DLC at it again - help please!

[PGH7447]

The OP must decide for themselves, I offer advice I dont force anybody to accept it

[Tingy]

Totally agree!

[sequenci]

No its not, but then you have the option to put the account into dispute, where as with a sar to a dca you do not

 

What is this whole CCA 'dispute' thing anyway? There is nothing (that I can find, and apologies if I'm blind!) that says a s77-79 request automatically places a debt into dispute. I'm certain it's simply a CAGism. Why would it be different from just stating to the creditor 'this debt is in dispute', or at least mention s2.8k of the OFT guidance on debt collection. I think what I'm getting at (in a longwinded way!) is that it doesn't take a CCA request to alert the creditor that a debt is disputed.

 

(Although just to confuse things I think a CCA request is worth sending in the OP's case)

[Tingy]

Hi Seq,

 

I've actually just placed an account in dispute - going in the post first thing in the morning - with Philips. They've had nearly a month to provide me with evidence that I owe the alleged debt, but all I've received is a letter threatening bailiffs. I actually have no recollection of this debt, so until they prove I owe it, it will stay in dispute.

[sequenci]

Hi Seq,

 

I've actually just placed an account in dispute - going in the post first thing in the morning - with Philips. They've had nearly a month to provide me with evidence that I owe the alleged debt, but all I've received is a letter threatening bailiffs. I actually have no recollection of this debt, so until they prove I owe it, it will stay in dispute.

 

Absolutely! I think a dispute is just that! It doens't need to have any statutory underpinnings, it can be raised simply by informing the creditor.

 

(you'll have to excuse my mildly ranty attitude this evening, I've just been made aware by the garage that the sequencimobile needs a new clutch. ouch. there goes christmas)

[Tingy]

Absolutely! I think a dispute is just that! It doens't need to have any statutory underpinnings, it can be raised simply by informing the creditor.

 

(you'll have to excuse my mildly ranty attitude this evening, I've just been made aware by the garage that the sequencimobile needs a new clutch. ouch. there goes christmas)

 

Seq, come to Wales and visit us and I'll show you how to change a clutch. Much cheaper!

[sequenci]

Seq, come to Wales and visit us and I'll show you how to change a clutch. Much cheaper!

 

I would visit if I could get there!

 

haha!

[consumeredge]

Hi M1sterP

 

19th April 2010 you posted Direct Legal - Time For A CCA?

 

Your opening scenario was identical to this post, on the 20th April 2010 at 09:00 you stated obviously having listened to the advise from Jed52 that you would CCA DLC, what has happened in the intervening 6 months? did you CCA them?

 

PGH7447 offers the same sound advice, the route to follow by general concensous of opinion is CCA not SRA.

 

Your silence mystifys me, a respected cagger took the trouble to explain a point, which infact you already knew 6 months ago and in my opinion he took considerable flak for it, doesn't that warrant an acknowledgement?

 

I think the question that should be asked now is what was the purpose of your post?

 

Kind regards

 

C

[Tingy]

Hi M1sterP

 

19th April 2010 you posted Direct Legal - Time For A CCA?

 

Your opening scenario was identical to this post, on the 20th April 2010 at 09:00 you stated obviously having listened to the advise from Jed52 that you would CCA DLC, what has happened in the intervening 6 months? did you CCA them?

 

PGH7447 offers the same sound advice, the route to follow by general concensous of opinion is CCA not SRA.

 

Your silence mystifys me, a respected cagger took the trouble to explain a point, which infact you already knew 6 months ago and in my opinion he took considerable flak for it, doesn't that warrant an acknowledgement?

 

I think the question that should be asked now is what was the purpose of your post?

 

Kind regards

 

C

 

Hi CE - thank you for posting that. You have a point. I'm sure I don't need to point this out, but will anyway. You mentioned he took flak for his post, which I assume refers to my comments. Just for the record PGH, and I hope this is how you took it, it was purely a difference of opinion, definitely not anything personal, and I'm quite sure you and I will contiinue to post amicably alongside each other on here, even when we disagree!

 

Again CE - thanks. Even if the OP doesn't appreciiate it, I do just for pointing that out and giving me the chance to say sorry if it was needed.

 

Tingy.

[PGH7447]

What is this whole CCA 'dispute' thing anyway? There is nothing (that I can find, and apologies if I'm blind!) that says a s77-79 request automatically places a debt into dispute. I'm certain it's simply a CAGism. Why would it be different from just stating to the creditor 'this debt is in dispute', or at least mention s2.8k of the OFT guidance on debt collection. I think what I'm getting at (in a longwinded way!) is that it doesn't take a CCA request to alert the creditor that a debt is disputed.

 

 

(Although just to confuse things I think a CCA request is worth sending in the OP's case)

 

If they dont provide an agreement within the time period then it can be placed in dispute or have the rules changed again, in which case I may as well bugger off from the cag, because for the past 4 years that is what I have been saying and reading:!:

[victoria_siempre]

Hi guys

 

It helps if we stay united.

 

Failure to respond within 14 days is a dispute.

 

Once they send any old crap, then it isn't.

 

There are plenty of other things to invoke a dispute or deadlock; harassment is one in my case. Then one has a complaint to FOS and OFT and clearly the account is in dispute.

 

Whilst the legal sands are shifting, there still appears to be a twitchyness if they haven't got any signed paperwork.

 

Anyway, onwards and upwards.

 

love to all

 

vic

[sequenci]

Hey Vic. We're all on board, it's an interesting case in point that's all!

 

I think what I'm trying to get at is that a dispute can be raised in various ways, it's not a pre-requisite to do the whole CCA thing (although for many people it's by far the best approach!)

[PGH7447]

Hey Vic. We're all on board, it's an interesting case in point that's all!

 

I think what I'm trying to get at is that a dispute can be raised in various ways, it's not a pre-requisite to do the whole CCA thing (although for many people it's by far the best approach!)

 

It is an interesting point but it is also nice to have some ammunition to throw at a dca and none production of an agreement in response to a cca request is just that Ammunition, whereas asking for all info including an agreement through a sar cost £9 more and the chances of the DCA actually trying to produce an agreement of any shape or form in response to a sar is pretty bloody remote.

 

and yes you can say to a dca "this account is in dispute because of xyz" but what is the point without something to back it up

[victoria_siempre]

Hi PGH

 

Or the lack of something for them to be able to back it up, maybe: "what's the point without something to back it up"?

 

From my current dealings, I detect that they're still nervous about lack of paperwork, although I wouldn't want to test that in court.

 

It's all part of the tactical game along the way, methinks.

 

Anyway, lots of love

 

vic

[sequenci]

the chances of the DCA actually trying to produce an agreement of any shape or form in response to a sar is pretty bloody remote.

 

 

Excellent point, and remember that a SAR is all about the raw data and not how that data is presented. So a creditor doesn't have to supply the agreement at all under the SAR, they could type it out in lines if they so wished.

[consumeredge]

M1sterP starts another thread Wednesday afternoon…………….

 

 

DLC - the intimidation continues...

 

12:41……You may have seen a recent thread I started regarding DLC/Hillesden and their latest batch of intimidation letters (

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...3352&highlight

)

 

Today I received yet another letter but this one is new to me. It's entitled....

 

Notice of Sums in Arrears

This notice is given in compliance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because you are behind with your payments on the following account....

 

It then goes on to state my account details and states that the account is with Hillesden Securities Ltd, formerly Egg Banking Plc.

 

It shows the opening balance (my current balance to them) then underneath that, it shows Arrears - and again shows my balance with them.

 

It then says:

 

Notices

For so long as you continue to be behind with your payments by any amount, you will be sent notices about this at least every 6 months. We are not required to send you notices more frequently than this, even if you get further behind with your payments in between notices.

 

With this letter/statement they've enclosed an OFT leaflet about being in arrears and what you should do.

 

The thing is this.....

 

I've been paying DLC regularly for a few years and payments have always been timely (and not one missed). My balance with them has been slashed by a good few thousand pounds and I am not in any arrears with them. Yes there's an outstanding balance, but I've never fallen behind with payments to them.

 

This letter makes it look as if I've not been paying them and that I'm in serious arrears - which is factually incorrect.

 

To me it seems like yet another form of psychological harassment/intimidation from DLC but would they (yet again) use the "it's an automated letter" excuse? I just want to know if anyone has come across this tactic before from a DCA and what it all means.

 

I'd appreciate guidance on this i.e. why have they sent me this and what should I do?

 

Thanks,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14:07………………Thanks for the reply silverfox.

 

I'd be okay if it was a statement that showed an opening balance and closing balance, or just a statement that showed the balance. This however implies that I'm hugely in arrears with DLC which I'm not - and the fact that they've enclosed the OFT leaflet backs this up.

 

I just need to make sure that it's not a precursor to something else they're about to send me. If it's not and this is just a standard tactic or practice then fine - but I just don't trust this lot as they've been shown up as liars many times already.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Instead of starting a new thread shame M1sterP didn't post this up on this thread yesterday afternoon, it appears relative to the debate that continued throught the evening

[PGH7447]

and on that note I hearby unsubsrcibe, M1sterP - sort it out yourself