Agressive AM Ex

[billyray]

How long were Newman chasing you?

 

My debt is with them at the moment, and I'm at the F&F stage after 3months.

 

My experience is, you must be willing to call their bluff at every opportunity.

 

I suppose you might have got a F&F away with newman, given time, but they sold your debt on. So just do the same with your current DCA.

[stevehatesbankers]

Newman hung around for about 3 month

[stevehatesbankers]

Could anyone provide any further guidance on this one before I send off my letter to Am Ex

[stevehatesbankers]

Am Ex doesnt appear to get the exposure of the bigger boys on here but I would appreciate any guidance regarding my fight with these. I am considering sending a letter acknowledging receipt of their letter but stating the sending of the oldest T&C's dont satisfy The CCA 1974 as the T&C's should be applicable to my agreement. Could someone please confirm whether or not I am correct in relation to this statement.

Also, I had RMA on the phone this morning. The girl on the phone said she was from RMA then she said she was from Am Ex. I queried this and asked her to confirm who she represented. After a mumble, she eventually confirmed that it was RMA. These people are fraudulent and are the lowest of the low

[the_shadow]

IMO after Carey vs HSBC whats required for an old pre 2007 agreement s78 request is a copy of the original signed agreement plus all variations (t&c's) since inception.

 

RMA/NCO are annoying but they tend to give up after no contact, rejection letters etc... just keep stating to them that you are in dispute with Amex, eventually they will pass it back/on. Expect to get a phony postcard from a Mr Green or Mr Brown saying they'll come round in 7 days time.

 

S.

[stevehatesbankers]

Thanks shadow. They have confirmed that they have sent their oldest T&Cs they have available as they longer hold on their system the original T&C's. The agreement they sent was dated 2004 (that they allege is a copy of mine) My agreement is early 2003

[stevehatesbankers]

Just an update on this one. RMA have been given the red card and its back to Newmans. The usual threats of possible legal action if I dont pay in full. They state the following:

"We have provided you with a copy of the application form which you have signed, and from that you will see it is clear that by signing the form you were entering into a credit agreement. The signature box contains the phrase "This is a Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Sign it only if you want to be legally bound by its terms".

When entering the credit card agreement with you, Amex were required to send you three copies of the agreement. The first copy (set out as an application form) was sent out in duplicate. One copy would have been signed by you and returned to Amex. The second copy (unexecuted, in that it would not be signed by Amex) would have been yours to keep. The third copy sent to you would be an executed copy of the Agreement, as by that stage it would have been signed by you and by Amex. We do not send out a version that shows both of the signatures, but nevertheless send an executed copy, which is the 'card carrier' copy sent with your American Express credit card. This executed copy excludes the signatures, but nonetheless complies with the "true copies" requirement of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983. These regulations allow Amex to omit any signature and/or signature box, so although the card carrier is the executed copy, it does not have to include respective signatures. On the basis that you have received and have been using this credit card, we can only assume that you have been provided with the card carrier and therefore the executed copy of the Agreement.

 

 

Your thoughts and advices would be appreciated. Are they clutching at straws?

[uptoeyeballs]

The first copy (set out as an application form) was sent out in duplicate.

 

I bet it wasn't. Can you remember?

 

This seems to be the standard letter everyone gets. I think the words come from Rankine v Amex.

[stevehatesbankers]

Certainly dont recall receiving it. They have only sent me a copy of the signed 60 second application form and the 2004 T&Cs (their oldest T&Cs) whereas the agreement was taken out in 2003.

 

 

On a seperate issue, can we reclaim the £12 charges that they have applied to the account for late or non-payment?

[middenmess]

In my opinion if they thought they had a strong case against you I think that they would probably have taken you to court by now.

 

I'd be sending off £10 for a full SAR.

 

Once I had all my statements I'd be reclaiming all charges +CI at the current rate that they charge you for cash + 8% using this calculator.

 

Compound interest calculator!!!

[stevehatesbankers]

Anyone else with their observations?

[smouk]

TBQH I would just kick Newman back into touch with a simple "acknowlege no debt, in dispute, don't deal with third parties - refer you to your client, sod off" letter.

 

Don't encourage the parasites and keep the emphasis on Amex.

 

Letter to Amex telling 'em the above.

[stevehatesbankers]

Just a quick update for you all. Am Ex allegedly still looking into my complaint. :-|

Newmans have issued threats to pass to Copes Solicitors so they must be starting to get a little frustrated so no further forward really.

[smouk]

If it follows the pattern you should receive a letter from Copes Solicitors of Kings Nympton and St Albans yet postmarked, er, Leeds.

 

http://www.copessolicitors.co.uk/about_copes_solicitors/

 

Such a nice man...and it's very generous of him to rent out his letterhead so cheaply.

[ChalyBlue]

Steve - I would black out ur letters better - u can still see ur name...

[stevehatesbankers]

Just an update on this one. My account has now been referred to Brachers LLP. Received a letter from these stating that the account has been referred for collection and for the whole balance to be paid or to make contact to discuss payment. It just seems to be going round in circles. Anyone of Brachers and what are they like

[stevehatesbankers]

Anyone know anything of Brachers?

[stevehatesbankers]

Anyone?????

[the_shadow]

Hi Steve, I'm sorry your question hasnt received any responses, this is a self help forum and as such its up to the posters to search around and find the facts.

 

If I was you I'd do a search through the amex threads about brachers.

 

S.

[stevehatesbankers]

Heres an update from Brachers. A letter arrived this morning (always on a friday or saturday to try to spoil your weekend) referring to the Judgement given by judge Waksman re Carey v HSBC. They enclose (in their words) a reconstituted copy of the credit agreement comprising of:-

1/ a scanned copy of the front page of the actual credit agreement (its the front page of application form that has been previously scanned)

2/ a reconstituted version of the terms and conditions referred to in the last page of the agreement. These terms and conditions would have been formatted to appear on the reverse of the front page page of the credit agreement and thus would have been encompassed within the four corners of the document

3/ Copy terms and conditions as valid at termination of the credit agreement

 

They then go on to say "We have reviewed the comments which you have made, and believe that they are without foundation, and remain confident that our client will succeed with legal action against you, should this prove necessary. The agreement is clearly referred to within the application page and the credit agreement that there was text printed overleaf, which our client confirms to be the terms and conditions.

Furthermore, there is the wording contained within the application page of the credit agreement that the terms and conditions formed part of the agreement"

 

They again refer to Carey/Waksman stating the Judge stated the wording is sufficient to satisfy the content requirements and to prove the information of the credit agreement as defined by the act.

I highlighted to them that the credit agreement does not contain the prescribed terms as defined by the act. Their reply "Our client believes that all the prescribed terms were included within the credit agreement which was for a running account. On this basis, the agreement need not state the amount of credit, but instead can confirm the manner in which credit will be determined or that there is no credit limit"

 

Finally, they finish stating "We hereby put you on notice that unless payment of the full outstanding balance is received within 10 days from the date of this letter, we are instructed to commence litigation"

 

SUMMARY: I am convinced they only have the front page of the application form but would appreciate any comments and advice. They have attached a poor copy of a 2002 agreement and written on 'Reconstituted as at Application'

[uptoeyeballs]

Hi Steve,

 

Have you been following Amex v Brandon? If not have a search round the forums. Tread carefully....

 

uteb.

[the_shadow]

They are correct that for a running credit account they only have to state the way in which the credit limit will be worked out and not the actual amount.

 

As for reconstructions, in Carey DJ Waksman stated that reconstructions can be used to satisfy s78 requests but he declined to decide either way on their use in enforcement actions.

 

S.