NO NAME DEBT COLLECTOR (For Barclaycard) SOLD TO LOWELLS/RED/HAMPTONS - NOW MUCK HALL /MERITFORCE

[alfwithhair]

Has been 18 months since I last heard anything about this account.

Feb 2008 it was with Moorcroft, disputed it with them as B/C no complied with CCA request, never heard from them or anybody else since

 

Full thread is here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/114022-allianceone-dca-barclaycard-2.html

 

This morning I recieve an letter offering substancial discounts if I pay up in 10 days. Failure to do so may result in further collections action.

 

This letter contains; (copy shown below)

 

NO company name

NO companiy registered offices

NO company registration number

In fact nothing at all showing who the sender is other than a PO Box number, post code and phone number.

 

As luck would have it I know this postcode, it is BARCLAYCARD

Surely they are breaking some law or other by sending this kind of thing out?

 

[itsamomentintime]

i'd report this, fella

[mr.ton]

Ring them up & ask them who they are...as you wish to send them a CCA request 1st

[postggj]

seems they are trying to get an acknowledgement of the account by you

 

bit underhand to use dca tricks

[ScarletPimpernel]

Communicating in an unclear manner or not making clear who they are - clear breach of OFT Guidance.

[babybear39]

They're breaching the CPUTR as well.

[alfwithhair]

Right I will get a copy of this letter off to the OFT first thing Monday.

Would it be wise to black out the account number details before sending it or not?

 

Also would Companies House not be interested in this breach?

I seem to remember reading on here that company stationary had to contain certain information, I may be wrong, I usually am LOL

[babybear39]

Good piont there alf

[alfwithhair]

I have just check my credit file with the CRA

This account was not even included last month (or any other month come to that)

Now it is on there DEFAULT recorded from september 2007.

Are they allowed to enter details now relating to years ago?

[angry cat]

Barclaycard

 

Customer Relationship Unit,

 

P.O Box 5402

 

Northampton

 

NN4 1ZR

[ashmk]

5k Discount !!!! They must really have there paperwork in order.

[alfwithhair]

Barclaycard

 

Customer Relationship Unit,

 

P.O Box 5402

 

Northampton

 

NN4 1ZR

 

I am well aware who has sent the letter. Is is the same address that sent the copy application form back in 2007, so I know its Barclayshark

[alfwithhair]

5k Discount !!!! They must really have there paperwork in order.

 

There paperwork consists of that;

 

Thats all that was ever received in compliance of the CCA request of 2007

 

[babybear39]

Illegible micro copy...

[alfwithhair]

Illegible micro copy...

 

You can say that again, I just scanned it again as I have a better scanner than I did when it was originally copied.

 

I still comes out crap

 

Is still an application, they even say it is in their letter. (oh look at the address, I recognise that. LOL)

 

and is still unenforceable, so 5 grand discount or not, they will not be seeing a penny from me. LOL

 

[babybear39]

Ah well they can always beg for their money but that doesn't mean they'll get anything

[PGH7447]

maybe I will get a begging letter soon then, heard sod all from this lot in over 3 years

[alfwithhair]

Well been nearly 6 months since heard anything about this account. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/114022-allianceone-dca-barclaycard.html

 

But look who has popped up this morning, our old freinds the Leeds Losers, who apparently have bought this duck egg.

 

Got their usual homemade notice of assignment

and the begging letter in the same envelope as is their usual trait.

 

I have one question though. On their letter they state

Original address?

Should this be the address where the so called agreement was first taken out? Or the current one?

 

This had been through Mercers, Calders, Alliance One, Moorcroft, all have made the usual threats but failed to actually do anything, but not a suprise rearly based on what they class as a signed aggrement/application.

 

Is there a new style 'Bemused' letter about yet quoting the more recent guidelines and regs?

 

Could have done without this bunch of clowns before xmas, so need a good letter to stop their roller coaster, till at least after the festivities.

 

Ta, Alf

[Revenant]

Maybe it would confuse enough if you wrote back and told them that you will not deal with any Company that seems to have disregard for the Guidelines issued by it's Governing Bodies

 

CSA Code of Practice

 

1 General conduct

 

Each member shall act responsibly and with integrity in the day-to-day conduct of it's business. For example:

 

c) Comply with this Code of Practice and follow any guidance notes issued by the Board of the Association

d) Comply with debt collection guidance as published by the Office of Fair Trading from time to time

 

 

 

 

 

OFT Guidelines

 

Physical/psycological harassment

 

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considred to be oppressive

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

b. Pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or extend their borrowing

Let's face it if they can't obey the rules how can you trust them

Edited December 16, 2009 by Revenant
Changed things around a bit

[palomino]

Is still an application, they even say it is in their letter.

 

But you signed it as an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. The heading on the top is largely irrelevant [de minimus in legal terms (too small to matter)] - it's what you signed that matters.

I would respectfully suggest that you pause for thought on this aspect. It is up to you whether to rely on this to dispute the matter. I wouldn't.

[ashmk]

If it was enforcable then one of the 4/5 companies that have already tried would have suceeded already.

I would let Lowell waste their time and money writing to me but I would not waste my time of money writing or calling them. As far as I am concerned when it gets to Lowell, the bottom of the DCA bin, you know its as unenforcable as they come.

[alfwithhair]

But you signed it as an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. The heading on the top is largely irrelevant [de minimus in legal terms (too small to matter)] - it's what you signed that matters.

I would respectfully suggest that you pause for thought on this aspect. It is up to you whether to rely on this to dispute the matter. I wouldn't.

 

So what are you saying here Palomino?

Even though it is an application form containing no prescibed terms whatsoever, because I have signed it its enforceable?

[ScarletPimpernel]

The point Palomino is making is that a document that is titled 'Application Form' can be an agreement, provided that it contains all the prescribed terms and is properly executed. The title is a de minimis issue, that is, of little importance in legal terms.

 

In this case, it is the lack of prescribed terms that renders it unenforceable, and the title on top of the paper isn't worth bothering about.

[teaboy2]

Tell lowell they have been sold a debt which is still in default with barclay's as a result of non complience of your cca request and qoute them consumer credit act 1974 section 78 subsection 6. Barclays can not sell the debt on whilst in default of your CCA request, neither can they or any other party persue you asking for payment. They are in breach of the consumer credit act 1974 section 78 subsection 6, as selling the debt is an attempt to enforce the debt as barclays will be well aware who they sell it to would pursue the debt and they would also be aware that they are selling it whilst they are still in default of the account themselves.

 

On a seperate note, you should have received a Default Notice from barclays, did you receive one? if not, then as they have sold the account without providing you with a valid default notice then they have committed an act of unlawful termination of contract and would be liable to pay you damages if you took them to court over it, of upto £1,000.

[alfwithhair]

Have just checked for you Teaboy.

Default Notice was issued via Mercers on 5th April 2007, with a remedy date of 19th April 2007, Only 14 days, they have not allowed for service.

So presume that is invalid too.

 

Mercers continued to chase for payment after this date and continued to add interest and charges.

 

Formal Demand was eventually sent 20th August 2007 via AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc

 

Amount payable was some £492.68 more than the amount on the Default Notice. Strangely enough the amount Lowells claim is outstanding is £4 less the the Formal Demand, but I have paid nothing off it.

 

So does this change things in my favour?