Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[cymruambyth]

Thanks P1, I have had loads of help, but will no doubt be checking my knowledge of The Manchester cases before I meet my friends from Morgans!

[diddydicky]

I always keep a paper trail.... because you never know if they will fancy their chances at some point in the future.

 

Once an account's placed in dispute, the ball is in their court yes.... but if they think that you believe some of the drivel in their early letters, then chances are they'll go forward with legal action. Cabot are very cute for this type of thing (DCA).... and so are HFC (bank).

 

By keeping a paper trail and picking the early letters apart, all legal action against myself has been dropped or never been instigated in the first place. As most people remain very wary of defending themselves in front of a Judge, it's something to bear in mind.

 

 

spot on- it is right and proper to file unanswered,communications of a circular nature , however i would advise that one should always answer or respond to ALL new arguments or issues that have not been previously addressed

[Redfish]

spot on- it is right and proper to file unanswered,communications of a circular nature , however i would advise that one should always answer or respond to ALL new arguments or issues that have not been previously addressed

 

Agreed. This is how I see it: The case at hand is what is stated by me in my account in dispute letter, that is why I have stopped payments - I have defined the nature of the dispute in that letter. After that letter my position is that I only respond to letters which try to deal with the points raised in that letter, i.e. that address the dispute. Most of my creditors simply ignore these points were ever made, they try to state an entirely different case - instead of the case of their s.78 default causing me to stop payments, they try to put forward a case that me stopping payments caused a default. By ignoring the root cause of the dispute they are simply trying to bully payments out of me with threats. So I file these, and don't bother replying to them as they are irrelevant to the original case at hand, which is the dispute I defined in my letter to them. They only address the symptoms and not the cause.

 

As long as they do not reply directly to that account in dispute letter I have no need or reason to reply to the assortment of red herrings they throw into the mix. To do so would be to engage on their terms, dealing with the symptoms, rather than forcing them to engage on my terms, which is to deal with the root cause of the dispute.

 

This not only saves energy but also keeps the arguments clean, clear, to the point and on my terms. In the process I give them as much rope as they need to hang themselves - the Default Notice usually does it. In court, or in the pre-action protocols, they will have to deal with the root cause, which is the failure to provide an enforceable agreement and all the mistakes they made on the way, like the Default Notice.

 

Of course this is assuming the account in dispute letter was clearly and powerfully argued, and will be the basis of your defence in court (plus all the bonus points you pick up on the way, like a defective DN etc).

[PriorityOne]

spot on- it is right and proper to file unanswered,communications of a circular nature , however i would advise that one should always answer or respond to ALL new arguments or issues that have not been previously addressed

 

Attempts by creditors/DCAs to raise new arguments have formed the basis of further complaints from me within their own internal complaints procedure. These are linked to the first complaint re. non-compliance; just to give them extra work in wording their reply in writing without looking like complete plonkers... .

 

This is not always necessary but certain creditors/DCA's who have assumed I'm thick re. consumer law have ended up being tied up in knots with their own arguments and the stupidity of them (A&L, HFC, Cabot in particular) through a series of (unresolved) complaints that link together. Others have backed own quite quickly, so no further correspondence was necessary and their subsequent letters were just been filed (Fenton Cooper, CL Finance).

 

Experience teaches you when to respond and when to ignore which is what worries me with some of the ner-ner-ne-ner-ner attitudes I've seen from newer members on these boards.

Edited April 11, 2010 by PriorityOne

[PriorityOne]

 

In court, or in the pre-action protocols, they will have to deal with the root cause, which is the failure to provide an enforceable agreement and all the mistakes they made on the way, like the Default Notice.

 

Of course this is assuming the account in dispute letter was clearly and powerfully argued, and will be the basis of your defence in court (plus all the bonus points you pick up on the way, like a defective DN etc).

 

Depends on whether you're prepared to risk going to court or not.... most newbies on the boards lack that kind of confidence. That was one of the points I was trying to make earlier.

 

[SkemDosser]

Depends on whether you're prepared to risk going to court or not.... most newbies on the boards lack that kind of confidence. That was one of the points I was trying to make earlier.

 

Everybody who is here risks going to court. If you dispute an account and stop payments, you risk going to court. There's really no getting away from that, regardless of what 'experience' you have had to date. The important thing is to be informed enough to show the creditor that you are prepared enough to take them on if they decide to go down that route- the majority of creditors/DCAs [including all of mine when properly presented with this possible scenario] avoid legal action; however like I said in another post creditors decide from the outset how good a prospect you are to sue, and if you're a juicy one...well they'll go after you regardless of the hours you've spent meticulously arguing with DCA template letters and developing a 'paper trail.'

 

As most of us here in my experience are can't payers rather than won't payers- i.e. we're here primarily because we are skint rather than trying to find a legal way out of our debts [not that I'm knocking that by the way], I worry that some of the advice given on this forum really does make things over complicated for people; for the ordinary consumer, garnering enough simple and effective advice from here and putting your account firmly into dispute should be the effective first step. Sure, respond to anything new that comes up specifically associated with that dispute, but continually responding to letters from them not only gives them rope to hang themselves, but yourself as well.

 

I've had over ten years of dealing with creditors and DCAs since I first hit difficulties all those years ago. All I had to help me then was the National Debtline [a terrific organisation if I may say so] and my own wits and on the whole I survived better than I might otherwise have done, so I'm thankful. Finding this site a couple of years ago was a godsend for providing additional weapons for the old armoury and the usefulness of that is immeasurable BUT I think people must be very wary of over complicating things with too much technical 'knowledge,' apparent in the spate of people taking action against creditors [i.e putting yourself in the place of claimant] last year with CPR31.16 etc which has proven disasterous.

 

I think its important to remember that just because people appear to be 'newbies' to this board, doesn't mean their life began with its discovery. Nobody likes going to court. I know solicitors who don't like going to court and that's their job. The important thing for us is to be prepared as best we can for it, because once you start disputing accounts, it's a possiblity. A slim one, particularly if you're a can't pay, but a distinct one. So my advice as always is be informed, prepared, keep it simple and most importantly of all....let them come to you. But remember you also have a life to live.

Edited April 11, 2010 by SkemDosser

[paulwlton]

In conclusion has the Manchester test case (Carey v HSBC) been given the thumbs up?

[seriously fed up]

In conclusion has the Manchester test case (Carey v HSBC) been given the thumbs up?

Or to quote Manuel in Fawlty Towers - QUE?

[seriously fed up]

Just to put my twopence worth in here about whether/ when to reply to DCAs or banks

 

1. getting taken to court is a risk that we all face. The key thing is to be as sure of your ground as you can be and to be well prepared at all stages (ie beforehand as well as during the court process)
   
2. I think - and this is a personal opinion which I hope doesnt backfire on me (you know - tempting fate?) - if you reply to them in a way which makes clear that you know your rights, and can develop a strong argument which might well see them off if they took it to court, they are less likely to try that one. For instance, if you never reply to their letters and just bury your head in the sand, I think they may well come to regard you as a soft touch, take you to court and get an order. On the other hand if you give a strong reply they are less likely to do this - though I suspect the value of the account is an influence (eg they might be less likely to pursue you for a grand than for 10 thousand). Just my opinion.
   

[PriorityOne]

; however like I said in another post creditors decide from the outset how good a prospect you are to sue, and if you're a juicy one...well they'll go after you regardless of the hours you've spent meticulously arguing with DCA template letters and developing a 'paper trail.'

 

 

You're very wrong on this but do it your way...

 

Agree to disagree, I think...

[SkemDosser]

You're very wrong on this but do it your way...

 

Agree to disagree, I think...

No I'm not. In my experience, which spans many years, I'm not wrong in the least. Your experience may be different, which is fair enough. The whole strength of forums like this is that we come here to share individual experiences and to learn- we all have different personal stories, that doesn't mean the ones that don't correlate with your own personal experience are necessarily flawed.

[PriorityOne]

No I'm not. In my experience, which spans many years, I'm not wrong in the least. Your experience may be different, which is fair enough. The whole strength of forums like this is that we come here to share individual experiences and to learn- we all have different personal stories, that doesn't mean the ones that don't correlate with your own personal experience are necessarily flawed.

 

Of course I think they're flawed... that's why I don't agree with you.

 

Your experience spans many years; so does mine. What works for you wouldn't work for me because I want to protect my assets... hence the agree to disagree comment I made earlier. If you have no assets (as you've stated on a different thread) then you've got nothing to worry about by ignoring them, have you?

 

Edited April 11, 2010 by PriorityOne
typo

[SkemDosser]

Of course I think they're flawed... that's why I don't agree with you.

 

Your experience spans many years; so does mine. What works for you wouldn't work for me because I want to protect my assets... hence the agree to disagree comment I made earlier. If you have no assets (as you've stated on a different thread) then you've got nothing to worry about by ignoring them, have you?

 

And there's the rub- you've just re-iterated my point. Everybody has different circumstances, and one size does not fit all. Not everbody needs a paper trail, but some people do. It's up to the idividual to gauge their circumstances, assimulate the information at hand and decide accordingly. It's what I've been saying all along

[PriorityOne]

And there's the rub- you've just re-iterated my point. Everybody has different circumstances, and one size does not fit all. Not everbody needs a paper trail, but some people do. It's up to the idividual to gauge their circumstances, assimulate the information at hand and decide accordingly. It's what I've been saying all along

 

You are funny Skemdosser... have the last word though if that's what you need.

[angry cat]

IMHO if one is being pursued a paper trail must be left, assets or otherwise.

 

Defence; one has done everything that should or, could be done...

the Courts Overriding Objective!

 

How on earth could any future judge ascertain the basis upon what you base your argument, if you have no file of papers which can be relied upon; viewed?

[eagleforms]

Can I just check the validity of a subject access request ( as per template letter on this site) that produces no agreement within the prescribed time and then a letter to the DCA saying that account is in dispute (again,as per template letter), my understanding is that the debt is unenforcable until such time as the DCA does produce a contract and T & C's. From what I have been reading here, the DCA can take you to court despite the account being in dispute. Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

[oilyrag]

Hi All,

 

I would just like to add my two penn'th if I may. Our solicitors have told us to to ignore everything that comes along now until such times as proceedings are issued throught the courts against us. However it is just a personal opinion that a paper trail is essential in all matters in modern life, hence whenever anything arrives from a new dca source a letter is sent, recorded delivery which reminds them of their obligations under OFT guidlelines clause 2.8 paras c & d plus the revoking of any doorstepping licence they feel that they might have which is always headed with the statement that no debt is owed or acknowledged with this letter.

 

This way I feel that all avenues have been covered and some of the nastiest ones have gone away, replying in writing in surprisingly polite manner.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[Laura Cooke]

I personally do not respond to any letter from a DC whereas i have no letter from the OC to say this DC as been sold/given rights to deal with the account they are a 3rd party and I do not wish to be a victim of identity theft;)

[brooooooooooce]

Surely we have to be careful in dealing with correspondence. I recently had written and telephone contact from Fredericksons who are in bed with the notorious Bryan Carter. Who is renowned for issuing proceedings through the Northampton Bulk centre with little or no paperwork.

 

In my case the OC never provided a response to my S78 request, confirmed it had no agreement and unlawfully rescinded the agreement. I wrote to Fred's telling them this and they wrote back saying the account was being returned to the OC.

 

But what would have happened if I hadn't written back to them? Odds on they'd assume I was burying my head in the sand and become more and more aggressive - with Carter issuing against me. I may be wrong and hate to tempt fate but it seems (at least at the moment) a simple one page letter has prevented a load of aggro I could well do without.

 

Clearly there are letters you get that are simply computer generated, so I don't always reply to them. But anything from a new source or raising a new point I deal with it. I'm in the 'fortunate' position of owning my own house (big mortgage, little / no equity) and want to keep it - so I want these ba****ds to know I mean business.

[PriorityOne]

Can I just check the validity of a subject access request ( as per template letter on this site) that produces no agreement within the prescribed time and then a letter to the DCA saying that account is in dispute (again,as per template letter), my understanding is that the debt is unenforcable until such time as the DCA does produce a contract and T & C's. From what I have been reading here, the DCA can take you to court despite the account being in dispute. Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

 

 

A CCA is a legal request for a copy of your alleged Agreement and places the account "in dispute". A SAR does not place the account "in dispute" as such although you can dispute unlawful charges on an account with this info. This means that creditors are not prevented from taking legal action against you if all you've sent is a SAR.

 

Having said that, creditors/DCAs can still take you to court after receiving a CCA. They're not supposed to but in reality, nothing happens to them if they do. Creditors/DCAs are very familiar with the template letters on here (written by Caggers) and know that they're copied, pasted and sent by people who are beginners in the game of learning about consumer rights. I've seen many cases of court papers being issued on these fourms in the absence of enforceable docs.... leading to the stress of putting together a defence, going through the court system and possibly getting a cack Judge.

 

If this doesn't worry you in the slightest, then there's no issue with ignoring what pops through your letter box. However, if you don't particularly relish the thought of court proceedings and you have assets to protect, you need to respond to it.... If it's a new DCA, all you have to state is that the account remains in dispute through a CCA request to ??? on xx/xx/xx sent by rec. delivery and they normally go away. If they don't go away, you can normally file their replies away once they know the score....

 

There seems to a mixed response on here about what to do, but the template "bemused" letter has been seen countless times by creditors/DCAs.... and offers no protection to you. This means that if you become over-confident too early, you may end up in court.

 

I've been dealing with debt problems for most of my life; long before I found CAG and the CCA request. The biggest one was £52K (not covered by CCA law) which was eventually written off for peanuts on the basis of the paper trail I kept and nothing else... It never went to court.

 

[vint1954]

A CCA is a legal request for a copy of your alleged Agreement and places the account "in dispute". A SAR does not place the account "in dispute" as such although you can dispute unlawful charges on an account with this info. This means that creditors are not prevented from taking legal action against you if all you've sent is a SAR.

 

Having said that, creditors/DCAs can still take you to court after receiving a CCA. They're not supposed to but in reality, nothing happens to them if they do. Creditors/DCAs are very familiar with the template letters on here (written by Caggers) and know that they're copied, pasted and sent by people who are beginners in the game of learning about consumer rights. I've seen many cases of court papers being issued on these fourms in the absence of enforceable docs.... leading to the stress of putting together a defence, going through the court system and possibly getting a cack Judge.

 

If this doesn't worry you in the slightest, then there's no issue with ignoring what pops through your letter box. However, if you don't particularly relish the thought of court proceedings and you have assets to protect, you need to respond to it.... If it's a new DCA, all you have to state is that the account remains in dispute through a CCA request to ??? on xx/xx/xx sent by rec. delivery and they normally go away. If they don't go away, you can normally file their replies away once they know the score....

 

There seems to a mixed response on here about what to do, but the template "bemused" letter has been seen countless times by creditors/DCAs.... and offers no protection to you. This means that if you become over-confident too early, you may end up in court.

 

I've been dealing with debt problems for most of my life; long before I found CAG and the CCA request. The biggest one was £52K (not covered by CCA law) which was eventually written off for peanuts on the basis of the paper trail I kept and nothing else... It never went to court.

 

Exactly, ALWAYS have yours as the last letter in the file.

[Dotty50]

Just a quick question please.

 

It's been a while since I put my accounts in dispute and am now starting on OH's.

 

What's the position regarding 'reconstituted' copies, can you still use the template letter to put it into dispute if they have sent one of these?

[spartathisis]

Agree totally P1, I respond to every letter, it may be one already sent to them but one goes out.

 

I have been waiting for 18months for Cabot to supply DN's on 2 accounts with them (issued by OC), they like to ignore me and instead send more demands with silly arguments and comments, (fav was a Customer Advisor saying "I know you are trying not to pay us, it will not work as we have the law and justice on our side"! I have all the original DN's (all defective) so want to know what they come up with, but to date nothing, yes I know no-one keeps a copy of the DN's they send out so its good to see them try to skirt around that fact.

 

Anyone know what happened to the Martin v Cabot Financial thread, its disappeared?

[bustthematrix]

Just a quick question please.

 

It's been a while since I put my accounts in dispute and am now starting on OH's.

 

What's the position regarding 'reconstituted' copies, can you still use the template letter to put it into dispute if they have sent one of these?

Does anyone know whether this has been addressed anywhere in these forums?

[vint1954]

Just a quick question please.

 

It's been a while since I put my accounts in dispute and am now starting on OH's.

 

What's the position regarding 'reconstituted' copies, can you still use the template letter to put it into dispute if they have sent one of these?

Dotty, They can supply reconstructions for s78 requests, but if you feel that they are made up without any accuracy;) then you can tell them so and ask them to prove it. The OFT advice still stands:

 

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.

So maybe ask them to confirm in writing that the reconstruction was copied from the original and get them to confirm that they actually hold the original agreement in hard copy form.