever, the account will remain in dispute as far as your concerned, what more is there left to say?

 

Nothing!

 

Of course they will disagree, but if you know your right let them, they wont change there tune, niether will you, so your in a stalemate.

 

So sit back and wait, if they have the balls they will issue a court claim, if not they will eventually give up.

 

In the mean time all you can do is report them to OFT & TS for breach of guidelines, and hope they do there job

 

Thanks for your help, hope it reassures AA99 also when she resds it.

 

Have 'tickled' your scales

[AA99]

Looking through my folder, all the 3rd parties I've dealt with so far do not refer to having been 'assigned' the debt, they are just DCA's and a couple of solicitors thrown in with may's and should's etc....

 

However, did find a letter from CapOne (apologies for these big copies, first they were too small to read and now they're too big, will work on it!)

 

[blind-as-a-bat]

Well if that is there idea of a DN, with a judge that knows there stuff, they would be even more stuffed, unless you got a real DN cos that aint one;)

[the_shadow]

Well if that is there idea of a DN, with a judge that knows there stuff, they would be even more stuffed, unless you got a real DN cos that aint one;)

 

Had the same thought so went to check....

 

Went back through the posts to check and a DN was issued with 28 days remedy :-(

 

S.

[blind-as-a-bat]

Had the same thought so went to check....

 

Went back through the posts to check and a DN was issued with 28 days remedy :-(

 

S.

 

was it dated before or after the above?

[diddydicky]

whoooaaaa , hold on a cotton picking minute pardner

 

 

are you telling me you received this termination notice and you previously haev NOt received a default notice telling you you are in default and you must rectify the fault within 14 days?

 

if not then break out the bubbly sweetie

 

if you do have a default notice [post it up for us to see

 

if not then the good news is you owe them only 32.80 against which you will counter claim the damages for unfair recission of contract (which will be a lot more) .

[diddydicky]

posts crossed

 

can we have a butchers at the DN

[diddydicky]

Well, after they got my cca request on 08 Jan 08, I received this today:

 

 

if you are referring to this, this is a termination notice not a DN as it is demanding the total amount not the arrears.

[the_shadow]

was it dated before or after the above?

 

Oh hold on I'll go back to post 1 and check for you shall I [sarcastic tone]

 

 

13th Jan Default notice issued... but its not been posted up... AA99 get it up on here for us to look at

 

S.

[blind-as-a-bat]

Oh hold on I'll go back to post 1 and check for you shall I [sarcastic tone]

 

 

13th Jan Default notice issued... but its not been posted up... AA99 get it up on here for us to look at

 

S.

doh!!! thats why i cant find it i was looking for a posted copy, not in the text:oops:

[diddydicky]

Oh hold on I'll go back to post 1 and check for you shall I [sarcastic tone]

 

 

13th Jan Default notice issued... but its not been posted up... AA99 get it up on here for us to look at

 

S.

 

lol i only asked because i went through them 3 times and could not find it

[citizenB]

 

 

Actually this is interesting, because a statement of Default is one they MUST send out.. some new regulation since October 2008.

 

However, they are saying they have terminated your account.

 

What was your default notice like