Just Recieved A Signed Capital One Agreement

[lexis200]

What gets me here is that there must be dozens, if not hundreds, of us all having these conversations with Capone and saying we're not going to pay, account in dispute, etc., and clearly we are all being quite firm with them, and quoting CCA 1974, etc., so why on earth are they still calling? Can they seriously expect us to say anything different? "Okay, I've told you 15 times already that this account is in dispute but, Hey, why don't I pay you something on my debit card after all?" Absolutely barking.

 

This is so true it's almost not funny!

 

It's not with cap1, but yesterday we had 5 calls from BOS who have sent a completely unenforceable application form under the CCA request (3 times actually as I keep complaining:)) Each time they were told not to phone, OH doesn't discuss financial matters on the phone. As you say DD, what the hell are they thinking you're going to do? Suddenly decide you'd like nothing better than to chat with a moron about paying money they're not entitled to ask for? Sheesh.

 

At least in the phone call this morning the woman had a modicum of sense and said she'd hold calls for 10 days, but that was all she could do. I did suggest that she might like to add a note to the effect that when the calls started again we would be having this exact same conversation:)

 

Just to add into the Cap1 fan club, I've been sent a blank agreement in response to my CCA request. I've only got as far as informing them it's not enforceable, but then being told that this complies with the CCA and is enforceable. I've been a bit lax over Christmas though and not told them to send me something that actually is enforceable yet. I'll be in there soon though:D

 

Lexis:)

[lexis200]

Just realised I've managed to get 'enforceable' into that last paragraph 3 times. Is that a record for overuse of a word?

[lexis200]

I love that idea - I wonder if we could turn any of them into gibbering idiots by doing it en mass.

 

Hold on, I've just thought; how would we tell:D

[lexis200]

I have six Heads of Customer Service with MBNA - do they beat account managers?

 

I was wondering how many you need to get the full set, and do we win a prize when we collect the lot?

[lexis200]

Chief Operations Officer,

Head of Customer Services

Chief Executive of Customer Satisfaction

 

You are TRUMPED lexis

I beat the lot of you - from CrapOne I have had the Director of Recoveries and - wait for it! - the VICE PRESIDENT OF COLLECTIONS!! I laughed out loud at that one!

 

Doh! I hang my head in shame with my measly 6 Heads of Customer Assistance and one VP:(

[lexis200]

Don't worry missdpd, they sent mine speccy delivery the day before it was due. Of course it had been compiled nearly 3 weeks earlier, but apparently they like to keep you guessing.

 

Don't go buying that loo roll just yet...

[lexis200]

Are they not sending you paper statements beachcomber?

 

If not it's a bit odd to decide to let you have them online (or not as the case may be!)

 

If you've been terminated I don't think they are meant to add charges etc are they?

[lexis200]

Just a thought...

 

If they do go along the court lines, could you then start saying you'll also be claiming illegal charges back and asking them for a complete breakdown of the costs involved for them?

 

Seeing as they are so reluctant to disclose this - to the point of losing millions of pounds in refunds - would this help to get them to f off rather than hound you, as if they go to court for one thing, the other will have to be addressed too?

[lexis200]

Sorry if it's a daft question, but why only if it's greater than the balance?

 

Also, am I right in thinking that if they issued a default with arrears showing even though the account has been frozen then it's incorrect?

 

I've been on a payment plan for a couple of years now, and the account including interest/charges has been frozen since the beginning. However, in the DN they sent me they have listed the arrears as around 2 and a bit k! This can only be the minimums that I would have been paying had I not been on the plan, so how can they be arrears if I've been paying the amended amount and the account was frozen - surely no arrears should have built up?

 

Hope that's clear enough to understand:)

 

Lexis:)

 

ps - sorry for the hijack Sunflower:oops:

[lexis200]

I have a Capital One Agreement and I am now in default and have stopped paying even the minimum. I get calls all day and have sent a harassment letter - to no avail. Has anyone proved one of these agreements to be unenforcable ? There are companiers advertising to clear credit card debts even solicitors offering their services. We read that many CCas are unenforcable but to my kmowledge no-one has proved this yet. Has anyone any proof that these agreements - or any of them - Egg, Halifax, First Direct or MBNA for example to be unenforcable ? I would pay a lot for this information.well, quite a lot.

 

I'm not sure what you mean with this? There are countless threads on here with people recounting how banks have folded after being faced with unenforceable agreements, either straight away or when it gets to court.

 

You only have to read the CCA1974 and relate it to the agreement you are looking at to see if it is enforceable or not. If it doesn't have what it should have then it is not enforceable - that's your proof. Whether or not the banks accept it is a different matter, but if it's not an enforceable agreement it's not an enforceable agreement, whatever they say.

 

Sorry if I've mis-understood your question:confused:, but the proof that there are tons of dodgy agreements is all over these threads.

 

HTH

 

Lexis:)

[lexis200]

This is in the statutes database:)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/statutes-library/27535-consumer-credit-act-1974-a.html

[lexis200]

That'll be the responsible lending side of Cap1 coming out to play:)

[lexis200]

Hey flintstones

 

I had a look at your Cap1 thread to see how you got this result (well done btw!), but it seems like you just sent the standard stuff then it all went quiet?

 

Did you have to do anything in particular, or did they really just bend over like that?

 

Lexis:)

[lexis200]

Well I can honestly say I'm really pleased that you have not had all the hassle that a lot of people have to get the same result:)

 

It's lovely to read when there's a success - particularly when you haven't been driven to despair in the process.

 

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you that this is the end of the matter; although quite how they'd backtrack from that letter I don't know!

 

Lexis:)

[lexis200]

Morning all, thanks for quick replies yesterday, so, Crap one can sell account to a DCA who act wholly illegally with threat letters, also can't come up with original Notice of Assignment, the DCA give up because they know I can smack them with all sorts of problems because I have the proof letters from them that can land them in the ****. So , off goes the a/c back to Das Crapital, who then think - right, We acted illegally by not giving notice of assignment the first time - which is illegal in itself, so to make things correct this time we will send a letter that says Notice of Assignment BLAH BLAH - My point is this , Das Crapital couldn't do that the first time - so what makes them think that by doing it this way it makes things look correct in the eyes of the law, you see they acted blatantly illegal the first time, so should I complain again to the FSA and tell them whats going on - God - do I make sense to anyone and can you see where I am coming from with this - Phew.

 

Sorry, but a NOA can come from a third party, the original creditor has no legal duty to provide you with one.

 

Also, the account can go back and forth as many times as they can get away with. They can't sell it to two at a time though, they have to wait their turn! The good thing is that any DCA should be easy enough to chase off if there's no enforceable agreement - especially so if you ask exactly why they are chasing a debt that has already been passed back to Cap1 after being found to be a dud by the last DCA.

[lexis200]

I think this quote by x20 answers the both the dispute and the assignment questions:)

 

lexis,

Section 136(1), Law of Property Act 1925 says:

 

(1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice

(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and

©the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

 

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice

(a)that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b)of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1925.

 

You will note that while the assignment is required to be under the hand of the assignor, the notice to the debtor need not be. All that is required is that the debtor has express notice of the assignment. Express notice may be given by the assignor, assignee or some third party even.

 

A debtor mistrusting of a person claiming to be the assignee may enquire of the assignor for confirmation the assignment is genuine.

 

As for disputes, a dispute arises whenever creditor and debtor are not in agreement as to the rights and obligations which the one owes to the other. Where a creditor fails to comply in time with a request made under section 77 or 78 Consumer Creidt Act 1974, the creditor ceases to be entitled under the Act to enforce that agreement for so long as his failure to comply continues. If a creditor claimed a right to enforce the agreement whilst in default of his section 77 or 78 obligations and the debtor disputed that right, there would be a dispute. But it would only be a dispute about the right to enforce. It wouldn't be a dispute on the account, which by the nature of the language would be a dispute as to an amount owing. To place the account in dispute invariably involves the debtor raising as an issue that the creditor overstates his demand and to pointing to the way in which the creditor has overstated it.

 

If the debtor placed the account in dispute the creditor would be under a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate it and where the issue was found to be well maintained, to put the account right.

 

Disregarding a debtor's dispute would probably be unfair practice and possibly a breach of pre-action protocol if the creditor sued upon the agreement before completing a reasonable investigation. That is not the same as saying the commencement of legal proceedings would be unlawful. In my view and subject to something satisfactory to my questions in the following paragraph, and subject obviously to the creditor having an entitlement to sue provided by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, commencing proceedings would not be unlawful where the account was in dispute. The court will be able to decide the dispute and the rights of the parties generally, and may sanction the creditor in costs where it thought it right to do so.

 

When I ran a word search for 'assign'in The Data Protection Act 1998, The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the OFT publication entitled 'Debt collection guidance - Final guidance on unfair business practices July 2003 (updated December 2006)', each time I got a 'text not found'. I would appreciate anyone able to quote the specific legislation or OFT guidance relied upon in support of the claim that either of the statutes contain provisions restraining a creditor from assigning an account in dispute.

 

x20

[lexis200]

Evening all:)

 

I've just had one back after a chat with a very pleasant chap at Cap1 last week (it's on my thread if you're interested). I haven't posted it up yet, but I've had the same as you lot:) On mine though, there are two very definite fold lines where it would have been sent back to them - the back however is pristine, and looks to be a different font.

 

Mine has the reference to section/clause (whatever it is) 23 too, but I thought that may have meant a clause on the actual terms. Not that I can check this as they still haven't sent the historics.

 

Is the general consensus that it's a Blue Peter job? I'm going to do the same and ask them outright if it's one document and see what template I get back.

 

I am wondering though, if we have all asked this directly, and we're all being ignored, would it be possible for us all to complain to, say, the ICO and make it a mass thing? Perhaps if rather than just one of us saying there's an issue with Cap1, there are 20 or 30 all with exactly the same problem, it won't be so easily brushed aside.

 

Added to that, if it does turn out they've been a little bit naughty with the agreements, one could be a slip up, but dozens?

 

Lexis:)

[lexis200]

I think there are a few of us that would be interested in this, Lexis.

Didnt Reallymadwoman organise something similar for another CC company ?

 

Not sure CB but I think I'll pm her and have a word.

 

My thinking on my own personal one at the moment is to ask them directly whether it was one document or two. I'm going to try and format a letter this weekend doing that. That gives a way forward whatever they answer. If they try and avoid the issue, you can show they're being obstructive. If they flat out say it's a true document, you can make a request to see it. When they ignore/don't let you, you can again show they're being obstructive. If they say 'oops, our mistake, it is two different docs', then it's a nice easy complaint about attempting to mislead.

 

If everyone did this and got up to the point where they have received a reply one way or another, then we can take it further, showing x amount of people have gone down this route and all have been misled/ignored etc.

 

What do you all think of that as a starting point?

 

I know it's going to take time to do it, but obviously we have to have some sort of similar experience in order to make a valid complaint, otherwise it won't stand up and it can be brushed aside.

 

I must point out when I posited the idea it was just that - asking whether it would be possible or not. I'm quite happy to carry on with it and find out what we need, but if anyone has other ideas please say, because anything I do would only be based on my personal thoughts otherwise!

 

If I can get a little letter done this weekend and anyone fancies using it to see what responses we get, just let me know.

 

Lexis:)

[lexis200]

As I live in Nottingham I can meet you all off the bus. The Broadmarsh Bus Station - where most coaches arrive - just happens to be over the road from Crap One...

 

Hey sosumi

 

Could you post yourself outside with a placard asking Ellie Renshaw to wave from her window, just so we can be assured she's real?

 

Perhaps you could use a sandwich board instead and write 'payment enclosed' on it - she'd be down in a heartbeat rifling through your pockets:lol:

[lexis200]

I think the DSS office is on Station Street - poss. next to Cap One? And opposite is just the wall around the railway station.

We could do a placard.

 

Personally I'm up for just getting a giant hand printed that's flicking the v's. Pop that up opposite their offices so they have something nice to look at all day:D

[lexis200]

Hello all

 

Sorry it's taken longer than expected - it completely slipped my mind.

 

Anyway, the letter I knocked up to send to Ellie regarding the CCA is below. Bear in mind I've written this after having CCA'd and SAR'd them - you may have to amend if you got an application with your sig on rather than the blank one for your CCA request. If you have just done the CCA and got a blank document I don't think this is right just yet - I do feel you need to have sight of something more first, or at least have tried to get something more from them, otherwise it would be going off a bit half cocked imho.

 

Dear Miss Renshaw

 

You have recently sent me further documents relation to my Subject Access Request, originally sent by me on the xxx xxx 200x.

 

I would like to address the Credit Agreement you have sent me. I have several major concerns about it’s authenticity, and as such I would like you to confirm in writing that the double sided document you have sent is indeed a copy of both original sides of the original executed Agreement.

 

If you still state this is the original agreement, please be aware I will require sight of it so that I can be assured it is authentic. I will be happy to travel to your offices in order to do this so that you are not inconvenienced. If you refuse this I will be requiring a full written explanation of your reasoning behind declining this reasonable request.

 

Once you have either confirmed whether or not it is a copy of both sides of the original, I will write again with details of my concerns in order for you to address them and give me your explanations, and if applicable to arrange a date that I can view the document.

 

Please do not attempt to answer this letter with a template letter, as it requires a personal response.

 

Please be aware any response you give will be held on record and will be used in any action I choose to take.

 

Please ensure all the information I have requested is forwarded as a matter of urgency, and certainly not more than 21 days from date of receipt of this Recorded Delivery letter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Your biggest fans xx

 

Is that any good for a starting point? Edited March 23, 2009 by lexis200

[lexis200]

Good points, I'll amend later

[lexis200]

Okay, amended the letter as per keefyboys thoughts. I put 21 days down purely because we all know damn well they won't even think of answering before that sort of time, and it looks a little more reasonable from us if we use it against them.

[lexis200]

Thanks for the compliment, and to keefyboy for the additions:)

 

Well I've sent off a slightly longer version of that one today (I had other issues to bring up - it's in my thread if you want to have a look), so I'll let you know if there's any response other than the expected sod off (I am paraphrasing slightly there obviously:D)

 

Lexis:)

[lexis200]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit odd that people like the lovely Miss Renshaw, and the various DCA hobbits who've been found on facebook, actually post up there?

 

Considering most of the people who work in these places only want to give a first name or surname when they talk to you (supposedly so they don't have any irate people twatting them when they step out of work - more likely so they can say 'what Steve are you complaining about then, we've got 120 working here), isn't it a bit odd that they're perfectly happy to lay themselves bare on a public forum?