Egg - its no yoke

[Mozz1]

I'm probably being dumb, but does it matter if there was a prior dispute? I mean, if I wait X years and then ask for an agreement and that agreement is dodgy, am I not entitled to challenge it and claim back what I've paid to date? or is there an implied contract to contradict the original CCA?

 

In any event, do you think the small amendments to the attached are okay (in red) in light of the fact that I don't have a prior pre-CrappyQ dispute?

 

Thank you for your letter of **DATE**, the contents of which are noted.

I refer to my letter of **DATE** a copy of which is enclosed for your perusal and ease of reference.

 

As holders of a Consumer Credit Licence you are obliged to comply with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) Guidelines on debt collection. I would therefore be obliged if you would provide me with an explanation as to why you are attempting to collect on an alleged debt which was disputed with **BANK ** and has yet to be resolved.

 

I would remind you that paragraph 1.9 of the OFT’s Consultation Guidelines of January 2010 state (and I quote in full):

“1.9 The sanction under the Act for non-compliance with an information

request is unenforceability of the credit or hire agreement for so long as

the creditor or owner fails to comply with his duty. Where there is such

a failure, the courts have no discretion to allow enforcement.”

Since this is considered an Unfair practice and contrary to the OFT guidelines, you should consider this letter a formal complaint and provide me with a copy of your complaint resolution procedure.

 

I also require you to confirm that you will now comply with the OFT guidelines, and will not attempt any further collection activity whilst the dispute is unresolved.

 

Should you fail to provide me with the required undertaking within 7 days, I shall report your breach of the OFT guidelines to Trading Standards and the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

Take notice that I will not discuss this matter on the telephone, and all further communication must be in writing. Any further telephone calls will be perceived as harassment, and dealt with accordingly.

 

I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and I am writing this letter to you on the assumption that you would prefer to do this than merely respond with standard letters and leaflets.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

[Mozz1]

Yeah i did wonder but I can't see how CrappyQ have a leg to stand on if I dispute the account with the OC at any point? I wouldn't have thought a pre-existing dispute was necessary because I don'ty owe CQ anything, I owe the OC.

[Mozz1]

yes...yuo mean the letter I sent by post in 2005 and never got a reply to?

[Mozz1]

Out of interest I received this snotty email from Trading Standards about CapQuest's antics:

 

"Dear Mr XX,

 

"Consumer Direct have forwarded your email concerning CapQuest Debt Recovery to us together with your copy correspondence.

 

"I note your comments regarding the response you have received from CapQuest however I would advise that the duty to give information under S77-S79 of the Consumer Credit Act has been under debate for some time and this is currently the subject of consultation by the OFT for clarification. A copy of their consultation document can be found at Guidance on unenforceable agreements - The Office of Fair Trading

 

"I note that you have already been making voluntary payments and you wish to deal with this matter [er, no that's why I involved you!! doh!]

 

"As the OFT have not yet published their final guidance and clarification on the legislation it would be advisable to contact Egg directly (if you have not already done so) for a copy of your executed agreement using the information provided by CapQuest in their letter to enable this matter to be resolved."

[Mozz1]

//////////////////

Edited July 21, 2010 by Mozz1
clearly a valid agreement

[Mozz1]

Thanks for replying.

 

Looks like my Egg struggle's at an end then:(

 

The only thing I was unsure about was whether there should have been a multiple agreement in 2005 as they used part of the loan to settle an older loan?

[Mozz1]

capquest have returned the account to egg. egg haven't replied to my complaint. account is still in dispute depsite valid agreement (!) and am using multiple agreement argument like TDS to see if they have an enforceable agreement plus possible mi-selling of the second loan. will see what happenz...

[Mozz1]

the multiple agreement argument is complicated

sure is Eb. Not sure anyone on this site thoroughly understands how to make that argument. looking at other threads it seems that the courts have made statute irrelevant

[Mozz1]

Egg just won't engage or reply to my letetrs at all. have now complaied to their top complaints bod and hear nowt.

Have written to fos and ico now.