HFC/now Robbers Way question

[fightingback99]

Have an alleged account with HFC which they have failed to produce 1 scrap of paperwork for in response to a S77/78 request and HFC have admitted this in a letter. Been in dispute since 2008.

 

Now passed to Robbers Way who have tried to phone a coupe of times but can't get past the Truecall machine.Now received letter saying it is a formal notice of intended court action, although it then talks of we may and if.

 

Is there any point in wrting to Robbers Way to let them know the account is in dispute and their action is contrary to OFT regulations or should I just ignore it. As they say HFC is their client they can't take court action without HFC agreement I think, and as they can't find any paperwork can't see it getting to court. Or is my thinking flawed.

 

 

Also HFC have now issued 3 Defaults for this alleged account. One in 2004, 2009 and 2010. The original default should have dropped off the credit file this month but their subsequent reissue of DN's now mean it will be there until 2016, all for an account which they can't provide an agreement, only fabricated statements .

 

Any advice or suggestions on what to do with Robbers Way and whether I should take HFC to task over their triple DN issue ith the Inforamtion commissioners Office.

 

Really makes you wonder if HFC have the first clue about how to run a business as their automated system seems to be out of control here.

Edited July 23, 2010 by fightingback99
shortened

[cerberusalert]

Send them this http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/574-letter-when-account-has-been-passed-on-whilst-agreement-request-is-in-dispute along with a copy of the letter where the HFC admit they can't provide the CCA.

[Bazooka Boo]

Also HFC have now issued 3 Defaults for this alleged account. One in 2004, 2009 and 2010. The original default should have dropped off the credit file this month but their subsequent reissue of DN's now mean it will be there until 2016, all for an account which they can't provide an agreement, only fabricated statements .

 

Sorry, can you explain further?

 

Do you mean that they issued a default on your credit file (CRF) in 2004, then reissued it again, for the same account in 2009, and 2010??

 

If so, then YES make a formal complaint to the ICO without delay, also contact the credit ref agencies (CRA) and inform them that they have allowed incorrect data to be put on your CRF and they must remove it immediately in the meantime you are seeking legal advice with a view to suing for damages from both them the CRA and the OC who placed it there. Damages start at £1000 per incorrect entry.

 

I despise CRA's as much as their blood brothers DCA's.

 

Complaints - Access to Information and Personal Information Rights - Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/254802-no-cca-processing-your.html

[dx100uk]

thats hfc for you.

 

they'll claim that you made agreements to pay with them on the phone at those times, and then did not keep to that arrangement.

 

they are the absolute pits when it comees to fairly treating their customers.

 

dx waves to thew guests......

 

dx

[fightingback99]

Sorry, can you explain further?

 

Do you mean that they issued a default on your credit file (CRF) in 2004, then reissued it again, for the same account in 2009, and 2010??

 

There is one on the file for 2004, and another for 2009. Haven't checked yet whether they have placed the 2010 yet as they only sent the new Default Notice the other day.

 

I'll send Rob Way the dispute letter and make a complaint to HFC and the Informaion commisssioners as well and see what happens.

[diddydicky]

Have an alleged account with HFC which they have failed to produce 1 scrap of paperwork for in response to a S77/78 request and HFC have admitted this in a letter. Been in dispute since 2008.

 

Now passed to Robbers Way who have tried to phone a coupe of times but can't get past the Truecall machine.Now received letter saying it is a formal notice of intended court action, although it then talks of we may and if.

 

Is there any point in wrting to Robbers Way to let them know the account is in dispute and their action is contrary to OFT regulations or should I just ignore it. As they say HFC is their client they can't take court action without HFC agreement I think, and as they can't find any paperwork can't see it getting to court. Or is my thinking flawed.

 

 

Also HFC have now issued 3 Defaults for this alleged account. One in 2004, 2009 and 2010. The original default should have dropped off the credit file this month but their subsequent reissue of DN's now mean it will be there until 2016, all for an account which they can't provide an agreement, only fabricated statements .

 

Any advice or suggestions on what to do with Robbers Way and whether I should take HFC to task over their triple DN issue ith the Inforamtion commissioners Office.

 

Really makes you wonder if HFC have the first clue about how to run a business as their automated system seems to be out of control here.

 

 

the way to put them on the backfoot is to take the notice of intended proceedings as face value and reply (edit to suit) as follows below

 

NOW the matter is sub judice until such time as they issue proceedings or confirm discontinuance

 

any approach from others during the proceedings will be unlawful

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

RECORDED DELIVERY

 

Request for copies of documents

(Civil Procedure Rules 1998: Pre-Action Protocols)

 

Dear Sirs

 

Your letter dated***DATE***(received* **DATE**) says your client has instructed you to commence court proceedings against me without delay, and that papers are being prepared for action at my local court to seek a judgement against me.

 

As you know, I have long since requested from your client, under both the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA 74”) and the Data Protection Act 1998, evidence of the agreement to which both you and your client allege I am a party. To date your client has failed to supply any such evidence, but instead tried to persuade me that providing a copy of an application form discharges your client from further obligations under section 78 of CCA 74. Conversely, I have explained that a copy of a mere application form is not a lawful substitute for a true copy of the executed agreement as required by CCA 74 s.78 and prescribed by Regulation 3 of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (“CNCD 83”).

 

I remind you that CCA 74 s.78(6) provides that whilst a creditor is in default of a request made under sub-section (1) it may not enforce the alleged agreement.

 

Notwithstanding the above and your client's persistent, unexplained and wilful refusal to supply a copy of an executed agreement in accordance with its obligations (the permitted omissions under CNCD 83 Reg.3(2) excepted), you have made plain your client’s intention to begin legal proceedings against me. Consequently this matter is now subject to the*Civil Procedure *Rules and your letter appears to be intended as a “letter before claim”, despite not complying with the Pre-Action Conduct protocol.

 

Therefore take notice that, I request you supply to me within 14 days true copies of the following documents:

1) the executed credit agreement incorporating prescribed notices, terms and conditions applicable at the time the agreement was executed, and

2) any further or subsequent notices, terms and conditions relied on.

 

If you are unable to supply these documents please confirm discontinuance of your client’s claim.

 

Take note that this request is not made under either CCA 74 or Data Protection Act 98. It is under Annex A paragraph 4.2(7) of the CPR Pre-Action Conduct protocol, for a copy of alleged documents which I believe are relevant but do not have.

 

Should you ignore this request, I shall in due course make another under CPR 27 or 31.15, as appropriate. If you fail to comply with that request, I will ask the court to strike out your client's claim as an abuse of process due to lack of reasonable grounds, or at least order proceedings be stayed pending provision of the requisite documents. The application will refer to this and previous document requests, and apply for costs.

 

FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, THE ABOVE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ADMITTING THE EXISTENCE OR VALIDITY OF AN AGREEMENT WITH OR DEBT TO YOU OR ANYONE YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT.

Yours faithfully

 

PRINT NAME, don't sign

[fightingback99]

Thanks DD I'll incorporate this into the letter I'm posting out Monday. Was planning on sending HFC a copy of it too for good measure.

[diddydicky]

i would ONLY send it to the people who sent the letter before action and no one else