being harrased by capital one

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Mick,

 

Debitas are Capone's in-house threat monkeys. They are totally incapable of reading and writing, although they do have a lot of titles - senior head of this, executive head of that, and so on. You can send your letter but don't wait for a reply answering any of the points you raise - you'll just get more standard template letters.

 

For those of us who have been around for a long time and seen them off they have gone very quiet. A whole group of us have written asking to visit their offices to see our agreements - we were planning a picnic - but, alas, they don't seem to want to fix a date.

 

Do join the official capital one fan club Just Recieved A Signed Capital One Agreement and you'll see that after sending a certain number of their template letters and threats, and failing to respond to our perfectly valid requests, they go very quiet.

 

I reported them to FOS earlier this year and I haven't heard a word since.

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

I assume referring to them as crapital one halfway down your letter was a genuine typo?!!

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Mick,

 

Since I last posted I did hear from capone - not a reply, just to tell me they had sold me to Lowells. Phoned FOS immediately who are writing to both capone and Lowells.

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

I have just laughed out loud at the last paragraph of Condition 15.

 

Presumably the letter will be addressed as follows:

 

Desperate Daniella,

c/o St Peter

Heaven's Gate.

 

Seriously though, Colin, there is a House of Lords Authority on this. The prescribed terms must be within the four corners of the agreement. They can be overleaf, but must not be on a separate piece of paper or leaflet because clearly separate pieces of paper or leaflets could be substituted for something which was not actually part of the original agreement. As CitizenB says, clearly all those terms were not on the back of the original agreement.

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

Yes, as I understand it, it would. But it could be four sides of paper - A3 folded in half to give four sides of A4 size, or more ... Obviously they would need to provide the original in court, although so many try to avoid doing this, sometimes with success.

[Desperate Daniella]

Colin,

Here is the House of Lords' Authority:

Furthermore in the in the judgement of Tuckey LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) EWCA Civ 299

“(11) Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the “information to contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements.” Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed in Schedule 6, but some does not.”

Contrasting the provisions of the two Schedules the Judge said:

“In my judgement the objection of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the Court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under S 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of S 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself; they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand they are basic provisions, and the only question for the Court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement.

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Colin,

 

Unfortunately there have been some cases, reported on here, where judges have taken the line of "you have spent the money, so you are trying to get out of paying it back and you must pay it back." Generally these cases have happened where people have gone to court without all the relevant info, and the judges are ignorant of, or refuse to be concerned by, case law.

 

There was a horrible case earlier this year where a dying man was taken to court and the credit card company, I think it was MBNA, produced his cut up credit card as evidence and the judge ruled against him. This man died about two weeks later so they got absolutely nothing. Bast***s.

 

Your other point about 'Spend' Limit, rather than 'Credit' Limit, I don't know too much about, but I think??? this is something that relates to Egg credit cards, and of course there is a whole thread about these Egg cards being unenforceable. Do a search on 'Spend Limit' - threads, not posts, and see what it throws up.

 

DD