Aktiv Kapital (again)....

[JonCris]

I thought I would add that once this is added any applications are no longer allowed to be dealt with electronically but manually this is covered in law.

 

During the course of my battle I asked about this. I was told the problem is most lenders ignore it because it costs money. They don't see it as having any point because by this time they don't want your custom anyway.

 

Consumer finance is a numbers game they know there are a lot a people out there who will be rejected so the more they canvas the better. You now the leaflet which states "Great news we are able to offer YOU a groundbreaking offer of £5,000 at only 1% pa. at only nothing per week.

 

Small print says "In principal only" "all offers are subject to status". In other words a come on for you to apply & when they refuse they will pass your home address & telephone details onto a sub-prime lender who will have paid then for their lists

 

Also I'm bearing in mind what we have to go through with these lenders I'm somewhat surprised that members really expect these people to play by the rules. They dont! & they should be treat as such.

 

I forgot to mention on each occasion (it was a few yaers ago) I also sent the CRA an LBA on each occasion before the default was removed. In which I made the point that they where like their client guilty of defamation because they could not since my intervention use the "Good Faith" argument. I suspect that this may have had some affect

[Guest Zooman]

During the course of my battle I asked about this. I was told the problem is most lenders ignore it because it costs money. They don't see it as having any point because by this time they don't want your custom anyway.

lol:lol: . I can understand that. I was just pointing out the law but like you I live in the real world.

[JonCris]

lol:lol: . I can understand that. I was just pointing out the law but like you I live in the real world.

 

I know you do otherwise you wouldn't be here. I just thought I'd remind members (understandbly usually newbies) who we are dealing as a very few still think these bums can be trusted.

[kyuudousha]

Good luck with this.

As I am aware the term is loosely refered to as Financial defamation.

 

A court would obviously expect you to be able to prove that the entries had restricted your ability to obtain credit.

One such means of arguing this is if there have been any credit searches logged.

It could be said that a lender after doing the search would have relied on the information,and on this would very likely refuse any application for credit.

 

You have a very good case though and it is backed up with the legal framework that the defendant would be very foolish to challenge.

 

I am certain your results here will be of much interest to many of us here.

 

 

I've been thinking about the last letter I wrote and I think I'll action the first point on the list and send TF a copy with a covering letter, just to let them know that I'm serious...

 

It may just rattle them into paying out something to prevent me going further. ;-)

[kyuudousha]

AKTIV KAPITAL REPLY

 

I had the reply from AK yesterday and thought that I would post it on here so that I could get any comments from you guys before I write back to them. Here it is:

 

We refer to your recent communication regarding this account and can confirm that the above account is now closed on our system as paid in full under your CCJ with effect from July 2006.

 

We advise a copy of the original agreement and default notice issued by your original creditor First National Tricity Finance have been requested from your original creditor and will be forwarded in due course – however, as we do not hold the documentation at our offices this may not be possible to supply within 28 days as requested in your letter.

 

In addition we would advise that a copy of your agreement will have been issued to you shortly after your account commenced and this was to have been retained for your records – however, as indicated above we have requested a replacement copy and this will be forwarded to you once received.

 

With regard to your comments on the recording of your default we are able to advise that when your account was legally assigned to ourselves on 3rd July 2004 the default registered by First National Tricity Finance would have been deleted and duly registered in our name as the new legal owners of the debt.

 

Should your credit file reflect two entries still listed kindly forward a copy of this in order for us to investigate this matter further on your behalf.

 

We trust the above is of assistance.

It would appear that they are quite keen to point out that they acquired the debt legally as they have mentioned it twice, but I can't help feeling there is something wrong with this.

 

Why don't AK have a copy of all the documents if they have legally acquired the debt? To me it's a bit like buying a car without all the documentation (V5, MOT etc) but expecting to have the full weight of the law behind you when the police turn up to tell you it's stolen...*

 

They state that they might not be able to supply these documents within the 28 days. Now I realise that it should be 30 days from request but they'll be cutting it fine wouldn't they? Before they are breaking the law.

 

Anyways, any pointers, comments or suggestions would be most welcome. I'll give it a week then collate all the advise I get and shove it into a letter to fire back at them.

 

I'm not sure, but by the tone of this letter compared to the tone of their previous letters, it would seem that they are running a bit nervous at the moment.

 

As an aside can anybody tell me how this 'selling of debts on' actually works? I'm somewhat confused.

 

AK say they bought the debt on 3rd July 2004, however, on the credit reference the details are exactly the same as TF's entry. This gives the same defualt date and everything although I was not aware of being in default with either of them...

[JonCris]

AKTIV KAPITAL REPLY

 

I had the reply from AK yesterday and thought that I would post it on here so that I could get any comments from you guys before I write back to them. Here it is:

 

We refer to your recent communication regarding this account and can confirm that the above account is now closed on our system as paid in full under your CCJ with effect from July 2006.

 

We advise a copy of the original agreement and default notice issued by your original creditor First National Tricity Finance have been requested from your original creditor and will be forwarded in due course – however, as we do not hold the documentation at our offices this may not be possible to supply within 28 days as requested in your letter.

 

In addition we would advise that a copy of your agreement will have been issued to you shortly after your account commenced and this was to have been retained for your records – however, as indicated above we have requested a replacement copy and this will be forwarded to you once received.

 

With regard to your comments on the recording of your default we are able to advise that when your account was legally assigned to ourselves on 3rd July 2004 the default registered by First National Tricity Finance would have been deleted and duly registered in our name as the new legal owners of the debt.

 

Should your credit file reflect two entries still listed kindly forward a copy of this in order for us to investigate this matter further on your behalf.

 

We trust the above is of assistance.

It would appear that they are quite keen to point out that they acquired the debt legally as they have mentioned it twice, but I can't help feeling there is something wrong with this.

 

Why don't AK have a copy of all the documents if they have legally acquired the debt? To me it's a bit like buying a car without all the documentation (V5, MOT etc) but expecting to have the full weight of the law behind you when the police turn up to tell you it's stolen...*

 

They state that they might not be able to supply these documents within the 28 days. Now I realise that it should be 30 days from request but they'll be cutting it fine wouldn't they? Before they are breaking the law.

 

Anyways, any pointers, comments or suggestions would be most welcome. I'll give it a week then collate all the advise I get and shove it into a letter to fire back at them.

 

I'm not sure, but by the tone of this letter compared to the tone of their previous letters, it would seem that they are running a bit nervous at the moment.

 

Simple really. Without the correct documentation at the outset they are NOT the legal owners of the debt & should not have chased you. Before they chase someone they should ensure they have all the legal paperwork BEFORE commencing.

 

Trouble is before sites like CAG came along no one knew their legal rights which is something the finance industry & their agents have relied on

 

Unless they remove the adverse from your credit ref. file.Threaten to report them to TS & the OFT for passing themselves off as the owners of the debt when they where not.

[kyuudousha]

Simple really. Without the correct documentation at the outset they are NOT the legal owners of the debt & should not have chased you. Before they chase someone they should ensure they have all the legal paperwork BEFORE commencing.

 

Trouble is before sites like CAG came along no one knew their legal rights which is something the finance industry & their agents have relied on

 

Unless they remove the adverse from your credit ref. file.Threaten to report them to TS & the OFT for passing themselves off as the owners of the debt when they where not.

 

I found this which might be of interest:

 

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

 

(a)

harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b)

falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

©

falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d)

utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

 

I have highlighted the relevant part...

 

Are you saying JonCris that they have admitted to not being the legal owners to this debt by stating that they don't have the original documents? They may have committed an offence!!!! Oh Glee!!!

[JonCris]

I found this which might be of interest:

 

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

 

(a)

harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b)

falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

©

falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d)

utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

 

I have highlighted the relevant part...

 

Are you saying JonCris that they have admitted to not being the legal owners to this debt by stating that they don't have the original documents? They may have committed an offence!!!! Oh Glee!!!

 

I am but if the authorities come a knocking they'll give some sort of excuse along the lines of "sorry it was a clerical error" Nevertheless it won't do any harm to report them.

 

Also don't forget their instructors are equaly liable for the conduct of their agents so I would certainly complain to them also

[kyuudousha]

I am but if the authorities come a knocking they'll give some sort of excuse along the lines of "sorry it was a clerical error" Nevertheless it won't do any harm to report them.

 

Therefore, then, they shouldn't have had me issued with a CCJ to legally enforce a debt that they had no entitlement to?

[MARTIN3030]

It would seem to be correct in assuming their explanations show a lot of inconsistancies

 

BTW their deadline would be 1 month from the 12 day period they are initially allowed see below (comes straight from Trading Standards)

 

Hillesenden Securities.

As previous advised. According to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the

trader is required to provide you with a copy of your credit agreement

within 12 working days from date of your letter requesting it. The trader

would not be committing an offence under this Act until 1 month after the

12 working days. If you had sent the request on the 5th July the 12

working days would end on the 21st July and the 1 month will not have

expired until the 21st August.

 

I trust this information is helpful to you.

 

Regards,

 

 

Angela Chow

Fair Trading Officer

 

They state you should have recieved a copy of the original agreement but dont state that they should also have the same...........

 

I would suggest that you either e mail or call your local Trading standards office and seek full clarification.

They are very quick to respond and this is an avenue that would clear uncertainty up in an instant.

 

The other part of the e mail dealt with a default question.

I asked whether in the absence of any notice of default or an inability to supply a copy following a request under the CCA a default can be legally applied to a credit file TS concluded that it could not .

And in the absence of the paperwork was therefore unenforceable.

[kyuudousha]

I would suggest that you either e mail or call your local Trading standards office and seek full clarification.

They are very quick to respond and this is an avenue that would clear uncertainty up in an instant.

 

I have e-mailed the whole sorry story to the nice lady at Trading Standards - Angela Chow

 

Will post her reply when I get it.

 

Wish me luck!

[JonCris]

Therefore, then, they shouldn't have had me issued with a CCJ to legally enforce a debt that they had no entitlement to?

 

Unless they had a legal right to the debt with all of it's relevant paper work or are directly employed by the creditor to effect recovery (the creditor should advise you of this) they had no right legal to pursue you. But like most of these situations they aren't going to tell the court they have no right to do what they are doing. Its only when you come here you find this out.

 

Even at this late stage I should call them out on it. At the very least you can then include your misgivings in your OFT compliant

 

Also I'm begining to consider there may be a possibility that so called sold debts where the DCA is returning a percentage to the original creditor might amount to "Champerty" Suing & maintaining a case for a claimant for an agreed share of the proceeds) Interesting thoughts anyone?

[elsinore]

If anyone needs further proof that AK are a bunch of charlatans, there are a number of threads (mine included) in Other Institutions (BAG) dealing with their antics!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/12020-elsinore-aktiv-kapital.html

 

Elsinore

[MARTIN3030]

I have e-mailed the whole sorry story to the nice lady at Trading Standards - Angela Chow

 

Will post her reply when I get it.

 

Wish me luck!

 

 

Just a little point worth mentioning here............Ms Chow may reply saying you would need to contact your own area TS as they can only deal with issues that occur in her region.

I contacted a TS office in West Mids about a dca there and they referred me to consumer direct !!

It may be though that these will assist you.........at the end of the day I suppose its down to how busy they are.......and whether they are interested in learning more from this subject by taking the investigation on.

[kyuudousha]

Okay then, I thought I would try the reasonable guy approach with AK just to see what would happen.

 

I want to keep escalating this as fast as possible in th hope that they will just cave in. I realise that some of the threats are a little bit empty at the end of the letter but I shall carry them out anyway. It might only serve to bring AK's name in front of the various people I have complained, but if enough people do it, somebody might just take an interest...

 

Here's my response to them:*

 

* I haven't "posted" this yet in the Royal Mail sense as I thought I would see if you guys have any comments or thoughts on it *

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 31 July 2006 and I would like to comment as follows.

 

I have a few misgivings with the comments that you have put therein. Firstly, why do you have to request a copy of the original agreement from First National Tricity Finance if you are now the legal owner of this debt? Surely you would have been supplied with this along with the deed of assignment when the debt was transferred?

 

You also state that you may not be able to supply me with this documentation within the 28 day deadline that I had requested in my original letter; however, Trading Standards require that you should be able to produce this documentation within 12 days. Therefore I have given you more than ample time. I would also like to point out that if you have not produced this data within 30 days of the original 12 day deadline you will be committing a criminal offence under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I would suggest that I have been more than lenient with you in my timescales.

 

You state that when the account was “legally assigned to yourselves on 3rd July 2004 the default registered by First National would have been deleted and duly registered in your name as the new legal owners of the debt.” Yes, I believe that would indeed be the case and, therefore, as it wasn’t removed from my credit file this would also suggest that you were not the legal owners of this debt.

 

As for your offer of investigating the matter of the dual defaults on my credit file I would like to advise you that there is no need for this. I am currently taking matters further with Tricity Finance and, unless they accept my offer, I will be suing them for ‘financial defamation’ within the week, for a not inconsiderable sum, and reporting them to the Information Commissioners Office, Trading Standards, the Financial Services Association and the Office of Fair Trading for their multiple breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1984. Therefore your assistance is really not needed.

 

I think that, as can be seen from our correspondence, that this whole fiasco is a sorry mess and will, no doubt, get messier before it is brought to a conclusion.

 

This is where I would like to come to an arrangement with Aktiv Kapital. I would like for you to have the default and the CCJ removed from my credit file. That’s it.

 

If this is not possible then I feel it only fair to point out that I have taken legal advice on this matter and it would appear that you really do have a very tenuous link to this debt and the courts would much more than likely see it that way also.

 

You gave me no opportunity to pay the debt before the issuing of court proceedings which means that you have used heavy handed bullying tactics at every opportunity.

 

Therefore, I would then have no alternative but to commence with the following actions:

 

• Report you to the Office of Fair Trading for your breaches of Data Protection Act 1984 and the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

• Report you to the Information Commissioner's Office for the numerous breaches of the Defaults Guidance under the Data Protection Act 1984.

• Report you to the Consumer Credit Association, of which you are a member, for your breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Breach of not keeping your records up to date in accordance with Defaults Guidance under the Data Protection Act 1984

• Report you to the Financial Services Authority for your numerous breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1984.

• Report you the Financial Ombudsman for your various breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1984.

• Finally, I shall exercise my right to sue you for the sum of £#### which is for the amount of monies paid to you under the County Court Judgment which was unlawfully obtained by yourselves. On top of this figure, will of course, be the court fees.

Now, having said all that, all I want is to be able to get on with my life without the shadow of a default and CCJ against my credit file. I would therefore suggest that you would accept my offer of having the default and CCJ removed in full and final settlement of this matter as the option that would result in a speedy and less costly alternative.

 

I await your response with interest.

[JonCris]

Okay then, I thought I would try the reasonable guy approach with AK just to see what would happen.

 

I want to keep escalating this as fast as possible in th hope that they will just cave in. I realise that some of the threats are a little bit empty at the end of the letter but I shall carry them out anyway. It might only serve to bring AK's name in front of the various people I have complained, but if enough people do it, somebody might just take an interest...

 

Here's my response to them:*

 

* I haven't "posted" this yet in the Royal Mail sense as I thought I would see if you guys have any comments or thoughts on it *

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 31 July 2006 and I would like to comment as follows.

 

I have a few misgivings with the comments that you have put therein. Firstly, why do you have to request a copy of the original agreement from First National Tricity Finance if you are now the legal owner of this debt? Surely you would have been supplied with this along with the deed of assignment when the debt was transferred?

 

You also state that you may not be able to supply me with this documentation within the 28 day deadline that I had requested in my original letter; however, Trading Standards require that you should be able to produce this documentation within 12 days. Therefore I have given you more than ample time. I would also like to point out that if you have not produced this data within 30 days of the original 12 day deadline you will be committing a criminal offence under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I would suggest that I have been more than lenient with you in my timescales.

 

You state that when the account was “legally assigned to yourselves on 3rd July 2004 the default registered by First National would have been deleted and duly registered in your name as the new legal owners of the debt.” Yes, I believe that would indeed be the case and, therefore, as it wasn’t removed from my credit file this would also suggest that you were not the legal owners of this debt.

 

As for your offer of investigating the matter of the dual defaults on my credit file I would like to advise you that there is no need for this. I am currently taking matters further with Tricity Finance and, unless they accept my offer, I will be suing them for ‘financial defamation’ within the week, for a not inconsiderable sum, and reporting them to the Information Commissioners Office, Trading Standards, the Financial Services Association and the Office of Fair Trading for their multiple breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1984. Therefore your assistance is really not needed.

 

I think that, as can be seen from our correspondence, that this whole fiasco is a sorry mess and will, no doubt, get messier before it is brought to a conclusion.

 

This is where I would like to come to an arrangement with Aktiv Kapital. I would like for you to have the default and the CCJ removed from my credit file. That’s it.

 

If this is not possible then I feel it only fair to point out that I have taken legal advice on this matter and it would appear that you really do have a very tenuous link to this debt and the courts would much more than likely see it that way also.

 

You gave me no opportunity to pay the debt before the issuing of court proceedings which means that you have used heavy handed bullying tactics at every opportunity.

 

Therefore, I would then have no alternative but to commence with the following actions:

• Report you to the Office of Fair Trading for your breaches of Data Protection Act 1984 and the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

• Report you to the Information Commissioner's Office for the numerous breaches of the Defaults Guidance under the Data Protection Act 1984.

• Report you to the Consumer Credit Association, of which you are a member, for your breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Breach of not keeping your records up to date in accordance with Defaults Guidance under the Data Protection Act 1984

• Report you to the Financial Services Authority for your numerous breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1984.

• Report you the Financial Ombudsman for your various breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1984.

• Finally, I shall exercise my right to sue you for the sum of £#### which is for the amount of monies paid to you under the County Court Judgment which was unlawfully obtained by yourselves. On top of this figure, will of course, be the court fees.

Now, having said all that, all I want is to be able to get on with my life without the shadow of a default and CCJ against my credit file. I would therefore suggest that you would accept my offer of having the default and CCJ removed in full and final settlement of this matter as the option that would result in a speedy and less costly alternative.

 

I await your response with interest.

 

Authors notes

High hope you don’t mind I’ve chopped it about a bit. I’ve removed the more detailed of your threats (doesn’t always do to let them know what your contemplating Also let them figure what they need to do to put matters right at this stage. In other words let them make the 1st offer you never know it might exceed your hopes)

I have removed also any admission of the debt & included the point about them misleading the court

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 31 July 2006 the contents of which are noted

 

I understand that you have had to request a copy of the original agreement from First National Tricity Finance. If you have been the legal owner of this debt it is my understanding that as is legally required and to prove ownership you would have been supplied with these necessary documents along with the deed of assignment when you claim the debt was bought by you?

 

You also state that you may not be able to supply me with this documentation within the 28 day deadline that I had requested in my original letter; however, Trading Standards require that you should be able to produce this documentation within 12 days. Therefore I have given you more than ample time. I would also like to point out that if you have not produced this data within 30 days of the original 12 day deadline you will be committing a criminal offence under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

I would suggest that I have been more than reasonable with you in my timescales. Let the above sentence stand alone

 

You state that when the account was “legally assigned to yourselves on 3rd July 2004 the default registered by First National would have been deleted and duly registered in your name as the new legal owners of the debt.” If that indeed was the meant to be the case perhaps you could explain why this did not happen (authors note don’t admit you know)

 

As for your offer of investigating the matter of the dual defaults on my credit file I would like to advise you that I am also taking matters further with Tricity Finance. (authors note Don’t suggest they do nothing otherwise they will then blame it on you)

In the meantime I require that you to have the default and the CCJ removed from my credit file and to notify me accordingly

 

In view of the aforegoing I no longer consider that you are now nor have ever been the legal owners of the debt. Therefore, I suggest that not only did you mislead me from the outset but also the court by claiming to be.

If I do not receive a satisfactory written response from you within the next 14 days I will have no alternative but to report your conduct to the various authorities and organisations which are meant to police your conduct

I await your responses at your earliest convenience

[MARTIN3030]

JC I dont want to sound pedantic but the 30 days should read 1 month

I know its only a day but as you are aware, it could make a lot of difference if it came down to 31st !!

 

[JonCris]

Yeah but that was in the original draft not mine but your right it should say 1month. If a month is not actually specified but meant to be calendar it could mean as little as 28 days. I think it's a matter of interpretation. If you went to court for none discloser 1 or 2 days after the deadline I think the court would refuse your request on the grounds of what would be seen as the claimants unreasonableness. Aren't we always encouraging fellow members to give the defendants a bit more rope on which to hang themselves

[MARTIN3030]

I think they are usually refered to as a technicality.............allows them opportunity to have the bloody case dismissed !!

 

 

[kyuudousha]

I've just noticed JonCris, that you have the same initials as our Great Saviour Himself.

 

You know...

 

John Cleese!

 

 

I'll amend as I like your letter better. I tend to write down the first thing that comes to me whilst I'm still hopping mad and then edit it along the way. My snotty letters normally get posted about a week after I started writing them, but this is speeding up the process somewhat!!

 

Thanks again!!

[MARTIN3030]

Wonder if he has a parrot too:D

[JonCris]

I think they are usually refered to as a technicality.............allows them opportunity to have the bloody case dismissed !!

 

 

 

Correct & if I understand you I wasn't suggesting otherwise. What I was stating that even though they are out of time whether it be 30 or 31 days we would give them a little extra to comply. That way they would have absolutley no excuse for their failure

[JonCris]

Wonder if he has a parrot too:D

 

Yeah! The parrot is no more. It's deceased. It's gone to meet it's maker, It's gone to parrot heaven, its' dead I say dead.

[MARTIN3030]

......it is no more!!

 

 

just like my Halifax penalty charges (refunded in full today )

 

 

 

[JonCris]

......it is no more!!

 

 

just like my Halifax penalty charges (refunded in full today )

 

 

 

 

Excellent Martin 3030. Pink obviously suits you Come on tell us how much?