Letter from the 'Vice President' Abbey credit card

[The GodMother]

Is there any evidence to say they are the front and back of the same doc?

 

As i agree with cerberusalert.

[babybear39]

Subscribing...

[Enron]

Oh dear - encouraging a debtor to take on further credit is against the OFT Guidance, though MBNA often do it. Don't be surprised to receive 'pre-approved' card and loan offers from various companies that will all ultimately resolve to MBNA.

 

Beat me to it, breach OFT guidelines - but they don't care as long as they get their pound of flesh.

[greatburdon]

Thanks for your input.

 

Godmother I see no reference anywhere to say they are the front and back of the same document.

 

greatburdon

[The GodMother]

Ok then so can u see in any way that there would be a link between the front and back of the document.

 

This may be if you hold the reply up to the light and see if u can see original writing threw the t+cs or the t+cs threw the application form.

[greatburdon]

Received a postcard today from "Alex" sayin I have an important message on the reverse, basically someone is visiting me at home.

 

Is this just a tactic or do I need to respond?

 

gb

[phil_nottingham]

Its just a stupid scare tactic. dont be worried.

[Nottsdave]

keep the postcard just in case you need it later on , its rubbish to suggest that they will visit your home.

 

Visit My Arse !

 

Notts

[babybear39]

Report them to the OFT for sending mail not in an envelope.

[greatburdon]

Thanks for your support, will file the card and send a complaint to OFT.

 

gb

[greatburdon]

Received the following letter from Abbey (attachment 8sept) with enclosures.

 

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8sept.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8sept2.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8sept3.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8sept4.jpg

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8sept5.jpg

 

a. "A copy of your executed agreement" - this is the same document I have had previously ie. my application form with a quarter page of alleged terms and conditions on the back.(attachments 8sept2/8sept3)

 

b. "Your up to date terms and conditions"- not sure if these are relevant as my understanding is there needs to be one signed document 'within the four corners' . I have highlighted the reference to £12 charge which I think confirms these are new terms. Also section 11 refered to on the front page of my application form does not correspond with section 11 of the 'new terms'. (attachments 8sept4/8sept5)

 

c. "A copy of your most recent statement (which shows the state of your account) which has been signed by us" - As it says they have included a statement dated 19 Aug. with interest and penalties still racking up and signed by someone.

 

Since the last correspondence on 26 June I have done nothing and just waited for their next move. It would appear that this response is an attempt to show compliance of my S78 request. Can someone please advise what I need to do next, can I challenge the validity of the 'application form'?

 

Having re-checked my file I see the last correspondence was from Optima legal on 10 July threatening a charging order if I did not come to an arrangement. I did not respond to their threat.

 

greatburdon

Edited September 10, 2009 by greatburdon
optima

[Stephan56]

I think there is a ral issue that needs to be brought to peoples' attention regarding companies offering "new credit" (i.e. loans, new credit cards etc).

 

This is, in my view, a real [problem].

 

If you take out a new card/loan (i.e. post 2007) these companies will have better/watertight documentation which you will sign and become bound to. They then "lend" you the money to "pay off the old debt" (whcih is just an accounting entry for them) but, CRUCIALLY, they now have you committed via a NEW ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT. They have basically ensured THEY are in a much better position - but you, the debtor, are worse off.

 

It always struck me as odd that people with credit card bills (essentaily unsecured debt, and unenforceable in many cases) would take out new loans, secured on their homes, to pay off unsecured debt. You have just taken an unsecured debt and turned it into a secured debt - and secured on your house. Absolutely barking, in my opinion.

 

Anway, just picking up on that part of the thread dealing with the offer of new credit by existing creditors.

[greatburdon]

**Bump** Just wondering if the info at post #36 merits a response.

 

Do those with experience deem the stuff provided to be enough to enforce the alleged agreement?

 

Thanks

greatburdon

[greatburdon]

Received further letter today chasing overdue payments or else court action may be taken or the account passed to a DCA.

 

I assume that activity has started again due to their belief of compliance.

 

Should I challenge their letters or ignore and wait for the threats to materialise?

 

greatburdon

[greatburdon]

**Bump**

[babybear39]

Send them the account in dispute letter available here:

 

The Consumer Forums - Debt collectors

 

Amend to suit, send recorded keeping a copy with your postal receipt, print do not sign and good luck.

 

Please report them to TS and the OFT for chasing an account when it's in clear dispute

[greatburdon]

Latest offering fron Abbey...

 

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey14sept.jpg

 

 

As expected as they now consider that they have complied by sending the docs. in post #36 the collection/threat letters have started again in ernest.

 

I assume a response along the lines of I dispute the validity of the information sent is in order?

 

greatburdon

[babybear39]

Have you done as sugested in post #41?

[greatburdon]

Yes babybear .. Correspondence has obviously crossed so will wait for the next development.

 

GB

[master woody]

the letter in post 42 is Total BS.

 

A creditor can only apply for a changing order if a debtor fails to pay a CCJ.

 

In other words they must first obtain a CCJ (if they can get one) the judge would then set payments, if for some reason you failed to pay the set amount to the court, the creditor then could apply for further enforcement and the judge may CONSIDER a charging order against your house.

 

If you pay the CCJ as directed by the court, the creditor is unable to apply for further enforcement

 

This is a threatogram of biblical proportions... i'd compain to the OFT

[babybear39]

That's why they're using words like may, could etc....

[The GodMother]

Master Woody

 

I dont want to be awkard but you DO NOT pay the courts u pay the company or private individual and they are ment to give you a recipt for the payment or even pay by a tracable method. EG cheque or standing order.

[greatburdon]

Received this letter:

 

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt51/greatburdon/abbey8Oct.jpg

 

They state that the account will be written off as a bad debt at the end of this month and then go on with their threats that they will persue several recovery actions.

 

What is the position after it has been written off as a bad debt ?(presumably so they claim tax relief or an insurance pay-out) Does it strengthen my case? ... Seems odd to me.

 

greatburdon

[Stephan56]

A write off is their INTERNAL term and it does not mean anything to you. it just means, for their own accounting, they treat the debt (as asset to them) as haivng no value. That does NOT stop them selling it or trying to collect on it later.

 

What you need is a (i) full and final settlement (ii) balance written to 0 after any payment you make and (iii) undertaking that no collection efforts will be made in future by them or anyone else (i.e. they will not sell on the debt)

 

Otherwise, a promise to "write it off" is pretty meaningless.

[greatburdon]

Thanks Stephan. Still seems odd that they confim to their customer that the alleged debt is to be 'written off'.

 

Do I respond to this letter, or just wait for their next move?

 

GB