DCA heavy-handed over increase of repayments - advice needed, pl.

[FlyboyAgain]

Interesting... "can confirm that the reverse of this agreement contained the prescribed terms required under the CCA" but not god enough. Their word is useless to you.

 

Don't worry, they always mention collection activities. You are no where near Bailiffs. You would have to go to Court first, fail to pay if a Judge ordered. Just be aware that debt collectors sometimes call any visit (which is highly unlikely to materialise) a 'pre bailiff visit'. This is a LIE. There is no such thing!

 

Besides, you need to have been sent a valid Default notice before they can take you to Court. (Copy of Default should be included when you SAR) apart from the issues of their compliance to your request for the agreement which could be used to halt any potential Court Action.

 

Here's a thing, before I have a real go at them: is it permissible for the PTs to be on the reverse of the signator document? I need to be sure, in case they're hiding something from me. I don't think so, because they sent the terms in a separate document.

 

Wonder why they won't show me the reverse? Why are they stalling?

[IdaInFife]

yes they can be on the reverse

 

ida x

[FlyboyAgain]

Update.

 

Bothe DCA and the bank have now - after a few months of glorious silnce - started calling the house again. I have warned them right away about harassment and what I intend to do about it.

 

I also need some clarification about a loan argreement, as opposed to a credit card one: would their signatory documents both be in the same format, ie, will the loan doc have to have PTs on it as well, as I would imagine? Just need that cleared up.

[madasamuppet]

They would still have to have PT although on a cc they can say something like we will determine the credit limit, on your loan agreement it should have all the figures relevant to your particular case i.e. loan amount, charge for credit, etc. there's a link on here somewhere that details all the PT that each agreement should bear.

 

This thread might be of some use to you http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162851-consumer-credit-agreements-guide.html

 

or this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

Edited May 25, 2009 by madasamuppet
add a link

[FlyboyAgain]

They would still have to have PT although on a cc they can say something like we will determine the credit limit, on your loan agreement it should have all the figures relevant to your particular case i.e. loan amount, charge for credit, etc. there's a link on here somewhere that details all the PT that each agreement should bear.

 

This thread might be of some use to you http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162851-consumer-credit-agreements-guide.html

 

or this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

 

 

Thanks for that. Will have a look.

[FlyboyAgain]

Ok,

 

They have fudged me on the cards but I think that, finally, they have supplied the correct agreement with PTs for the loan. Can you guys confirm this, please, by having a look here Scans :: Appform5 picture by kakkadoo - Photobucket

 

The Terms and Conditions appear to be on the reverse, but I think, as far as I understand it, the PTs are on that document.

[FlyboyAgain]

Anyone confirm that it's kosher and if so, what's my plan of action now? Will they attempt full recovery or do I still have some control?

[IdaInFife]

as long as you have blanked out the figures etc then yes it looks enforceable to me

 

ida x

[FlyboyAgain]

Yes, I did.

 

I will start paying them again, but now both the bank and DCA - which was out of the loop whilst the bank gor re-involved - are now sending Final Demands threatening 'action' if arraesr not paid within seven days. Strangely, their letters took nearly that long to arrive here. At no time have they asked me, since supplying these correct documents, to start paying again; only the DCA has aksed, with the threatening final demand.

 

Incidentally, the bank were adding interest when the account was condisered in dispute. Isn't that illegal?

[IdaInFife]

yeah but you can claim these back.

 

if there are any charges etc on the account you can relciam these back to be deducted from figure

 

ida x

[FlyboyAgain]

Ok, have started paying again and the DCA is ringing every day. They've had enough warnings off me; I'm off to the local Police station and my laywer tomorrow.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/99376-telephone-harassment-action-plan-7.html#post2203501

[FlyboyAgain]

It's amazing, the amount of BS they throw at you and expect to swallow.

 

My bank has written to me, saying that they had no notification from the DCA that one of the accounts was indispute. They state that the DCA have no record of my letter notifying them of the account being induspute after going beyond the 12+2 days after they were CCAd. How interesting! I have kept a copy of the recorded delivery slip and have today written to the bank with the time and the date the DCA signed for the letter!

 

Another example of a DCA lying and hiding the existence of documents! Send EVERYTHING recorded, Caggers!!

[IdaInFife]

is there any charges etc on this one that you can reclaim?

 

ida x

[FlyboyAgain]

Ida,

 

yeh, the bank has been warned about it being illegal to claim whilst in dispute. This is what they are up to, now: denying that their lapdog DCA has ever received the 'in dispute' letter. But I can prove otherwise, to a degree, because I have today sent the bank scans the proof of posting receipts and demanding that the call the Post office automated tracking service to find out when the DCA actually received the letter!

 

Funny, though, how they are both rocking the boat on an account that I have accepted as being enforceable!! It's great, as i have FINALLY gotten a letter form the bank saying the DCA never got the dispute letter!

 

Rock and Effing Roll! My lawyer is now involved; watch this space.

Edited June 6, 2009 by FlyboyAgain
Additions

[FlyboyAgain]

Oh, BTW: the banks and the DCA are VERY quiet over the credit cards that are in dispute! Silence when they know they are caught out; threats and letters akimbo when they know they can collect their pound of flesh.

 

Know thy enemy; I do.

[FlyboyAgain]

I've just found out that section 77(6) does not exist!! The subsection (6) instrument is only applicable under section 78!! The relevant subsection under section 77 is subsection four!!

 

HAve had to dodge the bank with a typo on that one! Watch out for this!

[FlyboyAgain]

Another thing: if the bank/dca commits the 'offence' that is set out in section 77(4)/section 78 (6), what can I throw at them, then?

Edited June 15, 2009 by FlyboyAgain
image removal

[FlyboyAgain]

Update.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow Caggers. Today, I welcome into my life the wonderful Moorcroft, whom it appears have taken over one of my accounts where Blair, Oliver & Scott failed miserably. I must admit they came on very strong, with one section of their threats being the 'registration of an inhibition against any heritable proerty that you may own..'

 

How evil is that?

 

Anyway, what I'm puzzled about is this: if Blair, Oliver & Scott just yapped away and couldn't do anything, why has HBoS now instructed another, different DCA? Also, in a recent letter, the bank witter on again about not having to provide the signed document and that they will do so in court. Why change DCAs, then?

 

I'm actually getting bored with this to-ing and fro-ing with them all. I warned the bank today about suddenly supplying signed agreements at court, for I'd want to check their authenticity. I don't trust them one bit. I just don't see how they think they'll benefit by employing another lapdog.

[FlyboyAgain]

One idea is that the bank have instructed another DCA to restart the CCA crap all over again but I'm not having it. What I will watch out for, though, is the possibility of Moorcroft marking my CF. I guess I'd better have a look at the CF, anyway, as I'm sure Blair, Oliver & Scott may have been at it as well.

[IdaInFife]

this just proves even more that they do not want to go the court route and a quick bemused letter to moorcrfot will see them off

 

ida x

[FlyboyAgain]

Done, Ida.

 

I'm getting bored with them. I think I'll put a moratorium on this thread for it seems to me I'm going over old ground and I really should free up the site for others who need assistance.

[FlyboyAgain]

After a week's blissful silence, my Fife chums rang up again. I spoke briefly and polietly and told them if they had anything to comment on they were to write out to me "NO!", came the raised voice from the other end. I then put the phone down.

 

I'm so annoyed that I've forgotten his name for here was proof of a DCA monkey refusing to write out!

 

However, now that I've started paying the two enforecable loan debts, I have the feeling that the bank and the DCA are going to start hassling me to increase the payments. The bank have admitted such in a recent letter which states that I should contact the DCA do 'discuss a mutually beneficial way forward'.

 

When dealing with a bank or a DCA, nothing can be mutually beneficial!

 

So, with regard to these enforceable accounts, can the DCa, or bank, drag me to court to get me to pay more towards them?

[IdaInFife]

if they did take you to court, you would apply for a time to pay order and this would you be filling in an income and exp sheet and saying how much you can afford. the judge wouldnlt make you pay anymore than you can afford.

 

if you stick to your payment proposal then theres not much they can do

 

ida x

[FlyboyAgain]

Thanks, Ida.

 

They are already in posession of an updated income and expenditure sheet and the instalments have been brought up to date after I withheld payment to them during the CCA fiasco but I know they are going to start trying to get me to up the instalment amount, just like they used to.

 

I am heart sick of them, really, and I would not put it past them to drag this particluar account to court, even when it's getting paid. My concern would be if the beak ruled that I had to pay the whole lot off! Possibility?

[IdaInFife]

not a chance

 

ida x