Hog29 -v- BC (Morgan Stanley, Goldfish)

[Hog29]

Hi all,

 

Had another letter from BC, this time from Customer Relations, saying that they and Mercers were within their rights to contact me for recovery purposes. This department is obviously not aware of my, so far unanswered request under the CPR route or the dispute status. It has not yet been 21 days since I sent the CPR letter. BC is trying to be nice in this letter, offering to help me, keep the complaint in house, and find a solution. No mention of not meeting their obligations and a clear denial of any dispute.

 

Please see also my submission under Citi Financial.

 

I think I will just reply to them with a another copy of the CPR letter.

 

Hog

[slick132]

Persdonally, I'd not bother replying.

 

Just send the 2nd CPR letter when the 21 days is up.

 

Also, read here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/195898-cpr-strategy-important-success.html

[Hog29]

Hi, again,

 

BC keeps sending me so called "true" copies of the credit agreement and then passes the account on to yet another debt collection agency, after previous ones have failed to get anything from me.

 

I am interested in clarifying two points: Since the original agreement had been with Morgan Stanley, can a copy of the agreement/terms and conditions on Barclaycard headed stationary and stating that the agreement is between BC and the other person ever be a "true" copy?

 

The other point is: BC do not know that I have a photocopy of the original agreement, which was sent to me when I demanded my PPI premiums to be refunded, a case which is still with the FOS some two years later.

 

The copies of the CCA which BC offers as true contain all prescribed terms on the first page, the actual signed Morgan Stanley document does not. Has BC been guilty of a dishonest manipulation of the truth here? After all, even allowing for the signature box and my name and address, etc, to be omitted from the copy, the copies they supplied cannot be called "true".

 

Regards

 

Hog29

[slick132]

Hi Hog,

 

Did you send the 2nd CPR letter. If so, have you followed up with a N244 Application to court ?

 

The point here is that, technically, BC have complied with s.78 CCA 1974 by supplying the T&C's. Accordingly, they maintain they are permitted to continue with collection activity.

 

This doesn't mean what they've supplied would enable a court to confirm the account as enforceable.

[Hog29]

Thanks, Slick,

 

No I have not made the Court Application yet. Do I have to pay anything for doing so?

 

And what about my point that the T&Cs are not true copies?

 

Thanks

 

Hog29

[slick132]

Yes, and the costs involved in making the N244 Application are d/w in the CPR thread. See Link No2 in my signature for this.

 

I will re-iterate. What they send in complying with your CCA request may fulfil their obligations imposed by CCA 1974.

 

But his has nothing to do with the a/c being enforceable in a court. For this, they require the original properly executed credit agreement.