what should I do now - if anything

[flooz]

BUT............. switching to Firefox shows the thread more 'normally'.

 

I wonder why it won't show in IE - surely, it should show the same in both.

[Dotty50]

Oh, right then you need to track down a thread about problems and find webmaster, he is working on the problems and you may find the answer on the thread.

 

I have to go out now, otherwise I would try and find it for you.

[flooz]

It's OK Dotty, I can just remember to use firefox for CAG.

 

Going to try and compose a letter to Carp1 soon.

[flooz]

OK. I've had composed the following, and although we appear to be going round in circles, I believe it at least shows I'm trying very hard to resolve the issue (unlike Carp1).

 

I would really appreciate some opinions....

 

quote...

Dear Madam,

Thank you for your (unsigned) letter of 10th September.

Firstly, I must apologise, as I made an error in a date quoted in my previous correspondence. I previously referred to ‘printed terms and conditions sent to me on 6th October 2009’. On further checking, I realise these printed terms and conditions were in fact sent to me on 30th November 2009. That letter states “I am enclosing a true copy of the original executed agreement, comprising the scanned image of the signature page of the executed agreement together with the terms and conditions”. I now understand that the printed terms and conditions are what Capital One allege to be the original terms and conditions.

However, there is some discrepancy in the information you have sent me and to this end, I do not accept you have a correctly executed agreement nor provided a copy of the same.

As you are aware, although the CCA allows you to provide a reconstituted agreement, an original correctly executed agreement must be provided to any Court for enforcement.

I note that you again state that you will not enter into further correspondence in this matter, which therefore defeats the overriding objectives in seeking a resolution of the matter outside of the Court process.

I therefore await service and any further demands for payment will be filed without response.

Yours faithfully

 

 

...end quote

 

Oooh, this is good, I didn't have to go through this post on 'preview' and delete all the formatting that normally gets copied across from Word:-o

[flooz]

Any thoughts anyone?

 

I want to tell them they appear to have c**cked up, but don't want to tell them exactly what they've done.

 

Also, I am wondering what the repercussions are (to them) of the 'reconstituted' agreement having different T&C's to those they have provided to me as being the 'original T&C's.

[flooz]

Bumpity bump:violin:

[Drederick Tatum]

What is it you're trying to achieve here?

 

From your point of view it's unenforceable because it doesn't contain the prescribed terms, so why are you continuing to waste your time going around in circles with them?

[flooz]

Hi Drederick.

 

What I'd like to do is get them to realise that they've messed up (I think) and then start negotiating with me to draw the matter to a close.

 

Having said that, from what I've read on some of the other threads, there's little chance of that happening. So, if it's 100% certain that they cannot enforce the debt, I think they should either 'put up' or 'shut up' as the saying goes.

 

As I struggle to understand easily what's right and what isn't, I guess I'm worried that I've misunderstood something somewhere, only to find that they can indeed enforce the agreement.

 

My opinion was without a correctly signed agreement, whilst I was happy to repay any monies borrowed, I am not prepared to pay ANY of the interest or charges. I have done a rough calculation from the info in the SAR, and the interest and charges total about £1,800, which would bring the debt down to an amount I could (just) pay.

 

Apologies if I've not explained things very well, I don't find this type of thing easy.

[Drederick Tatum]

Hi Drederick.

 

What I'd like to do is get them to realise that they've messed up (I think) and then start negotiating with me to draw the matter to a close.

 

Having said that, from what I've read on some of the other threads, there's little chance of that happening. So, if it's 100% certain that they cannot enforce the debt, I think they should either 'put up' or 'shut up' as the saying goes.

 

As I struggle to understand easily what's right and what isn't, I guess I'm worried that I've misunderstood something somewhere, only to find that they can indeed enforce the agreement.

 

My opinion was without a correctly signed agreement, whilst I was happy to repay any monies borrowed, I am not prepared to pay ANY of the interest or charges. I have done a rough calculation from the info in the SAR, and the interest and charges total about £1,800, which would bring the debt down to an amount I could (just) pay.

 

Apologies if I've not explained things very well, I don't find this type of thing easy.

 

I didn't mean to come across rude earlier, apologies if I did.

 

From your point of view it's unenforceable so if I were you I'd just leave it at that, you've made your point perfectly clear and it's now up to them to either try and pursue you though the courts or to pass it on to various DCA's that you chase off.

 

I honestly don't think you're going to get them to admit that what they've got is unenforceable and even if they do then they are still likely to sell it on rather than just forget about it, if you do want to negotiate a settlement then you're better off waiting for them to sell it on as you will be able to settle at a much smaller percentage.

 

Just my opinion.

[flooz]

Hi Drederick, it's ok, you weren't rude. 8-)

 

Do you happen to know the repercusions (if any) of sending printed T&C's, claiming them to be the originals, being different to what now appears on the reverse of the reconstituted 'agreement' (which still implies it's an application form')?

 

I guess my main worries are if they do end up going to Court, they suddenly provide the original agreement, as opposed to a 'reconstituted' one.

 

Thanks for your replies

[Dotty50]

Well IF they did take you to court Flooz and produce an original, wouldn't the judge be questioning why they have wasted the courts time by not producing it before, after your numerous requests?

 

As DT says, they will never admit to not having an enforceable agreement so you have the option to either sit tight, like many others on here or negotiate an affordable payment plan, again like many others on here.

[flooz]

Morning everyone.

 

I guess I'm just a 'worrier', lol and trying to make sure I'm right. From Cap1's point of view, they have provided a copy of the agreement, in with the SAR stuff. The T&C's on the reverse do not tally with the printed copy of the T&C's produced after my CCA request, but the 'fold lines' on the front and reverse of the copy 'agreement' do coincide.

 

I feel pretty useless at fighting this and given they keep saying that they do have an 'enforceable agreement' really really concerns me.

 

I had an issue with NatWest, and they openly admitted that they couldn't produce an agreement and I've not heard a thing from then since, although I'm sure it is noted on my credit file.

 

At the moment, I think I need one final 'push' to move on with this.

 

Not sure if any of that makes sense.

[Drederick Tatum]

Morning everyone.

 

I guess I'm just a 'worrier', lol and trying to make sure I'm right. From Cap1's point of view, they have provided a copy of the agreement, in with the SAR stuff. The T&C's on the reverse do not tally with the printed copy of the T&C's produced after my CCA request, but the 'fold lines' on the front and reverse of the copy 'agreement' do coincide.

 

I feel pretty useless at fighting this and given they keep saying that they do have an 'enforceable agreement' really really concerns me.

 

I had an issue with NatWest, and they openly admitted that they couldn't produce an agreement and I've not heard a thing from then since, although I'm sure it is noted on my credit file.

 

At the moment, I think I need one final 'push' to move on with this.

 

Not sure if any of that makes sense.

 

The problem with dealing with banks is that they will play on words, they may well see it as enforceable because they believe they've satisfied S.78 but that doesn't mean that it will be enforceable in court, they know that but they don't tell you that.

 

Some banks do admit if they can't enforce, most of them do because they have lost the agreement but you get the odd few that will admit that what they've got won't be enforceable in court, I've never seen Capital One admit that they can't enforce this document in court though yet there are plenty of people kicking round the forums that haven't paid them for years with this document without proceedings being brought against them.

 

If I were you I would back off now and let them do the running.

[flooz]

Thank you again.

 

OK. They must do the running. I shall simply write (because I am polite) saying that due to discrepancies in information received, I do not accept they have an enforceable agreement, and invite them to prove otherwise in Court.

[flooz]

And thus the merry-go-round has re-started. Received the following letter from Carp1. Having found a similar letter elsewhere on CAG, from what I can work out, the judgement relates to Carp1 being able to provide a reconstituted agreement - which has never been challenged by me. I'm aware that they are allowed to do that. I will not tell Carp1 what they have done wrong, i.e. different T&C's on the reverse of the reconstituted agreement to what was supplied under my CCA request as being the original T&C's. But I simply do not know how to respond. I'm reasonable certain

they are just trying to 'bully' me into believing I'm fighting a losing battle, but I also have a feeling that this Judge was the one that also stated something about people taking responsibility for their debts, regardless of what the lender has done (or words to that effect).

 

Bear with me, I can't seem to upload the images without them being really tiny, regardless of how I re-size them

[flooz]

I think it's going to be easier for me to re-type the letter, so...

 

quote...

 

Thank you for your letter of 28th September 2010. We have no reason to change our position as set out in our final response to you of 30th November 2010. (I wasn't aware we'd had that date yet)

We have already responded to the points raised in your letter. Please refer to our previous letters. Again we have no reason to change our position and we reiterate that any proceedings issued will be robustly defended.

 

However, you state that there are discrepancies with the information sent to you, yet no positive case is advanced in this regards. You have failed to provide us with any explanation of why you believe there are discrepancies.

 

His honour Judge Waksman's Judgment of 16 July 2010

 

In light of the judgment given by His Honour Judge Waksman QC in the Mercantile Court on Friday 16 July 2010 we consider it is inappropriate for you to continue to issue complains that rely on issues pleaded in the same way to those that were considered and addressed by His Honour Judge Waksman.

 

Please take this letter as notice of the fact that we will be making a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority in respect of any further complaints that are subsequently sent to us that raise some or all of those issues. We consider that the continued complaints raising these issues are wholly unreasonable and misconceived.

 

I must now inform you that any further contact we receive from you on this subject will be acknowledged but we will not be entering into any further correspondence regarding the provision of copy agreements. (they've said that sooooo many times)

 

As we issued our final response to you, please refer your continued concerns on this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Although we have previously provided you with their contact details, it is our understanding that the Financial Ombudsman Service may choose to not consider your case as issues regarding the enforceability of a consumer credit agreement would be better considered by a court.

 

Typical call charged from a BT landline, etc etc etc

 

YS

Katie Smith

.....end quote

 

What on earth they mean by 'making a complaint to the solicitors regulation authority' I do not know. As far as I'm aware, they would deal with issues against a solicitor - a bit like The Law Society, but I may be wrong.

 

So, anyone any idea of how I should proceed this matter?

 

I'm inclined to send a simple letter agreeing with their point about 'enforceability of a CCA being considered by a Court' and simply say to them - "Fine - take me to court".

[Dotty50]

You know I had a strange letter from them a while ago and there were random paragraphs that made no sense whatsoever!

 

Inexperienced employees, I guess who just cobble a letter together using template paragraphs!

 

I think your last sentence is probably about right Flooz.

 

I hear nothing from them now but I assume this is because IF it went to court, I would counterclaim for refund of charges and ppi, which would cover the balance owed on this!

[flooz]

Hi Dotty

 

If I remember correctly, my last two letters have invited them to take me to Court, but of course, they haven't.

 

As I see it, they have either provided a copy of the 'agreement', but c**ked up on the terms sent with the CCA request, which is probably now irrelevant due to what they provided under the SAR.

 

OR, what they sent with the SAR is a reconstituted agreement and they've c**ked up with that.

 

Either way, I think the only way I will find out for sure is in Court.

[flooz]

Does anyone know what the points of Judge Waksman's Judgment actual was? Do I have anything to be concerned about, or am I right in thinking that Carp1 are using any tactic they can think of to unnerve me?

 

Any further advice out there would be greatly appreciated.

[chelsealove]

No, mate, my guess is they actually are now taking people to trial in the belief that most judges are interpreting Carey as widely as possible [i.e. if the bank produces a statement which states they followed the rules, the judge will accept it in the absence of any contrary evidence]. I've worked a fair bit at County Court level and most DJs are fiercely against unrepentant debtors. I think Carey is the excuse they've been looking for.

 

My trial is in the New Year. I will fight it to the bitter end, because Cap One have behaved shoddily and unethically. If I win, then I'll advertise it as widely as possible and possibly offer free legal representation to anyone who wants to fight them. Just google Capital One and you'll find a long and ugly record of bad behaviour, both on this side of the pond and the other. They're the ugly face of Capitalism.

[flooz]

From what I've found in researching, the judgement is about being able to provide a reconstituted agreement under a CCA request - but I've never challenged this with Cap1. I'm firmly of the belief that they don't even bother to read the letters properly, because all too often their response is irrelevant, and just another standard response.

 

Due to that, it's becoming very difficult to converse with them, and I'm at a loss as to what I should do next. Obviously I need to be able to show that I've done everything possible to draw the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. But some might argue that the only way to do that is to just pay up. However, if that's the case, why bother having rules and regulations in place that institutions like Cap1 are supposed to adhere to, when there's no comeback on them if they don't.

[flooz]

The forums are very quiet these days, where has all the wonderful assistance gone?

[Dotty50]

You're right Flooz, a lot of experienced people have gone elsewhere it seems.

 

But there are still many helpful Caggers on here, it just seems that some of the longer threads go unanswered, certainly with my MBNA ones.

 

Having subbed to a lot of relevant threads when I first found CAG, a lot of them dried up after a while.

 

My theory is that the OP's become used to the DCA's threats and letters and just ride the storm, so to speak and don't post on their thread so often.

 

That's how I see it, I certainly haven't updated my threads, despite having every intention but I have become a little lethargic, which isn't good and doesn't help others who are looking for information.

 

I still read many and post on some if I feel I can help from my experiences.

 

I think you have reached your limit with Cap1 and have to either pay or sit it out, which I think is what a lot of us are doing at the moment anyway.

 

There doesn't seem to be any magic wands to wave to come to a satisfactory conclusion with the companies involved and I don't think there will ever be!

[flooz]

Hi Dotty. Nice to 'hear' from a familiar name. I do try and work things out for myself by reading other threads, but I'm not too good at picking out the relevant pieces of information.

 

I do often wonder if people get fed up with repeating theirselves on each thread, but as I'm a born 'worrier' I can't help but think that perhaps, I'm missing something or I've got it wrong, and with my luck, I'll be the one Cap1 make 'an example' of and take to Court.

 

Given they keep saying they will not enter into more correspondence, I'd really like to be the last link in the chain of correspondence, so if a hearing follows, it'll be Cap1 ignoring my letter, not the other way round. Hope you understand what I mean.

 

I'm still a little confused as to the relevance of what Cap1 have done, and how strong a case I have to fight them. I'm more than happy (morally) to repay what was borrowed, but would argue that without a properly executed CCA, any charges of interest or 'fines' are not due.

 

I just don't know anymore.

[Dotty50]

Yes I understand what you mean Flooz.

 

Without going back through your thread, did you have any late fees that you can claim back, or PPI?

 

Interest charges can't be claimed back as they have the right to charge it. The fact that so many have had their rates increased to extortionate levels is what I think has made the situation worse.