Capital One v Questioner – no.1 & 2 accounts

[the_shadow]

In light of the recent Manchester court test cases they might have conformed to the s78 requirements (original + most recent terms) but thats not the requirement if they want to enforce it in court, that should require an agreement with the prescribed terms which if crapone have been true to form they wont have (they have in the past (2004) scanned the front and destroyed the document)

 

S.

[questioner]

In light of the recent Manchester court test cases they might have conformed to the s78 requirements (original + most recent terms) but thats not the requirement if they want to enforce it in court, that should require an agreement with the prescribed terms which if crapone have been true to form they wont have (they have in the past (2004) scanned the front and destroyed the document)

 

S.

 

They have the scrappy app form and nothing else........

 

I made Cap Quest close the file last time capone sent it away and got back a grovelling apology too off CQ......

 

I shall ask CO.......

 

.........you recklessly threaten to continue with this trade abuse via debt collection agencies. I note the last time you performed such an unlawful action via involving CapQuest this resulted in intervention by OFT. I consequently received a sincere apology from this DCA explaining that Capital One had unwisely not informed them of this dispute and that the file had been returned to you. Kindly therefore explain how you intend to mount your further threats to unlawfully intimidate me herein.

 

I did grant further payments to this CO file after the DN but it was in the belief that it was a sound agreement..

[questioner]

The letter from CO that I have last uploaded stated I broke the payment plan in Oct 09.

 

 

Now that is comical as the last payment they had was back in August 09.

 

Can I use that bit?

 

CO also say it defaulted on 4 th 09

 

CAP QUEST CAME DEMANDING CASH IN NOV 09 BUT I SOON HAD OFT ON THEM AND THEN GOT THE APOLOGY.

Edited December 31, 2009 by questioner

[citizenB]

After a great deal of hunting this is what CAPONE have sent to me as an agreement copy.

 

On the back of this "valid and enforcable " credit agreement they tell me they will persue me.

 

 

I think they must have a copy and paste agreement with the local junior school as they one is so funny. ..

 

I like the affermative PPI tick box too.

 

 

OK - HERE WE GO.

 

 

CAPONE HAVE SENT THIS LETTER BELOW - ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT THE AGREEMENT NUMBER IS ALIEN TO ME... NEVER HEARD OF IT!

 

I THINK THEY ARE REFEREING TO THIS THOUGH.

 

Thet informed me with ref to PPI that this product was sold to me during a “telephone conversation in 2001”.

 

So I said........

 

Therefore, you will no doubt have a recording of that call in order to prove this? Please confirm. However, I find it rather odd that the application form you have provided and which you assert is an authentic copy, is dated summer of 2000 – how very odd! I am sure you are in a position to explain this inconsistency to me?

 

 

 

 

 

What fun I shall have when I get my PPI claim in action......

 

Naturally - they ignored all ref to the agreement being crap due to a silly app form.........

 

Q, do you have two Capone accounts on this thread ?

 

The application form (from post 42) and letter above appear to relate to the same account with, from what I can see, the first numbers 47.

 

The application form is signed/dated by Capone as 08.06.02. Yet they are claiming that a) you agreed to PPI in 2000 and b) they changed their minds and it was 2001 ??

 

On the application form above there is also a second number starting 6.... what does that have to do with anything ?

 

Also noted on the above form I see not only is there a tick in the PPI box but that there is also one in the "self employed" box. That should have precluded them selling the PPI in the first place ??

 

However, in post 4, you have an agreement starting 36 which did start in 2000.

[questioner]

Hi CB

 

I have two accounts in dispute and the number on the Sulliven letter above is totally unknown..... nowt to do with me and he never explained himself whan tackled.

 

I would have been better to spilt the 2 files but in my rush to fight back I banged them both on together...

 

On one app form the self employed tick box was correct whilst on the other I was just in the process of going solo - I have tackled it all in the PPI claims though.

Edited January 2, 2010 by questioner

[questioner]

I want to construct a little reply for the letter they sent in post 72.