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

[angel_1]

hiya all

 

im with you on this, i will put out this similar request as what lexis has pointed out to us and underdog on my bos thread and see if i can get someone to give us a bit of help, two pronged attack is better than one

 

mind you pls dont read my mind where id want that prong to land.....

 

ops my halo just slipped

 

laters angel x:lol:

[cleo4patra]

Perhaps we should contact site team for assistance??

[cleo4patra]

HELP ANYONE?

 

Have had a letter today from BOS Mastercard offering me refund of charges but saying their default is not invalid and the account still up and running - they say they don't have to add days on for posting - They have put a sheet for signing to accept the offer

 

I am not going to do anything - any thoughts anyone??

[millymollymoo]

Hi Cleo did you ask for a refund of charges?

 

Unfortunately they do have to take into account postage dates as if they didnt and they send it on day 1 there is no way you would get the 14 days as is a requirement, aload of bumf from the idiots.

 

Also yet again think that they are above the law and the consumer Credit Act and think that it is ok to reinstate your account [like mine] unilaterally:rolleyes:

 

Cleo BRW told me to stop writing longs letters telling them where they went wrong and not to give them any more ammunition [although you [we] have plenty against them] they seek to frustrate you and get you to react and give them more information.

 

I have not replied to their january letter, the last thing I sent apart from s.a.r wis the letter in december as I said that I would ignore further requests for payment due to their unlawful termination and conduct of the account. The reply I got to that in january did NOT warrant any further replies as all had been said in december.

 

Milly X

 

P.S we neen BRW. I will PM my thread and get hime to look at your post.

[millymollymoo]

By the way if BRW:) does pop in.

 

 

I did work out all the figures you suggested way earlier in the thread,so even if they produce a Default Notice in the end, the unlawful penalty charges[C] taken away from [F] the missed payments/arrears figure alone would be over half of the default sum claimed, {going on the legal sum claimed on termination] so would not be di minimus as it is 52% If the default notice is as they say from the 18th august as they suggest [never received as you know and they refrain from sending me the copy,] unfortunately for them it would equate to approx 100%, so even better and would render that invalid let alone every unlawful thing they have done since!!!

 

Milly XX

 

milly XX

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Folks!

 

Sorry to be a damp squib, but am flat out on something at the moment, so can only offer very limited help.

 

All I can say is keep things plodding along, as arguing with DCAs and bankers is almost futile until it gets to Court.

 

The main issue is to decide if you are in a good position, state what they have or have not done (keep key things back if it is something they can fix), and thereafter just hold firm and do not rise to their jibes and attempts to knee jerk you into something.

 

If you fight them, then you must resign yourself to a Claim arriving. If one doesn't, then you know they know they are stuffed.

 

But if one does, then don't take that as being they are not still stuffed, but also don't underestimate their capacity for bending the rules and pushing their luck.

 

There is no need to get excited until the Court Claim plops on your doormat. Once that happens, then things won't suddenly go pear shaped. It'll take many Weeks, almost certainly many Months, before you'll ever see the inside of a Court.

 

Sure, things will need to be done, AOS by +14 Days, Defence by +28 Days etc, but you will then have time to get things ready and yourself prepared. It may never make Court, but always plan that it will.

 

Until then, don't give them anything that can be used against you.

 

Keep gathering things against them, watch their tactics, help others out who are further ahead than you with the same bankers, as by helping you will learn.

 

But right now, most of you, as far as I can tell, are OK at the moment. You are still at the Mexican Stand-off stage! Who will blink first etc!

 

If they are bothering you, i.e. Calls or letters that breach the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines then put all of your efforts into compiling that evidence against them. Investigate Call Recorders etc.

 

IOW, re-direct your energies towards things that can help you.

 

The danger when nothing much is happening, is you'll lean forwards and get stuck peering into your own belly buttons! Fighting every last little trick they try, and reading too much into what they say.

 

Break it down into the key issues, and then think how it looks from the other side of the Court. If you need to show you were responsible and made the right noises, then send them a letter or two. But if you feel you have said all of the key things and the bankers/DCA won't listen, then step back and do not play an active part.

 

Do also remember that once a DCA has the issue, it's a fairly sure sign the banker is doing very little. Once the DCA gives up, then watch what happens next carefully. If another DCA pops up, relax, as it's just more hot air. Once a Lawyer joins in, then take more note, but work out how to spot the real Lawyers who will try to shaft you, and the ones who just make DCA like noises.

 

I apologise for stating the obvious, but I cannot stress how important it is to not get too excited until you need to. Don't Panic, Don't Panic, Don't Panic....OK...NOW PANIC!

 

The time for getting excited will come, or it won't!

 

Until you get to the safety of +6 Years from the last Payment, you need to just stay on low alert. The closer to +6 Years, the less alert you need to be. If only a few Months or a Year from when you started the battle, stay frosty and keep peepers peeled!

 

If we kept our Troops on Red Alert all the time, they'd soon get knackered or lazy or both. For now, stay on Green Alert, but be ready to go to Amber or Red as needed.

 

But going to Red Alert now and trying to stay there, and all you'll do is burn out or you will start making mistakes with what you say and do. The bankers and DCAs want you jumping around like rabbits in the headlights at night. So don't give them that pleasure, chill out, relax, and enjoy finding things to use against them!

 

Finally, divert all other energies to making or saving money. The best way to fight them is to make enough money so you do not need to fight them.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[millymollymoo]

Thankyou banker:) yet again!

 

Your advice as usual excellent , extremely reassuring and valuable when peeps need it.

 

Milly X

[millymollymoo]

phone log update:

 

16th feb:

8.08am

8.40am

5.44pm

6.14pm

8.30pm

 

17th feb

5.08pm

5.40pm

8.35pm

 

18th feb

8.12am

8.48am

5.21pm

5.52pm

 

19th feb

8.14am

8.45am

5.13pm

5.43pm

8.50pm

Milly X

[cleo4patra]

by thw w ay MMM - they deny harrassment!!

[lexis200]

Just a quickie - if the DN states an amount that is the actual balance (I know they can't really do this unless the whole lot is arrears, but I'm going hypothetical here), or alternatively it shows arrears, but your balance as it stands includes charges/penalties, am I reading it right that the DN is not correct?

 

I only ask as surely pretty much every DN in that case would fall foul of this - certainly the £20+ charges have been deemed unlawful, but the £12 ones have only been left as a little less unfair than the £20+ ones haven't they? So following that logic (well my logic anyway:)), if you've been issued with a DN it will almost certainly have a charge or two included and is therefore kaput.

 

Is that right, or am I muddling myself?

 

Really hoping I'm right though;)

 

Lexis:)

[millymollymoo]

Hiya Lexis this is from my thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/171374-bank-scotland-terminated-without.html#post1867381

 

Thats how I read it like you are reading it from BRW's post.that the default sum would be incorrect. It did not say just the charges on the missing payments/arrears.

 

milly

[angel_1]

hiya milly hope you are well and likewise to our fellow posters

 

again a huge thanks for BRW as always i am truely inspired by his wise words, i have really learnt a lot, and im not jumping through hoops no more and im forever mindful of what letters i do write of the judge reading it in the future;)

 

i print off the posts that i know will help me from everyone and you shold see my little computer area its truely a haven lol

 

i learn when i read it and then read it a bit later on and i will get all the info together and am planning for court, even if it never happens

 

never had a default notice until now on my bos - others are hitting me hard too but hey girls and boys, its about survival of the fittest at the moment and learning everything to help us in our defence

 

laters angel x:cry:

Edited February 23, 2009 by angel_1

[millymollymoo]

Hey Angel:)

 

Good for you girl and we are all here to help eachother

 

Milly x

[millymollymoo]

 

Consumer Credit Act Agreements

Wilson & Anor v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 (04 April 2007)Wilson & Ors v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 (10 July 2003)Dimond v. Lovell [2000] UKHL 27; [2000] 2 All ER 897; [2000] 2 WLR 1121 (11th May, 2000)McGinn v Grangewood Securities Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 522

Default NoticesWoodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255 Data Protection Act Smith v Lloyds TSB 2005 [2005] EWHC 246 (Ch)Durant v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746'Failure to remove inaccurate dataRICHARD DURKIN v DSG RETAIL LIMITED and HFC BANK PLC Counter Claim for DamagesKpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

ttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/299.html

 

In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said:

Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633, Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor said:

The creditor must be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid

When this case was appealed to the House of Lords on a matter regarding the Human Rights Act (Wilson & Ors v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40), Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said

The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan… when legislation renders the entire agreement inoperative, to use a neutral word, for failure to comply with prescribed formalities the legislation itself is the primary source of guidance on what are the legal consequences. Here the intention of Parliament is clear.

And from Francis Bennion known as the architect of the Consumer Credit Act following the House of Lords Appeal

Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed hat nobody’s human rights were infringed.

Justice of the Peace (2003) 773

 

Edited February 21, 2009 by millymollymoo
All for reference

[lexis200]

I'm wondering about simply copying this little lot out into a letter to OH's BOS accounts and telling them to feck off. They can't argue with that!

[underdog13]

No they can't Lexis; but they'll probably try;)

 

Just to give everyone a heads up: Their latest tactic with me is sending doorstep collectors to my house (despite them acknowledging receipt of the 'revoke right to visit' letter) and charging me for their criminal tort of trespass, hiding it under a letter charge reference on the monthly statement:mad: Harrassment, criminal acts and unfair penalty charges - they don't know when to stop digging, do they?

[millymollymoo]

20th feb

5.08pm

5.39pm

 

21st feb

9.41am

10.15am

 

23rd feb

8.05am

8.36am

5.03pm

5.35pm

8.10pm

8.40pm

 

SO far 84 calls between 30th jan and 23rd feb!

Edited February 27, 2009 by millymollymoo
updatecalls

[angel_1]

hiya all

 

thanks milly for your post 189 info, fab, i will be printing that one off too.lol;)

 

i have to reply to the doorstop visitor, thanks underdog, got to get that in another fee i suppose,,

 

anyway im off this week so am getting everything in order - im in fighting mood

 

oh anyone of you guys had something sold onto 1st credit?? cheers angelx

 

be back laters

[underdog13]

Nope, not had anything from first credit - yet!

[cleo4patra]

Cleo here - see earlier posts on this thread - In letter from BOS - they say ""copies of historical terms and conditions unfortunately , are not available, however were provided to you when you opened the account" - if they were supposed to be on the back of the original does that mean they don't have it?? it sayd "UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT OVERLEAF" on the application form/agreement they sent me

[lexis200]

hey angel

 

OH had a CitiBank account passed onto them 2/3 years ago - they passed it onto Connaught fairly swiftly. I think this was because OH ignored any debt letters (silly boy didn't even tell me) so they decided it was duff. It's still with 1st Credit as the 'buyer' of the account from Citi though - and they haven't come up with an agreement yet. After 5 months:D

[millymollymoo]

Hi all sad..very sad today. We had to put our little yorkie Fifi to sleep. I am so lost withou her..

[SB100]

its never easy. you remember the yapping when dreaming?

 

thats where they are now- happy.

 

sorry for you loss.

 

sb:(

[millymollymoo]

Thank you for your kindness.

 

Milly X

[angel_1]

oh very sorry also for your loss milly

 

hope you have some good memories though in time will help

 

take care hugs angel x