Crap One invalid Default notices

[vengeancedemon]

Just a thought, if, as has been suggestedby the good brains here that the DN being defective, the account has been effectively terminated by Cap 1 and so now doesnt exist, are not Lowells committing a Criminal Fraud (Fraud Act 2006?) by attempting to collect? I believe this is a level five offence, big fines and or chokey?

Or am I being optimistic?

Mind you CPS?police are probably as useless as all the others, maybe I should bubble Cornell up for wiping his nose in a car park !

[diddydicky]

fraud

 

as with the vast majority of criminal offences it is the INTENT that is the hardest to prove.

 

you really would be wasting your time, in dealing with civil matters, to be even thinking about allegations of a criminal nature unless the offence jumps up and bites you on the bum and points you to the uncontestable evidence to support it

 

 

 

If you are a LIP and you intend to accuse the other side of any criminal act - my advice would be:-

 

don't bother turning up at court- why waste your own costs as well as having to pay the other side's when you lose the case!!

[vengeancedemon]

Obliged, it was only a musing, but then again, I must suppose Lowells are so thick they wouldnt have clocked a defective DN and a termination by Crapone

[vengeancedemon]

Letters received from Cap 1 as attachments

 

Firstly, they have completely ignored the most excellent letter (Thank you pinky 69) in post 21 of this saga. So as far as I can see, the D/N is still invalid as detailed in early posts and advice.

 

What they have sent is:

 

C1 - C2-C3 the letter

 

C4 The "Agreement"

 

C5 & 6 the first and last paages (A4) of the T & C, I am suspect that the penalty charges on last page are not those in force at timme of issue (2000)

 

Any further comments would be aoppreciated as I expect the Leeds loosers to come over the horizon soon

Files, 4-5-6 are on next post

c1.pdf

c2.pdf

c3.pdf

[vengeancedemon]

Remainder of files 4-5&6

 

The T & C sent were over 4 pages of A4

c4.pdf

c5.pdf

c6.pdf

[The GodMother]

Humm the charges i think are right for 200 as they are £15.00.

 

What tho does worry me is number 7 it basically says who ever uses your card for anything you have to pay them.

[vengeancedemon]

Thank you

 

But, to my mind, and correct me if I am wrong, the whole process of any collection/enforceability/validity of documents etc falls apart on the fact that Crapone issued a deficient and defective DN.

[InformedSearcher]

Thank you

 

But, to my mind, and correct me if I am wrong, the whole process of any collection/enforceability/validity of documents etc falls apart on the fact that Crapone issued a deficient and defective DN.

 

 

It might well do BUT they have now obviously got a DN listed on all the CRA's and probably are happy with that 'cheap' way to do things. If they never take you to court they can just leave the DN's there. It might well end up that the only way you might have them reoved is to go to the court yourself and they know this.

 

It could be well argued that them taking you to court is probably a good chance for you to win. If you take them to court all the work needed has to be done by you with no 100% rate of success guaranteed. I've said elsewhere that I think often these companies are aware people have no or little funds so often it might be pointless to take court action. In this way you are still penalised for 6 years and as we know a DN is as bad as a CCJ on a CRA file.

 

Michael

[cerberusalert]

Thank you

 

But, to my mind, and correct me if I am wrong, the whole process of any collection/enforceability/validity of documents etc falls apart on the fact that Crapone issued a deficient and defective DN.

 

(Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983, a failure of a Default Notice or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd V Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998 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 (Kpophraror V Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119).

[vengeancedemon]

Thank you for your thoughts, I dont intend to take action against them, cant afford it anyway, but I will use the invalid DN as a defence if they launch anything gainst me

 

Thank you again

[InformedSearcher]

Thank you for your thoughts, I dont intend to take action against them, cant afford it anyway, but I will use the invalid DN as a defence if they launch anything gainst me

 

Thank you again

 

Exactly bearing in mind the DN remains.

 

It makes me laugh that when I was brought up my parents and probably everyone those days had great respect for banks and the like. These days their actions to you (and me) mean they no longer have thar respect or integity anymore. They don't seem to care anymore.

 

A Shame.

 

Michael

[cerberusalert]

I was brought up my parents and probably everyone those days had great respect for banks and the like.

 

"That's right, just sign your soul

away on the bottom line."

[InformedSearcher]

God my grammar is getting worse! I just had to copy that picture. Made me smile so much.

 

Michael

[The GodMother]

Vengance.

 

I dont blame u re the starting action they are pains in ass.

 

Its a year since my win against them and i feel better for it.

[vengeancedemon]

Interesting letter from Crapone, completeley ignoring the letter ( see above) sent to their Data Controller regarding the Defective default notice and its legal implications thereof, and that they are perfectly entitled under the original agreement ( I have yet to see even an "Application form" to pass this to whoemsover. Lowells have not said anything since being told of the deficient D/N in December,

 

I wonder if I should persue this with C1 or just let sleeping dogs lie?

[Mr Silver]

Hello vengeancedemon.

 

Fascinating thread and compelling reading.

 

I'm also dealing with Crap1 (see my thread Mr Silver v Crap1).

 

Some thoughts: based on my case and I assume your case?

 

1. Part of the alleged Crap1 credit card debt is or would be made up, I assume, of unfair/ penalty charges?

 

2. If so, and you want to have the Default Notice removed from your Credit File (like I do) then I believe that by virtue that the Crap1 alleged debt is made up of unfair/penalty charges which are unlawful under the CCA 2006 Unfair Terms and Conditions amendment.

 

3. That makes any Default Notice unlawful too? Correct me if I am wrong?

 

4. Thus when Crap1 state in their letter to you that you 'consented' under the Crap1 agreement for them to pass or share financial credit information about you (and me and others) re 'debts' and 'defaults' to Credit Reference Agencies under the Date Protection Act (section 78); they can only do that if - a BIG if in this and many other cases - the 'alleged debt' (outstanding sum/amount) is ACCURATE.

 

5. Clearly where part of the alleged debt is made up of UNFAIR / penalty which have been declared UNLAWFUL, the alleged Crap1 debt is therefore INACCURATE and as such must NOT be passed on or shared with Credit Reference Agencies since that would be a breach of section 78 of the DPA!

 

6. Therefore you should be able to request via the County Court that Crap1 and Lowell desist from processing false and INACCURATE information and demand too that the CRAs remove the INACCURATE default notice from your credit file and also seek damages for injury to your creditworthiness.

 

I intend to simply write a letter giving Crap1 14 days to pay me compensation otherwise County Court action for defamation!

 

Also requesting that they IMMEDIATELY stop processing my information under the DPA or face the consequences with a major damages claim in the Court Court.

 

Hope that information (if correct) is helpful.

 

P.S.

 

I should also add that part of my claim is also for reclaiming UNFAIR credit card charges and a separate DISPUTE claim re: disputed unauthorised transactions.

[InformedSearcher]

Of course whilst the DN might be defective I bet until you go to court it'll not be removed. It's the recent 'easy and cheap' route for most financial institutions in to just leaving it as a DN. If they go for a CCJ the difference is that it costs them money and you can defend it with a better chance of winning than you taking them to court. The downside of course is that a DN on the CRA files it's just as bad as a CCJ. Remembering both are there for 6 years.

 

Michael

[diddydicky]

Hello vengeancedemon.

 

Fascinating thread and compelling reading.

 

I'm also dealing with Crap1 (see my thread Mr Silver v Crap1).

 

Some thoughts: based on my case and I assume your case?

 

1. Part of the alleged Crap1 credit card debt is or would be made up, I assume, of unfair/ penalty charges?

 

2. If so, and you want to have the Default Notice removed from your Credit File (like I do) then I believe that by virtue that the Crap1 alleged debt is made up of unfair/penalty charges which are unlawful under the CCA 2006 Unfair Terms and Conditions amendment.

 

3. That makes any Default Notice unlawful too? Correct me if I am wrong?

 

4. Thus when Crap1 state in their letter to you that you 'consented' under the Crap1 agreement for them to pass or share financial credit information about you (and me and others) re 'debts' and 'defaults' to Credit Reference Agencies under the Date Protection Act (section 78); they can only do that if - a BIG if in this and many other cases - the 'alleged debt' (outstanding sum/amount) is ACCURATE.

 

5. Clearly where part of the alleged debt is made up of UNFAIR / penalty which have been declared UNLAWFUL, the alleged Crap1 debt is therefore INACCURATE and as such must NOT be passed on or shared with Credit Reference Agencies since that would be a breach of section 78 of the DPA!

 

6. Therefore you should be able to request via the County Court that Crap1 and Lowell desist from processing false and INACCURATE information and demand too that the CRAs remove the INACCURATE default notice from your credit file and also seek damages for injury to your creditworthiness.

 

I intend to simply write a letter giving Crap1 14 days to pay me compensation otherwise County Court action for defamation!

 

Also requesting that they IMMEDIATELY stop processing my information under the DPA or face the consequences with a major damages claim in the Court Court.

 

Hope that information (if correct) is helpful.

 

P.S.

 

I should also add that part of my claim is also for reclaiming UNFAIR credit card charges and a separate DISPUTE claim re: disputed unauthorised transactions.

 

if you are in monthly arrears, the reference on the credit file is not, as far as i know, shown as a specific figure

 

similarly a file that is endorsed as defaulted (correct me someone if i am wrong) does not show the amount by which you defaulted- simply that you defaulted (it might show only the total of the loan defaulted on)

 

if so then any argument that you may have as to whether the amount by which you have defaulted is erroneous would be of no consequence!!

[InformedSearcher]

if you are in monthly arrears, the reference on the credit file is not, as far as i know, shown as a specific figure

 

similarly a file that is endorsed as defaulted (correct me someone if i am wrong) does not show the amount by which you defaulted- simply that you defaulted (it might show only the total of the loan defaulted on)

 

if so then any argument that you may have as to whether the amount by which you have defaulted is erroneous would be of no consequence!!

 

Personally I would say that when a default arrives and you are intending to refute/take action against it then it's 'you' who has to do the donkey work. Whilst a default might show the arrears at the time by not complying the charge is on the whole amount being repayable.

 

My belief is that armed with a hopefully truthful SAR you can list the original sum, interest, arrears and disputed charges. Whilst the financial institution could easily do this they of course decide not to. The uphill struggle is that you, if you decide to contest it in a CC 'you' have to show and prove what is considered unfair and unjust. Of course the first remark would be under the T&C's if you falter then it all becomes payable on demand.

 

In my case (regarding HSBC) I can prove that the DN is invalid by a bad date reference but I am also aware that this might be 'ignored'. Now if again, in my case the bank was to go for a CCJ they are well aware that I have a better chance of winning by that same date issue. So in their view I am destined to be hassled and persued as they are aware if I challenge them in court they've a good chance of winning.

 

Michael

(who now feels banks have now got the upper hand)

[Pinky69]

Credit reports show a "default balance", which is the amount you are supposed to owe them, and this is easily challenged where records are incomplete or charges and interest have been added whilst an account was in dispute. I have statements form CrapOne that all give the same figure and there is no way of knowing how that figure was arrived at!

[vengeancedemon]

Thank you for all your thoughts, I am tempted to go down, at the moment, the route of having a go at C1 under Data Protection, ie passing this to firstly Crapquest ( and inter alia HL Legal) and then to Lowells afterthey have uttered a defective D/N as described above, and therefore rescinded the agreement ie it no longer exists(?).

 

As I have mentioned, CrapQ dropped it pdq and HL Legal have not made any further reference, and when LWLS where advised of this, and told to soad orf, have heard no more from them, Cap one seem to think that they are in the right by not even producing anything remotely like an agreement, not even the famous "Application Form"

 

Is it worth reportuing them to Info Comms and others, or am I wasting my time as these regulatory bodies sem to do not much?

[vengeancedemon]

I have had a long running battle with Cap one to start with, a brief foray with Crapquest and HL Legal and then Lowells

 

Just to be brief, I initially sent Cap 1 a CCa, they didnt really respond ( suprise) and a defective default notice ie totally illegal was issued, it then went to CrapQ and Hl who were seen off in short oder and then after a long pause the Leeds Loosers appeared ( about 18 months ago) a lot of letter tennis and finally today the attached - yippee

 

Should I do anything else like write to them and get confirmation that they have not done anything to my CRA ( not that I care about that) and that they havnt sold it to any other pond **** etc or just file it away very very safely?

scan.pdf

[harrassed senior]

Had one of those myself a few weeks ago, as did a few others. I have noticed that they have again been sending out another batch this week. Note sure if we can do anything about their entries on CFs though.

[craigers]

get back to lowell and hit them with the invalid default notice. tell them that if they don't remove the default you'll complain to the ico and are prepared to take them to court.

[vengeancedemon]

Way back told Cap one about the error of their DN, but no response