Lowell/Cap 1 CCA Received, Enforcable???

[xx.Morph.xx]

After exactly 42 days from signing for recipt of my CCA request, Lowell have sent me what they deem to be an enforcable Capital One CCA.

 

I already sent the account in dispute letter after the 12+2 days were up & received back the usual "We have 12+2 days then an additional 30 days making 42 days in total" letter (I know they don't).

 

I received 8 pages of printed T&C containing points 1 to 23 with 23 being "Governing Law.This agreement is governed by English Law.", a further single printed page of a different point 10 this one containing examples of credit limits & interest. No firm £ amounts for penalties stated anywhere & no date as to when these T&C apply.(Card taken out early 2003)

 

Finally the following "CCA" single sided no "overleaf" sent :-

 

 

 

Am I right in thinking this has no prescribed terms & is therfore NOT enforcable?

All help & comments appreciated.

 

Morph

[babybear39]

It's an application form, nothing more.

 

Do the T & Cs have any reference to you or your account on them?

[xx.Morph.xx]

The T&C are single sided photocopies set out like a generic agreement without specific dates or charges amounts on it. There are no references to any customer or account number whatsoever.

 

Morph

[babybear39]

My conlcusion is that they've sent you nothing more threatening or useful than toilet paper. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong though...

[cerberusalert]

At least least the ink's dried so you won't get ink-marks on your derriere.

[babybear39]

I remember when newspaper in the smallest room was a luxury

[babybear39]

Thank them for supplying you with TP

[xx.Morph.xx]

So about as much chance of it standing up in court as a hoodie full of alcopops .

 

Thanks peeps

 

Should I bother sending them a letter telling them I know it's cr@p or just wait for their next threatogram & reply to it with the "Thank you for your correspondance however you have still failed to send me a valid CCA...etc...etc"

 

Morph

[harrassed senior]

slightly off topic!

 

It was my job as a child to sit and cut the newspaper into squares which were then threaded on to a piece of string to be hung from the nail in the loo!!

[cerberusalert]

Monty Python's Flying Circus - "Four Yorkshiremen" Monty Python's Flying Circus - "Four Yorkshiremen"

 

http://vodpod.com/watch/798903-monty-python-the-four-yorkshiremen-subtitled

[xx.Morph.xx]

Should I bother sending them a letter telling them I know it's cr@p or just wait for their next threatogram & reply to it with the "Thank you for your correspondance however you have still failed to send me a valid CCA...etc...etc"

 

Morph

 

Bump

[silverfox1961]

So about as much chance of it standing up in court as a hoodie full of alcopops .

 

Thanks peeps

 

Should I bother sending them a letter telling them I know it's cr@p or just wait for their next threatogram & reply to it with the "Thank you for your correspondance however you have still failed to send me a valid CCA...etc...etc"

 

Morph

 

 

Your choice really,

They know they've sent you a pile of poo ( get the toilet paper link) so you could wait for them to start badgering you again as they will or, pre-empt them with the A/C in dispute letter

[xx.Morph.xx]

Well the threatogramms continued & today I received this:-

 

 

Now the date of purchase they have stated is interesting so I have decided to respond with the following:-

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: - Account No: 123456789/Your Reference Number: 123456789

 

 

 

This Account is in dispute

 

 

Re: Your letter dated 17/07/2009 from your “trading style” Red Debt Collection Services

 

 

Firstly may I address that I know full well that Lowell Portfolio I & II, Red Debt Collection Services & Hamptons Legal are all trading styles of Lowell Financial Ltd. Therefore I will only be communicating by letter to Lowell Financial Ltd. As a side note you may want to inform your collection agents I have a Truecall system in place which plays a ringing out tone to all of your calls whilst not actually ringing my phone. So call if you want to but, remember you are wasting your time not mine.

 

Secondly may I quote your letter dated 17/07/209 “We have been appointed as the authorised debt collection agents by our client Lowell Portfolio I Ltd to recover an outstanding balance owed to them after they purchased your original debt from Capital One, on 01/06/2009.”

Now considering you and your various “trading styles” have been making demands for payment of this account since early February 2009 I can think of only 2 scenarios:-

 

 

• You have been demanding payment with threats of legal action for a debt and account you held NO legal right to, which is a breach of countless regulations and law & if we throw allegations of Fraud, Extortion or Demanding Money With Menaces around we will see what will stick!
  
• Your employees are so confused as to who they actually work for that they become so incompetent they cannot even get the dates right on the letters they send out.
  

 

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and just put it down to your incompetence and get to the main reason for my letter.

 

On XX/XX/2009 I wrote to Lowell Financial requesting that you supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for this account. As no valid response was received in response to my s77/78 consumer credit act 1974 request within the permitted timescale, on XX/XX/2009 I sent you notification that the account was now in legal dispute.

 

Eventually in response to this request on XX/XX/2009 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 have enclosed an excerpt from 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

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

Does the above seem ok??

 

All comments/views welcomed

 

Morph