Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Fine. Have a quick think and decide whether you want to bring a small claim. If you do then it is worth spending a little bit of time looking through this forum and discovering the steps of how to bring a small claim in the County Court. You would have to start with a letter of claim which would give them 14 days to provide you with your refund or else you will start a small claim against them and without any further notice. Day 15 you issue the papers. Don't make the threat unless you are prepared to go ahead and carry it out. As I've already said, bringing a small claim is extremely easy and on the basis of what you say, your chances of success are much better than 95% – and in my view Halfords will put their hands up unless they really want to waste their money and their time. Does Halfords really want to spend their time and money losing a case in which they will have to draft the defence document, respond to various papers from the court, put you to the trouble of paying the hearing fee, instructing lawyers to go and attend at your local court which I believe is in the North west of England, losing their case, having to pay your £40 plus interest plus your court fee plus the hearing fee – and then suffer the indignity of having their name plastered even further all over this forum and over Twitter and Facebook and trust pilot. If this is what they want then they really don't value their reputation very highly.   I have sent the following response to Halfords  
    • The Highway Code says you must not enter unless your exit is clear*. The law doesn’t say the same, the offence is stopping on the box junction* It is possible to enter while your exit is clear, and then another car block you, you stop on the junction, and commit the offence* even though you complied with the Highway Code**   (or, even, breach the Highway Code by entering when your exit isn’t clear, but not commit the offence as long as you don’t actually stop, and your exit becomes clear in time!)     * = absent the defence of you wanting to turn right and the only thing preventing you doing so being oncoming traffic (/ other vehicles turning right)   ** = in which case you appeal, not on grounds of the contravention not occurring, as it did, but on the grounds that given you had made all efforts to comply, and another driver’s bad driving caused you to have to stop so as not to cause an accident, it isn’t in the public interest to pursue it.
    • read the guide CCA goes to the claimant   dx  
    • Hi, yes that is what has happened. The technician originally said that the tyres were for BMW, it came to light in the PayPal disputes I’ve had with them that it’s not only for BMW but certainly not for my car. It seems like everyone I speak to has a different sort of opinion on what the tyres are for. We looked for a branded tyre within a good price range and chose that tyre assuming any tyre on the list would have fit our car.. I shall do that yes I would like the call recording as I am actually quite upset how the lady spoke to us about it when we contacted customer services anyway. Thanks for helping. 
    • By the way, please will you send a subject access request to Halfords and make sure you asked them for call recordings as well as any of the details that you input in respect to your tyre order and any other personal data which they hold on you in any form. Get this letter off to them by email tomorrow and confirm in writing.   I suggest that you send the letter for the attention of Andrea Botha | Executive Contact Manager who will be aware of this situation.   https://uk.linkedin.com/in/andrea-botha-96b565143   I've written to her again and suggested that maybe she doublecheck the situation because of my understanding what you say is correct, then I think that she must badly have misunderstood the circumstances of this. Once again, I understand that you input the details of a Kia and Halfords recommended tyres fit for a BMW. They only informed you of this error after the tyre fitting had been booked. Your initial contact with Halfords after this resulted in a promise to reimburse you and it was only a subsequent contact with another customer services person that they renege on the promise. Is that correct?
  • Our picks

MONTY

MONTY v CREATION FINANCE

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3093 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

This is getting a little messy.

 

You could apply for a Strike Out (Form is an N244 cost £75 with hearing) you would have to shown that the Claimant does not have a chance of winning with their current POC

 

Obviously the sooner the better for that .....

 

If you ask the Court for a Strike Out they will politely reply that you have to make an application.

 

I would not get into a slanging match with the other side - it doesn't go down well.

 

I agree. There is the potential for this to degenerate into tit for tat comunication between myself and the Claimant and this is why I want it before the Judge a soon as possible. I have been encouraged by the good advice in this thread and feel that I should respond to the Claimants terms of settlement and reject the same. This is where such communication should end and the matter should then be allowed to progress through the Court.

 

I am tempted to apply for a strike out, especially given that the POC have now changed and the Cliamant has not applied (as far as I am aware) to amend the same.

 

Subject to advice, my current plan is 1. to carefully respond to the Claimants proposals to settle and reject the same 2. Apply to the court for a strike out based on the chage in POC and at the same time pointing out the other anomolies in the Claimants case

 

What do you think?

 

Monty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject to advice, my current plan is 1. to carefully respond to the Claimants proposals to settle and reject the same 2. Apply to the court for a strike out based on the chage in POC and at the same time pointing out the other anomolies in the Claimants case

 

Sounds like a good plan to me 8)


Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree APART FROM a change of POC is not grounds for a SO the DJ will just allow the change 'to be fair'

 

You will need to show why they cannot win. (should be pretty straightforward)

 

I would also make a formal complaint about the 2 true copies, with the view to taking it to FOS, OFT & TS (all of that can only benefit you in the eyes of the Court)


If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally agree APART FROM a change of POC is not grounds for a SO the DJ will just allow the change 'to be fair'

 

You will need to show why they cannot win. (should be pretty straightforward)

 

I would also make a formal complaint about the 2 true copies, with the view to taking it to FOS, OFT & TS (all of that can only benefit you in the eyes of the Court)

 

Take a look at the latest missive from Drydens. This is their third attempt to produce a 'true copy' of a properly executed agreement. Once again they have failed.

 

 

Surely, this has to be wrong on so many levels?

 

Monty

Edited by cerberusalert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly worth contacting the OFT

 

It may be worth replying asking them which of the 3 true copies they are relying on .....

Also check out the OFT's stance on this - they are *very* clear on how agreements can be recreated.

 

Also check out the guidance from the OFT with regard to all the info they should be sending in response to an S78 request - there is quite a lot they should send.

 

You still have the situation where you can deny (as long as it is true) ever having signed an agreement similar to anything so far produced.


If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly worth contacting the OFT

 

It may be worth replying asking them which of the 3 true copies they are relying on .....

Also check out the OFT's stance on this - they are *very* clear on how agreements can be recreated.

 

Also check out the guidance from the OFT with regard to all the info they should be sending in response to an S78 request - there is quite a lot they should send.

 

You still have the situation where you can deny (as long as it is true) ever having signed an agreement similar to anything so far produced.

 

I can honestly say that I have no recollection of at any time signing an 'agreement' anything like that they are relying upon. I might have signed an application form but never an agreement.

 

As far as I am aware the Claimant has not applied to amend their POC.

 

Monty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As advised by the Court, I am sending the following (copy to Drydens):

 

Dear Sir,

 

Reference: Creation Financial Services-v-xxxx xxxxxxx Claim No. xxxxxxx

 

Further to District Judge xxxxx order dated xxxx September 2010 and on advice of the Court given on xxxx October 2010, I am writing to confirm that my Allocation Questionnaire was submitted on the xxxx September 2010.

 

I respectfully bring the Courts attention to Section A (‘Settlement’) of my Allocation Questionnaire, which confirms that I am not in agreement to a stay.

 

I request that this matter is progressed and I ask for the Courts direction in the above matters.

 

Yours faithfully,

Edited by MONTY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks to me as though they haven't submitted that AQ monty but that the Claimants have applied for a stay (despite the fact that it states 'all parties having agreed' on the order & you didn't!!) which in effect allows them breathing space in the hope that you will sign that CO.

 

Suggest you phone the court (the one it has been transferrred to) & ask if that is the case; if so, you will need to write to the court, state that the Claimant did not seek your permission for the stay & ask for it to be lifted. I suspect that it may be left as it is & nothing will move forward until the xx November. :mad2:

 

In the meantime that CO letter will need a carefully worded response. Post up a draft if you are not sure...

 

I propose to send the following to Drydens on Monday. Any constructive criticism or observations will be gratefully received:

 

Dear Sir,

 

Reference: Creation Financial Services-v-xxxxx xxxxxx Claim No. xxxxxxx

 

Thank you for your recent communications, the contents of which I note.

 

By way of service, please find enclosed a copy of my recent letter to Plymouth County Court.

 

Your proposals for settlement are not acceptable and I confirm I wish this matte to progress to hearing at the earliest opportunity.

 

I am confused by your recent correspondence and request you confirm which of the three alleged reconstituted agreements you are reliant upon all of which show three different addresses. I wish to confirm I will require your client to follow the Civil Evidence Act regarding documents in court and wish to reiterate that I will robustly defend your clients claim and will be seeking full costs should the Court decide in my favour.

 

I should not have to remind a solicitor of the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act) and recent Office of Fair Trading guidance on the provision of properly reconstituted agreements and related information. The sanction under the Act for non-compliance with an information request is unenforceability of the credit 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.

 

I shall also be drawing the above matters to the attention of the Office of Fait Trading, Trading Standards and the Financial Services Ombudsman.

 

With regard to the content of your recent letters, I wish to draw your attention of the Solicitors Code of Practice. I believe you are in breach of the same and I am minded to draw these matters to the attention of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

c.c: xxxxxxxxx County Court Manager

Edited by MONTY
MISSING SECTION

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With regard to the content of your recent letters, I wish to draw your attention of the Solicitors Code of Practice. I believe you are in breach of the same

 

How, Monty? Have I missed something?

 

Are you possibly referring to the fact that they applied for a stay without your permission? If so, not sure that would be a SRA matter, it's just a breach of the CPR.


Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How, Monty? Have I missed something?

 

Are you possibly referring to the fact that they applied for a stay without your permission? If so, not sure that would be a SRA matter, it's just a breach of the CPR.

 

I think they may be in breach of Rule 10 of the code:

 

"2. Particular care should be taken when you are dealing with a person who does not have legal representation. You need to find a balance between fulfilling your obligations to your client and not taking unfair advantage of another person".

 

Monty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would change alleged reconstructed to '...of the three true copies of the agreement ...'

 

I *think* the OFT will regard what they have done as a criminal offence .... I will have to check the wording


If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I *think* the OFT will regard what they have done as a criminal offence .... I will have to check the wording

 

Well, I certainly do!!

 

This is like saying 'we'll just keep on issuing anything that might resemble a reconstruction until we GUESS!! it somewhere near right' . What happened to S77/78 requirement for true copies? I'm not asking for exact, just true. How can they possibly be true copies when each one is different?! :mad2:


Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would change alleged reconstructed to '...of the three true copies of the agreement ...'

 

I *think* the OFT will regard what they have done as a criminal offence .... I will have to check the wording

 

I have changed the paragraph to read:

 

"I am confused by your recent correspondence and request you confirm which of the three true copies of the alleged agreements you are reliant upon, all of which show three different addresses. I wish to confirm I will require your client to follow the Civil Evidence Act regarding documents in court and wish to reiterate that I will robustly defend your clients claim and will be seeking full costs should the Court decide in my favour".

 

I will hold the letter until I have clarity on the OFT position. I have trawled the OFT website but could only find guidance issued in Jan and April 2010 with regard to reconstituted agreements and clarity following Carey v HSBC - If someone can signpost me to where the OFT position regarding Claimants who fail to meet the requirements of a reconstituted agreements I would be grateful

 

Monty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you looked at the OFT Debt collection guidance (Final guidance on unfair business practices) July 2003 (updated December 2006)?

 

Also this letter:

OFT Comments on True Copies

THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974*- Sections 77 and 78

 

Summary*

 

On request*and when accompanied by £1, a consumer has the right to:*

 

a copy of their executed agreement*

any other document referred to in it*

a statement showing

- the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor*

- the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due, and*

- the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due. If the creditor is unable to give this information, he can state instead how the dates and amounts fall to be ascertained.

 

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*mighthave 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 signatureclip_image001.gif 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 Tradingclip_image001.gif Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.

 

In our view a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’ and as such takes on the liabilities of section 77.

 

Under section 77(4), if the creditor is unable to provide this information, he is not entitled to enforce the debt while he remains in default (Decriminalised from 26 May 2008 on the coming into force of the CPRs).

 

Legal Argument*

 

A copy of the executed agreement

 

Under the prescribed condition, section 77 of the Act requires the debtor to*(typoclip_image001.gif, she means*Creditor*I think)*‘...give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any)....‘. The ‘if any’ most naturally refers to the exception for agreements older than 1985 (Not sure this is correct, "if any" was inserted to cover Verbal Agreements).

 

Where a creditor receives a request to supply a copy of the executed agreement, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (‘1983 regs’) apply. Regulation 3(1) sets out the basic position that ‘every copy of an executed agreement... shall be a true copy’.

 

Regulation 3(2) goes on to concede that there may be omitted from this true copy various information such as details which are not required to be in the agreement by law: the signature box, signature (it should be noted that sub-ss 3-5 of section 127 do not apply to agreements entered into after 1 April 2007.A Court may then, for example, enforce unsigned agreements if it considers it is just to do so.) and date of signature. In our view the effect of Regulation 3(2) is that the creditor is only obliged to send out a generic copy of the agreement the debtor has signed up to. The creditor is not obliged to make an actual photocopy of the agreement.

 

However, the copy does have to be a ‘true copy’. This is a technical term, which has been discussed in a number of cases, mostly relating to bills of sale and the need to register a ‘true copy’ of the bill with the High Court. These cases come from the days before typewriters, when copies were made by hand. The consequences of filing a copy which was not a true copy were severe, since the bill would then be void and the creditor deprived of his security.

 

Meaning of ‘true copy’*

 

In this context, the courts decided that a ‘true copy’ need not necessarily be an ‘exact copy,’ but it must be ‘so true that nobody reading it can by any possibility misunderstand it’ or be misled by it*(In re Hewer ex parte Kahen*(1882) LR 21 Ch.D. 871 at 875). The copy must contain ‘every material provision which is contained in the original’ (except that if the defect is made good by reading the document as a whole, the omission will not be fatal) (Court of Appeal in*Burchell v Thompson*[1920] 2 KB 80 at 98-99). Further, it is not sufficient for the copy merely ‘to state with complete accuracy in a summary form the effect of the stipulations contained in the original. It is not merely a document that is to state the true legal effect of the original; it is to be a copy of the original’ (per Atkin LJ in*Burchell*at 105).

 

Hewer, ex parte Kahen*- the filed copy of the bill omitted the precise day of the month on which payment was to be made. The court held this was trivial, and no debtor would be misled by it.

Sharp v McHenry*(1888 )*LR 38 Ch.D. 427- the copy contained blanks which were not in the original. The court decided that the blanks were unimportant, since the omitted words were not required for the original bill to be valid.

Burchell v Thompson*[1920] 2 KB 80 - the copy failed to include the words ‘per annum’ after the*interestclip_image001.gif*rate of 55%. The reader of the copy would have to guess whether the*interest*was per annum, per month or something else but as one could sensibly assume, correctly, that it was per annum it was a true copy.*

Commercial Credit Company of Canada Ltd v Fuiton*[1923] AC 798 - suggested further that where there are a raft of smaller differences in a bill of exchange copy, this could prevent it being a true copy. However where the differences were such as to make the copy contract actually different to the original, the copy will not be true. Lord Sumner, speaking of the man who may wish to refer to the copy, concluded that ‘the Act promises him ... a true copy, not a puzzle. He is to inspect it, not to recover the original by a process of conjectural emendation’ (at 807).

 

terms and conditionsclip_image001.gif*

 

Regulation 7(1) of the 1983 Regs requires that a requested copy of an agreement which has been unilaterally varied under section 82(1) of the Act, shall be accompanied either by the latest notice of variation or a copy of the terms and conditionsclip_image001.gif as varied. Regulation 7(2) extends the principle to copies of varied securities supplied either to the consumer or the surety.

 

debt collectorsclip_image001.gif as creditors*

 

A consumer credit debt can be assigned in two ways: in law under the Law of Property Act 1925 or in equity but in practice we need to be concerned only with statutory assignments.

 

For a debt to be assigned in law, there are three conditions:*

 

the assignment must be absolute.

 

the assignor must make the assignment in writing.

 

express notice of the assignment must be given in writing to the debtor (see section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925).*

 

The reason the debt is assigned is immaterial. For instance, books of loans may be sold on to be collected as an asset rather than as a discounted debt.

 

In some instances, the*debt collector*may have purchased a debt but not have the relevant agreement. Whilst, in general, ‘liabilities’ cannot be assigned there must be a question mark over whether ‘duties’ are the same. This is important since there is a rule, expressed in*Tito v Waddell (No 2)[1977] Ch 106 at 289 to 302, that where a benefit is conditional upon some burden, the assignee must also take the burden. An example is where the contractor has the right to mine on condition that they pay compensation to those disrupted by the mining. If they assign their right to mine, the assignee takes this right subject to the duty to pay compensation.

 

Therefore, there is a strong argument that under the Act, the right to payment is never absolute. It is always subject to duties (many of which are imposed under the Act). For instance, the right to enforce the credit agreement at all is subject to the duty to comply with section 77 or 78. This duty is not a ‘liability’ as such under the credit agreement but is a condition of the right to repayment.

 

There has been a suggestion that debt collectors can avoid complying with section 77 and 78 by claiming that the agreement is no longer `live’ in some way as it has been ‘terminated’ based on section 103 of the Act. This talks of a ‘trader’ who was the creditor under a regulated agreement, implying that ‘trader’ is no longer a creditor once an agreement is ended. Section 103, however, deals with where the customer no longer owes any money at all and therefore it is correct to say that he is no longer a debtor and the trader is no longer his creditor. Where money is still owed, section 103 would not apply, since the consumer would not be entitled to a termination statement.

 

The first issue on when the*debt collector*becomes the creditor is relatively simple. Section 189(1) of the Act defines ‘creditor’ as ‘the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement*or*the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law.’

 

Where the debt collector is not acting as the creditor’s agent, or otherwise on his behalf, the only legal basis he can have for demanding payment from the debtor is if the creditor’s rights and duties have been assigned to him. Therefore we can be reasonably confident that a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’.

 

Unpalatable though section 77 and 78 may be for some creditors, if the debt collector is unable to prove the debt, they should be more careful about the debts they buy. They cannot complain that the sections are somehow unfair as it is in the Act and so must be complied with. It is up to them to ensure they purchase and maintain sufficient records to be able to prove the debt and comply with the other requirements of the Act.

 

Misleading statements to debtors*

 

Sections 77 and 78 refer to supplying a copy of the ‘executed’ agreement within 12 working days of receiving a written request from the*debtor. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable against the debtor until a copy is provided. In addition, if the default continues for a period of 1 month the creditor is in breach of the Act.

 

Execution involves signing the agreement. If no agreement has been executed, it is impossible to supply a true copy of the agreement. Should a creditor supply a copy agreement, even though the debtor has never signed any agreement with that creditor, no indication should be given that it is a true copy or a copy of an executed agreement. To do so may contravene Regulation 5 of the CPRs and be an unfair or improper business practice.

 

The consequence of the debtor not having signed a credit agreement with the creditor is that the agreement is unenforceable except where the court orders that enforcement may take place. Where the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 the court is not able to make such an order unless the agreement was signed by the debtor.

 

Therefore it is misleading to state, when complying with a section 77 or 78 request, that the debtor has signed or would have signed (or similar) the enclosed agreement where the debtor has not done so. From 26 May 2008 such a statement will be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Regulation 5 of the CPRs states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ (Regulation 5(5)(d) of the CPRs).

 

Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is also a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Regulation 5(4)(k) of the CPRs. It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it.

 

Breach of Regulation 5 of the CPRs is a criminal offence under Regulation 9 and can also be enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Under section 218A of the Enterprise Act, where an application for an Enforcement Order is made the court may require the Respondent ‘to provide evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim’ (such as a claim that a debtor has signed a credit agreement).

 

In addition, it should be noted that threats to take action that cannot be taken is listed as one of the factors that will be considered in assessing aggressive practices in Regulation 7(2) of the CPRs.*

 

May 2008

 

Susan Edwards*

Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading*

 

You may also find this thread interesting:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?93663


Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Spot on Foolishgirl,

 

I will now modify my letter bringing this letter to the attention of Drydens and highlighting the implications of breaching Regulation 5.

 

You are a star!

 

Monty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am confused by your recent correspondence and request you confirm which of the three true copies of the alleged agreements you are reliant upon, all of which show three different addresses. I wish to confirm I will require your client to follow the Civil Evidence Act regarding documents in court and wish to reiterate that I will robustly defend your clients claim and will be seeking full costs should the Court decide in my favour".

 

The above paragraph from post 88.. I would highlight the word "true" either by quote / bold/ etc... just to get the point home.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you looked at the OFT Debt collection guidance (Final guidance on unfair business practices) July 2003 (updated December 2006)?

 

 

Thanks fg :D

saved me digging it out - so yes, Monty you see why you need to report them.


If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I forgot to include with this thread earlier is the following letter I sent to Creation following my original SAR and in reaction to Drydens letter alleging a new account was sentered into in 2004

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re

xxxxx/xx ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - COMPLAINT

 

Despite my letter of dated xx August 2010 (SAR - copy enclosed) you have failed to respond. I am now reliably informed that you do not hold copies of the original document I have requested.

Further, I am now led to believe that there is an alleged credit card agreement executed on the xx xxxxxxt 2004 between us. You have failed to provide details of this agreement or any assignment or any other pertinent and relevant documents relating to the same.

 

Without Prejudice

 

You are in breach of the Data Protection Act. Unless my SAR is fully met within seven days of receipt of this letter I will have no further option but to lodge a formal complaint with the Information Commissioners Office. I reserve the right to inform other authorities as I see fit.

In resolution of this matter I am seeking production of all documents you purport to hold relating any alleged assignment between yourselves and Ikano Finance. I require copies of any alleged properly executed agreement between us; including related documentation to any conversion from a Store Card to a Credit Card.

 

I expect you to fully document all record keeping processes and produce the evidence to support your claim that any documents you provide are a true copy, in line with all responsible record-keeping requirements.

 

If you assert that the original documents have been lost or deliberately destroyed I would expect you to produce the following as a reasonable keeper of data:

 

(i) a copy of the procedure(s) used for copying, storing and retrieving documents

(ii) a copy of the relevant log entry showing the time and date of the scan or copy, the name of the member of staff making the copy, the method used for copying, storage and retrieval and time and date of the destruction of the original document(s)

(iii) copies of internal and external audit reports covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedures have been complied with

(iv) copies of Quality Assurance accreditation certificates covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedure(s) and audit process(es) comply with appropriate quality standards

 

If any of these are unavailable or incorrect you should inform of such by return.

 

If you require more time to fulfil your obligations in this matter please do not hesitate in contacting me requesting the same.

Yours faithfully,

 

Today I received the following response:

 

 

 

...which confirms that Creation do not hold anything of relevance and Drydens are telling Porkies

 

I shall wait until I have had a response to my latest letter to Drydens (see post 90) and then I will advise them of this latest letter from their clients

 

Monty

Edited by cerberusalert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...which confirms that Creation do not hold anything of relevance and Drydens are telling Porkies

 

 

Tee-hee Monty. Paddles & creeks come to mind. :oops:


Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest Monty - who is reporting to the CRAs at the moment on the account?


If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of interest Monty - who is reporting to the CRAs at the moment on the account?

 

To be honest with you I have not looked at my credit file for some time. I will do so.

 

Monty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks fg :D

saved me digging it out - so yes, Monty you see why you need to report them.

 

Problem is OFT will not look at individual cases. What now,go through Trading Standards?

 

Monty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consumer Direct is the 'front end' of the OFT


If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consumer Direct is the 'front end' of the OFT

 

As I was doing my research I found an excellent publication on the OFT website. It is titled Unfair relationships - Enforcement action under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

 

I am still studying it but it appears to give guidance on unfair relationships. It emables a borrower to challenge a credit agreement in court on the grounds that the relationship between the lender and the borrower in connection with the agreement is unfair to the borrower. This provision is in addition to an enhanced ability for consumers to take disputes to the FOS.

 

It includes 'The Unfair Relationship Test' which includes amongst other things 'the way in which the lender has exercised or enforced any of its rights under the agreement or any related agreement...

 

Has anyone used this to any degree of sucsess?

 

Monty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is certainly used as an 'add on' especially in DN cases, and improperly executed agreement cases where the creditor is made aware of their failings, yet carries on regardless

 

All breaches of CPUTR and therefore clearly unfair

 

then it's down to the DJ to rule as they see fit .....


If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...