A+L/Shoosmiths Claimform going for CCJ/CO - Unsecured loan **SETTLED BY TOMLIN**

[bozalt]

Hi All

 

I am a releveant newbie so I hope I am posting this in the right forum, I would really appreciate any guidance that can be offered.

 

My situation is that I have an unsecured loan that I took out in 2005 with A&L in 2005 for £20k with repayments of £290 per month. Last year I had a loss of income and contacted all my creditors to explain the situation and offered reduced payments of £96pcm. The offer of reduced payments was acceptable to all but A & L and MBNA.

 

A & L have been threatening legal action and have now written to say they will be commencing action, over the phone they told me this was because I owned a property and they would look to obtain a charging order. The property is jointly owned with equity of around £14k, although I have no written document to confirm this the equity belongs to my partner as she paid the deposit.

 

I really want to avoid a CCJ and potential charging order so would be extremely grateful if anyone can advise what action I can take to prevent this. I have sent a few letters to A&L but the answer is always pay in full or court action. I have uploaded my CCA and default notice but I am pretty sure there are no faults with these. My partner would be unhappy with a charging order and a CCJ could threaten my employment.

 

Any assistance or advice as to how to avoid court action would be greatly appreciated.

 

Many many thanks

 

B

 

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7564/alcreditagreementpage1o.jpg

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3812/alcreditagreementpage2o.jpg

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/354/alcreditagreementpage3o.jpg

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9610/alcreditagreementpage4o.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/349/alcreditagreementpage5o.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8463/alcreditagreementpage6o.jpg

 

 

Alliance & Leicester Default.pdf

[bach]

Hi, I have been in a simular position, and have won 3 times in court with A&L over charging orders.Another case in July.Have you had any letters from Shoosmiths Solicitors yet.

 

I note that the second page of your document ist'nt signed?

did you remove the signiture before you posted it on the forom,

or did you not sign the agreement?

Regards Lynn

[42man]

Did they issue you with a Default notice ? Do you still have a copy of this ? can you post it up (leaving the dates mentioned on)

[bozalt]

Hi, I have been in a simular position, and have won 3 times in court with A&L over charging orders.Another case in July.Have you had any letters from Shoosmiths Solicitors yet.

 

I note that the second page of your document ist'nt signed?

did you remove the signiture before you posted it on the forom,

or did you not sign the agreement?

Regards Lynn

 

 

Hi Lynn

 

Its good to hear you have had success with A & L, were you in similar circumstances? It gives to hope to me yet!

 

I did sign the contract but removed the signature and all other info that may identify me. I havent had anything from Shoosmiths the last letter I received about a week ago stated that they were passing to their solicitors to begin legal action.

 

Best regards and thanks for looking at my thread!

 

B

Edited June 12, 2009 by bozalt

[bozalt]

Did they issue you with a Default notice ? Do you still have a copy of this ? can you post it up (leaving the dates mentioned on)

 

Hi 42man

 

I have reproduced the default below and would very much appreciate your comments.

 

Alliance Leicester

Alliance & Leicester Personal Finance Limited

Collections Department

PO Box 5796 Leicester LE1 5ZJ

Telephone 0870 5785132 Fax 0116 242 3138

Textphone08700100163

8am-9pm Monday to Friday and Saturday 8.30am-1 pm

Date 27 June 2008

Our ref DEF001

SGAP

IMPORTANT - YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY

DEFAULT NOTICE SERVED UNDER SECTION 87(1) OF THE CONSUMER

CREDIT ACT 1974

Agreement pertaining to Account Number:

 

Breach of the Terms and Conditions of your Loan agreement:

The clause that requires you

to make payments at the time stated

Nature of Breach:

Failure to pay the overdue amount

Action required to remedy:

Payment of the overdue arrears of £735.33 before the 11 July 2008

IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH.

IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN THE FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW, MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU (OR A SUR

Further Action

The Company will serve notice in writing demanding payment of the outstanding balance on or after the date specified above. If nothing is received we shall bring proceedings against you for all the monies outstanding under the Loan Agreement.

Payments to be made: Balance outstanding: £15,821.05

Rebate Allowable*: £1,624.96 Amount to be paid: £14,196.09

*Should the amount shown here be a negative figure i.e. preceded by a '-' (minus) sign, this indicates that additional interest has been charged as a result of either late payment(s), your account being in arrears or a change of payment date. This amount will be subject to change in the event that payment in full is not made on the date shown.

In your own interests you are strongly advised to contact the Company by telephone on 0844 561 9615 quoting the above reference number if you cannot pay the arrears in full.

IF YOU ARE NOT SURE WHAT TO DO, YOU SHOULD GET HELP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A SOLICITOR, YOUR LOCAL TRADING STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OR YOUR NEAREST CITIZEN'S ADVICE BUREAU. IF YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY IN PAYING ANY SUM OWING UNDER THE AGREEMENT OR TAKING ANY OTHER ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE, YOU CAN APPLY TO THE COURT WHICH MAY MAKE AN ORDER ALLOWING YOU OR ANY SURETY MORE TIME.

　

Alliance & Leicester Personal Finance Ltd is a subsidiary of Alliance & Leicester pic.

Registered Office: Heritage House. 61 Southgates, Leicester, LE1 5RR. Company NO. 2486611, Registered in England

 

Many thanks

 

B

[ncf355]

Oops for them

 

Date is wrong

 

Should be 14 clear days for action, so that date does not include the day you received it or the day on which they intend to take action

 

27th June 2008 was a Friday, so even if it was posted that day (you can put them to proof of this at court) it wouldnt have arrived with you in court terms until Monday 30th June 2008 EARLIEST

 

So, clock starts ticking Tuesday July 1st which means earliest possible date of action = July 14th

 

Is the underlined text on your reproduction above exactly as the letter, or is all the "BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN" underlined?

 

Have they issued a termination notice to you?

 

Also, do the figures detailed on the letter match what you believe is owing?

 

 

 

As a very last resort, if it got as far as the charging order hearing (doubtful, looking at the Default Notice) you could argue they are being unreasonable and show the arrengements you have with other creditors and argue it would be unfair on the others to grant A and L a C.O

[bozalt]

Oops for them

 

Date is wrong

 

Should be 14 clear days for action, so that date does not include the day you received it or the day on which they intend to take action

 

27th June 2008 was a Friday, so even if it was posted that day (you can put them to proof of this at court) it wouldnt have arrived with you in court terms until Monday 30th June 2008 EARLIEST

 

So, clock starts ticking Tuesday July 1st which means earliest possible date of action = July 14th

 

Is the underlined text on your reproduction above exactly as the letter, or is all the "BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN" underlined?

 

Have they issued a termination notice to you?

 

Also, do the figures detailed on the letter match what you believe is owing?

 

 

 

As a very last resort, if it got as far as the charging order hearing (doubtful, looking at the Default Notice) you could argue they are being unreasonable and show the arrengements you have with other creditors and argue it would be unfair on the others to grant A and L a C.O

 

Hi NCF355

 

Thanks for your help, that sounds reassuring regarding the mistake on the default regarding the date of issue, will that stop them getting a judgment if point it out as part of my defence?

 

 

The part that is underlined is 'BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN' and ' NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN'.

 

I have just checked my records and can find no notice of termination, letters detailing the sum of arrears and another referring to the default stating it is a formal demand but nothing that I can see is a termination notice.

 

I assume the figure is correct it does appear to be however I should expect this to have reduced by around a £1000 pounds since its issue.

 

Is it advisable to write back to A& L or should I leave it until they take legal action and then compile a defence based on the errors you have pointed out?

 

A& L are by far my biggest creditor and along with MBNA are the only ones that have been unreasonable. I am clearing all my debts at reduced rates (albiet MBNA are only getting £1 a month) so I really do not understand why they feel the need to take action!

 

Thanks for your help and advice, its great that you spotted the default error I woudl not have realised myself.

 

Many thanks

 

B

[42man]

This should help you.....(dig out some bits from this)

 

I would like to suggest that, as a matter of course, we advise the user to go for a strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) in these cases.

 

The reasoning is simple:

 

Section 87(1) of the CCA 1974 says:

 

87.--(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a default notice) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,--

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum....

 

Section 88 says that the DN must be in the prescribed form and the associated regulation say what that form is.

 

Thus, if the DN is not in the prescribed form, it is invalid and, under s87, the lender has no right of action.

 

CPR3.4(2)(a) says that the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

 

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing ... the claim

 

The requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully Terminate an Account whilst in default

 

1. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement.

 

2. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

3. Further to point 2 above, CPR rules on service also state the required timescales to be given for serving of documents :-

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

 

4. The Default notice supplied by the Claimant is dated Friday 3rd August, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Wednesday 8th August, namely Wednesday 22nd August 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 17th August.

 

5. I therefore put the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 clear days to rectify the breach. I also note that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

 

6. The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

7. It is submitted that the above Default Notice served s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

8. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

 

Section 87. Need for Default Notice

 

(1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement -

 

(a) to terminate the Agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) to enforce any security.

 

9. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form, as below:

 

Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice

 

(1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form…

 

10. The wording must make it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue.

 

11. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence.

 

12. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the Court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the alleged default.

 

13. The Claimant’s failure to issue a valid Default Notice must surely prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the Agreement unlawful, as statute provides the procedure that must be followed. Since the Claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Claimant does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully.

 

14. Furthermore, the Arrears Total outlined cannot be accurate, as the Balance on the Account was at least partly comprised of Unlawful Charges plus additional Charges and Interest added unlawfully whilst the Account was in Dispute. Therefore, the Arrears claimed cannot be accurate, as they are themselves calculated using a Total that was itself inaccurate.

 

15. This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87.

 

16. Finally, an invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply issuing a new Default Notice. The Claimant may not serve a second effective default notice in prescribed form post-termination of the agreement. Any such second default notice will necessarily state a date by when I would be required to comply after which in default the agreement would terminate. The second default notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when that cannot be the case, as it was terminated on XX/XX/XX. Terminating an Agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Claimant was carried out in circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87, namely the opportunity to seek early Payment of a sum that was, prior to Termination, only payable in the future.

[ncf355]

42

 

Are we assuming then, that as their is no official termination notice we take the court action as Termination due to the fact they request the full balance?

[bozalt]

This should help you.....(dig out some bits from this)

 

I would like to suggest that, as a matter of course, we advise the user to go for a strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) in these cases.

 

The reasoning is simple:

 

Section 87(1) of the CCA 1974 says:

 

87.--(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a default notice) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,--

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum....

 

Section 88 says that the DN must be in the prescribed form and the associated regulation say what that form is.

 

Thus, if the DN is not in the prescribed form, it is invalid and, under s87, the lender has no right of action.

 

CPR3.4(2)(a) says that the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

 

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing ... the claim

 

The requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully Terminate an Account whilst in default

 

1. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement.

 

2. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

3. Further to point 2 above, CPR rules on service also state the required timescales to be given for serving of documents :-

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

 

4. The Default notice supplied by the Claimant is dated Friday 3rd August, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Wednesday 8th August, namely Wednesday 22nd August 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 17th August.

 

5. I therefore put the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 clear days to rectify the breach. I also note that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

 

6. The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

7. It is submitted that the above Default Notice served s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

8. For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

 

Section 87. Need for Default Notice

 

(1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement -

 

(a) to terminate the Agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) to enforce any security.

 

9. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form, as below:

 

Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice

 

(1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form…

 

10. The wording must make it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue.

 

11. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence.

 

12. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the Court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a Default Notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the Default Notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears to confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the Claimant to set out the Default Notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the alleged default.

 

13. The Claimant’s failure to issue a valid Default Notice must surely prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the Agreement unlawful, as statute provides the procedure that must be followed. Since the Claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Claimant does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully.

 

14. Furthermore, the Arrears Total outlined cannot be accurate, as the Balance on the Account was at least partly comprised of Unlawful Charges plus additional Charges and Interest added unlawfully whilst the Account was in Dispute. Therefore, the Arrears claimed cannot be accurate, as they are themselves calculated using a Total that was itself inaccurate.

 

15. This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87.

 

16. Finally, an invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply issuing a new Default Notice. The Claimant may not serve a second effective default notice in prescribed form post-termination of the agreement. Any such second default notice will necessarily state a date by when I would be required to comply after which in default the agreement would terminate. The second default notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when that cannot be the case, as it was terminated on XX/XX/XX. Terminating an Agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Claimant was carried out in circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87, namely the opportunity to seek early Payment of a sum that was, prior to Termination, only payable in the future.

 

42man

 

That is excellent thanks, can I just check that when I receive the court papers I submit a defence along the lines of the information detailed above?

 

Many thanks for your help with this!

 

B

[bozalt]

Hi Guys

 

I need some further advice if possible.

 

I today received a letter from A & L's solicitors requesting I contact them to discuss repayment or legal action will commence within 14 days.

 

Would you advise that I write back confirming my financial position and details of the offer made to A & L and continue to pay the instalments previously offered?

 

Any advice would be much appreciated.

 

Many thanks

 

B

[bozalt]

Hi Guys

 

I have today also received a call on my work number, a message was left requesting I call Shoosmiths, could this call be construed as harrasment bearing in mind its only been a day since the letter was received requesting I contact them within fourteen days????

 

Would anyone be kind enough to offer advice as to how I should respond, I would like to put a response in writing tomorrow if possible.

 

Many thanks

 

B

 

PS

 

Not sure if anyone has seen this in the news today;

 

 

 

News

 

Dispatches to air debt collection exposé - 10/07/2009

 

 

A Channel 4 Dispatches reporter has gone undercover in a debt collection agency for a programme that will air on 20 July, Credit Today has learned.

 

Presented by Jane Moore, Channel 4 said the programme reveals "some of the tactics deployed to get debtors to pay up, and talks to those unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of this treatment". Earlier this year, Dispatches reporter Tom Randall got a job as a debt collector inside "one of the UK’s fastest growing agencies".

 

The programme is understood to also focus on the sale of debt portfolios. "Some of the biggest high street businesses are cutting their losses and selling on their bad debts to agencies for as little as sixteen pence in the pound," it said. "Agencies who buy up these debts are entitled to pursue debtors for the full amount. In this multi billion pound industry the stakes are high, and Dispatches reveals the lengths collectors will go to, to recover their debts."

 

Kurt Obermaier, executive director of the Credit Services Association, confirmed that a CSA member had made the trade body aware of the situation. He said the company had the correct policies in place for collections but individual employees may have deviated from them. He was not able to reveal the identity of the agency.

 

Credit Today understands that allegations include collection professionals putting undue pressure on vulnerable debtors, making premature threats of bankruptcy and chasing third parties and statue barred debts.

Edited July 10, 2009 by bozalt

[bozalt]

Hi Caggers

 

Further to my post on Friday I received the attached letter today which appears to be a reply to a letter I sent A & L back in May offering to pay £96.00 per month, it seems that Shoosmiths and A & L are determined to take legal action regardless of anything I try to do to prevent this.

 

I would really appreciate any advice as to how I should respond to their latest letter.

 

Many thanks

 

B

Shoosmiths.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Hi Bozalt

 

Have you maintained any payments be it at a reduced rate?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[bozalt]

Hi Bozalt

 

Have you maintained any payments be it at a reduced rate?

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

Hi Andy

 

I have never missed a payment albiet they have been at a reduced rate since my circumstances changed. I have increased the payment whenever I have been able to and am paying almost double what was originally agreed as a temporary payment plan.

 

Best regards

 

B

[AndyOrch]

Ok so is the amount refered to in the DN correct?

 

 

Andy

[bozalt]

Ok so is the amount refered to in the DN correct?

 

 

Andy

 

hi Andy

 

I am not too sure the DN says balance outstanding £15821.05 total to be repaid £14196.09(after rebate?) and the latest figure I have been given states the balance outstanding is £14898.05. The default was issued over a year ago.

 

Sorry I am not really sure how much I do owe as I was paying it back over a fixed period I never really worried about how much was outstanding just how long was left until it was repaid.

 

Do the above figures make sense?

 

Many thanks

 

B

[AndyOrch]

Hi Bozalt

 

Right just seen the date on the DN you posted.Ok the Shoos letter strange that they are accepting payment on behalf of A&L and as they state the reduced payment is not enough to stop legal action but pay us anyway:confused: guard that letter with your life.

Where are the above figures you quote from Bozalt?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[bozalt]

Hi Andy

 

I must admit to being a bit confused by it all, they have sent two letters and made one call to me in the space of 5 working days, this after they sent a letter stating I had fourteen days to respond!

 

I have taken the figures form the DN (Full copy attached) and the latest balance figure from a letter A & L sent me in June 2009 telling me they were passing the account for legal action. The original letter received from Shoosmiths last week did state that my account with A & L was now terminated.

 

Do you think I should start paying Shoosmiths instead of A & L now?

 

Thanks for your help and assistance with this, it is much appreciated.

 

Regards

 

B

Alliance &Leicester Default.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Ok Bozalt seen that one.Have you sent a S.A.R to A&L or Shoos?

With regard to payment I know i certainly would not unless told by A&L that is was in order.How do you make payment now?

 

Sorry for all the qs but there is something not right here I smell a rat?

 

Andy

[bozalt]

Ok Bozalt seen that one.Have you sent a S.A.R to A&L or Shoos?

With regard to payment I know i certainly would not unless told by A&L that is was in order.How do you make payment now?

 

Sorry for all the qs but there is something not right here I smell a rat?

 

Andy

 

I did send a SARS to A & L and received what appears to be a valid agreement, Page one appears to have gone mssing from the top of my thread so I have attached as a PDF.

 

No issues with the questions Andy, I really appreciate your help and advice to resolve this.

 

Cheers

 

B

Alliance & Leicester Credit Agreement.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Ok the agreement looks fine.We presume the DN issued in 2008, which BTW is also ok,apart from the lack of service time to be delivered,but lets not let the case hinge on that, was rectified.Can you verify this from your statements? You did recieve a full set with your S.A.R?

Threfore as things stand no DN as yet been issued or formal demand come to that.So on that understanding i would suggest sending Shoos a Sec 77 request headed " I do not acknowledge any debt to your company" enclose a£1.00 PO print name send recorded letter N in templates lib.and lets see what transpires,have they got the legal right to collect? is where im going with this.

In the meantime continue to maintain reduced payments to A&L and if you get chance get together all you payments made since arrangement on paper and document them as proof of payment.

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[bozalt]

Ok the agreement looks fine.We presume the DN issued in 2008, which BTW is also ok,apart from the lack of service time to be delivered,but lets not let the case hinge on that, was rectified.Can you verify this from your statements? You did recieve a full set with your S.A.R?

Threfore as things stand no DN as yet been issued or formal demand come to that.So on that understanding i would suggest sending Shoos a Sec 77 request headed " I do not acknowledge any debt to your company" enclose a£1.00 PO print name send recorded letter N in templates lib.and lets see what transpires,have they got the legal right to collect? is where im going with this.

In the meantime continue to maintain reduced payments to A&L and if you get chance get together all you payments made since arrangement on paper and document them as proof of payment.

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy

 

I got a SNAFU here, I just realised I did not do a SARS it was a CCA request.

 

Sorry for misleading you, should I do the SARS request before I go any further?? I realised that I havent seen any statements or anything other than my credit agreement. Should SARS be to Shoosmiths or A&L or should I send the Sec 77 request?

 

Regards

 

B

[AndyOrch]

Hi Andy

 

I got a SNAFU here, I just realised I did not do a SARS it was a CCA request.

 

Sorry for misleading you, should I do the SARS request before I go any further?? I realised that I havent seen any statements or anything other than my credit agreement. Should SARS be to Shoosmiths or A&L or should I send the Sec 77 request?

 

Regards

 

B

 

S.A.R to A&L and CCA to Shoos and we will then unravel this mess?

 

 

Andy:cool:

[bozalt]

S.A.R to A&L and CCA to Shoos and we will then unravel this mess?

 

 

Andy:cool:

 

Excellent thanks i will do that tomorrow, you have been a great help!!

 

Much appreciated

 

B