Crapbot/Morgan Stanley card claim - lost!

[cups]

Hi

 

Please bear with me and this tale of Crapbot as they are known on this site.

 

Back in February 2008 I made a CCA request re this account, which at about this time changed to GOLDFISH Bank. Made the request to GOLDFISH and they did nothing except pass it on to Crapbot.

 

So when Crapbot contacted me back in May 2008 I asked them for an agreement as well. Pointing out that i had already asked Goldfish two months earlier!

 

Since then I have had the occasional Crapbot 'we are looking for you agreement type letter' but nothing else.

 

Today I get a copy of an application form and terms and conditions for a Goldfish bank credit card,,nothing like the Morgan Stanley Dean Witter stuff. The agreement is totally unreadable and says on the bottom of it 'application form'. There seems to be something missing on it (where it talks about employment details) and where I have signed it there is a suspicious looking mark next to what purports to be my signature. Also the date next to my signature does not look like my writing.

 

Crapbot have sent me a notice of assignment but it has someone else's name on it.

 

I have tried for some time to transfer the files to here but cannot do it at the moment. I have managed to zoom in on the application form and the text is unreadable.

 

I was going to send them a get lost type letter about unenforceability,,and the text etc being unreadable.

 

Cups

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Cups,

 

You can certainly send them that letter.

 

If the application form is illegible then it doesn't comply. Obviously if the card was MSDW they should be sending you a copy of that agreement. I'm surprised they are sending out Goldfish T & Cs, most of us are being sent the Barclaycard ones as they now own Goldfish/MSDW. Some of us are actually getting copies of our MSDW application forms at the moment, blown up to A3 and almost illegible - was yours like that? - but others have been sent nothing at all.

 

I am the world's worst at uploading files, so what I'd suggest you do if you have the time is do a search for MS or MSDW and Goldfish, and see if you can find something that looks like what they have sent you.

 

I don't like the sound of the dodgy signature and date either.

 

I wrote back over a month ago about my illegible application form and its discrepancies and haven't had a response.

 

I expect other people will reply and direct you to their threads. Noomill saw them off, and MajorPaine is about where I am.

 

DD

[cups]

Hi DD

 

Thanks for your response. Mine is A4 size but the application form is really tiny. The other thing I notices is that it is not signed at all by them which I think makes it unenforceable.

 

Crapbot have sent me another letter recently about a v old Associates account saying they cannot find anything to do with it,,so i think they have me on their radar,,which i find amusing,,

 

Cups

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Cups,

 

From what I've heard they can sometimes get it enforced without their signature, but I'd be surprised if there aren't loads of other things wrong with it too which really will make in unenforceable

 

DD

[cups]

Hi

 

Crapbot get better every time. They have sent me a letter saying that they big white box in the middle of my 'application form' isn't their problem and that fact that the form cannt be read isn't a problem either!

 

They also say that as i have paid two installments then I accept the debt. I stopped paying Goldfish over a year ago,,so maybe someone else is paying for me,,

 

Going to tell them to get lost,,I think the white blocked out bit covers PPI which they probably mis sold to me and accounts for most of the debt. I may float this past them,,and see what they say?

 

Any one else still getting the Crapbot crap for Morgan Stanley?

 

Cups

[cups]

Hi

 

Had a response and they don't know what is under the white area of no text, the form is still unreadable,,they are idiots at Crapbot,,

 

Anyone else had the same?

 

Cups

[creditcardmug]

Cabot have had mine for about a year now also...they will say anything to try to get you to pay.

 

By the sound of it they wouldn't stand a chance with this in court...it is a requirement that the document is both legible, and contains the prescribed terms.

 

Have you ever had a Default Notice?

 

I suspect they have lifted your signature from something you have sent them in the past, infact they must have done as its not a MSDW app. form

 

My advice is to ignore them and let them issue a court claim...but really they would be mad to, and they know it:D

[cups]

Thanks for that. I am going to write back and say leave me alone. I can see that some of it looks like my writing, which is legible but the actual form is completely illegible, even if it is enlarged it it impossible to read it.

 

They are really trying to decieve me with the form, I gues that the blanked out area covers over a PPI section!

 

Cups

[creditcardmug]

This might shut them up for a while:D

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANT DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY OR ANY COMPANY YOU CLAIM YO REPRESENT

 

Thank you for your recent letter sent to me, postmarked XX XXXX 2008 and received on the XX XXXX 2008 the contents of which are noted.

 

 

First of all I would point out :

 

 

The Application form you have sent is illegible and I am unable to clearly assess its contents. This contravenes the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557).

 

Regulation 2 states:

2 Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms

(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the .

 

Furthermore, I note that you have replied to my request by sending a copy of an Application form and your current terms and conditions . I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with my request and that your company is still in default under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The Act demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter, received by you on XX XXXX 2008.

 

Sending an Application form is a breach of the Act and Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as, apart from the information that the regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement. For the avoidance of any doubt section 3(1) of the 1983 regulations shows that, subject to certain limited exceptions, any copy of an unexecuted agreement must be a ‘true copy’. This means that it must be identical to the agreement as presented or sent to the debtor for signature.

 

Section 3(2) of the same regulations states what may be excluded from copy documents: There may be omitted from any such copy- (a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instru*ment or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations there under as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy.

 

As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law, as shown below.

 

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor

 

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

 

As already pointed out, the document sent is illegible and I am unable to see if the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 are present. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. I have not written them here for you as I’m sure you are well aware of them.

 

You had until the XX XXXX 2008 to provide me with the true copy I requested. After that date you entered into, and currently remain in, default of my request.

 

In addition, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006), relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair. I have enclosed an excerpt from page 5 of the guidance which states:

 

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

h. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

 

 

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or

disputed debt.

 

Whilst the account remains in dispute (for clarity, the lack of a legible and compliant credit agreement is a very clear dispute), under section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 you may not enforce the agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

 

-You may not demand any payment on this account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

-You may not add any further interest or charges to this account.

-You may not pass this account to any third party.

-You may not register any information in respect of this account with any of the credit reference agencies. The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. Any such attempts to share my data without my consent (given in the form of a signed credit agreement) will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office.

-You may not issue a default notice related to this account.

 

Please note that to register information with the credit reference agencies, or to issue a default notice, would also be in breach of Section 13.6 of The Banking Code, which stipulates that you can only register such information if the amount owed is not in dispute.

 

 

I look forward to your reply.

[cups]

Thank you for that, it seems to cover all of the points. I will send that off this week, the more I think about it the more it seems that they have pasted my details on to a form, my details are legible but the form is not which doesn't make sense,

 

Cups

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Cups,

 

I wouldn't put anything past them. The blank white box is extremely dodgy - on top of everything else!!!!

 

DD

[cups]

Hi

 

I am going to send that letter off tmrw. What seesm strange is that the print of their form is blurred to the point that it is totally unreadable, the print of my writing is legible and always has been which does not make sense.

 

The 'white box' is definitely an omission that is deliberate, it is too square and straight edged to be anything other than deliberate!

 

Will keep you posted.

 

Cups x

[cups]

Hi

 

They say I have no complaint and pay up or else,,this is rather stroppy on their behalf . They are going to get a letter and a half back. I think that the white box is probably PPI, and rather that pay that back to me they are trying to ignore it.

 

Cups

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi cups,

 

I keep getting the same letter. I've got to the stage where I am ignoring them because they completely ignore any questions or points made in my letters to them. No phone calls for ages though, and I gather a lot of other people on other threads also haven't heard from Debitas in weeks!

 

DD

[cups]

Hi DD

 

I am going to send one last letter. I have threatened to go to Kent Police, they know that there is a deliberate omission on the form but they choose to ignore it, they must know what it is! The form is also illegible, completely,,all very straange.

 

See what they say about the police,,

 

Cups

[Desperate Daniella]

[Desperate Daniella]

Sorry, cups, I was muddling up my crapbots with my crapones when I mentioned Debitas (who are crapone).

 

Anyway, although you should have a Goldfish agreement I thought you might like to look at Chris v Morgan Stanley (urgent help please) He and I have got almost the same form, balance tranfer rate, etc., but obviously cut and pasted because he's got two extra questions about PPI and card protection which aren't on mine. Both our question 4 is missing but that can't be ppi because on his PPI is Q9.

 

I just wondered if they were trying to put a Goldfish heading on an MSDW application in your case.

 

By fluke Chris and I applied for our cards on the same day. Can we seriously believe that one form had more questions than the other.

 

DD

[cups]

Hi DD

 

Been away for a while and just changed jobs.

 

Not heard from them for a while, told them to get lost. I think now that I have written on here I will get a letter tmrw.

 

They have already told me they could not enforce it in a court so maybe they will try to, you know what they are like.

 

Cups

[cups]

Hi

 

After hearing nothing for all this time I have received a county court claim from Crapbot's solicitors (Morgans).

Particluars of claim are that I owe them **** and that is it.

I have just been looking through their letters and reslised that Goldfish / MSDW have sold the debt to Crapbot after I CCA'd them. I sent a CCAt to Goldfish in February 2008 and they never responded, then sold it to Cabot in April 2008. Can they do that?

Also the DN that Goldfish sent is dated 29/01/08 but just gives the date for remedy as '28 days from the date of this notice'. It also shows that the action that is required for remedy is payment of the total of the arrears £0.00. So in effect I had to pay nothing to remedy the problem. This doesn't make sense either? Also nowhere on there does it show that it is a Mrogan Stanley dean Witter card, I was supposed to work that out for myself, it just gave an account number.

 

Any advice woulod be great

 

Cups

[spamheed]

Obviously you need to defend this, what they are doing is wrong

 

I have asked to have this thread moved to the legal issues section of CAG, where it will get more relevant assistance

[supasnooper]

Thread moved to the Legal Forum

[cups]

Thanks Spamheed

 

I have gone through the corries I have and the notice of assignment was sent by Cabot on a piece of Goldfish headed paper? There is no account number or anything on it, as it was originally a MSDW account this is just rubbish!

 

Also Cabot have ignored my complaint I made in April this year and have made no contact with me since then.

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

 

Cups:)

[cups]

Hi

 

I have sent off a request under the CPR, sections 18 and 31 to Crapbot so they got it on the 24th December. i need to put in a defence before 18th Jan, are there any ideas about how long I should give them to respond?

I doubt they will.

 

Thanks

 

Cups

[cups]

Hi

 

Crapbot have replied with another illegible copy of an application form, terms and conditions that are different again, statement of account that is only for 2007 - 2008, notes from their system and a notice of assignment, that I have never ever had. They also sent a copy of 'a letter before action' that I have not received either!

 

They say that they have asked MSDW (now Goldfish) for a copy of the 'deed of assignment', surely they would have that already?

 

They have completely ignored the DN that Goldfish have sent me, surely they must have wamted that from Goldfish if they were to take legal action. maybe they have ignored it because they know it is all crap?

 

Have to do defence statement now:eek:

 

Anybody got any thoughts on their behaviour?

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi cups,

 

Happy New Year!

 

Did they attach any documentation with their PoC? Or was it just sent to you afterwards?

 

It's clear from the missing boxes that they are hiding something on the agreement.

 

Would you be in the small claims or fast track?

 

DDx