Bank of Scot v Questioner - no. 1

[questioner]

This thread concerns my efforts abainst Bank of Scot

 

I have several but this is the biggest and I shall therefore call it BOS1

This is a brief rundown.........

 

BOS have been chasing me for an alleged account and the account number has been consistent between us both all through the issue. I challenged their CCA attempt as being illegible (just an application form with no PRESCRIBED terms).

 

I WILL NOT ADD THE 2ND PAGE WHICH IS CONDITIONS OF USE AS IS IS UNREADABLE.

 

 

 

Next they challenged me and sent you a load of agreement docs with NO signature that looked like an attempt to just do a cheapie paste up.

 

I have been waiting to see what would happen next and was surprised to just receive a letter from them saying that the account number is incorrect. RATS ARE STARTING TO BE SMELLED

 

They say that in order to consider my request (to ditch this account) they require the correct account number as the account cannot be traced!

 

Before I rush in I need advice please – if this account is untraceable then it poses the question as to why they have been chasing it and of any monies that I have already paid them.

 

And what about their LAME attempts to honour the CCA REQUEST with docs that they now say are untraceable? Eh???

 

All this after they say things like “we have enclosed a copy of the agreement which is clearly legible”

 

They seem to have admitted that they have been messing about and that they cannot find the real thing.

 

I wonder if my cheeky little mention of the BOS V Mitchell case had any bearing on this one?

 

This is their letter

 

 

 

 

I do feel that BOS have been terrible in all this and they still have NOT honoured several other CCA requests from months ago.

 

I WILL KEEP CAGGERS POSTED AND HAVE NOW WRITTEN BACK ASKING HOW THEY CAN COLLECT ON AN ACCOUNT THAT CANNOT BE TRACED.

Edited September 4, 2009 by questioner

[PGH7447]

if the account number you send is the correct one then it would appear that they do not know what account if any it is

[questioner]

The number has never changed and yet when I pushed on a CCA they tell me that its "incorrect" and cannot be traced - how odd!

 

It's not my fault is it if they cannot manage their accounts properly.

 

I will keep their letters very safe.

 

-----------------------

Hunter (DCA Scumbags)- becomes the hunted with CAG!

Edited September 5, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

What gets me is that many of the accounts I have allegedly been connected to - true or otherwsie - have PPI included . I was self emlpoyed at the time and with this and other concerns propably would not have needed this costy addition. However, seeing as most CCA requests just get back crappy application form or have been allegedly lost (according to the banks) I cannot estimate how much PPI is on the accounts.

 

How do we claim it back in light of this when there's no figures to see and the account is disputed?

PS - I WILL ADD THIS ON THE BOS THREADS I HAVE CREATED TO SEE IF ANYONE CAN PUT ME IN THE PICTURE IN LAYMEN'S TERMS.

[citizenB]

You could always send a Subject Access Request to the Original creditor asking them to provide you with information. That way you are not giving information to the DCA:D

 

If they havent got the correct account number then they cant pursue IMHO.

[questioner]

You could always send a Subject Access Request to the Original creditor asking them to provide you with information. That way you are not giving information to the DCA:D

 

If they havent got the correct account number then they cant pursue IMHO.

 

Thanks CB

 

Bank of S are OC in this instance and there is no DCA .

 

But they cant find it!

[questioner]

SO BACK IN AUGUST THEY TOLD ME THAT THE ACCOUNT WAS NOT TRACABLE

 

HOWEVER - THEY HAVE TODAY SENT IN A NOTICE OF ARREARS WITH THE SAME ACCOUNT NUMBER ON.

 

CONFUSING - YOU BET.

 

I did write back but they ignored me a while back so its time to press 'em against the wall.

 

How can any bank say one is in arrears over an account they have blatently admitted is untraceable?

[citizenB]

Dear Sirs,

 

I am a little confused, your letter of (whenever) suggests that you are unable to provide me with a Consumer Credit agreement; requested under the CCA1974 on (whatever date).

 

However, today you have sent a Notice of Arrears.

 

Please advise how you are able to profide information suggesting an account is in arrears if you are unable to provide proof that such an account exists ?

 

I look forward to your early response.

 

Yours etc...

[questioner]

I have sent in a formal complaint and insisted they close this file.

 

If they are not helpful PPI may be raised.

 

I think this lot are the most confused mob I have dealt with so far.

[questioner]

In - house chumps for the BOS, Blair olly and silly, have just also sent me a letter asking for token payment to continue. They say they note that I have maintained payments to this file.

 

Wrong - I stopped all payments last summer so either they are simply plum stupid or someone in cuckoo land is paying them...

 

Amazing that I am asked for money on an untraceable file ... trading regulations dont apply in BOS Land.......

 

Can anyone take these clots sereiously???

 

Another very interesting point is that many companies make a big thing about crappy application forms being fully compliant agreements, which is a bogus claim.

 

BOS first sent the app form and later said that the account was untraceable...

 

This makes a change it the usual misleading bank spin we so often get .

 

BOS appear therefore to know/admit (albeit when pushed) that an app form, lacking properly prescribed terms, just won't cut the mustard as an agreement anymore.

 

But saying that - I now get the silly letter off their BOS shark asking for dosh, which seems to counteract their previous efforts..

Edited December 26, 2009 by questioner

[Guest HeftyHippo]

if they haven't complied with your CCA, put the account into dispute and inform them they cannot pursue it, add interest etc

[questioner]

if they haven't complied with your CCA, put the account into dispute and inform them they cannot pursue it, add interest etc

 

 

They have been informed about this many times but ignore all logic and continue to pursue.

The account has been in dispute since last summer and they have admitted that it is untraceable but this does NOT stop them chasing it..

 

They have been informed about this many times but ignore all logic and continue to pursue.

In BOS land things work differently. It’s a lovely shiny place were money grows on trees and all nasty consumer complaints about banking misconduct and violation of OFT regulations drift away on the light summer breeze.

So long as one is on their happy lists one will be harassed ad finitum.

[questioner]

AT LAST BOS HAVE SENT ME A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT

 

IT HOLDS PPI AND THE TICK BOX IS UNTICKED. BUT THEY ADDED IT ANYWAY.

 

 

IT IS A JOINT LOAN BUT IT IS ONLY COVERED FOR ONE PERSON AND I AM SELF EMPLOYED I HAD NO IDEA WHAT PPI EVEN WAS THEN

 

IT CAME BY COURIER BUT THERE IS NO RIGHTS TO CANCEL

 

THE BIT ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS IS NICE AS IT SAYS THAT I CAN SUE THEM IF THEY HAVE IT WRONG UNDER THE CCA.

 

PAGE 2

 

Edited January 16, 2010 by questioner

[questioner]

Latest on this is the BOS have agreed to repaid PPI on the loan.

 

They also say that the other (FIRST POST) page with the penciled in account number is the preference account agreement that was flogged at the same time as the loan. I think I must have thought that signing all this stuff was mandatory to getting the loan when the courier rolled up.

 

Therefore the 'loan' agreement number is at the top of the 'preference' account agreement/application form too.:-?

 

Has anyone else seen this type of double - account thing before? Advice or faults spotted herein would be appreciated guys ta...

 

I have have another loan/pref account just like this as it seemed to be how BOS worked it back then...

 

They have been chasing this for 12 months with sharks.

 

I sued one of the BOS - directed DCAs for several admin fees on the preference account part of this dodgy deal and now BOS are offering to give me 40% off if I pay them.

 

I am therefore still fascinated by the bit of the agreement which says I can sue BOS if they have given bad service...

 

Eh yes...the service has been rather terrible in fact as you can see.... any advice appreciated..

Edited May 21, 2010 by questioner

[questioner]

I am still pondering over this type of BOS one page agreement that allegedly covers both a loan and a preference account.

 

BOS say this is all fine and acceptable.

 

It has a fixed loan on the left hand side with unwanted (and NOW refunded) PPI.

 

On the right hand side BOS say it is the Preference account agreement.

 

So - according to BOS you get 2 agreements for the price of one here all on the same page.

 

I need to know how all this activity affects the legality/prescribed terms of these so-called agreement (s) as I have several with them.

 

Another question is therefore is this page a multiple agreement under s18?

 

I could really do with some expert opinions on this one guys....

[citizenB]

I think Fred Bassett and Reallymadwoman are the people to ask in respect of these types of accounts Q.

 

It certainly looks like a multi account to me.

 

Another point I would make is that on the right hand side for the preference account there is a section which says you have applied for insurance cover. But it doesnt say that on the other side under the loan proper. Surely if they are, as BOS claim two different accounts then that one statement should not be applicable for both.

 

Also. One is a fixed sum agreement ie the loan proper and the other is a running account agreement, the preference account. So surely there should be TWO different sets of terms and conditions.

 

Edited May 30, 2010 by citizenB

[questioner]

Absolutely CB

 

There really does seem to be an amusing clash of terms on these BOS agreements and I would like to know more not just for myself but for the thousands of other consumers who must also hold such alleged agreements.

 

BOS are claiming that such agreements with a preference account on one side and a fixed loan on the other are all quite acceptable and that they are lawful.

 

As we know an improperly executed agreement is enforceable against the debtor only on an order of the court (section 65 (1)), but no such an order can be made unless it contains all the prescribed terms (section 127 (3)).

 

I am pondering over WILSON & ANR and HURSTANGER LTD regarding prescribed terms....

 

"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"

 

 

BOS assure me that ......

 

"Again the preference account is linked to the loan and there are 3 separate reference numbers"

 

The preference account allegedly had a number that BOS had penciled in on a few of my accounts. This changed later to the preference account number that I knew. So that was two numbers and then there was the loan number too making their total of 3 numbers all linked to the same page they say.

 

And they just happened to add lots of superfluous PPI too.

 

So I suppose their PPI had policy numbers too so in fact we have 4 numbers linked to the one page... all under the 'one' signature..

[questioner]

Right - just getting it right in my head here.

 

This image holds the loan account number (blocked out) yet BOS say it is the agreement for the preference account.

 

You can see that they have penciled in the pref account number (mid-right side) although this is NOT the number I have ever used and they say its just their 'official use' number.

 

 

 

Now they say that other docs they have sent show that there were split sections on the same page as this was just due to the process used at the time - pre 2007 .

Edited May 30, 2010 by questioner

[questioner]

Right - this is a 'proper' example of a BOS loan and preference account on one split page ...

 

I am also wondering if the CCA HEADINGS are correct or questionable here as BOS appear to be relying on ONE heading for 'both' the loan and the Preference account?

 

 

Some of our others are just preference accounts on one page and a loan on another BUT all under the main loan agreement number...

[Fred Bassett]

Hi Questioner. This is very similar to the one that I have. The part that references the CCA is very specifically in relation to the loan account, not the Preference Account. In my case it was even more clear cut because for some reason I signed the Preference Account separately and nowhere in this does it mention the CCA.

 

I think the simplest thing to do is to write to them and ask under what Act of Parliament this agreement is regulated.

 

If you haven't already done so, have a look at FDPM's battle - this one was on its way to court before BoS backed down.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[questioner]

Right - thanks Fred for your kind advice.

 

I need to get to the bottom of this split page agreement thing for sure.

 

Q