Jump to content


BOS/Halifax


joemay
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4523 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, Thanks DD for the letter, I think i'll hang onto that one for now but in the meantime I'm sending the following, to bland, orrible & snotty. Do I need to send this recorded or normal post?

Re: My request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

This account is in Dispute.

 

On **** 2009 I wrote to Halifax requesting that they supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for this account. In response to this request I was supplied a mere application form which did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. 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. Suffice to say none of the terms are present in the document

 

Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states:

 

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

In addition should you continue to pursue me for this debt you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection

 

 

The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I refer to 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.

 

I require you to produce a compliant copy of my credit agreement to confirm I am liable to you or any organisation, which you represent for this alleged debt, if you cannot do so I require written clarification that this is the case. Should you ignore this request I will report you to the Office of Fair Trading to consider your suitability to hold a credit licence in addition to a complaint to Trading Standards, as you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40

 

Since the agreement is unenforceable and the default notice is non compliant, it would be in everyone’s interest to consider the matter closed and for your client to write the debt off. I suggest you give serious consideration to this as any attempt of litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages

 

I respectfully request a response to this letter in 14 days

 

 

 

I'll wait and see what template response I get and let you know.

First Class, recorded and signed for

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi guys, Thanks DD for the letter, I think i'll hang onto that one for now but in the meantime I'm sending the following, to bland, orrible & snotty. Do I need to send this recorded or normal post?

Re: My request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

This account is in Dispute.

 

On **** 2009 I wrote to Halifax requesting that they supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for this account. In response to this request I was supplied a mere application form which did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. 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. Suffice to say none of the terms are present in the document

 

Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states:

 

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

In addition should you continue to pursue me for this debt you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection

 

 

The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I refer to 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.

 

I require you to produce a compliant copy of my credit agreement to confirm I am liable to you or any organisation, which you represent for this alleged debt, if you cannot do so I require written clarification that this is the case. Should you ignore this request I will report you to the Office of Fair Trading to consider your suitability to hold a credit licence in addition to a complaint to Trading Standards, as you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40

 

Since the agreement is unenforceable and the default notice is non compliant, it would be in everyone’s interest to consider the matter closed and for your client to write the debt off. I suggest you give serious consideration to this as any attempt of litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages

 

I respectfully request a response to this letter in 14 days

 

 

 

I'll wait and see what template response I get and let you know.

Why mention the DN at this stage?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why mention the DN at this stage?

 

 

Hm Yes..Always keep something up your sleeve, so if they decide to litigate....oops unlawful termination ;-)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm Yes..Always keep something up your sleeve, so if they decide to litigate....oops unlawful termination ;-)

I don't see it as a good move to mention the DN at this point. Gives them chance to rectify if not terminated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys for looking in so quickly:)

 

Yes don't want all cards on the table;) So if I take the bit out about defective DN, will the letter be ok to send or should I use something else?

 

Thanks again:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya,

 

From my own personal point of view, I would prefer to withold payment and let them take the initiative ..... see who blinks first 8-) but I think the letter is a good letter and it should provoke a reaction! Just be prepared for them to threaten litigation and try every trick in the book to get you to pay. Keep as many aces up your sleeve as you can because you really don't want them getting wind of the dodgy default before they terminate the 'agreement '. As you are probably aware there are some strange 'DJ's out in County Court land who make some weird decisions :rolleyes: so if it got as far as that you want as much ammo as poss to fling at the enemy!!

 

Very best of luck...and if you get a good result I'll follow in your footsteps. ;)

 

Spam.:-)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

OH currently has a SO so is continuing with £1 token payments. I know advise is to stop paying. His thinking is that should it go to court it would not look as if he was avoiding payment just wants to see the executed agreement - the application they have sent doesn't have prescribed terms, they only sent current T&C's but not original T&C's.

 

We'll wait to see how they respond & decide whether to continue with the token payments. Should it go to court and he's unlucky and he lands himself a DJ who doesn't know or care about CCA and therefore goes in favour for creditor, he'll be paying what he can afford which is £1 pcm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, Thanks DD for the letter, I think i'll hang onto that one for now but in the meantime I'm sending the following, to bland, orrible & snotty. Do I need to send this recorded or normal post?

Re: My request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

This account is in Dispute.

 

On **** 2009 I wrote to Halifax requesting that they supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for this account. In response to this request I was supplied a mere application form which did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. 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. Suffice to say none of the terms are present in the document

 

Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states:

 

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

In addition should you continue to pursue me for this debt you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection

 

The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I refer to 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.

 

I require you to produce a compliant copy of my credit agreement to confirm I am liable to you or any organisation, which you represent for this alleged debt, if you cannot do so I require written clarification that this is the case. Should you ignore this request I will report you to the Office of Fair Trading to consider your suitability to hold a credit licence in addition to a complaint to Trading Standards, as you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40

 

Since the agreement is unenforceable and the default notice is non compliant, it would be in everyone’s interest to consider the matter closed and for your client to write the debt off. I suggest you give serious consideration to this as any attempt of litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages

 

I respectfully request a response to this letter in 14 days

 

 

 

I'll wait and see what template response I get and let you know.

 

i think that you might be getting confused with what s78 requires and the legal arguments as to whether the agreement is enforceable which s78 does not concern itself with

 

s78 requires ONLY that they provide a "true" copy of an original executed agreement (and any other documents referred to in it) plus a statement of account

 

the documents they send (assuming they are easily legible) do not have to be a photocopy of the original and can be a "recontruction" (they could re type it on fresh paper as long as they confirm this is a true copy of the original - they are allowed to omit the signatures and signature boxes

 

further if they declare that what they have sent you IS THE executed agreement with its terms and conditions then they will have COMPLIED with s78 and they are no longer in default

 

 

the question as to whether what they have sent you is legally enforceable is nothing to do with s78 and is a seperate issue and you cannot use the fact that you Believe the document to be unenforceable as a breach of compliance with s78

 

indeed, it will be helplful to you that what they allege and confirm to be original agreement is a load of ballcocks at a later stage

 

but once they have complied with s 78 then they are no longer in default of s78

 

IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under those circumstances then yes I would agree with you... continue with the £1 payments and ask them to write off the debt. My case is a bit different as my payments are a lot higher so I'm going to wait until they bring the fight to me... also I'm still not sure about whether my agreement is enforceable as they sent the wrong one :rolleyes:.

 

It seems to me you have little to lose and a lot to gain...

 

Best wishes,

 

Spam.:)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi me again. ;)

 

Been reading so many threads I was getting confused :confused:. Just gone back to the beginning with yours and seen that the 'agreement' has already been terminated as it says so with the covering letter with your CCA... Doh! :oops: So therefore they have already done the 'unlawful termination' bit and seem to be currently standing on no legs...if that's possible :rolleyes:

 

I couldn't see the copy of the agreement as every time I tried to open it my internet crashed so I gave up, but assuming it was a true copy of the actual 'agreement' that you signed and you masked your details and not just a 'this is what it would have looked like' form then you seem to have a good chance of getting the debt written off.

 

I'd definitely give it a go if I were you.

 

Spam.:-)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys for looking in so quickly:)

 

Yes don't want all cards on the table;) So if I take the bit out about defective DN, will the letter be ok to send or should I use something else?

 

Thanks again:D

Spot on. Hold back the DN info

Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone bored on a lovely sunny sat afternoon try to follow this! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/208663-tale-dodgy-dn-further-48.html I too am relying on a defective DN, but this thread may throw some doubt on them and when/if an agreement is terminated:(

 

I like this thread much more:) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/170345-tale-dodgy-dn.html#post2279702

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that you might be getting confused with what s78 requires and the legal arguments as to whether the agreement is enforceable which s78 does not concern itself with

 

s78 requires ONLY that they provide a "true" copy of an original executed agreement (and any other documents referred to in it) plus a statement of account

 

the documents they send (assuming they are easily legible) do not have to be a photocopy of the original and can be a "recontruction" (they could re type it on fresh paper as long as they confirm this is a true copy of the original - they are allowed to omit the signatures and signature boxes

 

further if they declare that what they have sent you IS THE executed agreement with its terms and conditions then they will have COMPLIED with s78 and they are no longer in default

 

 

the question as to whether what they have sent you is legally enforceable is nothing to do with s78 and is a seperate issue and you cannot use the fact that you Believe the document to be unenforceable as a breach of compliance with s78

 

The application supplied is on another thread and has no prescribed terms.

 

indeed, it will be helplful to you that what they allege and confirm to be original agreement is a load of ballcocks at a later stage

 

Great use of technical language DD:lol::lol:

 

but once they have complied with s 78 then they are no longer in default of s78

 

IMO

I think your letter states that there are no prescribed terms.

 

If you are paying £1 a month, I would continue with that for the time being.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone bored on a lovely sunny sat afternoon try to follow this! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/208663-tale-dodgy-dn-further-48.html I too am relying on a defective DN, but this thread may throw some doubt on them and when/if an agreement is terminated:(

 

I like this thread much more:) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/170345-tale-dodgy-dn.html#post2279702

 

I have to agree with you there!

 

The discussion thread is extremely 'circular' and puts doubts in the mind Fortunately, joemay and I have both had letters stating agreement terminated on the Halifax CC accounts which makes things a lot easier but my loan account is another matter which is why I'm holding back on that one...

 

Sorry for Hijacking Joemay.

 

Spam.:)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

OH currently has a SO so is continuing with £1 token payments. I know advise is to stop paying. His thinking is that should it go to court it would not look as if he was avoiding payment just wants to see the executed agreement - the application they have sent doesn't have prescribed terms, they only sent current T&C's but not original T&C's.

 

We'll wait to see how they respond & decide whether to continue with the token payments. Should it go to court and he's unlucky and he lands himself a DJ who doesn't know or care about CCA and therefore goes in favour for creditor, he'll be paying what he can afford which is £1 pcm.

 

sorry, i too had not back read the thread i will do so now, in the meantime

 

If you are claiming that the agreement is terminated (by the DN and demands for payment) then it would be very unwise to send the above letter,

 

for a start it is headed

 

Account in dispute

 

so from the off you are accepting that the account is not terminated

 

the tone of your letter then gives the impression that you still regard the agreement as live and you are disputing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys for looking in so quickly:)

 

Yes don't want all cards on the table;) So if I take the bit out about defective DN, will the letter be ok to send or should I use something else?

 

Thanks again:D

Joemay,

 

Who are you paying the £1 to now, if the account is terminated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you cannot claim the agreement is terminated AND continue to make payments cancel the DD tomorrow if i were you

Yes, I was just reading back through the thread.

 

There is no termination notice that I can see, but a request for full outstanding amount from B,O&S.

 

Is that correct Joemay, or have I missed the termination notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was just reading back through the thread.

 

There is no termination notice that I can see, but a request for full outstanding amount from B,O&S.

 

Is that correct Joemay, or have I missed the termination notice.

 

if the demand for payment in full came after tyhe DN then this can IMO be taken as termination

Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter_01.jpg

 

This the letter stating agreement has ended, so I take it that its been terminated?

OK Joemay,

 

As this has been terminated, DD is correct, you should not continue with payments. It will look like the agreement is continuing in your eyes.

 

DD,

 

Is it wise to state in writing to Halifax that the payments were being made, however in light of their termination of the agreement, Joemay will obviously have to stop these as Halifax have given them no account to pay against.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OH currently has a SO so is continuing with £1 token payments. I know advise is to stop paying. That depends entirely on the situation, there really isn't a right or wrong His thinking is that should it go to court it would not look as if he was avoiding payment just wants to see the executed agreement - the application they have sent doesn't have prescribed terms, they only sent current T&C's but not original T&C's.

 

We'll wait to see how they respond & decide whether to continue with the token payments. Should it go to court and he's unlucky and he lands himself a DJ who doesn't know or care about CCA and therefore goes in favour for creditor, he'll be paying what he can afford which is £1 pcm.

 

If they do comment that payments have been made after the termination letter I'd be inclined to claim ignorance - ie you've only just noticed the sentence whilst re-reading the letter etc.

 

I had a termination from the Co-op two years ago but I only noticed a couple of months ago on re-reading my letters. When I got the letter I was so concerned about my debt (pre-cag) that I skim read it, panicked and phoned them. At no point back then did it sink in that the account was terminated:rolleyes:

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...