Metropolitan Collection Services

[luckysandpiper]

On 3rd October 2009, I sent a Statutory CCA request to Metropolitan Collection Services, Birmingham. B15 1JL, together with the statutory £1 fee, by recorded delivery. Due to the current situation prevailing with Royal Mail I have not yet been able to obtain proof of delivery. However, I have today received an acknowledgement of this letter from MCS, dated 12th October, 'respectfully' pointing out that the letter does not "..contain a legitimate signature for verification." In accordance with advice received here in respect of another DCA, I did not sign the letter, but merely initialled it.

It is my view that, since the letter contains my name, full address, and account reference with MCS, there is no LEGAL requirement for them to be able to verify my signature and that this is just a 'stalling tactic'.

Before writing back to tham along these lines, I would welcome the views of other 'Caggers'.

I am already copying correspondence between this company and myself to the OFT because of previous 'dodgy' tactics.

[rudy691]

in the end i just gave up and send them alternate version of signature with a little twist and a dot if they're sending you this - there's a big chance that they dont have the agreement and trying to avoid it. you can always use that antitamper thing that floating around forum. MCS is just HSBC with different name, so dont worry too much if you eventually sign the letter, just remind them that this doesnt change the timeframe for your request

[silverfox1961]

Here is a response to their letter:

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/572-debt-letter-when-company-refuse-cca-due-to-no-signature-

 

merge that into your next reply to them.

[luckysandpiper]

Thank you Caggers - you have confirmed my views. Your specimen reply, Siverfox1961, is essentially what I had in mind, but with a little more 'legal' jargon - I thank you.

My keyboard is now buzzing

[luckysandpiper]

MCS have written to me again about the 'missing signature' and quoted from the Data Protection Act s7(3) "rights of access.....", on 20/10/09, which is one day after I wrote putting the account in dispute due to non-compliance.

I have furnished them with a copy of my request with my signature over a block of x's :

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

copy that if you can !

I have also sent them another formal request under the Civil Procedure Rules (Pre-action Protocols and Part 13.16).

You can find this letter template under Legal Issues in a 'sticky' entitled

"why you shouldn't use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agrreement"

 

Hey Ho - isn't this fun

Edited October 26, 2009 by luckysandpiper
clarification

[vint1954]

Hi LSP,

 

MCS are in fact part of HSBC. They insisted that they required a signature in order to supply agreement. i argued with them for 4 months, eventually sending a greatly altered signature.

 

They responded fairly sharpish after that, supplying a CCA request form, that they had filled in themselves.

 

How old is your agreement.

[luckysandpiper]

Hi LSP,

 

MCS are in fact part of HSBC. They insisted that they required a signature in order to supply agreement. i argued with them for 4 months, eventually sending a greatly altered signature.

 

They responded fairly sharpish after that, supplying a CCA request form, that they had filled in themselves.

 

How old is your agreement.

 

Hi Vint1954

 

Yes, I know of the HSBC/MCS connection.

 

I applied for my first Barclaycard in 1976 (1st Credit kindly sent me a copy of the form )

 

I don't remember in the case of the HSBC card, but suspect that it was about the same time, and I am fairly convinced that they don't have the agreement.

I did write to ask MCS why it was possible for them to write to me in March 2008 and say they had identified my home address and that I was ex-directory, and then again accepting my repayment offer, including my card number and balance in both cases, but were unable to 'identify' my unsigned letter having received dozens in the past on the very same letter-head, and so to reply would breach the DPAct.

Just playing for time (or just playing ?).

 

Don't let the b*****s get you down.

[vint1954]

Yes, their letters are just templates.

 

if the agreement was pre 1983, they do not actually have to supply a signed agreement.

 

I am sure that you have come to realise that they just play games. Keep arguing the point with them. They do eventually get bored.

[luckysandpiper]

Yes, their letters are just templates.

 

if the agreement was pre 1983, they do not actually have to supply a signed agreement.

 

I am sure that you have come to realise that they just play games. Keep arguing the point with them. They do eventually get bored.

 

 

Vint, your first point is why I have hit them with a section 31.16 CPR request - under this they have to provide a legible copy of the original signed agreement, or at least confirm that they can have it available for inspection. Since this is part of the Overriding Objectives set out with the objective of getting parties to potential litigation to sort things out without court intervention, they must make the debtor aware of what they propose to rely on to enforce the debt.

You can find the details here: CPR - Rules and Directions - Ministry of Justice

One word of caution though - DCA's are wising up to the fact that many debtors use it as a 'scare' tactic, and refuse to comply - you must be prepared to re-state your request if this happens,. and if they still don't comply, apply to the court using form N244 Application notice

 

There is also a pre-coception bandied about that you cannot do this before the creditor starts legal action - untrue - it is a pre-litigation process.

 

Also useful is this quote from a fellow cagger in response to another thread of mine re: CCA 1974

 

Section 172 states:

172 Statements by creditor or owner to be binding

 

(1) A statement by a creditor or owner is binding on him if given under-

section 77(1), section 78(1), section 79(1), section 97(1), section 107(1)©, section 108(1)©, or section 109(1)©.

 

This means that the documents that your clients have previously provided, are the only documents you may now rely on in any attempt at enforcing this alleged debt in the future.

[vint1954]

Vint, your first point is why I have hit them with a section 31.16 CPR request - under this they have to provide a legible copy of the original signed agreement, or at least confirm that they can have it available for inspection. Since this is part of the Overriding Objectives set out with the objective of getting parties to potential litigation to sort things out without court intervention, they must make the debtor aware of what they propose to rely on to enforce the debt.

You can find the details here: CPR - Rules and Directions - Ministry of Justice

One word of caution though - DCA's are wising up to the fact that many debtors use it as a 'scare' tactic, and refuse to comply - you must be prepared to re-state your request if this happens,. and if they still don't comply, apply to the court using form N244 Application notice

 

There is also a pre-coception bandied about that you cannot do this before the creditor starts legal action - untrue - it is a pre-litigation process.

 

Agreed, but at this point I am not intending to follow through to court, so it was a hollow request for me. Keep us posted though on your progress.

 

Also useful is this quote from a fellow cagger in response to another thread of mine re: CCA 1974 Yes, that was me:D

 

Section 172 states:

172 Statements by creditor or owner to be binding

 

(1) A statement by a creditor or owner is binding on him if given under-

section 77(1), section 78(1), section 79(1), section 97(1), section 107(1)©, section 108(1)©, or section 109(1)©.

 

This means that the documents that your clients have previously provided, are the only documents you may now rely on in any attempt at enforcing this alleged debt in the future.

Vint

[luckysandpiper]

I thought it seemed familiar

[vint1954]

I thought it seemed familiar

:lol:

[luckysandpiper]

Vint

 

Vint - I had a look at section 172 today and I am a little disturbed by the final line which seems to infer that the creditor/owner may NOT be held to the documents supplied if the court decides otherwise. What do you think ? LSP

 

172.—(1) A statement by a creditor or owner is binding on him if given under—

section 77(1),

section 78(1),

section 79(1),

section 97(1),

section 107(1)©,

section 108(1)©, or

section 109(1)©.

 

(2) Where a trader—

(a) gives a customer a notice in compliance with section 103(1)(b), or

(b) gives a customer a notice under section 103(1) asserting that the customer is

not indebted to him under an agreement,

the notice is binding on the trader.

 

(3) Where in proceedings before any court—

(a) it is sought to reply (rely?) on a statement or notice given as mentioned in subsection

(1) or (2), and

(b) the statement or notice is shown to be incorrect, the court may direct such relief (if any) to be given to the creditor or owner from the operation of subsection (1) or (2) as appears to the court to be just.

[luckysandpiper]

I have today received a letter from MCS enclosing documents purporting to be in response to my CPR request. They consist of a copy of my application form (1988 ) and various letters sent to HSBC/MCS between Aug 2005 and Mar 2008. They say "with regard to the Signed Application form, we have conducted a reasonable search, and at the time of the request, the document cannot be located" They go on to say that a separate response to my CCA request will follow in due course.

 

Seems to me that they have their knickers in a real twist.

[silverfox1961]

What's the betting their separate response will be that as you have had the benefit of the money, you have an obligation to repay it even if they can't force you and they'll keep badgering you in the meantime.

 

OR

 

They'll send you a "representation" of what your agreement "would have looked like", now "pay up" :-|

 

silly ar*es

[PGH7447]

then they will sell it to clueless finance

[luckysandpiper]

then they will sell it to clueless finance

 

Aha, but then they will be in breach of CCA 1974 and the 'dispute' will become a 'serious dispute'. Remember,

 

" you may not demand any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any.

you may not add further interest to the account

you may not pass the account to a third party

you may not register any information ...with any credit reference agency

you may not issue a default notice against the account "

 

As for badgering me - I can ignore letters along with the best of the DCA's and if they start to 'harass' me - OFT & TS, here I come

[PGH7447]

and that stops them ,

[luckysandpiper]

and that stops them ,

 

I sincerely hope so :?, watch this space

[luckysandpiper]

I have today mailed my second CPR letter to MCS/HSBC, again by recorded delivery, and given them a deadline of 4th November. To date, they have replied to my s.78(1) request and first CPR request with copies of correspondence between me, HSBC and themselves, plus copies of two direct debit mandates from years back. Their letter tells me that they have conducted a long search for my "signed application form" and cannot find it - I hope that they really mean the 'signed agreement' , but can't rely on that. I will keep you all posted. LSP

[PGH7447]

er the 4 of november passed a couple of weeks ago

[luckysandpiper]

er the 4 of november passed a couple of weeks ago

 

ooops

 

Indeed you are right - is this one of the 'spelling mistakes' that they always complain about in the 'template letters' we keep sending them ?

 

Thanks for the note - I'd better write and amend it to 4th December .

 

LSP

[vint1954]

I have today mailed my second CPR letter to MCS/HSBC, again by recorded delivery, and given them a deadline of 4th November. To date, they have replied to my s.78(1) request and first CPR request with copies of correspondence between me, HSBC and themselves, plus copies of two direct debit mandates from years back. Their letter tells me that they have conducted a long search for my "signed application form" and cannot find it - I hope that they really mean the 'signed agreement' , but can't rely on that. I will keep you all posted. LSP

They will have hoped that that one got by you. Remind them that the application is no good and perhaps they would be better off looking for the signed agreement.

Edited November 18, 2009 by vint1954

[luckysandpiper]

Hi Vint

 

I have spelt out in the second letter:

1. I don't believe I ever signed one (agreement)

2. If I did, I believe it's improperly executed

3. If the above are so, I may want to go to court to obtain a 'declaration of rights'

I also pointed out that they sent a copy of the 'signed application form'

However, I dented my front by giving them a deadline of 4 November instead of 4 December (as someone kindly pointed out on here)

I must write and tell them - they will never twig it by themselves

 

LSP

[luckysandpiper]

MCS have now furnished me with the following statements in their replies:

 

to the first letter "...we have conducted a reasonable search, and at the time of the request, the document cannot be located."

 

and to the second letter " our position remains unchanged, once we are in a position to do so the relevant documentation will be issued to you"

 

I have now replied stating that I consider the account to be 'in dispute' and continue to withhold payments. My letter includes this text:

 

"Are you able to produce to me, a properly executed credit agreement as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) in order to confirm your legal right to demand payments from me.

It is a very simple question which has just two possible answers - Yes or No."

 

It is addressed to: Metropolitan Collection Services (HSBC Bank plc) in order that they should be under no illusion as to my knowledge of their true identity.

 

Any comments ?

 

LSP

Edited December 3, 2009 by luckysandpiper
to correct omission