Dca Attempting To Collect Alleged Debt Whilst In Dispute And With The Fos Re Ppi/charges

[JGJ]

Could someone please advise re the sending of the most strongly worded letter to DCA (IQOR recovery services)

The following letter was received 4th Dec. whilst the acc is still in dispute with Lloyds *ankers and is under investigation with the Financial Ombudsman Service. re PPI and charges applied thereto.

 

All advice and comments will be gratefully received.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

 

Edited December 5, 2009 by JGJ

[dx100uk]

wouldn't bother

 

ignore them

 

just a threat-o-gram littered with the normal words.

 

if, but, could, might, maybe.....etc etc

 

simply designed to get a responce

they will not care nor know its in dispute

 

dx

[JGJ]

Thanks for the swift response dx.

[angry cat]

Firstly, Report them to the OFT and Consumer Direct (the consumer arm of the OFT) 08454 04 05 06

 

Secondly, send the trespass rule letter.

 

Thirdly, write to IQOR & Lloyds, informing them that, they are in breach of the OFT guidelines on debt collection and;

the CPUTR's.

 

Lastly, whilst the FOS are investigating your valid complaint, the matter becomes grid-locked. Lloyds tsb and their chosen agent must know this!

 

Outrageous and misleading unfair business pratice...

[JGJ]

angry cat,

 

Thank you for your swift response. Lloyds really are the pits, I have already started the letters and I will send them by signed for delivery on monday.

[Bazooka Boo]

I must admit, that is a very very amusing letter they have failed to cobble together properly.

 

I particularly like their take on the good old 'valid even if not read by you' phrase.

Replacing it with an even more childish and hilarious turn of phrase 'Our actions will continue regardless of whether you actually read this notice or not'

 

And the fact that they can't even be bothered to edit letters to suit, I'm certain that your address would give them a clue as to whether you live in England or Scotland, and whether they will be able to take legal action in a court or Sheriffs court?

[angry cat]

Make sure that you inform your FOS case worker;

he/she will take an extremely dim view of IQOR/Llloyds actions in this matter!

 

Lloyds know full well what the protocol is in relation to an FOS grid-locked dispute;

IQOR, are attempting to mislead you.

[JGJ]

Thank you all for your swift replies and advice/Info. Lloyds have been a real pain in the *rse for years, ever since I defeated them with my business claims some years ago, whereupon they had to cough up some of their ILL gotten gains.

I will update when things start to move on.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[landy_alert]

Make sure that you inform your FOS case worker;

he/she will take an extremely dim view of IQOR/Llloyds actions in this matter!

 

Lloyds know full well what the protocol is in relation to an FOS grid-locked dispute;

IQOR, are attempting to mislead you.

 

Hi JGJ:)

 

Whilst I agree that you would think Angrycat's statement above to be true and indeed until very recently I believed the same myself, my own current experience with LTSB/FOS would call this into question.

 

Mr Landy and I both have (loan) accounts in dispute with LTSB over mis-sold PPI. Both complaints have been with the FOS since July 2009. In Mr Landy's situation he received a letter from his FOS case-worker asking if he was being threatened with legal action in relation to this debt, implying that if he was they would speed up the resolution process. As he was being threatened by Apex who were getting increasingly nasty, we informed the FOS - who promptly ignored this and continued to drag their feet.

 

In my own case, Apex have again started threatening legal action, so once again I duly sent copies of their threatograms to the FOS. This week the FOS suggested I should contact Apex to come to an arrangement to pay them:eek:

 

Not only that but after my last response to Apex, LTSB have written to me informing me that Apex have agreed to not pursue me for this debt till 12th January, which they say is 3 months since they passed my file to the FOS - implying that the FOS have had plenty of time to resolve my complaint! They even add that as they have not been instructed by the FOS to halt collection activities they are not prepared to do so:eek:

 

Apologies for this mini hijack of your thread, but thought you should be aware that it's not as simple as telling the FOS and that the DCA collection activities/threats will stop!

 

All the best,

 

Landy x

Edited December 5, 2009 by landy_alert
Added something!

[JGJ]

Landy alert,

 

Thank you for the heads up re the Lloyds/FOS "connection"

I have seen off a couple of Lloyds threatogramme DCAs as they Lloyds, are relentless ruthless and completely and utterly, deliberately dysfunctionally out of control, even before the decision handed down from the Supreme Court re the OFT test case. (Therein lies many a tale of intrigue)

 

However we have to take them on with the ammunition that is available to us and I think that the "CAG" and "caggers" are one of the best tools available to us. Unfortunately if we do not go through the correct protocols to take on these *ankers we get hammered by all and sundry on our way to dare I say fair justice in the County Courts whereas they apparently just need a last minute fax and that apparently seems to dispose of the necessity for their input pre Court protocols.

 

The DCAs are the obvious battering ram for the *ankers, lets just wait and see if they dare to take anyone to Court in the near future, the outcome will be very very interesting. I eagerly await the decision/input of the FOS.

 

On my last visit to Court on the 25th yes the 25th Nov, (Bad timing or what) on one of my submissions to the Dep. DJ, he proudly announced that the Law is "equal to both parties," if only I had the equal share that the *anks seem to command.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Edited December 5, 2009 by JGJ

[landy_alert]

Hi JGJ:)

 

You're welcome! I will follow your progress on this with interest as it just makes you wonder whether different FOS employees give out different info. They are so obviously bogged down with complaints, I wonder also whether they are all sufficiently trained for the job they are supposed to be doing!

 

I fully agree with you about the after-effects of the test case - talk about (supposed) success going to LTSB's heads. Still, all is not lost on that front;)

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

[JGJ]

Received the following letter a couple of days ago from DCAs as they appear to be getting more and more desperate and frustrated with their pitiful attempts at collecting this Alleged debt which is disputed with Lloyds.

 

Appropriate letters were sent to them over a week ago by signed for del.the Royal Mail receipt was not signed for del, until wed 16th.

[JGJ]

[dx100uk]

the clue there is they are offeringa discount

if there wasn't something wrong with the agreement or debt, then they would not make an offer.

 

dx

[Bazooka Boo]

Bunch of Chancers!

 

Please please please, send them the money they are asking for..................using Monopoly Money!:lol:

[JGJ]

Bazooka Boo,

 

IF only I had seen your post earlier, alas I have already paid them and received a good discount on the alleged debt that I do not owe and with what card did I pay them with do you ask, *ucking "XMAS" card would be my reply. :D;).

 

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[diddydicky]

"Our actions will continue regardless of whether you read this notice or not"

 

 

priceless!!!

[landy_alert]

Hi JGJ:)

 

Further to my above posts, I spoke to my adjudicator at the FOS the day before yesterday and he said that consumers should not consider the account to be in dispute just because there is an outstanding PPI issue on that account:eek:

 

He said that the FOS was there to protect consumers and advise them not to get into further trouble by not paying their debts and thus being taken to court.........and that many consumers tell the FOS that they are not paying because of PPI issues, when they should actually carry on paying:eek:

 

Trying to reason with him over this was useless as he just trotted out the same old mantra that mis-sold PPI doesn't equal account in dispute and that to believe this was a mistake.........

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

[dx100uk]

poss agree with this is certain conditions, however, i still don't think they should be allowed to post markers/defaults on the A/C with cra's.

 

my thoughts are: if the PPI refund has the potential to clear the debt, then no it should not be allowed.

but, if the PPI refund might only clear 'part' of the debt, then i think it unadvisable to stop 'any' payments you are currently making.

 

dx

[JGJ]

Edited January 16, 2010 by JGJ
"APOLOGIES" POST REMOVED

[JGJ]

This is the latest letter from Lloyds re my PPI claim and subsequent investigation by the FOS (still ongoing, in the massive queue of claimants)

 

All further advice/information will be as always gratefully received.

 

Bearing in mind !QOR have offered a "substantial reduction on your outstanding balance" their words, This response came after I sent them the "Account in Dispute Letter"

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

 

 

[dx100uk]

is it bank charges?

i thought this was ppi?

 

now, my other q's on post 18, ......

 

dx

[JGJ]

dx,

Thanks for your swift reply.

 

1) No PPI

 

2) It is

 

3) Please explain your question re post 18 ?

[dx100uk]

so their letter is rubbish as they dont know what they are talking about, your are reclaiming PPI NOT charges.

 

if the PPI refund has the potential to clear the debt, then no it should not be allowed.

will the PPI refund clear 'part' of the debt, or all of it?

 

dx

[JGJ]

dx,

 

If I manage to get a refund of the PPI, via the FOS route, I do not have the exact figures to hand. so what are the implications if.

 

1) PPI reclaim (if successful) does cover the whole of the outstanding balance.

 

2) PPI reclaim does not cover the whole of the outstanding balance.

 

I have previously requested the underwriting sheet etc, when making the initial PPI claim, ("still awaiting Lloyds response") and that is why/how I made complaint to FOS.