Pitbull vs Ikano / Principles / GE?

[tandlehill]

Hi all.

 

Good to see that the CAG is still going strong and growing by the day !!

 

I am currently helping my wife to check some of her agreements, long story but she has some accounts from a previous marriage in her name as her Ex wasn't worthy enough to get them himself .

 

I have recently CCA'd her Principles Privelege (What Privelege?!) card to check the validity of the agreement, I received a letter from Ikano yesterday (which was outside of the 12 + 2 window) stating that the account wasn't opened by them but transferred from GE money previously , Ikano having only administered the cards from June 2005. They say that if I require the original agreement and associated Terms & Conditions I should contact them directly (interstingly they don't give any contact details or addresses - stalling tactic methinks?!) and also returned the £1 Postal order I enclosed (How kind!) .

 

Now if they have only "administerd" the account since June 2005 wouldn't they have to have access to the original agreement documentation so that they are in a position to "legally" enforce the agreement? They are currently asking my wife to make a payment and as they can not provide a copy of the original agreement I am considering sending them an Account in Dispute letter - no agreement, no debt.

 

I am not sure who to send any correspondence to at GE Money and as the clock is ticking in terms of the 12 + 2 + 30 days I wondered if anybody could offer some advice as to what to do next?

[PGH7447]

when the deadline passes send the account in dispute letter to the idiots

[diddydicky]

Hi all.

 

Good to see that the CAG is still going strong and growing by the day !!

 

I am currently helping my wife to check some of her agreements, long story but she has some accounts from a previous marriage in her name as her Ex wasn't worthy enough to get them himself .

 

I have recently CCA'd her Principles Privelege (What Privelege?!) card to check the validity of the agreement, I received a letter from Ikano yesterday (which was outside of the 12 + 2 window) stating that the account wasn't opened by them but transferred from GE money previously , Ikano having only administered the cards from June 2005. They say that if I require the original agreement and associated Terms & Conditions I should contact them directly (interstingly they don't give any contact details or addresses - stalling tactic methinks?!) and also returned the £1 Postal order I enclosed (How kind!) .

 

Now if they have only "administerd" the account since June 2005 wouldn't they have to have access to the original agreement documentation so that they are in a position to "legally" enforce the agreement? They are currently asking my wife to make a payment and as they can not provide a copy of the original agreement I am considering sending them an Account in Dispute letter - no agreement, no debt.

 

I am not sure who to send any correspondence to at GE Money and as the clock is ticking in terms of the 12 + 2 + 30 days I wondered if anybody could offer some advice as to what to do next?

 

its their responsibility to get the cca from the oc not yours as advised just write and tell them they are in default and will remain so until they comply with the s78 request.

[tandlehill]

Thay have failed to comply with the S78 request, issued letters threatening all sorts of nasty things (short of taking out a contract on me!), issued a default notice (which I'm fairly sure is not legal) and finally instructed a lovely DCA (not!!) to pursue the alleged debt on their behalf .

 

Sent them a very curt but informative e-mail pointing out that the account is in dispute and therefore they are not in a position to demand anything from me or to take any action other than giving back to the imbeciles who instructed them in the first place!!

 

Now awaiting their next move, should be interesting!

[tandlehill]

Nothing received now since the last post, thinking about contacting the credit reference agencies and instructing them to remove the details from my file, is this wise??

 

I'll just send the template letter but is there anything else I need to do or send??

 

Any advice greatly received, Thanks.

[tandlehill]

Spoke too soon! Received a letter this morning from Collect Direct (UK).

 

Printed in the usual lovely hues of red & pink stating that we should pay them by return because "Failure to submit the above balance by return could result in:- Collect Direct recommending Legal Action".

 

I'm now thinking that my course of action should be:

 

1. Send Collect Direct a letter informing them that the account is in dispute and I will consider reporting them for pursuing the alleged debt.

2. Send Ikano a formal letter stating that they have failed to comply with my request for a copy of the CCA - is it worth using CVR Part 31.16?

3. Submitting formal complaint to OFT regarding the continuing "problems" Ikano seem to be having in locating an agreement.

 

Any advice please??

Edited October 29, 2009 by tandlehill

[PGH7447]

report them to the oft and ignore their threats

[diddydicky]

even if you dont report them - i wouldnt bother responding to them -just file it in your papers they know what they must do

[tandlehill]

Well just received further correspondence from IKANO stating that they have complied with section 78 by providing a "generic"copy of the agreement, now they previously admitted that they had taken over this from GE and therefore didn't have a copy of the original agreement so how can they produce a "generic" agreement now......must be members of the magic circle!

 

Interestingly they are now quoting some aspects of case law in support of their argument, I'll post it up later for you to have a look at as I haven't had time to read it all myself.

 

I am still sure that they have failed to comply with S78 anyway but will now SAR them to squash this annoying little bug forever!

[hungrybear]

Actually, they have probably technically complied with the exact wording of section 78 which does NOT call for a signed copy of the original. See the sticky in the legal section - why you should not use a 77/78 request if you want a signed copy of your agreement.

 

Please please make their day and do the cpr request, for one thing it's cheaper than sar!

[hungrybear]

if you're feeling lazy here's the link:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html

[diddydicky]

Actually, they have probably technically complied with the exact wording of section 78 which does NOT call for a signed copy of the original. See the sticky in the legal section - why you should not use a 77/78 request if you want a signed copy of your agreement.

 

Please please make their day and do the cpr request, for one thing it's cheaper than sar!

 

i very much doubt it

 

a true copy may omit certain information- but it cannot be a copy of a "similar" type of document or something that the original "might have looked like"

 

a True copy can only be a "true copy" if the person making the "true copy" has the original in front of him(her) at the time they make that copy

 

the fact that they can leave insignificant information that is not relevant to the cca or operation of the agreement out, or leave signatures out (since clearly you cannot copy someone else's signature) does NOT relieve them of the duty to make a "true" copy of the original

 

indeed i believe that they are also required (but seldom do) to reproduce the original document as far as is practical, in the same format/layout as the original

[hungrybear]

diddy I agree but didnt want to write loads - lol. The point I wanted to make was complying with a cca request in istelf still doesnot technically prove enforceability

[diddydicky]

yes and no,

 

the cca s78n request is usually fulfilled with the statement

 

"This is a true copy of your executed credit agreement"

 

any statement made by a creditor with respect to s77-79 and also i believe 102-104 is legally "binding" upon him, thus if he makes this statement about the document that he has enclosed in response to the s78 request, and it contains no prescribed terms or is otherwise not an "executed" agreement then that document is not a true copy of an Executed" agreement even if it may be a "true " copy of "an agreement" thus:-

 

a/ he has made a false declaration and

 

b/ If he subsequently attempts to provide in support of legal proceedings "another" document which he then claims to be the "executed" agreement then he is found out being untruthful again