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

[debt4get]

of course..it gives the little loves something to do in the morning after their team talk and coffee....

[alfwithhair]

The phone calls have started again now

0113 285 6550

So if this number calls you, its The Leeds Losers

Wondering how they got my number as it is a recent new one

Sharkleycard certainly wouldn't have it, so some one has passed it on to them

[alfwithhair]

Well Lowells are back on it again this morning.

They are threatening to enlist the help of their RED collection Gibbons if I don't contact them. Pass the buck again.

They will get a copy of my credit file to assess my financial curcumstances?

Are they allowed to search my files without my consent? Or is it just the usual hot air to intimidate me in to contacting them.

What does my credit file information have to do with them determinating what options are available to recover the so called debt?

As far as I am aware there are NONE. no CCA, no valid DN and unlawful termination. all of which they and the previous clowns who have tried to collect on it have been told.

 

[debt4get]

lowells are red...red are lowells..it is the usual drivel they send if account is in dispute ignore them....

[babybear39]

Identity issues...Awww...

[alfwithhair]

Well more drivel from the Leeds Losers this morning.

They say it is the last time they will write to me, (thank f**k for that. LOL)

Bring it on RED, lets see what you've got.

 

They are going to assess my account, my credit file and my financial commitments? Did I give my permission for you to nosey in my credit file?

They will be making recommendations to recover the balance? Recommedations to who? Themselves?

It could include litigation? It might not as well. LOL.

Insolvency? Go for it, I can include all my other debts then and you can pay for it. LOL.

 

Is it worth emailing them or just continue to ignore them and see what RED has up the sleeve?

[alfwithhair]

Well the 'BIG RED' letter arrived this morning.

Usual guff, might do this might do that.

Going to obtain a copy of my credit file to asses my credit worthiness and ability to repay.

[pumpytums]

What a nice letter.

 

I wonder what criteria you have to meet for them to send you a SD? Lime jelly for a brain brain perhaps, oops sorry that's them.

 

Maybe you should ask them if they get a copy of your credit report to send you a copy it would save you £2 unless of course you want to avoid this.

 

 

Pumpytums

 

P.S should it have been strawberry jelly as its red?

[alfwithhair]

Well they are scuppered any road,

 

Is no CCA so CCJ will be difficult to obtain and SD will be waste of time as don't have any property.

Bankruptcy will get them nothing either as don't have now't, but will help to get shut of my other creditors and they foot the bill.

 

Will leave it up to them

what ever they decide, it is not going to get any payment going their way

[alfwithhair]

Well more verbal twable from 'Big RED' this morning when I got back.

You can have a nice discount of the outsdtanding balance (wonder why that is)

and if they had looked at my credit file as the say they have, they would know I couldn't find £6 a month let alone £60 LOL

 

But you must pay or it will be going to HAMPTON LEGAL, oooooooo, how scary.

 

[babybear39]

Ooh! That's a pretty coloured one

[teaboy2]

Well first off all, you do not have to accept either offer. And secondly it is they that have to accept what offer of repayment you can actually afford, even if it was just £1 a month.

 

But then if the account is in dispute you do not have to make any payments to the dispute is resolved. And as they seemed to have forgotten that they have not produced a copy of the CCA following your request then any legal action they take would be unlawful anyway as they can not enforce the debt whilst in default of your CCA request. So a quick letter reminding them of that is called for i think.

[diddydicky]

the proposition that no payments are due from the debtor to the creditor whilst a "dispute" remains unresolved is a fallacy and is not correct

 

the debtor MUST continue to make normal repayments whilst trying to resolve the issues

 

of course the debtor CAN cease making payments to force the creditor to listen/take the dispute seriously- but don't expect any mercy from the court in this respect.

 

The law is clear- if you feel strongly enough about the dispute then you should take action against the creditor and not withhold payments

 

we all do it- I just want to make it clear that there is no "right" in law or in the agreement for the consumer to do so

 

by refusing to make payments you are in breach of contract.

[teaboy2]

the proposition that no payments are due from the debtor to the creditor whilst a "dispute" remains unresolved is a fallacy and is not correct

 

the debtor MUST continue to make normal repayments whilst trying to resolve the issues

 

of course the debtor CAN cease making payments to force the creditor to listen/take the dispute seriously- but don't expect any mercy from the court in this respect.

 

The law is clear- if you feel strongly enough about the dispute then you should take action against the creditor and not withhold payments

 

we all do it- I just want to make it clear that there is no "right" in law or in the agreement for the consumer to do so

 

by refusing to make payments you are in breach of contract.

 

If they are in default of your CCA request then they can not enforce the debt in court. And if no payments or agreement to make repayments to the debt collector has been made, then you are not in a contract with debt collector. So refusing to pay can not be a breach of contract when there is no contract between the debtor and the debt collector.

 

In fact, looking back through the posts in the thread, it says their was no DN or TN, so that means the original creditor had unlawfully terminated the original agreement (contract). So he/she is well within his/her rights to withold payment since it was the creditor that acted in breach of contract and unlawfully.

Edited October 11, 2010 by teaboy2

[diddydicky]

If they are in default of your CCA request then they can not enforce the debt in court. And if no payments or agreement to make repayments to the debt collector has been made, then you are not in a contract with debt collector. So refusing to pay can not be a breach of contract when there is no contract between the debtor and the debt collector.

 

In fact, looking back through the posts in the thread, it says their was no DN or TN, so that means the original creditor had unlawfully terminated the original agreement (contract). So he/she is well within his/her rights to withold payment since it was the creditor that acted in breach of contract and unlawfully.

 

with the greatest of respect- i think you need to learn more before dispensing advice on this subject- your knowledge is lacking

[teaboy2]

with the greatest of respect- i think you need to learn more before dispensing advice on this subject- your knowledge is lacking

 

Am not knocking what you said, because if payments where being made to the debt collector and if the original creditor had not unlawfully terminated the CCA. Then you would be right. But in this case they did unlawfully terminate the CCA, therefore they are in breach of contract not the debtor. I accept that they probably terminated it off the back of the debtor defaulting, but still their are rules and regulations that they must follow when issuing default notices and termination notices.

 

To put it simply, if they went to court their claim would be thrown out due to 1, lack of a CCA and 2, Unlawful termination, in which the Debtor can claim damages of upto £1000.

 

To say my knowledge is lacking, when i myself have experienced unlawful termination with MBNA, simply ignores the experience and knowlegde i have used successfully against them. This case is very much similar with the unlawful termination.

 

Put it this way, would a judge pay a debt back when the creditor unlawfully terminated the agreement for whatever reason? No i suspect they wouldnt!

 

Now am not for avoiding debt, but i am for standing up against creditors and DC that act unlawfully, and as such, like many here, do not believe, or see why people should keep making payments to them and filling their pockets off the back of their unlawfull actions.

 

If you read the thread fully youd see that the alledged debtor is not actually making any payments anyway, so arguing over weather he/she should be making payments is pointless and not helpful.

[the_shadow]

To put it simply, if they went to court their claim would be thrown out due to 1, lack of a CCA and 2, Unlawful termination, in which the Debtor can claim damages of upto £1000.

 

Not wanting to get involved in this conversation, I would just caution on stating certainties where there arent any... for "Would be" it should read "Could be", it is never wise to pre-empt a judges decision on a case.

 

S.

[count orlok]

In DCA speak it may be thrown out, even though it should be, it could be that would be became would not be.

[teaboy2]

Ok just to be clear.

 

When a creditor is in default of a CCA request

 

Section 78 consumer credit act 1974

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with

subsection (1)-

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce

the agreement

 

I.E no judge in the land can enforce the debt whilst the creditor is in default of the CCA request. And even if they produced the microfiche copy that they sent the debtor, it would not comply with leglisation due it being clearly unreadable.

 

Where no default notice is issued

 

consumer credit act 2006

section 11

(5)If the creditor or owner fails to give the debtor or hirer the notice under this section within the period mentioned in subsection (2), he shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement until the notice is given to the debtor or hirer.

 

I.E no default notice issued, no right to enforce the debt.

 

Failure to issue a valid/accurate Default or termination notice:

 

Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 199 but it is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (2003) UKHL 40, Wilson V Robertsons (London) Ltd(2006) EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers (2005) EWCA Civ 147) - but would also give the claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1000 (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society (1996) 4 All ER 119).

 

So its not, "could the court enforce the debt", its, "the court will not enforce the debt". As leglislation and case law prevents them from enforcing a debt where anyone of the above has occured.

[middenmess]

Hi TB

 

To put it simply, if they went to court their claim would be thrown out due to 1, lack of a CCA and 2, Unlawful termination, in which the Debtor can claim damages of upto £1000.

 

I understand what you are saying but this things only happen in the minority of cases.

 

With only a modicum of searching on here or other sites you will find a number of examples where despite right being totally on the side of the defendant the judge has found for the plantiff.

[the_shadow]

Alf, apologies for the Hijack, if you want to move these posts to another forum/thread feel free!

 

Ok just to be clear.

 

When a creditor is in default of a CCA request

 

Section 78 consumer credit act 1974

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with

subsection (1)-

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce

the agreement

 

I.E no judge in the land can enforce the debt whilst the creditor is in default of the CCA request. And even if they produced the microfiche copy that they sent the debtor, it would not comply with leglisation due it being clearly unreadable.

 

McGuffick vs HBOS... bring legal proceedings is only a step to enforcement, its not deemed enforcement therefore I'm almost positive a judge would allow a s78 response to be given to the defendant during proceedings or at worse allow a claimant to stop proceedings and re-issue after providing a s78 response. The OFT have said they would take a dim view of anyone issuing proceedings without responding to s78 or a lender trying it on when they dont have a signed agreement but as the OFT may disappear next week in the spending review I think I'll not bother relying on the OFT to do anything at present.

 

Carey vs HSBC... s78 responses can be true copies or even reconstructions subject to meeting a few limitations that DJ waksman placed on them.. i.e original debtors address and true and correct terms as per the original agreement, its down to you to prove they are not correct tho as sophisticated financial institutions dont make mistakes apparently! Oh and whilst Carey was about s78 responses waksman went on to say its the courts discretion about using reconstructions in enforcement proceedings if my memory serves me right.

 

Where no default notice is issued

 

consumer credit act 2006

section 11

(5)If the creditor or owner fails to give the debtor or hirer the notice under this section within the period mentioned in subsection (2), he shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement until the notice is given to the debtor or hirer.

 

I.E no default notice issued, no right to enforce the debt.

 

Brandon vs Amex, Amex were entitled to exit the agreement without default as per clause 16 of their t&c default or no default.

 

Failure to issue a valid/accurate Default or termination notice:

 

Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 199 but it is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (2003) UKHL 40, Wilson V Robertsons (London) Ltd(2006) EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers (2005) EWCA Civ 147) - but would also give the claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1000 (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society (1996) 4 All ER 119).

 

As above Brandon vs Amex which is a precedent case now but awaiting further appeal

 

 

Just wanted to show how the statutes are currently being "warped" "manipulated" or just flexed to the creditors way/will. IMVHO You have to show the judge that you have TRULY been prejudiced or damaged in some way by the banks/dca actions to win a case (unless you get the right DJ who sticks to the statues and doesnt apply the mischief rule for interpreting them.

 

S.

Edited October 13, 2010 by the_shadow

[alfwithhair]

Alf, apologies for the Hijack, if you want to move these posts to another forum/thread feel free!

S.

 

Is not a problem, is all interesting stuff and might all be applicable should Hampton Wick decide to chance a court hearing

[Paulb1972]

Just wanted to throw a spanner in the works The_Shadow and it does depend upon which CCA or SI your account is determined by but for CCA 1999 and prior;

 

Brandon vs Amex, Amex were entitled to exit the agreement without default as per clause 16 of their t&c default or no default.

 

Failure to issue a valid/accurate Default or termination notice:

Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 199 but it is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (2003) UKHL 40, Wilson V Robertsons (London) Ltd(2006) EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers (2005) EWCA Civ 147) - but would also give the claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1000 (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society (1996) 4 All ER 119).

 

I believe the Brandon v Amex is an unreported case so "may not" be referred to if a point in law had already been defined by a Reported Case and as you said Brandon vs Amex is now awaiting further appeal so cant be referred to.

 

That being said an OC may not rely on a point in the contract as S173 of the CCA voids anything

173 Contracting out Forbidden

1) A term contained in a regulated agreement or linked transaction, or in any other agreement relating to an actual or prospective regulated agreement or linked transaction, is void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety contained in this Act or in any regulation made under this Act.

(2) Where a provision specifies the duty or liability of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety in certain circumstances, a term is inconsistent with that provision if it purports to impose, directly or indirectly, an additional duty or liability on him in those circumstances.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a provision of this Act under which a thing may be done in relation to any person on an order of the court or the Director only shall not be taken to prevent its being done at any time with that person's consent given at that time, but the refusal of such consent shall not give rise to any liability.

 

 

[diddydicky]

Ok just to be clear.

 

When a creditor is in default of a CCA request

 

Section 78 consumer credit act 1974

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with

subsection (1)-

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce

the agreement

 

I.E no judge in the land can enforce the debt whilst the creditor is in default of the CCA request. And even if they produced the microfiche copy that they sent the debtor, it would not comply with leglisation due it being clearly unreadable.

 

Where no default notice is issued

 

consumer credit act 2006

section 11

(5)If the creditor or owner fails to give the debtor or hirer the notice under this section within the period mentioned in subsection (2), he shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement until the notice is given to the debtor or hirer.

 

I.E no default notice issued, no right to enforce the debt.

 

Failure to issue a valid/accurate Default or termination notice:

 

Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 199 but it is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (2003) UKHL 40, Wilson V Robertsons (London) Ltd(2006) EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers (2005) EWCA Civ 147) - but would also give the claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1000 (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society (1996) 4 All ER 119).

 

So its not, "could the court enforce the debt", its, "the court will not enforce the debt". As leglislation and case law prevents them from enforcing a debt where anyone of the above has occured.

 

you are correct with reference to not being able to enforce the agreement

 

but what is it that you think constitutes "enforcement"

[alfwithhair]

Well 'Big Red' don't want to write to me anymore, Boooooooooooo.

They have give to account to Hamptons.

So I think best thing to do is sit it out and see if they actually start any court proceedings, unless anyone has a better idea?