Are Banks and DCA's still actively chasing bad debt

[Aspirante]

I have not heard from any of my creditors since about January, is this general because of the present problems the Banks are facing or am I to believe that they have written off the debts. Are they likley to resume chasing when things have settled down a bit?

Could it be that their priority is internal problems to sort out first?

[postggj]

a lot of dca are flogging accounts between themself at the moment

 

they borrowed an obscene ammount to buy these accounts and a lot of them are lemmons

 

dca are realy feeling the pinch at the moment

 

intrim justica for one

 

real shame

[Aspirante]

That's nice to hear, I wonder where that info. came from, you don't generally get to hear about that stuff.

[postggj]

i was in stratford last week

 

the two intrim justica offices were closed down

[hme.4x4]

I've noticed this too. The banks have also had job losses and that has got to have some effect surely? I'm sure they are all in a complete shambles right now, including the DCA's......makes a change, let them suffer is all I can say

[postggj]

hillesden, aka dlc

 

they are joined at the hip by chickens, that is facenda

 

not doing to well

[postggj]

more people are now more aware now

they will challenge agreements

 

how meny agreements do we see on cag that are crap

 

end game for dca

[Aspirante]

i was in stratford last week

 

the two intrim justica offices were closed down

 

Their portfolio will be up for grabs then What about setting up our own DCA, buying all the debts for a song then going into liquidation.

[F_DCAs]

Shame we don't see this happen here more often :-

 

InsideARM: NY Attorney General Shuts Down Collection Agencies; Subpoenas 20 Others

[Aspirante]

Hmmm, It appears that Barclays, Halifax & another have woken from their slumber after seven months of me hearing nothing, I have this week had four letters.

 

One from HALIFAX STATING THAT THEY HAVE SOLD THE DEBT TO Lowell, (sorry hit the caps lock) One from Lowell on the same day announcing that they have bought the debt from Halifax.

 

A statement from Equidebt for the preceeding six month period stating that I have paid nothing to them (I had sent them a letter in January telling them that I would not be paying anymore money as a CCA was not forthcoming.

 

A letter also from Barclaycard telling me that I owe them £10k & for me to contact them, I had previously asked them for a CCA too but got nothing back. I suppose I should write back asking for CCA's again?

[Pinky69]

Send this to their Complaints Deprtments at the addresses you have for them:

 

Account In Dispute

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Thank you for your letter of (date) the contents of which have been noted.

 

You have failed to respond to my legal request to supply me a true copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement for the above account.

 

On (date) I made a formal request for a true signed agreement for the alleged account under consumer credit Act 1974 s77/8. A copy of which is enclosed for your perusal and ease of reference.

 

 

You have failed to comply with my request, and as such the account entered default on (date) (12+2 working days AFTER the CCA request was sent)

 

The document that you are obliged to send me is a true copy of the executed agreement that contained all of the prescribed terms, all other required terms and statutory notices and was signed by both your company and myself as defined in section 61(1) of CCA 74 and subsequent Statutory Instruments. If the executed agreement contained any reference to any other document, you are also obliged to send me a copy of that document. In addition a full statement of this account should have been sent to me detailing all debits and credits to the account.

 

Furthermore

 

You are aware that the Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for a request for a true copy of a credit agreement to be carried out before your client enters into a default situation.

 

This limit has expired.

 

As you are no doubt aware section 77(6) states:

 

If the creditor fails to comply with Subsection (1)

 

(a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

 

Therefore this account has become unenforceable at law.

 

As you have Failed to comply with a lawful request for a true, signed copy of the said agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it, Failed to send a full statement of the account and Failed to provide any of the documentation requested.

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Furthermore I shall counterclaim that any such action constitutes unlawful harassment.

 

Please note you may also consider this letter as a statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect.

 

This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies.

 

Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data.

 

It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’; You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

 

Should you not respond within 14 days I expect that this means you agree to remove all such data.

 

Furthermore you should be aware that a creditor is not permitted to take ANY

Action against an account whilst it remains in dispute.

 

The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies.

 

* You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

* You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.

* You may not pass the account to a third party.

* You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.

* You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

 

 

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit.

You have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter, which is now a formal complaint.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours

[nicklea]

 

One from HALIFAX STATING THAT THEY HAVE SOLD THE DEBT TO Lowell, (sorry hit the caps lock) One from Lowell on the same day announcing that they have bought the debt from Halifax.

 

Despite the above advice, I would suggest that you DO NOT (caps lock on purpose!) write to Halifax or Lowell about this.

 

If you do then you will be admitting that you have received notice of the sale of the debt and this is never a good thing to do, just in case Lowell do decide to issue proceedings agaisnt you.

[Pinky69]

??????? They are going to pursue you for it anyway so it makes no difference whether you tell them that the alleged debt is in dispute from the outset or when they start pursuing you. I like to tell them exactly where THEY stand from the outset. They know you have received their assignment letter - they got your details from the original creditor - this is not a phishing exercise.

[nicklea]

Pinky69

 

Yes it does make a huge difference whether you write to them or not.

 

In the case of Barclaycard and equidebt it doesn't matter as:-

 

1) Barclaycard is the original creditor

2) He/she has already been paying Equidebt

 

But in the case of Halifax/Lowells, although they have sent a letter giving notice of the assignment they have not complied with the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

As a result, if this ever comes to court, then Aspirante has a very strong defence.

 

The only thing that would undermine this position would be if he/she actually wrote to Lowells and thereby acknowledged the assignment which is what you are suggesting he does.

 

There may be a perfectly good and enforceable agreement in existence, but if the account gets assigned and it's not done properly then you have a very strong defence against the claim if proccedings are ever issued. The only thing that would undermine this would be if you acknowledged notice of the assignment. Then your defence goes right out the window.

 

Also, while I agree with most of what you say in your "account in dispute letter" - although it may be better to put the section 10 DPA notice on a seperate sheet of paper as creditors don't often seem to read write to the bottom.

 

However, where you say:-

 

The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies.

 

* You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

* You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.

* You may not pass the account to a third party.

* You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.

* You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

 

You are quite correct that where there is no agreement in existence it means that the creditor cannot do these things. However, failure to respond to a s77/s78 request is not the same thing as there being no agreement in existence.

 

There have been posters on this site that have taken the above quote quite literally and stopped paying after 12 days where they had previously been paying the full amount required - so their credit rating was (relatively speaking) good and then they are surprised when they are defaulted, their credit rating trashed, they get taken to court where, eventually, the creditor is forced to produce the agreement and it is found to be enforceable and they end up with a CCJ.

 

However, in the case of Aspirante it appears from what he has said that he has not been making payments for some time so he will have been defaulted already anyway.

[Pinky69]

I totally disagree with you but there we are.

[nicklea]

Disagree about what? About my comments on the Law of Property Act or my comments about your letter?

[noomill060]

This bit:

 

"There have been posters on this site that have taken the above quote quite literally and stopped paying after 12 days where they had previously been paying the full amount required - so their credit rating was (relatively speaking) good and then they are surprised when they are defaulted, their credit rating trashed, they get taken to court where, eventually, the creditor is forced to produce the agreement and it is found to be enforceable and they end up with a CCJ."

 

I also disagree with you.

 

Certainly -as regards credit cards, stop paying after the 12 days.

 

Then fight, fight, learn and fight and reclaim your charges and PPI.

 

If they then try to get you in front of a judge that is another bridge to cross and there are many more who have beaten them, than have lost.

 

We are fighters here on CAG.

[Josie8]

Disagree about what? About my comments on the Law of Property Act or my comments about your letter?

 

 

Your advicde re LOPA is correct

[nicklea]

noomill060,

 

Are you suggesting that you would advise somebody who is paying off their credit cards every month and who has a good credit rating to stop making payments simply because the creditor has not replied within 12 days?

 

 

That, I would suggest, is a very high risk strategy for someone in that position.

 

Might I ask, what do you think the debtor should do when, a few months down the line - by which time they have already been defaulted and had their credit rating affected - the creditor eventually does come up with an enforceable agreement? Their credit rating has already been affected and this will be with them for years. It's bad enough trying to get a new mortgage or remortgage at the moment - never mind with having a defualt on your credit record as well.

 

Now, of course, in the case of somebody who has not been able to make contractual payments for some time or is not making payments at all, then it makes no difference.

 

If they then try to get you in front of a judge that is another bridge to cross and there are many more who have beaten them, than have lost.

 

I would be interested if you could show me any cases at all that have gone to court where the original creditor has an enforceable agreement and has complied fully with the CCA and it has not been awarded a CCJ.

 

Of course it's a totally different matter when there is no agreement, or it isn't enforceable or any of the other prerequisites required of the creditor have not been complied with but that is not the point that I was making.

 

For someone with a good credit rating, it is a very high risk strategy to stop making payments before a court declares an agreement unenforceable. It is simply my suggestion that somebody in that position should by all means get their charges refunded, claim back mis-sold ppi etc but carry on making minimum payments until such time as they have proof that there is no enforceable agreement in existence.

 

For someone who is making regular token payments and has had interest suspended it is also a slight risk as the creditor may well start charging interest again. However, for most people in this situation, I would suggest that this particular risk it not too worrying.

 

For someone who is making only infrequent or no payments this doesn't apply in any case as they have already stopped making payments.

[noomill060]

"Of course it's a totally different matter when there is no agreement, or it isn't enforceable or any of the other prerequisites required of the creditor have not been complied with but that is not the point that I was making."

 

 

This is the entire reason for this section of CAG- to educate people so that there are aware of what an enforceable agreement looks like.

 

I do, and so do most Caggers these days (with help from legally qualified Caggers of course)

 

Obviously, a failure to comply with a s.77-79 request doesnt provide proof of the non-existance of an unenforceable agreement, but it it would appear to be indicative that they are the back foot and that until a valid agreement appears, the creditor is stuck.

 

There are other, more painful ways to force the creditor to reveal their hand, pre-hearing of course.

 

My personal experience is with credit card agreements or lack thereof.

 

On each occasion I have ceased payments and started my own actions against the creditors for return of charges, PPI, unlawfully applied interest, s.142 declaratory relief based on the assertion that no agreement exists and an order for removal of any unlawful defaults and damages caused thereby.

 

On each occasion they have prostrated themselves before me, begging to settle, long before the hearing date and my credit report is as now pure as the driven snow and they are now a little poorer for being foolish enough to try it on with me.

Edited July 26, 2009 by noomill060

[noomill060]

"noomill060,

 

Are you suggesting that you would advise somebody who is paying off their credit cards every month and who has a good credit rating to stop making payments simply because the creditor has not replied within 12 days?"

 

Only if they are being hassled, kicked around by DCAs and at risk of being sued for money they dont actually owe. (Charges, PPI etc)

[noomill060]

"We dont want to fight,

But by Jingo, if we do,

We've got the CAG,

We've got the stamps and we've got a printer, too."

 

 

(Old music hall song from Victorian Crimean war days)

 

We dont want to fight,

But by Jingo if we do,

We've got the men,

We've got the ships and we've got the money too,

We've fought the Bear before, and while we're Britons true,

The Russians will not have Constantinople!

 

The attitude that built an empire.

Edited July 26, 2009 by noomill060

[Pinky69]

My approach has been to take the fight to them from the outset and not one of my 12 debts ever reached court. I never at any stage allowed the DCAs to dictate to me the course of what happened after my CCA requests were not complied with. I had no intention of paying any of them a penny when they had no legal right to ask for it. I went straight to their complaints departments as soon as they had been assigned the debts by the banks and that wrong-footed them from the outset. All have now been written off and no DCA made any entries on my credit rating. By all means respond to them when they start harrassing you but I didn't get harrassment because I took the initiative and didn't let them dictate the course of events. That is and always will be my advice.

[2Grumpy]

I believe that what is being suggested here is to not react to the assignment letter but to wait until there is a deamnd for money & then react to that, because in this case it will put the recently assigned in a better position overall.

 

I don't see a problem with that, or with whatever stratgey is used when they next demand payment ...

 

Just hold off for now. Why throw one of your (good) cards away when you don't have to?

[2Grumpy]

My experience is, where the debt hasn't been sold, that the OC takes accounts away from unsuccessful debt collectors every 6 months.

 

If the DCA is on a commission, I don't see that changing.