MBNA still putting negative entries on credit file whilst agreement in dispute.

[militantconsumer]

Thanks for that, postggj.

 

So the main point is that we are issuing a "formal notice issued under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1980".

 

(Shouldn't that be 1998?)

 

And that it is damaging to my credit file for all sorts of reasons - even being rejected when applying for a decent current account. And that this will cause me financial loss.

 

And the main reason being that no agreement or contract has ever been entered into with Cabot (or Next) for the processing of my data so they have no right to do it.

[alternative-answer]

I put a notice of correction on my Experian Credit file naming Hillesden Securities as a 3rd party

who I have never entered into a contract with and have no jurisdiction in any of my affairs

and no right to report on my Experian Credit File,

 

Experian have admitted that they cannot comment on a 3rd party on my file

and as such admitted that means that 3rd parties cannot comment on a person's file.

 

Here's their e-mail...

Thank you for sending us your Notice of Correction.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot add this because we are unable to refer directly to a third party,

 

I have changed it a little and would like you to consider using this wording instead.

 

Please let me know in writing whether you are happy with this.

 

You might like to use a different statement of your own.

 

However, if you still want me to use your original statement,

please let me know and I will send it to the Information Commissioner for a ruling.

 

I have replied and told them my original statement be published that names Hillesden Securities

who have continued to act illegally in this matter even though the agreement is disputed.

[militantconsumer]

Continue to watch this case with interest due to our very similar case with Next Directory/Cabot. Since my earlier posts I have now started a thread on this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/237310-militant-cabot-co-starring.html

 

What kind of nonsense is all this?

[alternative-answer]

Direct Legal & Collections claim they have purchased the debt from original lender,

they have written to me once last August saying I needed to contact them about an alleged outstanding balance.

 

I have never contacted them or in any way entered into any contract with them,

 

I have never confirmed who I was or acknowledged any debt.

 

I recently received a letter from a solicitor saying I needed to contact Direct Legal & Collections

within 7 days or they MAY (not will) start collection proceedings. My letter as follows:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Notice and Demand

 

DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent; Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.

 

Regarding Reference: ************, your correspondence dated 26th May, 2010.

Thank you for your letter of 26th May, 2010. Notice is hereby given that your claims are insufficient and are hereby refused for cause, without dishonour, due to the fact that you have presented no evidence of your capacity as either:

1. a bona fide party to any contract in which I am also a party; or

2. an agent of a bona fide party to any contract in which I am also a party; or

3. a holder in due course of any debt to which I am obligated.

4. evidence of the validity of the original alleged contract.

Stories of companies falsely claiming money to which they are not entitled are rife. Absent any evidence of capacity, I have no obligation to either confirm or deny any contractual relationship with the alleged creditor mentioned in your correspondence, or yourselves. Accordingly, you are hereby given notice that you are in a condition of estoppel with regard to your claims. Upon receipt of reasonable evidence of sufficient capacity I will give this matter timely attention. I will deem the following to be sufficient evidence:

A complete copy of any and all contracts which affect or affected your relationship with the alleged principal, as they apply to the above-referenced matter. Said contracts must be certified "true, correct, and complete" by affidavit signed under penalty of perjury, by a principal officer of your company in a position to know all the details of your company's relationship with the alleged principal, in his or her personal capacity. The affidavit must also either completely describe any additional verbal, constructive, or implied contracts you have with the alleged principal affecting this matter, or else certify that no such additional contracts exist or existed.

I hereby give you thirty (30) days to reply to this notice from the date you receive this communication with a notice sent using recorded post and signed under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury, assuring and promising me that all of the replies and details given to the above requests are true, correct and complete and without deception, fraud or mischief. Your failure to provide all of the aforementioned documentation in the manner described within thirty (30) days from the date you receive this communication constitutes your agreement to the following terms:

1. that you are or were a third party interloper;

2. that you have or had no legal standing;

3. that you have or had no first-hand knowledge of this matter;

4. that your claim is or was fraudulent;

5. that you will pursue this matter no further.

Further, you agree:

6. that you accept liability for any damages I suffer or suffered as a result of your actions;

7. that any negative remarks made to a credit reference agency will be removed and confirmation of said removal sent to me within thirty days of this communication;

Please note that I am asking for information that will prove the validity of any contract between us. Such validity must be established before any legislation concerning its content can be relevant. You are hereby notified that this is not a request under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act or any other legislation.

Please be advised that I am keeping a written record of all correspondence in this regard and therefore do not consent to discuss this matter over the telephone. Any future communications must be written, otherwise you are hereby given notice that they will be ignored without dishonour on my part. Any telephone calls regarding this matter, whether by an actual person, or a computerised system, or personal visits; will be deemed harassment and dealt with accordingly.

If you wish to provide evidence of your capacity as either Agent, or Holder in Due Course, Notice is hereby given that in addition to the above, as Agent you would be subject to the same terms and conditions as the original alleged contract. As Holder in Due Course you would be subject to the same duties and obligations as the original party. In either case I will require evidence of the validity of the original contract, as I have a reasonable expectation that you would do if you did not want to run the risk of acting illegally. If you did not satisfy yourselves as to the validity of the original contract when becoming either Agent or Holder in Due Course, it would show a profound failure in your due diligence and duty of care. If you did so satisfy yourselves, the required information should be readily to hand.

Inexperienced and vulnerable people are easily intimidated into making payments by what would appear to be unsubstantiated threats. At this moment I am not in possession of any evidence that supports such threats. That is precisely what I am requesting. If, in the event, no such evidence is forthcoming, the offering of these threats passes from mere negligence into the realms of criminal activity.

Any previous acknowledgement by me of any alleged debt is hereby withdrawn as having been obtained under duress.

Please notice that the commonly accepted principles of good faith demand that if you have any reasonable objections to this Notice and Demand, that you immediately state any and all such objections and not harbour any hidden objections with which to surprise me later. Therefore it is my reasonable expectation that should you not offer any specific objections to any part of this Notice and Demand, sent to me by recorded delivery within thirty (30) days from your receipt of same, that I may presume your agreement to the above terms.

I will presume silence to mean acquiescence in all these matters.

Yours sincerely without ill-will, vexation or frivolity,

 

 

 

******: of the ***** Family

Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural, Inalienable Human Rights reserved.

Edited January 21, 2014 by dx100uk
Fotl Twaddle please dont follow this advise - DX

[Pinky69]

Nice template. I fell asleep after the first

paragraph and so will they. If they haven't contacted you since last August, I would have continued to ignore them.

[harrassed senior]

Nice template. I fell asleep after the first

paragraph and so will they. If they haven't contacted you since last August, I would have continued to ignore them.

 

Have to agree, they cannot even handle a simple CCA Request, and they will have no-one in their offices who can even pronounce the words with more than 4 letters, let alone understand them.

 

I am sure that this could be another approach and would be interested to see how it plays out. I suspect that it will be ignored and the threat template button pusher will still be employed rather than anyone with more than one brain cell.

[UnitedFront]

Personally I'd say that the letter is far too long and contains far too much information. It reminds me very much of a letter posted on another thread, at the beginning of the year, by a so-called "freeman on the land".

 

Besides the fact that some of the points / demands are not followed in law; for example demanding a sworn affidavit is not your right. Any other method would suffice; e.g. Statutory Declaration and even then I'm not convinced they'd have any obligation to follow such a demand. I think any Judge would frown upon such demands and may look unfavourably against any person making them.

 

I'd cut it right back to basics personally.

 

Obviously just my opinion, however.

 

Cheers

UF

[Bazooka Boo]

Is that an American template??

[alternative-answer]

Is that an American template??

No, it is based on English common law, no legal, LAWFUL.

[UnitedFront]

No, it is based on English common law, no legal, LAWFUL.

 

Can I ask what you mean by that, please?

 

That is a template written and adopted by the so-called "freemen on the land" that I referred to earlier and some of the points, as I pointed out in my earlier post, are not substantiated in any way, shape or form by any currently accepted common law or statute. With that in mind the letter is of very, very limted use in reality.

 

In my humble opinion there are far more serious and far better drafted templates around on the forums. As I said in my last post.... any judge would, in my opinion, frown upon the use of any letter such as this.

 

 

 

Cheers

UF

[alternative-answer]

Can I ask what you mean by that, please?

 

That is a template written and adopted by the so-called "freemen on the land" that I referred to earlier and some of the points, as I pointed out in my earlier post, are not substantiated in any way, shape or form by any currently accepted common law or statute. With that in mind the letter is of very, very limted use in reality.

 

In my humble opinion there are far more serious and far better drafted templates around on the forums. As I said in my last post.... any judge would, in my opinion, frown upon the use of any letter such as this.

 

 

 

Cheers

UF

It is very valid and relevant and was sent on the 27th May giving them a healthy 28 days to reply,

 

we are now 21st June and not a single reply to my letter.

 

At the 28th day, by their silence they have agreed to the content of the letter.

 

Any further action on their part would be highly frowned upon and perceived to be criminal.

[Bazooka Boo]

Let us know if the Police charge them with a criminal offence and what the outcome is.

[alternative-answer]

I have never contracted with Direct Legal & Collections at any point,

 

never have I confirmed my name or address and have never agreed that I owe them any money, (which I don't).

 

I have never dishonoured any contract because I have never said that I wouldn't pay,

 

I have stayed in honour by asking questions about the validity of any alleged agreement

and as yet no answers, just silence.

 

The common law doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence is applied when one party gives legal notice

to a second party of a fact or claim, and the second party fails to challenge

or refute that claim within a reasonable time.

 

The second party is said to have acquiesced to the claim, and is estopped from later challenging it, or making a counterclaim.

[Pinky69]

I bet they will be really worried that they are going to be frowned on.

[alternative-answer]

I bet they will be really worried that they are going to be frowned on.

I'm practising my frowning now for that very day,

[alternative-answer]

A reply from Direct Legal & Collections.

"We are not a third party interloper.

We acquired the account from MBNA on 24th July 2009

and now the legal owner of the debt.

 

When we took on the account, we also acquired the rights and permissions of the original lender.

 

Firstly if I entered into an agreement with MBNA that would make a bilateral agreement,

enter Direct Legal & Collections makes 3.

 

I never entered into any agreement with Direct Legal & Collections.

 

As for acquiring rights and permissions.

You cannot acquire permission, it has to be granted.

 

If 'permission' can be granted for any act, then that act must be, fundamentally,

 

LAWFUL. (Otherwise 'permission' could never be granted).

 

They have simply failed to prove that I owe them anything and as such are now in default

and they will receive a notice of default on the 27th of this month.

[UnitedFront]

With the greatest of respect, your interpretation of the law is incorrect.

 

The letter is fundamentally flawed as far as the law of this country goes, as is your archaic interpretation of the common law of this country. Common law cannot simply be taken on it's own - at the end of the day it has to be read in conjunction with Acts of Parliament and, in any event, statute law should always prevail as supreme.

 

Any company is clearly entitled to purchase the benefits of a debt under the Law of Property Act under an absolute assignment or under common law as an equitable assignment.

 

"Rights and permissions" they would clearly by talking about the right to claim the money they allege is outstanding and permission from the original creditor to act. This is fact and if you have been advised otherwise by any person, then I would respectfully suggest that you have been grossly misinformed.... speak to any worthy solicitor and they will substantiate my point for you.

 

In all honesty, running down dead end streets such as the arguments to which you are taking is, in my opinion, counter productive to the whole point of the cag - as it is misinforming the readers of this thread as to the points of law concerned and in doing so is effectively proving many cynics within the debt collection and financial industry right - they are always claiming that the law is mis-told on these forums!!

 

Furthermore, I'm sorry that I somehow missed your reply to my previous post, but you are incorrect - by not replying inside the 28 days you gave them they are doing no such thing!! They are not in any way agreeing to the contents of your letter and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 

The only thing more ridiculous is to suggest that any further action on their part would be criminal. What law on earth do you suggest would make their actions a criminal offence?

 

The letter is not valid or substantiated in law - it is quite clearly fundamentally flawed.

Again with respect, perhaps you would be better to follow a more orthodox route in challenging this matter? I honestly cannot see that there is a judge in this country that would be at all impressed by your letter or any of your contentions to date.

 

I mean no offence, but there are so many of these such letters and arguments floating around on the internet and so many people are being fooled into believing the claims made within them and this will inevitably lead to problems for people.

 

Kind Regards

UF

[alternative-answer]

With the greatest of respect, your interpretation of the law is incorrect.

 

The letter is fundamentally flawed as far as the law of this country goes, as is your archaic interpretation of the common law of this country. Common law cannot simply be taken on it's own - at the end of the day it has to be read in conjunction with Acts of Parliament and, in any event, statute law should always prevail as supreme.

 

Any company is clearly entitled to purchase the benefits of a debt under the Law of Property Act under an absolute assignment or under common law as an equitable assignment.

 

"Rights and permissions" they would clearly by talking about the right to claim the money they allege is outstanding and permission from the original creditor to act. This is fact and if you have been advised otherwise by any person, then I would respectfully suggest that you have been grossly misinformed.... speak to any worthy solicitor and they will substantiate my point for you.

 

In all honesty, running down dead end streets such as the arguments to which you are taking is, in my opinion, counter productive to the whole point of the cag - as it is misinforming the readers of this thread as to the points of law concerned and in doing so is effectively proving many cynics within the debt collection and financial industry right - they are always claiming that the law is mis-told on these forums!!

 

Furthermore, I'm sorry that I somehow missed your reply to my previous post, but you are incorrect - by not replying inside the 28 days you gave them they are doing no such thing!! They are not in any way agreeing to the contents of your letter and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 

The only thing more ridiculous is to suggest that any further action on their part would be criminal. What law on earth do you suggest would make their actions a criminal offence?

 

The letter is not valid or substantiated in law - it is quite clearly fundamentally flawed.

Again with respect, perhaps you would be better to follow a more orthodox route in challenging this matter? I honestly cannot see that there is a judge in this country that would be at all impressed by your letter or any of your contentions to date.

 

I mean no offence, but there are so many of these such letters and arguments floating around on the internet and so many people are being fooled into believing the claims made within them and this will inevitably lead to problems for people.

 

Kind Regards

UF

I know you mean no offence, you just want to believe you are right and that there couldn't possibly be another way because it would blow you mind and your world to pieces. The definition of a statute,

A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed.

7 Reasons why Credit Card/Loan agreements are unlawful

 

or why you don't owe your bank/credit card company anything

1. Your Credit Card Agreement is an unlawful contract as it is ONLY signed by you- constituting a unilateral agreement. (Contract Law)
   
2. All contracts, in order to be valid, must be signed by someone able to bind the corporation in contract. (Contract Law)
   
3. Banks create money out of thin air- they have no money to lend you. (Fractional Reserve Banking)
   
4. It is not possible to actually pay the outstanding amount as the currency is based on worthless paper and 'electronic funds' on computers. (Fractional Reserve Banking)
   
5. You do not have to pay statements, only invoices. (Bills of Exchange Act 1882)
   
6. You are not lawfully bound to pay anything which is unsigned. (Bills of Exchange Act 1882)
   
7. The uppercase name on the credit card is not your name, but a 'corporate entity'. EDIT
   

Edited June 24, 2010 by freakyleaky
Removed link to commercial site

[Pinky69]

As long as their reply is frowned on, that is all that matters.

[UnitedFront]

It's not at all that I can't believe that I could be wrong - I could very well be. But I'm not.

 

Firstly, you're claim that by only one person signing an agreement makes it a unilateral contract is false, a unilateral contract:

"A contract in which only one party makes an express promise, or undertakes a performance without first securing a reciprocal agreement from the other party." In other words, a contract that is only binding on one party.

 

As it is well established in common law that a party can affirm a contract through conduct (per Weatherby v Bonham [1832]) - your claim that the lack of a signature necessarily mean that it is a unilateral contract is incorrect. This is also ignoring the fact that verbal agreements can constitute bilateral contracts; and these have no signatures whatsoever!!

 

The aforementioned case would also mean that your second point is worthless - as the company as far as contract law is concerned (leaving aside the statutory requirements for credit contracts) would be deemed to have affirmed their contract with you by providing you with whatever goods/services the contract specified, after you had signed it.

 

You're entirely correct in that banks do "create money" - have you ever spent a £5 note? Or any other monetary note, for that matter? "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of......" is printed on them; in other words they are a promise to pay money or, more precisely, a promise to pay gold to the value of that printed.

 

Frankly the argument that banks have no money to lend and therefore you can't be held liable is ridiculous; if this was the case then surely every credit card, loan, mortgage company etc would be bankrupt (even more so than they are now) because nobody would ever have to repay them as a simple "I don't owe you money because you never had any to start with" argument would see off any potential creditor??

 

This also renders your fourth point totally invalid.

 

People should not be fooled by the information given by feemen on the land regarding the law of this country. The courts will not be fooled by it and many people could end up with CCJs etc as a result of being drawn in by such myths.

 

And so far as the name being a "corporate entity"; I would actually attempt to eat my own shoes if any judge ever dismissed a claim from a creditor on the basis of a defence that went down the lines of "my name was in capitals and therefore I'm not bound by the contract......"

 

Finally, you never did tell me what criminal offence(s) you contend they would be committing if they contacted you after the 28 days you gave them??

 

But Pinky is right, so long as their response is frowned upon...

 

UF

 

P.S. I personally think that one of the sites you linked to looks far less than reputable; trying to charge a "one off donation" in order to get template letters that are (if like the one we're discussing) far inferior (in my opinion) to the ones available here on the cag for free. Whilst I'm aware they will give you a password to get to the templates free, this is obviously discouraged by the fact that it takes "up to 2 days" - and many people panicking about debt problems simply will not/cannot wait this long.

Edited June 24, 2010 by UnitedFront

[alternative-answer]

The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate. ~ Wayne Dyer ~

[UnitedFront]

Whilst that's a cracking answer, just like every other so-called "freeman" I've ever come across, you've just chosen to ignore the questions and points raised against you. That is the ultimate sign of ignorance, in my opinion.

 

Also, just for the record, I've done ample research on the philosophies and beliefs of freemen-on-the-land and I've concluded that they have no basis in history unless you choose to go so far back that you would effectively be studying the lives and thoughts of cavemen. Nor does it have any basis in modern society or in law (whether you choose common or statute).

Edited June 24, 2010 by UnitedFront

[alternative-answer]

Direct Legal & Collections have ceased contacting me either by phone or by post, no court action pending. They had no reply to the 3 letters I sent and never satisfied any of the conditions in them and they were sent a notice of default to which they never even responded to.

[Guest HeftyHippo]

Direct Legal & Collections have ceased contacting me either by phone or by post, no court action pending. They had no reply to the 3 letters I sent and never satisfied any of the conditions in them and they were sent a notice of default to which they never even responded to.

They're probably having a panic attack and hiding under the table because they know everyone is frowning at them.

 

Good advice United Front, but wasted I fear.

 

The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate. ~ Wayne Dyer ~

 

Hmmm, heard that one before. Personally, I don't think Mr Dyers musings have the same power, logic, or insight as say, Euripides' "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.", and certainly doesn't have the comedic value of Bill Crosby "A word to the wise ain’t necessary, it is the stupid ones who need all the advice."

 

Years ago, at school, my friend learned of a self-hypnosis technique that involved chanting. We resolved to put it to practice, concious of the warning that we must practice it religiously. "I must, I must, increase my bust." I've chanted it every day for 15 years and it's worked. Much to my surprise, I've added 7 inches and 3 cup sizes. Also to my surprise I learned that at the same time, it was working on my waist and backside, and as I've added even more inches to those parts of me, I would say it works better on bums and tums than it does on boobs. It just goes to show that sometimes "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." (Winston Churchill)

[alternative-answer]

I started a the process of challenging my CCA via a company who were offering

to have the debt written off by challenging the enforcability of it.

 

The agreement was audited and found to have 9 breaches of the prescribed terms,

I still have a copy of the audit.

 

At the time I was advised by the solicitor that I could stop paying MBNA and that's what I did,

however the process went off track because of the company involved and solicitors not doing their job.

 

The upshot of this is I subsequently was given a default by MBNA who then sold the debt to Direct Legal & Collections.

 

They have continued to register a default on my credit file and despite writing to the CRA's

they came back and said the entries were correct, although no thorough investigation had taken place.

 

They have made attempts to get me to contract with them and get the money off me

but I have managed to send them letters that they have never substantiated

and as such they no longer pursue me.

 

I want the default removed as neither MBNA or Direct Legal & Collections have proved the agreement was enforcable.

 

I not sure where to start and all advice is warmly welcome. thank you in advance.