Bank of Scotland terminated without default notice and without claiming full balance, Blair, Oliver Scott DCA

[underdog13]

They are probably trying to work out what parts of their templated letters will be suitably confusing :D

 

Or thumbing through their dictionary for 'securitisation'

[millymollymoo]

:lol::lol:!!!!!!

[cleo4patra]

They are probably trying to work out what parts of their templated letters will be suitably confusing :D

 

Cleo, sorry, do you have your own thread on this and is it up to date. If so, can you put a link here for me and I will have a bit of a think on what to do next:)

here is the other thread - rest of the stuff is on this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/169546-bank-scotland-credit-cards-7.html

Hi and thanks - I started off on "Bank of Scotland Credit Cards" (don't know how to put a link in - sorry) but then it was more appropriate to post on this link because of default - in a nutshell we have two BOS cards:

A Preference and a Mastercard - BOTH have been terminated - hace CCA'd and SAR'd both.

 

I have put both in default for not supplying proper agreement etc etc.

 

Both accounts are still being processed as normal - I am now in arrears for six months as I stopped paying before this - due to financial difficulty. (I had had terrible bank charges - but with the help of this site have now got new bank account - but couldn't keep up with payment plans - Prefernce tried to get me to borrow off a relative and wouldn't accept my offer of payment - said it wasn't enough)

 

Had default notices for BOTH - BOTH not giving me 14 days when you include days for service. The Preference default arrived in the same post as Termination letter days FOUR days AFTER remedy date. Mastercard default didn't give me fourteen days either - then have received termination letter TWICE.(Kept envelopes for all of these)

BOS deny either agreement has been terminated. I complained to Mastercard and they offered me refund of charges providing I sign a "FULL And final settlement letter" which included the default being dodgy!!

 

I neither accepted or declined this offer as I felt if I accepted I would shoot myself in the foot over the default. They are both threatening court action - had letters from Blair Oliver Scott who I know are really BOS.

I have written to them both asking when the agreements were reinstated and can they send a copy of a new agreement which we would have had to have signed.

Edited April 13, 2009 by cleo4patra

[millymollymoo]

I posted up professor John macleods reply on here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2103599.html

 

He has offerd to help me with any other questions :)I have so watch out Bank of Scotland

[cleo4patra]

here is the other thread - rest of the stuff is on this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/169546-bank-scotland-credit-cards-7.html

Hi and thanks - I started off on "Bank of Scotland Credit Cards" (don't know how to put a link in - sorry) but then it was more appropriate to post on this link because of default - in a nutshell we have two BOS cards:

A Preference and a Mastercard - BOTH have been terminated - hace CCA'd and SAR'd both.

 

I have put both in default for not supplying proper agreement etc etc.

 

Both accounts are still being processed as normal - I am now in arrears for six months as I stopped paying before this - due to financial difficulty. (I had had terrible bank charges - but with the help of this site have now got new bank account - but couldn't keep up with payment plans - Prefernce tried to get me to borrow off a relative and wouldn't accept my offer of payment - said it wasn't enough)

 

Had default notices for BOTH - BOTH not giving me 14 days when you include days for service. The Preference default arrived in the same post as Termination letter days FOUR days AFTER remedy date. Mastercard default didn't give me fourteen days either - then have received termination letter TWICE.(Kept envelopes for all of these)

BOS deny either agreement has been terminated. I complained to Mastercard and they offered me refund of charges providing I sign a "FULL And final settlement letter" which included the default being dodgy!!

 

I neither accepted or declined this offer as I felt if I accepted I would shoot myself in the foot over the default. They are both threatening court action - had letters from Blair Oliver Scott who I know are really BOS.

I have written to them both asking when the agreements were reinstated and can they send a copy of a new agreement which we would have had to have signed.

The plot thickens - have had a further letter today - responding to same letter I sent them (where they offered me refund of charges) saying they will not offer a refund of charges, agreement is in order and urging me to contact collections department urgently - I honestly believe they don't know what is going on????

[millymollymoo]

I found my bank of scotland online account password which I never logged on until today.

 

I tried too change the phone number and it kept saying no basically, something like we are having techinal problems.... yeah right!!

 

Nice to see they are still producing online statements for this terminated account:p

 

As you know i had the letter saying account terminated in october 2008, when I checked my credit report it says closed jan 2009. Yey the tw*ats ent me a letter saying it remained open and yet as yvonne says @we make no errors!!!]:lol: and then they terminated it again without the termination letter this time!!! What a farce!!

 

Milly XX

 

Milly XX

[cleo4patra]

I found my bank of scotland online account password which I never logged on until today.

 

I tried too change the phone number and it kept saying no basically, something like we are having techinal problems.... yeah right!!

 

Nice to see they are still producing online statements for this terminated account:p

 

As you know i had the letter saying account terminated in october 2008, when I checked my credit report it says closed jan 2009. Yey the tw*ats ent me a letter saying it remained open and yet as yvonne says @we make no errors!!!]:lol: and then they terminated it again without the termination letter this time!!! What a farce!!

 

Milly XX

 

Milly XX

Hi MMM - cleo just popping in. It doesn't get any clearer does it. It is exactly the same for me.

[FlyboyAgain]

Hi,

I have just received unsignee copies of my argreements outwith the time scale allowed. Now HBOS saying they are not required to provide a copy of the original signed document and are calling in the debt. I thought the had to provide it?? Advice, please on what I should do and what will happen next.

 

Here's my thread:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dealing-debt-scotland/188216-dca-heavy-handed-over.html

[millymollymoo]

Oh Goody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Blair Witch and BOS have both IGNORED my CPR 31 letters and have passed the debt to MOORCROFT:rolleyes: whom say they are instructed emmmmmmmmm...wheres my notice of assignment!!! also i thought that that Blair Witch were taking me court????????? so why pass it on?????

 

 

Ok guys can you suggest a good letter to send.

 

 

 

 

[citizenB]

Yep, send them the letter below from lexis 200's thread. I think you have sent this out to someone already however, it is still relevant. Dont forget to amend it where applicable, dates and the part where it says "You have indicated".... list what Moorcroft have put ie the Warrant of Execution, etc. You could also copy their letter to the OFT. If you want Bankfodders draft letter, yell and I will get you the link.

 

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Re :

 

THIS IS A REQUEST UNDER THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES.

PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE.

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated 23rd October, this was received on 30th October 2008.

 

You have indicated that

a) You are giving Formal Notice that your client has instructed you to commence court proceedings against me without delay and

b) Papers are now being prepared for commencement of action through my local court to seek a judgement against me.

 

I am sure that you are aware that I have long since requested from your client, under both the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act) and the Data Protection Act 1998, a copy of the agreement to which both you and your client allege I am a signatory. To date this has not been provided to me and whilst I appreciate your client has endeavoured to persuade me that the provision of a copy of an application form is sufficient to discharge your client from further obligations under section 78 of the Act. Likewise I too have explained that the mere provision of a copy of an application form is not a legally permissable substitute for the provision of a true copy of the executed agreement as required under section 78 of the Act and as prescribed by Regulation 3 Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983.

 

I am sure you are also aware that under section 78(6) of the Act, whilst a creditor is in default of a request made under sub-section (1) they may not enforce the agreement.

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing and your client's persistent, unexplained and willful refusal to supply a copy of the executed agreement in accordance with its obligations (the permitted ommisions under Regulation 3(2) excepted), your client has made plain its intention to begin legal proceedings against me. In consequence this matter may now be treated as one which is subject to the control of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Take notice therefore that under CPR Practice Direction - Protocols paragraph 4.6(a) and (d), I request that you supply copies of the following documents:

 

[1] A true copy of the executed credit agreement incorporating prescribed notices, terms and conditions applicable at the time the agreement was executed and

[2] Any further or subsequent notices, terms and conditions relied upon.

 

Please note that my request under the Practice Direction is not a request for production within the confines of the Act and Regulations but rather, it is for a copy of the executed agreement, including signatures and all such other notices, terms and conditions as will be relied upon in the event that your client shall begin a claim.

 

A copy of the documents I have requested should be supplied to me within 14 days and you are urged not to begin proceedings for a period of not less than 14 days following the supply of those documents to me.

 

Should your client elect to ignore my request under the Practice Direction and commence proceedings, it is likely that I shall repeat my request for the provision of documents under CPR 31.14. In the event that your client should fail to comply with my CPR 31.14 request, I will not hesitate in making an application to the court for an order that further proceedings upon the claim be stayed pending provision of the requisite documents, in the course of which application I will of course refer to this and previous requests for the provision of copy documents.

 

I look forward to hearing from you within the time stated.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

I would also point out to them the following.

 

 

Originally posted by Richard SPUD

 

 

EXCELLENT WORK BY THE OFT AGAINST A DCA

 

See the latest action published on 21st April 2009 and valuable OFT opinions to cite to other DCAs and the County Courts.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk:80/news/press/2009/44-09

 

“Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged for six years. A statute barred debt cannot be legally recovered. Whilst the OFT accepts that the debt still exists, the OFT considers that it can be unfair to pursue the debt in the circumstances set out in our Debt Collection Guidance”

 

Quote from the OFT MACKENZIE HALL PDF document:

 

“REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE OFT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO:

 

MACKENZIE HALL LIMITED

 

A debt is considered as in dispute where:

 

A request under section 77 or 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has not been complied with, and this prevents the agreement being enforced without the permission of the court”

 

I suggest that the above reference to ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 is a very strong endorsement of the rights of consumers to be provided with true copies of Regulated agreements.

 

HTH

 

Regards – Richard.

 

 

And............. The following have been censured for sending out letters whilst not taking the legal action they are threatening.

 

Debt recovery firm loses business after OFT warning - Debt Management Today

[davey77]

Moorcroft stil sending those out.. how dull:

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Moorcroft.jpg

 

I'd complain to BOS that you haven't received the Court papers you were expecting! lol

[angel_1]

hey milly

 

what a sham - i like CB responce, might as well, they aint going to get any further are they ?

 

keep positive girl, will be on more later

 

have a sunny day all laters angel x:)

[davey77]

"sending out letters whilst not taking the legal action they are threatening."

Where does it mention that CB? I'm always getting those letters

[citizenB]

"sending out letters whilst not taking the legal action they are threatening."

 

Where does it mention that CB? I'm always getting those letters

 

 

This is a quote from the last link I put in that post, Davey..Debt recovery firm loses contract or the like..

 

 

"Following numerous complaints from debt charities and an investigation by the OFT, 1st Credit was ordered to stop making empty threats of bankruptcy to debtors in order to recover cash. "

[davey77]

Ah sorry, thanks. Didn't read it properly first time.

 

That could prove a useful quote for my future letters for sure!

[davey77]

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT imposes requirements on 1st Credit over debt collection practices

[millymollymoo]

Hi all:)

 

blair witch and BOS decided to not reply to my CPR 31.14 [maybe it was the securitisation bit:D

 

I did this earlier from adding to a CB special . It is a DRAFT!!!!!

 

What do you think???? or should I CPR them as suggested.

 

Oh another thing is S.179 of the CCAct applicable or not or have I read the act wrong???

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

I do not acknowledge any debt to your company

I refer to your letter of 21st April, 2009 which was received 23rd April, 2009 noting its contents.

I am surprised you have been asked to administer this account, as I must advise you that the above account is currently in lawful and reasonable dispute with the Bank of Scotland and Blair, Oliver and Scott Limited and has been since 27th November, 2008, as they have failed to supply me with the correct documentation which I am legally entitled to after several requests and that would allow me to assess whether or not I do have any liability to them.

I should not need to remind you that to take any enforcement action by way of a court order such as a County Court Judgment as you have threatened, then certain formalities under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 have to of been satisfied to allow this action to commence if your client wishes to succeed. Your clients have failed to terminate the account correctly without a Default Notice and have failed to provide me with a properly executed Credit Agreement that may have been signed by myself and therefore to ask for an enforcement order to be made under s.65(1) of the Act are precluded from taking such action under s.127(3) in a court of law.

To clarify my statement above, the purported credit agreement I have been provided with is irredeemably unenforceable in light of s.127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as it is totally devoid of any of the Prescribed Terms as laid down in Schedule 1 of the Consumer Credit (Agreement ) Regulations 1983 and various other schedules and s.60(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and is therefore not properly executed under s.61(a) of the Act, as your clients are well aware of.

Furthermore, you and your clients are also in breach of s.179(1)a, b and (2):

179.—(1) Regulations may be made as to the form and content of credit cards, trading

checks, receipts, vouchers and other documents or things issued by creditors, owners

or suppliers under or in connection with regulated agreements or by other persons in

connection with linked transactions, and may in particular—

(a) require specified information to be included in the prescribed manner

in documents, and other specified material to be excluded;

(b) contain requirements to ensure that specified information is clearly

brought to the attention of the debtor or hirer, or his relative, and that one part

of a document is not given insufficient or excessive prominence compared

with another.

(2) If a person issues any document or thing in contravention of regulations under

subsection (1) then, as from the time of the contravention but without prejudice to

anything done before it, this Act shall apply as if the regulated agreement had been

improperly executed by reason of a contravention of regulations under section 60(1).

I would therefore be grateful if you could inform your client to please provide a fully compliant credit agreement compliant with the Act , as until then even the above section of the act applies and s.142(1) .

Furthermore, your clients whom also notified me that legal action was about to be commenced have failed to answer my CPR 31.14 request sent by separate cover to both of them dated 3rd April, 2009 delivered 6th April, 2009 and rather than comply and carry out their intended course of action have passed the account to your agency.

As your clients, Bank of Scotland and Blair, Oliver and Scott have chosen to ignore my dispute by their unfulfilled compliance with my legal request in relation to this matter and are now clearly attempting enforcement by instructing your agency to commence legal action as stated in your letter.

 

It would appear that we are now in a deadlock. Therefore, I commend the genuine attempt to resolve a dispute by putting your case before a Judge where as well as your client’s non-compliance with The Consumer Credit Act, 1974, and total disregard for, both the banking code and OFT guidelines, will have the opportunity to be looked at.

I accept that this matter has now reached an impasse with both parties apparently having equally strong views about the merits or otherwise of the case. I welcome the opportunity to let the courts decide and look forward to receipt of the papers with great interest.

I will also expect a properly executed Regulated Credit Card Agreement with my signature that contains all of the Prescribed Terms and legal rights within the four corners of it along with any document referred to within the agreement, attached to the claim form.

 

I trust this outlines my position clearly enough for you

 

Yours faithfully

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well what do you think ????

Milly XX

[citizenB]

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT imposes requirements on 1st Credit over debt collection practices

 

 

Thanks for this link Davey, have squirrelled it away for further use.

 

 

Milly, that is bliddy brilliant. I cannot comment on the S179 bit though, perhaps confirm that with someone who has legal knowledge.

[cleo4patra]

Thanks for this link Davey, have squirrelled it away for further use.

 

 

Milly, that is bliddy brilliant. I cannot comment on the S179 bit though, perhaps confirm that with someone who has legal knowledge.

GREAT LETTER MMM - I AM AWAITING RESPONSE TO MY LAST LETTER & LETTER TO IQOR - WILL KEEP YOU POSTED - CLEO

[millymollymoo]

Okay awaiting an answer as regards s.179 but then what abot s.180???

 

180.—(l) Regulations may be made as to the form and content of documents to be

issued as copies of any executed agreement, security instrument or other document

referred to in this Act, and may in particular—

(a) require specified information to be included in the prescribed manner

in any copy, and contain requirements to ensure that such information is

clearly brought to the attention of a reader of the copy;

(b) authorise the omission from a copy of certain material contained in the

original, or the inclusion of such material in condensed form.

(2) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a

copy of any document—

(a) is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and

conforms to the prescribed requirements;

(b) is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in

condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations;

and references in this Act to copies shall be construed accordingly.

 

 

What is this in relation to?

[citizenB]

sheesh, Milly, I havent a clue. You really need the advice of one of the legal brains.

[angel_1]

Milly yes you are way ahead of me girl

 

i do hope one of the regular cag members comes to your aid, cos this is the time you need the legal eagles, to make sense of it all in simple lingo

 

catch up tomorrow

 

have a sunny day all laters angel x:cool:

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Milly!

 

I'd be inclined to treat Moorcroft as the pond life debt collecting vermin that they are.

 

Their letter is full of ifs, buts and maybes, and is primarily just a crude threat letter. This bit about the letter fulfilling some vague requirement even if not read by you is just offensive nonsense, written by cretins.

 

It's highly unlikely that BOS have actually given these plonkers any specific instructions, so their claims that BOS is champing at the bit to take you to Court is almost certainly something else they have made up.

 

Indeed, this is just a Template Threat-O-Gram, zero thought went into it, and they probably sent a few dozen identical ones on the same day, without reading any of those either.

 

I wouldn't waste too much time telling them where the CCA Christmas Fairy lives, I'd just send them a short sharp, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY, NOR TO ANY COMPANY YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT letter.

 

Tell them the alleged Account is already in serious dispute with BOS, and to hand it back without any delay.

 

By all means point out the recent OFT issues that Richard Spud has found for us all.

 

I don't think s179 is worth mentioning. I do not think that is applicable as it seems to relate to secondary documents, but I've not seen that mentioned before so am happy to be corrected.

 

The thing to remember is DCAs just want money. Joined up writing just tires them out, and your letter will probably just go in the bin the second they see it doesn't contain a cheque!

 

Keep your powder dry, and don't say too much...and certainly not to DCAs who are unlikely to be interested.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[millymollymoo]

Hello Milly!

 

I'd be inclined to treat Moorcroft as the pond life debt collecting vermin that they are.

 

Their letter is full of ifs, buts and maybes, and is primarily just a crude threat letter. This bit about the letter fulfilling some vague requirement even if not read by you is just offensive nonsense, written by cretins.

 

It's highly unlikely that BOS have actually given these plonkers any specific instructions, so their claims that BOS is champing at the bit to take you to Court is almost certainly something else they have made up.

 

Indeed, this is just a Template Threat-O-Gram, zero thought went into it, and they probably sent a few dozen identical ones on the same day, without reading any of those either.

 

I wouldn't waste too much time telling them where the CCA Christmas Fairy lives, I'd just send them a short sharp, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY, NOR TO ANY COMPANY YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT letter.

 

Tell them the alleged Account is already in serious dispute with BOS, and to hand it back without any delay.

 

By all means point out the recent OFT issues that Richard Spud has found for us all.

 

I don't think s179 is worth mentioning. I do not think that is applicable as it seems to relate to secondary documents, but I've not seen that mentioned before so am happy to be corrected.

 

The thing to remember is DCAs just want money. Joined up writing just tires them out, and your letter will probably just go in the bin the second they see it doesn't contain a cheque!

 

Keep your powder dry, and don't say too much...and certainly not to DCAs who are unlikely to be interested.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

 

Helo Banker!

 

Thank you for coming by. Yes I did wonder about s.179 and am not really sure, just a bit of reading on the CCA and wondered if it applied. I will have a bit of a condense down and will send it out. Always being mindful of any future court action.

 

Thanks

 

Milly XXXX

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Milly!

 

I don't think many Judges like DCAs, so you can afford to be a bit sharper and a bit more hostile to them.

 

All I am saying is keep the legal issues for BOS, and just tell the DCA it's in dispute and that is about that.

 

Maybe even send them their very own s78(1) Request, i.e. with the OFT issues and The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 firmly in mind.

 

Once Moroncroft fail to come up with an Agreement too, they have to curb their activities and go bother someone else.

 

Cheers,

BRW