Account in Dispute sold to Collection Agency, advice please

[seanj70]

A while back I requested my CCA from Egg (via CapQuest) and eventually received the following:

 

Egg CCA pt1

Egg CCA pt2

As this did not include a copy of the terms I wrote back claiming that it wasn’t properly executed with all the prescribed terms and didn’t hear anything for almost a year from either Egg or CapQuest.

Then I received a call from Aktiv Kaptial who apparently purchased the debt from Egg. As I was not aware that my debt had been sold, whilst it was still in dispute with Egg / CapQuest, I requested a copy of my CCA from AK.

 

AK said (verbally on the phone) that the original agreement doesn't matter any more and they were desperate to get me to pay a token payment on the phone, but I refused and said i wanted proof of the debt.

 

I sent them a letter stating that Egg should not have sold my account whilst it was in dispute to which they replied, removing my account from their collection process whilst they obtained a copy of the agreement.

 

I have now received the following including a copy of the agreement, this time with a copy of Egg’s terms:

 

letter from AK

Copy of Egg CCA part 1

Copy of Egg CCA part 2

Copy of Egg terms part 1

Copy of Egg terms part 2

Copy of Egg terms part 3

 

AK’s letter states that Egg rejected my claim that the account was unenforceable, however I have never received this information from Egg or CapQuest, nor did they contact me to try and recover any more of the debt.

 

Upon perusal of the supplied agreement and terms there is no mention of a cooling off period or my rights to cancel.

 

What should my next step be?

 

Write to AK stating that Egg never told me they refused my claim, that they did not try to contact me to recover any more of the debt – further implying that the account was still in dispute, that they should not have sold the debt to AK whilst in dispute and that even with these supplied terms the account is still in dispute because of the missing ‘cooling off period’?

 

Should I mention why i’m disputing it in detail (cooling off period) or just give the generic ‘does not include all the prescribed terms’?

[spamheed]

Egg have a wonderful habit of actually typing your name in the original terms and conditions which pretty much c@cks up any attempt to replace the T&C with a different set.

 

at the top of page 1 of the terms and conditions there is a blacked out area where "your name" should appear, have you blacked this out or was it blacked out when you got it?

 

Is the amount as claimed by AK the same that was outstanding with Egg?

Are their any charges or PPI on the account?

 

When Egg "sold" or otherwise passed this debt on to AK, they would have been required to notify you of the assignment under the Law of property (LOP), if they did not do so then it may be an idea to refute their claims of ownership and request (nicely) that they prove ownership of said debt.

 

It may also be worth sending Egg a Subject Access request to see what they produce

[seanj70]

Egg have a wonderful habit of actually typing your name in the original terms and conditions which pretty much c*cks up any attempt to replace the T&C with a different set.

 

at the top of page 1 of the terms and conditions there is a blacked out area where "your name" should appear, have you blacked this out or was it blacked out when you got it?

they blacked it out, however I thought this part didn't have to be the original

see: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?162851#post1747504

However, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 define what may be sent in response to a request under ss77-79. they have to send a 'true' copy but this is far short of an exact copy. They may just send a copy of current terms and conditions

 

Is the amount as claimed by AK the same that was outstanding with Egg?

Are their any charges or PPI on the account?

it is pretty much, AK have added some interest since 'aquiring' the account. there was no PPI taken out - I always saw it as a rip off and never did

 

When Egg "sold" or otherwise passed this debt on to AK, they would have been required to notify you of the assignment under the Law of property (LOP), if they did not do so then it may be an idea to refute their claims of ownership and request (nicely) that they prove ownership of said debt.

No, nothing from Egg

 

It may also be worth sending Egg a Subject Access request to see what they produce

i think I will - presumably they will still deal with me even thou the account was 'sold' ?

[harrassed senior]

The Original Creditor has an obligation to send you all the information they hold on you.

[The Debt Star]

One thing I have noticed with Egg is that there doesn't seem to be any pattern of DCAs used. I have had both CrapQuest and Fredpricksons collecting on my Egg loan. At least AK have sent you info. Mind you, the account was asigned not sold on in my case.

[DonkeyB]

I note that the personalised T&Cs do not have the same black line down the document, which both versions of the agreement have. So these were not copied or microfiched at the same time, which suggests they have recreated them. How convenient.

[spamheed]

I note that the personalised T&Cs do not have the same black line down the document, which both versions of the agreement have. So these were not copied or microfiched at the same time, which suggests they have recreated them. How convenient.

 

The redeaction of the terms and conditions proves that these were not the terms and conditions issued with the agreement, whilst this in itself doesn't prove that they are invalid, it does open up the question, if the documents are legitimate, why have they had to recreate the T&C?

 

If AK have added interest to the account, is there any clause in the terms and conditions which allows a thrid party to do this?

 

You should also be following up by demanding proof of assignment from AK

[seanj70]

I thought this T&C didn't have to be the original

see: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?162851#post1747504

 

However, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 define what may be sent in response to a request under ss77-79. they have to send a 'true' copy but this is far short of an exact copy. They may just send a copy of current terms & conditions

[seanj70]

So, what should my next step be?

 

 

• Write to AK stating that Egg never told me they refused my claim,
  
• that they did not try to contact me to recover any more of the debt – further implying that the account was still in dispute,
  
• that they should not have sold the debt to AK whilst in dispute
  
• request proof of assignment from AK
  
• that even with these supplied terms the account is still in dispute because of the missing ‘cooling off period’?
  Should I mention why i’m disputing it in detail (cooling off period) or just give the generic ‘does not include all the prescribed terms’?
  

[DonkeyB]

I thought this T&C didn't have to be the original

see: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?162851#post1747504

 

But it must be the T&C which were presented at the time of signing.

[spamheed]

But it must be the T&C which were presented at the time of signing.

 

and as the ones issued to you have been redacted, it creates a doubt that they are the same ones, why would they redact "your" name? they would surely only redact if it wasn't your name at all and if it isn't your name, then they cannot be the correct T&C as they belonged to someone else

[seanj70]

But it must be the T&C which were presented at the time of signing.

 

do you have a reference to this? i can't find it anywhere

sorry but my legal reading head isn't great - sure all this cr*p is intended to baffle us!!

[unclebulgaria67]

The T&C's don't need to be ones which carry your name. But they must be the ones that you were given at the time of your application. These can be generic T&C's that applied to all applications they received at the time. If they ever took you to court, they would have to evidence that these were the T&C's that you were given.

[spamheed]

do you have a reference to this? i can't find it anywhere

sorry but my legal reading head isn't great - sure all this cr*p is intended to baffle us!!

 

When Egg create an agreement they produce a set of Terms and Conditions which have "your name" printed on them, this is not a statute, nor is it laid out in law, it is just something that Egg do.

 

Because the T&C supplied to you do not have your name on them and have actually had the (different?) name redacted, it could be assumed that these were not the correct T&C applied at the time of the agreement being taken out, the DCA would have to prove that they were the same T&C.

 

They could do this without producing "the" named T&C and as stated they could produce a generic set of T&C, however the doubt would still exist because Egg always produce "named" T&C to link them directly to the agreement, it doesn't in itself make the agreement unenforceable, it merely adds a doubt.

[seanj70]

thanks spamheed

 

i think i'll get drafting a letter!!