Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • When it might be an idea if you sent a message and asked if she would be prepared to share with you what the reply was from Aviva. Tell her that's important because you are trying to recover from all the allegations of fraud and the damage to your credit file
    • Just had a thought, do you have a copy of a blank COP3 saved on your computer, from when you were downloading all the forms?   You can type your part of the form and save it and then forward on that version. Might be slightly more work for yourself if you've already handwritten a version, but would save on scanning if that's going to be messy for you.
    • Yorky, do you have a smart phone?   HB
    • I am a regular (many years)  P2G user and selected them to use Parcelforce 48 service to send a gazebo I sold on eBay.  Parcelforce 48 have an automatic max £100 compensation for lost items.   Parcelforce lost the item. P2G state the £100 compensation Parcelforce offer within their price, does not get reimbursed to them, so they can't reimburse it to me. However, it would have been reimbursed to me had I used Parcelforce 48 direct, rather than go through P2G.    It seems rather strange that when I pay P2G to buy Parcelforce 48 service on my behalf, they buy a different service which excludes the automatic compensation.   They also lost another £40 parcel (which I did not buy additional insurance for, because it was an excluded item).   They also broke an item prior to delivery (which the addressee rejected as it was clearly a damaged parcel). The thing is, if a parcel is rejected by the addressee, what should they do with the failed delivery?   In this case they threw away the parcel and 'broken' contents rather than return to sender and refuse to compensate me because I (again) did not buy the additional insurance.   I have escalated the rejected claims and they agreed as a gesture of goodwill to reimburse the postage costs for all three items. (I would have expected this as a matter of course) .    Clearly many will consider I should have bought the extra insurance. I often do, but feel the extra costs involved would be greater than the odd loss ( having never had a loss in a couple hundred sendings), I only pay extra on certain items.   I feel a summons coming on, so would be happy to receive any ideas. Even if P2G have a rock solid defence regarding my lack of buying insurance, I still fancy testing their resolve and seeing if they fancy a hearing.      After escalating my claims, they agreed to refund the postage costs only.   I have therefore issue a Notice Before Action for the value of the lost items £180.   Notice Before Action Dear Sir/madam You have lost the following items. 1)      1 2)      2 3)      3   I understand you eventually accepted liability for these lost items and have agreed to reimburse the postage costs but not the values.   You suggest this is due to my failing to take out additional insurance.   I am not prepared to accept your position and shall be issuing a summons on 18th August for £180, should you choose not to reimburse the values allocated to the items you have lost.   In particular: Item 1) This parcel was damaged by your courier and rejected by the addressee. It appears rather than return the parcel and contents to me, your courier decided to throw the item away. Thus the item has become lost, and therefore (due to my not paying extra for insurance against loss), you have chosen not to compensate. Do you seriously expect to ‘lose’ an item on purpose by throwing it away, and then claim it has been lost and therefore not covered?   Item 2) This parcel was lost and I made a claim. During the period of claim, the parcel was found and began to track. Ultimately being delivered (according to an email to the addressee, at 1.41 am 19 July 2020). Clearly the parcel was not delivered at such a time.   You have subsequently suggested delivery was at a different time. Despite these suggestions of proper delivery, you have been unable to prove delivery at all, the addressee has confirmed he has not received the item and you have accepted the item is lost.  I do not accept you can be so careless as to lose an item twice.   When I purchased this sending through P2G, I selected Parcelforce 48 as the courier. This service has a compensation value of up to £100 for loss. This is why I selected them.   It appears however, you chose not to purchase this service from Parcelforce, but an alternative service purporting to be Parcelforce 48, but excluding the standard compensation.  This is not what I had purchased. I do not accept your claim that I should have paid extra for insurance for you to insure, when I had already purchased a service which carried automatic insurance.   Further, the service was supposed to be a 48 hour service. The parcel was not collected within the 48 hour period, let alone delivered within it.  I consider the delays in ensuring delivery within the expected timeframe would have contributed to the loss of this item. I hold you responsible for the loss.   Item 3) This item was also subject to a claim for loss. During your investigations, this item was also found and started to track. Messages advising  "Enquiry resolved", "INT Hold" and "Out for delivery”, suggest the item had eventually been found.   I do not accept you can be so careless as to find a lost item and subsequently lose it again, regardless of whether I had purchased additional insured.   Indeed, the option to purchase such insurance was not available as the item appears to have been excluded from such insurance.   Yours faithfully
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Halifax unsigned cca what next?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4199 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi Halifax have sent me standard ts and cs instead of cca. I then sent a 2nd later stating this was incorrect and they needed to send me the correct agreement and I will stop paying until they do. They have sent me a your are 2 months overdue letter and nothing else. What do I do now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Halifax have sent me standard ts and cs instead of cca. I then sent a 2nd later stating this was incorrect and they needed to send me the correct agreement and I will stop paying until they do. They have sent me a your are 2 months overdue letter and nothing else. What do I do now?

Can you post the agreement, minus personal details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the usual non complient rubbish from Halifax.


Send this next.


xxxxxx 2009.

Dear xxxxxxxxx,


Re account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I write regarding recent communication regarding the above account. I acknowledge no dept to your organisation.

Further to my request under the above act, your attention is drawn to the fact that this account remains subject to a lawful serious dispute. On xxxxxxxx, by recorded delivery, I requested that you supply me a copy of the executed credit agreement covering this account pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78, a copy of this request is enclosed. To date you have failed to comply with my request, supplying only a generic agreement and unrelated terms & conditions, which cannot be linked to any agreement which you claim that I have signed. Without production of the said agreement I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable for any alleged debt to you, nor does it give me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’ as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Contrary to your assertion, xxxxxxxx have not complied with the terms of CCA 1974 s78. The documents that you have supplied, do not comply with your duties to supply a “True Copy” of any agreement you claim to have been signed by me, for pre 2007 agreements. As you will be further aware, an agreement is not executed, until signed by both parties, so the document that you have supplied, being a reconstruction, cannot be a True Copy of an Executed Agreement.

While this account remains in serious dispute, the relevant main points of the Law and OFT regulations while the account is in this state and xxxxxx remain in default are:

  • You may not ask for payment against this account.
  • I am not obliged to offer any payment against this account.
  • You cannot register any data with a third party.
  • You cannot take any enforcement action, including registering Defaults.
  • You cannot pass the account on to a third party for collection.
  • You cannot sell the account.

What is a true copy:

In a recent letter from the enforcement department of the OFT, the text below was quoted, explaining what is required.

“The copy of the executed agreement need not be an exact copy but it must be a ‘true copy’ and not some reconstruction of what the original might have been and it must contain the same terms as the original. Where the terms have been varied as provided for within the agreement, the copy of the original agreement must be accompanied by a document setting out the current terms, as varied. Certain details may be omitted from the original agreement eg the signature but the debtor must be in no doubt as to the true nature of his obligations under the loan.


Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.”


I also refer you to the information below.

1. A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor.



2. Further, s.127(3) CCA 1974 makes the account unenforceable if it is not in the proper form and content or improperly executed.


In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … 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 section 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”.


2. The need for prescribed terms to be contained in the credit agreement is confirmed by the Author of the CCA1974 act, I quote ““As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97.


Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.” - 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773.”

I am now granting to you a further 7 days to produce a copy of an executable agreement. After that I will consider that the above matter is closed and that you will no longer pursue the alleged debt. If you are insisting that the non enforceable document, that you have supplied, is the only alleged agreement in your possession, then I would suggest that the best course of action would be to immediately set the balance of the above account number to zero.

I look forward to your response.

Link to post
Share on other sites
also same thing from Barclaycard -standard morgan stanley credit card agreement no signature- sent back the template send signed one not got debt collectors chasing

Just send the same letter to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Hi, I have recieved an intended court letter from blair oliver scott on behalf of halifax still no signed agreement and I have sent BOS a letter stating this but they still call , sending a letter threatening debt collector coming to my home and an intended court letter. Please help

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scare tactics Ballsup Orrible and Snotty are Halifaxs in house DCA they are just trying to get you to contact them.

You need to send the cease harrasment letter below to them that should stop the calls.

Harrasment Calls1.doc

"I am no Solicitor but deal with REAL hard case lawyers everyday, this gives me the strength to deal with the lightweight idiots that are thrown at me everyday by DCAS :D"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, I have recieved an intended court letter from blair oliver scott on behalf of halifax still no signed agreement and I have sent BOS a letter stating this but they still call , sending a letter threatening debt collector coming to my home and an intended court letter. Please help

Hi Ruskie1,


BOS are just another desk in Halifax.


Amend the letter below to suit your situation.


Dear Sirs,

I was somewhat bemused to receive your letter dated xxxxxxx.

Despite my numerous communications with Halifax, it appears that they and now you are ignoring my lawful dispute. I would have assumed that Halifax had have passed all relevant communications to yourselves, so you should be fully aware of the dispute.

This account has been in serious dispute since xxxxxxxx, following Halifax’s failure to comply with s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Following my lawful request for a true copy of any executed agreement that they may hold, all that I have been supplied is a xxxxxxxxxxxx. This, as I am sure that you are aware, does not come close to Halifax fulfilling their duties under the act.

For the avoidance of any doubt on your part, I have included section 78(1) and 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which states…


78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing ( 12 working days + 2 ) to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the state of the account, and

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

(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 would remind you that while this alleged account remains in dispute, that Halifax and their agents:

  • May not ask for payment against this account.
  • I am not obliged to offer any payment against this account.
  • Cannot register any data with a third party.
  • Cannot take any enforcement action, including registering Defaults.
  • Cannot pass the account on to a third party for collection.
  • Cannot sell the account.

Halifax and now yourselves are in breach of the CCA 1974, the OFT guidelines on Debt collection, the Data protection act, the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 and under CPUTR 2008.


You also mention in your letter, that you can instruct your local door to door collection agents to call. You need to take note, that I have revoked the licence under common law for Halifax or their agents to visit me at my property. Any visit to my home will involve Police attendance.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have again included this notice below.




There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.)



I also caution you here that should you ignore my request on this point, the actions of your representative(s) will happily be recorded either by CCTV or by telephone recording equipment – whichever is applicable. Accordingly I reserve the right to use any evidence of you or your representatives’ ignoring this request in connection with any actions that I choose to pursue, including media exposure. THE POLICE WILL BE CALLED TO ANY TRESPASS.


Should it be your intention to disregard my wishes, and break your obligations, please be advised that the following rules also apply, as laid down by the OFT in respect of debt collection, and that you, as a holder of a consumer credit license, are obliged to follow:

The areas of the OFT guidance which applies to you in this instance are:

Debt collection visits

2.12 Examples of unfair practices are:


a. not making the purpose of any proposed visit clear, for example, merely stating that collectors or field agents will call is not sufficient

f. visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the debt is deadlocked or disputed

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:


k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt.

In addition, I have also issued Halifax with a notice under s10 of the data protection act. If you continue to process data relating to myself, you will also be in breach of this notice. I am sure that I do not have to remind you of the penalties and compensation involved, if you ignore this issue.

With reference to your further threats, Blair, Oliver and Scott Limited, must take note that such threats are in breach of OFT guidelines and CPUTR 2008 regulations. I suggest that you return this account to Halifax, for them to fulfil their legal obligations. I shall also be updating the OFT and Trading Standards with this latest breach.


I do believe this makes my position clear and unambiguous.


Yours sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...