Vanquis being unreasonable

[vint1954]

I have received a reply from Vanquis, blimey that was quick. They have written that they will try and resolve my enquiry as quickly as possible and keep me informed. Thanks surprise and BB your advice really has bought some good results, lets just wait and see what they decide after receiving my letter

You could try the letter below, to the DCA

 

Dear sirs,

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE, DO NOT IGNORE.

 

Ref account:

 

I refer to your letter of xxxxxxxxx 2009, received xxxxxxxxx 2009, requesting the full balance of the above account to be repaid, and my initial responce dated xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. No debt to your client is acknowledged.

 

I am rather bemused to receive this letter from yourselves. On xxxxxxxxx 2009 I made a formal request to your client pursuant to s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They have failed to comply within the statutory time limit, or at all. It should not be necessary to have to remind you that the provisions of s.78(6) now apply. This account was placed in dispute on the xxxxxxxx 2009 and Vanquis remain in default of supplying the required alleged agreement.

 

In the circumstances, your and your clients threat of legal action would appear to be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection and your attention is drawn to this guidance document.

 

Your attention is also drawn the Information Commissioners Office on Data protection, as passing details on to a third party while an account is in dispute is contrary to the Data Protection Act. I have previously issued letters to Vanquis under s10 of this act. You may wish to advise your client and remind yourselves of the implications of ignoring the Data Protection Act. Currently fines for this type of offence are £5000 per issue with compensation recorded through the Courts averaging £8000.

 

Should you or your client bring proceedings, they will be robustly defended, and the Court's attention drawn to the above statutory breaches . Furthermore, I reserve the right to bring the conduct of your client to the Court when the issue of costs is being considered.

 

I suggest that you immediately return this account to Vanquis to be resolved and cease processing all data in relation to myself.

 

I trust this makes the situation clear.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

Edited August 18, 2009 by vint1954

[vint1954]

A big thanks to everyone for helping me sort my mess out with Vanquis. As advised I wrote a letter of complaint to 1st Credit and have received a reply yesterday. They wrote

 

We acknowledge receipt of your complaint. In accordance with the regulations we detail our complaints procedure.

 

Then below they have written out their complaints procedure, now I am a bit confused. First they say that they have acknowledged my claim then send me the procedure. My question is that can I rest assure that my complaint has gone through or do I go through the procedure as they have stated.

 

Any help would be very appreciated, thank you all.

What was the proceedure that thy asked you to follow?

 

Vint

[vint1954]

Hi BB,

 

I trust that you sent the letter in post 45 to Ist Cred.

 

You need to write to 1st cred, reminding them of this letter and stating that the account is in dispute with Vanquish.

 

you also need to add, that after seeking advice on the consumer credit act 1974, you are now aware that while the account is in dispute with the Origonal Creditor, they are not allowed to involve 1st Cred.

 

Ask them also to confirm their involvement with the account, if they are collecting on behalf of Vanquis or has the debt been sold to them while in dispute.

[vint1954]

Thanks vint1954, I am not too sure what I done but I sent the letter in post 50 to 1st Credit and not the one in post 45.

 

Do you think I messed it up? and yes I believe that vanquis did sell the debt whilst still in dispute. I sent vanquis an official complaint as surprise advised in post 21. They replied to me last week to that complaint and said they are investigating this and will get back to me as soon as they have completed.

 

what next? Oh my head hurts now:(

I have slightly altered the first para of post 45, so send #45 as well.

 

Try to read a few of the other threads and you will soon get to understand the way these things work, but don't panic, you have not messed things up.

 

Vint

Edited August 20, 2009 by vint1954

[vint1954]

Thanks vint1954,

 

Looks like I won't be needing to post that letter to 1st credit as I have just received a letter from them today which reads;

 

 

Thank you for your letter dated xxxxxx. A copy of our complaints procedure has been sent under separate cover.

 

I have investigated your complaint and can advise that the debt was not assigned to 1st Credit Ltd but that we are merely acting on behalf of our client, Vanquis Bank.

 

We were unawrae of the dispute which you had with Vanquis and consider that we were acting in good faith on the information provided.

 

The account has been placed on hold pending further instructions from our client.

 

 

Is this good news or what?

Hi BB,

 

It just means that they have gone back to Vanquis to confirm dispute.

 

I would imagine that you will hear from Vanquis next.

 

Just a point of advice, you do need to send letters out promptly in response to their replies.

[vint1954]

Thanks vint, I will do. It's just keeping up with what to write to hear. Too many chefs in the kitchen spoil the broth hey.

 

If I only had to deal with Vanquis it would be so much more simple, but does anyone know what that word means nowadays.

 

anyways thanks for the help mate:)

Hi BB,

 

I know what you mean.

 

Keep posting on the replies and start new threads if you need help on other issues. You can always put a link to your new threads on this one.

 

Vint

[vint1954]

xxxxxx 2009.

Dear xxxxxxxxx,

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Re account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I write regarding recent communication regarding the above account.

I note that you still refuse to accept a payment level that is affordable to me, instead demanding a payment structure that I have advised on many occasions, that I cannot meet.

Further to my request under the above act, your attention is drawn to the fact that this account remains subject to a lawful serious dispute. On xxxxxxxx, by recorded delivery, I requested that you supply me a copy of the executed credit agreement covering this account pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78, a copy of this request is enclosed. To date you have failed to comply with my request, supplying only generic terms and conditions, which cannot be linked to any agreement which you claim that I have signed and a set of again unrelated terms and conditions. Without production of the said agreement I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable for any alleged debt to you, nor does it give me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’ as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I have to date only received terms and conditions from yourselves.

Contrary to your assertion, xxxxxxxx have not complied with the terms of CCA 1974 s78. The documents that you have supplied, do not comply with your duties to supply a “True Copy” of any executed agreement you claim to have been signed by me. As you will be further aware, an agreement is not executed, until signed by both parties, so the document that you have supplied, being an unrelated reconstruction, cannot be a True Copy of an Executed Agreement.

While this account remains in serious dispute, the relevant main points of the Law and OFT regulations while the account is in this state and xxxxxx remain in default are:

• You may not ask for payment against this account.
  
• I am not obliged to offer any payment against this account.
  
• You cannot register any data with a third party.
  
• You cannot take any enforcement action, including registering Defaults.
  
• You cannot pass the account on to a third party for collection.
  
• You cannot sell the account.
  

What is a true copy:

In a recent letter from the enforcement department of the OFT, the text below was quoted, explaining what is required.

“The copy of the executed agreement need not be an exact copy but it must be a ‘true copy’ and not some reconstruction of what the original might have been and it must contain the same terms as the original. Where the terms have been varied as provided for within the agreement, the copy of the original agreement must be accompanied by a document setting out the current terms, as varied. Certain details may be omitted from the original agreement eg the signature but the debtor must be in no doubt as to the true nature of his obligations under the loan.

 

Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.”

 

I also refer you to the information below.

1. A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor.

 

 

2. Further, s.127(3) CCA 1974 makes the account unenforceable if it is not in the proper form and content or improperly executed.

 

In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement”.

 

2. The need for prescribed terms to be contained in the credit agreement is confirmed by the Author of the CCA1974 act, I quote ““As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97.

 

Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.” - 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773.”

I am now granting to you a further 7 days to produce a copy of an executable agreement. After that I will consider that the above matter is closed and that you will no longer pursue the alleged debt. If you are insisting that the non enforceable document, that you have supplied, is the only alleged agreement in your possession, then I would suggest that the best course of action would be to immediately set the balance of the above account number to zero.

I look forward to your response.

[vint1954]

Hi Surprise, I should have read back to the begining of the thread.

 

The 2006 revisions came into force during 2007 & 2008. Depends on the date of the agreement and additionally if it was an online agreement.