Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Egg CCA Request Response


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4068 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone,

 

Been reading a while but this is my first post!

 

I sent a CCA request to Egg early in Feb. and received the following response this morning...

 

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/1.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/2.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/3.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/4.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/6.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/5.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/6.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/7.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/8.jpg

 

Now i'm no expert but haven't they just sent me a copy of the T&C and not a true signed copy of the Credit Agreement despite what the cover letter says?

 

The date on the letter is one day before the 12+2 deadline so they had plenty of time to dig out a copy.

 

Has someone in the office just omitted to include a copy of the agreement, or is this standard Egg practice to send just the T&Cs when they can't find the agreement?

 

What is the best course of action in this situation? Should i write to them highlighting their error and again requesting a copy of a signed true agreement (as i did in the first place) or should i just place the account in dispute due to their failure to meet their statutory obligations?

 

Sorry for all the questions in a first post!

 

Regards,

 

Foxy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write back...the letter states they have sent you a copy of your signed agreement, but it is just T and Cs. I did get a copy of my agreement with Egg.

 

Is it a loan or a credit card? When did you take it out?

 

They could be stalling you with this tactic/could be an error, either way its not a true signed copy of your CCA, although, as you might see from looking around on here, you are not the first person to just receive T and Cs! :)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a Credit Card, taken out a long time ago prob 1999/2000.

 

I think i'll write a letter pointing out that they have failed to comply with my request and asking them to remedy the situation within 14 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a Credit Card, taken out a long time ago prob 1999/2000.

 

I think i'll write a letter pointing out that they have failed to comply with my request and asking them to remedy the situation within 14 days.

 

That's probably your best move at this stage.

 

If they still don't (can't) produce a valid CCA after 14 days ..... go get 'em !! :D

 

Incidentally most Egg replies do produce the agreement, mine did... it was from 2002. Not enforceable tho'. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
... as you might see from looking around on here, you are not the first person to just receive T and Cs! :)

 

I've been having a read but i can't seem to find any examples. What was the outcome when only T&Cs were sent, was it just an error and did they send and agreement after a second request, or were they unable to supply one?

Edited by Mr Fox
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many credit card companies are sending out T and Cs to try and put you off pursuing the CCA, usually because they either do not have it, know it is unforceable or improperly executed (there is a distinct difference), or simply cannot be bothered to look for it and think you will go away. In my case with Barclaycard, on one account they have sent different versions of the T and Cs four times and no agreement, and on another they have sent an agreement with references to conditions that do not exist. Both of these took four months to receive.

 

With Egg, I got a quick response with an enforceable loan agreement from 2004, but I would say it would be unlikely that they would have something enforceable for an account from 2002. It is up to you how you proceed; you can keep writing to them pressing for the agreement and stop paying them if you want, but they will default you and hound you via phone/DCAs. My experience with Egg is that they are quick to default. There is an alternate strategy for obtaining your agreement:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html

 

Best to first go down the CCA request route, and claim back any charges that are on the account via a Subject Access Request. The CPR 31.16 disclosure request is a last resort, but one that will possibly obtain your actual agreement and not a constructed copy. I am using it as Barclaycard has sent me a CCA which fulfils some regulations but is poor quality and missing terms and conditions; without seeing the original I will not know if it adheres to regulations.

 

Definitely write and remind Egg that they are default of your request if 12+2 days are up, and that T and Cs are not a CCA; what they do after that will just depend on circumstance...they may try and hide between a 1983 documents act (not sure the specifics if someone else can help here please) and say they have fulfilled your request anyway, but still send it.

 

Have you stopped paying?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i wrote to them pointing out that they had only sent me T&Cs after 12+2 days, not a signed agreement and that they were in direct breach of CCA 74 Section 78(1). I asked them to send me a signed agreement within 14 days.

 

This morning i recieved a standard ' We've recieved your complaint' letter, but still no agreement...

 

They're saying they will resolve it within 8 weeks but i think i will be putting the account into dispute if they haven't come up with anything after 14 days. 8 Weeks may be 'inline with regulations set out by the Financial Services Authority' but they have been in default ever since they failed to supply a signed true copy of the agreement after 12+2 working days as far as i'm concerned :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i recieved a response to the second letter this morning...

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/9.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Randy_Bean/10.jpg

 

It's all just lies and they have closed my complaint...

 

They haven't sent any agreement despite their assertions ?!?!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, this seems to be a new delaying tactic from Egg possibly, unless some dumbo forgot to put the actual copy agreement in the envelope and they really do think they sent it. Wouldn't surprise me.

 

All you can do now is a Subject Access Request.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmmm, this seems to be a new delaying tactic from Egg possibly, unless some dumbo forgot to put the actual copy agreement in the envelope and they really do think they sent it. Wouldn't surprise me.

 

All you can do now is a Subject Access Request.

 

Yeah, wouldn't surprise me either. I'm going to send them a final reminder and enclose a copy of their original response, which clearly does not contain an agreement, and give them the remainder of the 14 days.

 

Then yes, it's a Subject Access Request. Which was my original intention anyway, i want a clear understanding of exactly what i have spent, what i have paid back and what i have been charged in interest and charges.

 

Without a credit agreement am i right in saying they have no basis on which to charge me interest?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, wouldn't surprise me either. I'm going to send them a final reminder and enclose a copy of their original response, which clearly does not contain an agreement, and give them the remainder of the 14 days.

 

Then yes, it's a Subject Access Request.

 

Do you not have your own copy of the agreement from when you took it out?

When approximately did you take out the Egg Card (it is a credit card isn't it?)

 

Most (all?) card 'agreements' from between 1999 and 2004/5 are the ones worded 'approved' instead of 'credit' limit.

 

Hey you added a bit whilst I was replying :lol:

 

Erm....Not only should they not add interest or charges, they shouldn't expect any payment either ! :D

 

Whilst it is in dispute (I hope you have told them you are disputing the validity of the agreement) the account is effectively frozen.

 

Don't expect Egg to think like that though. In their blinkered opinion everything is as it was except you are in default (assuming you don't pay your monthly repayments).

 

It'll be a bitch to get the defaults removed :evil:

Edited by basa48
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Do you not have your own copy of the agreement from when you took it out?

When approximately did you take out the Egg Card (it is a credit card isn't it?)

 

Most (all?) card 'agreements' from between 1999 and 2004/5 are the ones worded 'approved' instead of 'credit' limit.

 

Hey you added a bit whilst I was replying :lol:

 

Erm....Not only should they not add interest or charges, they shouldn't expect any payment either ! :D

 

Whilst it is in dispute (I hope you have told them you are disputing the validity of the agreement) the account is effectively frozen.

 

Don't expect Egg to think like that though. In their blinkered opinion everything is as it was except you are in default (assuming you don't pay your monthly repayments).

 

It'll be a bitch to get the defaults removed :evil:

 

Basa,

 

Credit card taken out 1999/2000, i think. No, i don't have my own copy of the agreement, been hunting high and low for it, but i do remember that it used the 'Approved Limit' term, that's why i gave them a poke for it. I was expecting to have to argue the toss with them over that and was a little surprised when only T&Cs turned up in the post.

 

I've not put the account into dispute yet, as i wanted to make sure that they didn't just forget to include a copy of the agreement with the initial response before doing that, but it's the next step. I did send them another letter pointing out their breach of CCA 1974 s78(1) and included a copy of their initial response (with just the T&Cs) to avoid any ambiguity, which they received a week ago and have ignored so far. The initial s78 request was sent 11th of Feb, so they have been in default of my request since the 3rd march i my view despite their insistence to the contrary :confused:

 

I am concerned about being defaulted tho if i should cancel the direct debit. Are they likely to keep taking money off me if i put the account into dispute but don't cancel the dd? (or is that a stupid question :rolleyes:)

 

Foxy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I think they're ignoring me now, had no response to my letter which included their initial response (just T & Cs), and no response to my 'Account in Dispute' letter which they recieved on friday, not even a 'We're Dealing With Your Complaint' letter.

 

If i cancel the DD and they try to default me can i approach a Lawyer to obtain a court interdict to prevent them from doing so? Just a thought...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they're ignoring me now, had no response to my letter which included their initial response (just T & Cs), and no response to my 'Account in Dispute' letter which they recieved on friday, not even a 'We're Dealing With Your Complaint' letter.

 

If i cancel the DD and they try to default me can i approach a Lawyer to obtain a court interdict to prevent them from doing so? Just a thought...

 

Strange that Egg would act like that. They sent me my agreement before the 12 day deadline.

 

You should write something along the lines that the T&Cs they've sent do not constitute a valid agreememnt or indeed an agreement at all and that you are not obliged to make payments to an account you dispute, indeed to date you have no proof an agreement even exists.

 

You can legitimately stop your payments as the account is in dispute. But don't expect Egg to agree.

 

They will default you after you miss two or three payments. They will pester you with secure messages to pay up. The only way to stop them would be to instigate legal proceedings.

 

The court would be asked to rule on whether your agreement is enforceable. If it has the approved rather than credit limit, then popular opinion (and a fair bit of legal argument) says it is unenforceable. It is a risk, but a risk many of us are prepared to take, but I think most are waiting to see what Egg do first.

 

It can appear a little aggressive for you to start legal proceedings this soon. A judge just might ask why if you spent the money why are you going to court to get out of paying it back?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You should write something along the lines that the T&Cs they've sent do not constitute a valid agreement or indeed an agreement at all and that you are not obliged to make payments to an account you dispute, indeed to date you have no proof an agreement even exists.

 

I have done lol!

 

These are the letters they are ignoring. :-?

 

My 3rd letter to them which stated that they had not included an agreement just T&Cs (i included a copy of their initial response with just the T&Cs for their perusal). And my 'account in dispute' letter which states explicitly that 'T&Cs do not constitute an agreement whatsoever' and that i 'had confirmation from a trading standards officer to that effect'.

 

Unless someone forgot to put it in the envelope and they genuinely think they sent me an agreement and I'm trying it on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably time to cancel your DD to get their attention?

 

Yeah, i think so, given that they took a payment from me this morning, without even acknowledging my last two letters.

 

I submitted a subject access request at the same time as my 'Account in Dispute' letter so we'll see what that turns up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mentioned an interdict rather than an injunction. Does that mean you are in Scotland? If so, the procedures are different and some of the standard advice (eg the 31.16 letter) won't apply.

 

The "1983 documents act" refers to a set of regulations that some creditors are hiding behind. However, they usually mis-state what the relevant provision says or, at the very least, mis-interpret what it means. If they do play that card, I can give you a reply with chapter and verse to send.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
You mentioned an interdict rather than an injunction. Does that mean you are in Scotland? If so, the procedures are different and some of the standard advice (eg the 31.16 letter) won't apply.

 

The "1983 documents act" refers to a set of regulations that some creditors are hiding behind. However, they usually mis-state what the relevant provision says or, at the very least, mis-interpret what it means. If they do play that card, I can give you a reply with chapter and verse to send.

 

Yes Viscount, that's correct i am in Scotland, and i'm aware that the CPR do not apply up here, proceedings are governed by the Act of Sederunt i think?

 

A copy of that letter would be grand, although they're still ignoring me (no response to my 3rd letter or my 'Account in Dispute' letter)

 

The last i heard from them was this:

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/t...ndy_Bean/9.jpg

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/t...dy_Bean/10.jpg

Which was in response to my second letter which pointed out that their initial response did not include an agreement just T&Cs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some wording for you to tweak:

 

Contrary to assertions made by X in a letter dated X, X has still failed to comply with its obligations under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

It is indeed correct that a set of documents was sent to me under cover of a letter dated X from X. However, X did not thereby comply with its obligations under section 78 of the 1974 Act.

 

Regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) requires the provision of a true copy of an agreement. Although this need not be an exact copy and certain information may be omitted from a true copy, it must still be a true copy rather than a conjectured reconstruction and the information that may be omitted is strictly specified.

However, it is not the case that information need only be provided in relation to an agreement as varied or that only the most recent version of the terms and conditions applicable to an agreement need be provided.

 

Seeking to rely on regulation 7 in supporting that position is to overlooks both the distinctions between the wording regulation 7 on one hand and regulations 8 and 9 on the other.

 

Although regulations 8 and 9 use the word "comprise", regulation 7 uses the word "include". It provides that copies provided in accordance with any section other than section 85 shall include either an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation or an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied.

 

X would only have been entitled to provide a statement of the current terms of the agreement in lieu of a true copy of the executed agreement in the very limited circumstances in which regulation 9 applies (ie to agreements entered into prior to 1985).

 

Neither regulation 8 nor 9 applies in this instance, so the information provided must include the current terms and conditions and not merely comprise the current terms and conditions.

 

Accordingly, X was (and is still) obliged to provide a true copy of the terms and conditions referred to in the application form in their original form, in addition to the current terms and conditions that have been provided.

 

I would be obliged if these could now be provided without further delay or prevarication.

 

In the meantime, the effect of section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that X is precluded from taking any enforcement action whatsoever in relation to the account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a read of the regs and that response just to make sure i understand what i'll be getting at, basically arguing that T&C only constitute an agreement in limited circumstances (reg 9) and in all others the T&Cs must be included in an agreement and not comprise one.

 

Minimal editing (cheers Viscount Stair! :) )but i'm thinking of firing the following off:

 

-------------------------

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I see from my recent bank statement that Egg Banking Plc debited the sum of £*** from my account on the **/**/** having ignored my letter to you dated **/**/** placing my account in dispute due to your continuing default of my legal request pursuant to section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Contrary to assertions made by Egg Banking Plc in a letter dated **/**/** (Your Ref. EGG/********), Egg Banking Plc has still failed to comply with its obligations under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

It is indeed correct that a set of documents was sent to me under cover of a letter dated **/**/** (Your Ref. *******) from Egg Banking Plc. However, Egg Banking Plc did not thereby comply with its obligations under section 78 of the 1974 Act.

 

Regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) requires the provision of a true copy of an agreement. Although this need not be an exact copy and certain information may be omitted from a true copy, it must still be a true copy rather than a conjectured reconstruction and the information that may be omitted is strictly specified.

 

The documents supplied to me only constituted the terms and conditions of the agreement.

 

It is not the case that information need only be provided in relation to an agreement as varied or that only the most recent version of the terms and conditions applicable to an agreement need be provided.

 

Seeking to rely on regulation 7 in supporting that position is to overlook both the distinctions between the wording in regulation 7 on one hand and regulations 8 and 9 on the other.

 

Although regulations 8 and 9 use the word "comprise", regulation 7 uses the word "include". It provides that copies provided in accordance with any section other than section 85 shall include either an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation or an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied.

 

Egg Banking Plc would only have been entitled to provide a statement of the current terms of the agreement in lieu of a true copy of the executed agreement in the very limited circumstances in which regulation 9 applies (i.e. to agreements entered into prior to 1985).

 

Neither regulation 8 nor 9 applies in this instance, so the information provided must include the current terms and conditions and not merely comprise the current terms and conditions.

 

Accordingly, Egg Banking Plc was, and is still, obliged to provide a signed true copy of the executed credit agreement in its original form, in addition to the current terms and conditions that have been provided.

 

I would be obliged if this could now be provided without further delay or prevarication.

 

In the meantime, the effect of section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that Egg Banking Plc is precluded from taking any enforcement action whatsoever in relation to the account. Therefore while your default of my legal request continues:

 

  • You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.
  • You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.
  • You may not pass the account to a third party.
  • You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.
  • You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Have i got my facts straight? I'd be greatful of any comments.

 

Foxy

Edited by Mr Fox
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've had a read of the regs and that response just to make sure i understand what i'll be getting at, basically arguing that T&C only constitute an agreement in limited circumstances (reg 9) and in all others the T&Cs must be included in an agreement and not comprise one.

 

Minimal editing (cheers Viscount Stair! :) )but i'm thinking of firing the following off:

 

-------------------------

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I see from my recent bank statement that Egg Banking Plc debited the sum of £*** from my account on the **/**/** having ignored my letter to you dated **/**/** placing my account in dispute due to your continuing default of my legal request pursuant to section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Contrary to assertions made by Egg Banking Plc in a letter dated **/**/** (Your Ref. EGG/********), Egg Banking Plc has still failed to comply with its obligations under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

It is indeed correct that a set of documents was sent to me under cover of a letter dated **/**/** (Your Ref. *******) from Egg Banking Plc. However, Egg Banking Plc did not thereby comply with its obligations under section 78 of the 1974 Act.

 

Regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) requires the provision of a true copy of an agreement. Although this need not be an exact copy and certain information may be omitted from a true copy, it must still be a true copy rather than a conjectured reconstruction and the information that may be omitted is strictly specified.

 

The documents supplied to me only constituted the terms and conditions of the agreement.

 

It is not the case that information need only be provided in relation to an agreement as varied or that only the most recent version of the terms and conditions applicable to an agreement need be provided.

 

Seeking to rely on regulation 7 in supporting that position is to overlook both the distinctions between the wording in regulation 7 on one hand and regulations 8 and 9 on the other.

 

Although regulations 8 and 9 use the word "comprise", regulation 7 uses the word "include". It provides that copies provided in accordance with any section other than section 85 shall include either an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation or an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied.

 

Egg Banking Plc would only have been entitled to provide a statement of the current terms of the agreement in lieu of a true copy of the executed agreement in the very limited circumstances in which regulation 9 applies (i.e. to agreements entered into prior to 1985).

 

Neither regulation 8 nor 9 applies in this instance, so the information provided must include the current terms and conditions and not merely comprise the current terms and conditions.

 

Accordingly, Egg Banking Plc was, and is still, obliged to provide a signed true copy of the executed credit agreement in its original form, in addition to the current terms and conditions that have been provided.

 

I would be obliged if this could now be provided without further delay or prevarication.

 

In the meantime, the effect of section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that Egg Banking Plc is precluded from taking any enforcement action whatsoever in relation to the account. Therefore while your default of my legal request continues:

 

  • You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.
  • You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.
  • You may not pass the account to a third party.
  • You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.
  • You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Have i got my facts straight? I'd be greatful of any comments.

 

Foxy

 

HI

 

I hesitate to comment being currently out of favour. But the intension is to help i assure you.

The bit about enforcement was an issue in the current Rankine case.

 

Unfrotunately his lordship decided that the enforcement process started in the court so the creditor was quite within his rights to issue default or pretty well do what ever else he wanted to up to that time.

 

The reasoning he gave was i belive that if the intension was to stop proceedings then the act would have said that, as apparently it does in another simallar piece of legislation.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...