LTSB Default Notice - a query

[diddydicky]

How would I get the proof I need? The DSAR sheets I've got don't say whether that 30th Apr letter is the notice. But I don't have any letters dated the 30th. The closest thing I was sent to that date were the DNs - I also recall they were in the same envelope together.

 

it wont be for you to disprove it will be for them to prove

 

there are certain questions that you will ask them in court but i'm not going to state them here and now!!

[thunderballs]

Thats fair enough - I appreciate theres only so much info to take in. I think I can take a guess what the questions would be. They'll add to the masses of 'why was this allowed to happen' and 'why wasn't this delivered when I asked for it' type questions I've been asking them - some of which have been asked of LTSB repeatedly. In all honesty, I've NEVER encountered such a comically inept, shambolic and pig ignorant company as them. Hopefully, they'll be out of the picture soon enough.

[diddydicky]

Thats fair enough - I appreciate theres only so much info to take in. I think I can take a guess what the questions would be. They'll add to the masses of 'why was this allowed to happen' and 'why wasn't this delivered when I asked for it' type questions I've been asking them - some of which have been asked of LTSB repeatedly. In all honesty, I've NEVER encountered such a comically inept, shambolic and pig ignorant company as them. Hopefully, they'll be out of the picture soon enough.

 

i'll pm you

[thunderballs]

Thats excellent. I really do appreciate everything you've done. .

[diddydicky]

no probs

[thunderballs]

The whitened-out bit in the sentence 'If you do not IMMEDIATELY' quotes the full balance as stated in the earlier 'Balance:' bit :-

 

 

[diddydicky]

whats the date on these letters?

[thunderballs]

A month before the date shown on LTSB's DN.

[cymruambyth]

Hi, have you asked LTSB specifically about the DN and their proof of posting? They told me that they don't keep thm (but I do) and gave me a postal date a day later which meant they failed.

[r&b]

Hi, have you asked LTSB specifically about the DN and their proof of posting? They told me that they don't keep thm (but I do) and gave me a postal date a day later which meant they failed.

 

exactly cymruambyth,

 

that was my point above, they also told me they dont keep them nor proof of postage, if so its deemed as 2nd class:

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

 

 

 

 

getting that in writing will obviously help.

[thunderballs]

No, I've not specifically asked them about that. I know that I should have, and I certainly will be doing that. I won't get a quick response from them - they've never been quick with anything I've ever asked of them!

 

But, from what I can see, the fact that **** asked me for the full balance on each letter before the DNs were sent, is also quite important. I'd like to get a little more information on the workings of this.

[thunderballs]

Have LTSB effectively negated the DNs by having **** asking for the full balance on both accounts a full month beforehand?

[diddydicky]

exactly cymruambyth,

 

that was my point above, they also told me they dont keep them nor proof of postage, if so its deemed as 2nd class:

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

 

 

 

 

getting that in writing will obviously help.

 

these point whilst spot on would seem to be totally irrelevant now given the information you just posted

 

they have terminated the agreement a month before sending a DN

 

if the SAR does not show any DN's as having been issued to you befoe these two termination letters then its all over, game set and match to you

 

this is about as unlawful as an unlawful rescission of contract can get IMO

[thunderballs]

I got an enforcement notice (whether that changes anything I dont know). From what I can find those were the only 2 DNs I was ever sent.

[thunderballs]

The DSAR sheets I got only specify that letters were sent out on certain dates - they don't say anything about the content of the letters.

[r&b]

they have terminated the agreement a month before sending a DN

 

if the SAR does not show any DN's as having been issued to you befoe these two termination letters then its all over, game set and match to you

 

this is about as unlawful as an unlawful rescission of contract can get IMO

 

id have to completely agree with that DD

[thunderballs]

Charges and PPI are also involved. Being as arrogant as they are, LTSB refuses to back down on those. Claimed for those already (some time ago, as it happens).

 

Would claims for those affect the DN issue? My own imagination of a court POV, I'd guess not, being that the DN issue seems to be entirely a breach of practice issue on the bank's part (much like punitive charges).

[diddydicky]

charges and PPI totally irrelevant now it is an open and shut case

[thunderballs]

Many. many thanks to diddydicky for his brilliant input in clarifying a hideously complicated situation.

 

 

According to LTSB, they wrote off the account in June 2007. I've said before mine was a complicated affair.

 

 

But, I take it that as **** were demanding the full balance (as can be seen by the attached two letters earlier in this thread) a month BEFORE the DNs were issued, then their demands effectively constitute account termination.

 

 

However, since 'Charge Off/Write Off', LTSB are still trying to continue pursuing (mainly by means of external DCAs), doing it by :-

 

 

1. A consolidated account (apparently consisting of the outstanding balances of two terminated accounts), for which no agreement exists.

 

2. A credit card agreement (which is actually headlined 'Credit Card Application Form and Agreement'). The personal details are correct to me but the handwriting is not (two different people have completed this form). I believe this 'agreement' has been 'knocked up' from other paperwork possibly and which LTSB have just pulled out of thin air (I've never seen this agreement before in my life prior to them sending me this 'copy' very recently). It's certainly not an account I've ever used.

 

 

Up to now, I've been quoted and sent in paperwork, the details of four separate accounts which I've only ever had or used two of them at best.

 

 

Now, because LTSB's DSAR sheet does specifically state 'Charge Off/Write Off' and they're continuing pursuit (if not getting other companies to do it for them!), isn't this tax evasion on their part?

 

 

After all, wouldn't they have offset the 'defaulted sum' off against tax on that Charge Off/Write Off date?

[diddydicky]

Many. many thanks to diddydicky for his brilliant input in clarifying a hideously complicated situation.

 

 

According to LTSB, they wrote off the account in June 2007. I've said before mine was a complicated affair.

 

 

But, I take it that as **** were demanding the full balance (as can be seen by the attached two letters earlier in this thread) a month BEFORE the DNs were issued, then their demands effectively constitute account termination.

 

 

However, since 'Charge Off/Write Off', LTSB are still trying to continue pursuing (mainly by means of external DCAs), doing it by :-

 

 

1. A consolidated account (apparently consisting of the outstanding balances of two terminated accounts), for which no agreement exists.

 

2. A credit card agreement (which is actually headlined 'Credit Card Application Form and Agreement'). The personal details are correct to me but the handwriting is not (two different people have completed this form). I believe this 'agreement' has been 'knocked up' from other paperwork possibly and which LTSB have just pulled out of thin air (I've never seen this agreement before in my life prior to them sending me this 'copy' very recently). It's certainly not an account I've ever used.

 

 

Up to now, I've been quoted and sent in paperwork, the details of four separate accounts which I've only ever had or used two of them at best.

 

 

Now, because LTSB's DSAR sheet does specifically state 'Charge Off/Write Off' and they're continuing pursuit (if not getting other companies to do it for them!), isn't this tax evasion on their part?

 

 

After all, wouldn't they have offset the 'defaulted sum' off against tax on that Charge Off/Write Off date?

 

i wouldnt concern yourself with their tax affairs to be honest

 

so what is your intention now? do you want to force the issue and go on the offensive or just sit back and let them take the lead(you can still take control of the situation when they have done that)

[thunderballs]

I'm not 100% sure to be honest, diddydicky. I'm torn between acting against them, or waiting for them to act against me. I guess that's the next puzzler I need to decide on.

 

Just I noticed what the DSAR had said about the Charge Off date, and thought it might have been worth mentioning as it could have been relevant to what the thread has already discussed.

 

I just wasn't sure if the topic had come up under discussion on these boards before.

[diddydicky]

my own preference is to let them make the first move-then take control

[thunderballs]

Another factor I failed to point out.

 

Defaults were left on my credit reports once the 'consolidation' of the two terminated accounts took place. This was in June 2007, and over a month after LTSB's default notice expired.

 

Would I be right in thinking that LTSB merely ASSUMED they shut the account down already when they passed in to **** in March 2007, realised they hadn't once they sent the list of charges to me, and then closed my account down in a rush because I told them I was reporting them to the ICO for non-compliance?

 

Did they do this to hinder my claim for refund of charges?

 

Just trying to make some sense of LTSB's actions. Admittedly, that's an uphill struggle in itself.

[thunderballs]

bump

[thunderballs]

Sorry if I seem a little persistent, but I would be interested to hear anyone's take on Post #73