you will laugh at this

[brecken]

I have just received a demand for payment fron Aktiv Kapital dept recovery, the debt relates to a mastercard I had with Lloyds TSB, paid off almost 2 years ago, it was an agreed settlemant figure £338 less than was left on account.

Anyway I spoke to Akiv Kapital today, and without admiting to the debt told him I would be sending cca letter so I could see the original aggreement and transfer of account to them, Guess what he told me I would have to do.

 

 

 

 

He told me to speed the process up, I could send him my passport with a copy of my signature,ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, can you beleive the cheek of him, of course I told him no. silly boy.

[mushypea16]

That sounds a bit dodgy if you ask me!

[brecken]

It sounds dodgy to me too, did he honestly think I was gonna send him a copy of my signature,

and is it not equaly strange that I have claim for refund of charges with Lloyds, differant acount mind, just being awkward I think.

[jb79]

Couldn't you just bring him a package back from Columbia instead???

 

At least you get to keep your passport!!!

[brecken]

Had another call from these lot, telling me I need to inform my solicitor about this debt and the fact it as been passed on to them from Lloyds, I told the pleb on the phone that the account was in dispute and CCA letter had been sent, he said I wasnt aware of that sorry, but are you goona make a payment coz it wont go away you know, are these people for real. lol.

[Stopthethieves]

I would sign a letter to them with a completely different signature then see what you get back!!!

 

Regards

[arrandolly]

Sorry - but I am I the only one that is seriously concerned that someone is being asked to send a passport??? I think you should get these people's details and pass to police.

[Stopthethieves]

....but you actually need proof!

 

Regards

[jb79]

At the end of the day CID or something a little more covert should be keeping an eye on them if they are trying to get hold of peoples passports.

 

I would be tempted to ask if there is such a think as a tracer version of the passport to send I know the new ones have enough electronics for a moon shot.

[meagain]

I would be tempted to ask if there is such a think as a tracer version of the passport to send I know the new ones have enough electronics for a moon shot.

 

You mean the ones with the RFID chip that can only be read from within a radius of 3 inches, er, I mean feet? Oops, actually it seems to be 30 yards!

[elsinore]

He told me to speed the process up, I could send him my passport with a copy of my signature

 

Brecken, just make sure you report AK's behaviour to Trading Standards. You are only supposed to complain to your own local TS, but if you send a copy of your complaint to Cheshire TS in Chester, they can add it to the pile that they already have. Another nail in AK's coffin.

 

Elsinore

[jb79]

Imight be worng but i thought the local TS to the Head office dealt with all complaints against a national company. Might just be for retail sector.

[brecken]

Hi everyone,

This one has reared its ugly head again, in the form of a default on my credit report.

I have just checked my free annual report and a default was issued by aktiv capital in Nov06 for £338 even though I sent off cca and have had no reply. since.

surley because they have ignored my request to supply the origional documents then they cannot enter a default, or am I wrong.

Please help.

 

Brecks xx

[Guest The Terminator]

Hi everyone,

This one has reared its ugly head again, in the form of a default on my credit report.

I have just checked my free annual report and a default was issued by aktiv capital in Nov06 for £338 even though I sent off cca and have had no reply. since.

surley because they have ignored my request to supply the origional documents then they cannot enter a default, or am I wrong.

Please help.

 

Brecks xx

 

They can't do nothing whilst it is in dispute.Plus their in default and have committed a criminal offence.

[Mindzai]

They can't do nothing whilst it is in dispute.Plus their in default and have committed a criminal offence.

 

I believe they can enter a default when the amount is in dispute. The banking code s13.6 says they cant (if they subscribe to it), but it is not law, it is merely there to make the banks look good and they will flout it whenever they feel the need.

[tamadus]

I believe they can enter a default when the amount is in dispute. The banking code s13.6 says they cant (if they subscribe to it), but it is not law, it is merely there to make the banks look good and they will flout it whenever they feel the need.

 

The important point to remember here is that the banking code does not apply the consumer credit act does.

 

if they fail to supply the document requested under sec 77/79 then they are in default after 12 days, after a further calender month they commit an offence.

 

Section 77 (4) and 78(6) state the following

 

4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

(5) This section does not apply to a non-commercial agreement.

Registering or threatening to register a default is considered enforcement action. Heck even a phone call or letter asking for payment is enforcement action so they are very definitely in the wrong here.

I'd write to them in no uncertain terms telling them to withdraw it immediately and also report them to Trading Standards.

[tamadus]

Also Breckon this was an agreed settlement so how on earth can they start trying to recover the 'discount' you negotiated 2 years ago?

 

For them to do this is tantamount to them breaKing the agreed settlement.

 

I'd very quickly tell them where to go

[Glenn UK]

Its established law i believe that a short settlement alone cannot normally be considered as satisfying the debt.

 

If you wrote and offered full and final with a further consideration that can be full and final, if someone else paid it on your behalf, if it was part of a binding agreement on several debtors, all these can result in a short settlement beng full and final.

 

There is also a view that if you write to them offering full and final and making acceptance of the payment conditional to their acceptance then this can also be acceptable, although i am not certain of the background to this view.

 

In essence what im saying is that depending on the conditions of the settlment the outstanding balance may still be recoverable and hence a default could be entered in your account.

 

Incidentally you have not said that they are pursuing the debt, only that they have registered a default.

 

Glenn

[meagain]

So, to clarify:

 

A offers B part of the amount as full and final, with no additional consideration. B can go back and take on A for the rest afterwards, yes?

[Glenn UK]

yes, as i said there are certain ways of preventing this, its not something ive looked at for a long time, but when i first started on here it was relevant because i short settled.

 

The info was provided by Zootscoot and others so there are some threads around on this.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

 

PS i think the essence is right but it would be wise to check this out for yourself if its important to you.

[meagain]

Even after that part payment is made and accepted? Will need a citation for doubting Thomases (a lot of folk don't believe me when I tell them this), not to mention akward *ank solicitors (when the time comes).

[Guest peed orf]

So, to clarify:

A offers B part of the amount as full and final, with no additional consideration. B can go back and take on A for the rest afterwards, yes?

 

So what's the point of the "full and final" bit, and can it be swung round and used against the banks?

[meagain]

They work on the assumption that most people do not realise that they have to give you something that isn't already yours.

[Glenn UK]

Meagain et AL

 

I had a quick search last night for some previous threads where this was discussed, and as usual i couldn't find them.

 

If i get time ill see if i can find something definitive which people can go read for themselves.

 

The basic concept though is that the creditor cannot be forced to accept less in settlement of a debt than the actual value of the debt without some form of consideration.

[meagain]

Search on "settlement", posts only by zootscoot, show results as posts not threads, and you'll find one in there somewhere. I forget what the title is, and right now my connection is running more slowly than a snail on crack so it would take half an hour or more for me to find it.

 

It seems to be based on two things:

 

1. Offering not to sue the bank for the remainder is consideration, them paying you part of the money they owe you is not.

2. The bank will also ask that you do not sue the bank over the matter again, which is an absolute right that cannot be signed away.