Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-right-to-silence-citizens-duties-and-coronavirus-regulations   Perhaps the OP should have said nothing - and risked arrest!   "Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic...   "Secondly, it is clear that some police officers have misunderstood and misstated their powers, and citizens’ obligations, under the Regulations and at common law...   "Thirdly, the case confirms reasonable excuses for being outside are not limited to those explicitly set out in the Regulations. Police officers considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed under the Regulations so that an FPN may be issued, or the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are necessary for an arrest, should give proper consideration to any explanation given by members of the public (and what a court might think of them) rather than only recognising those exceptions explicitly listed in the Regulations and/or government guidance...   Fourthly, the case is an example of a failure of the CPS review into prosecutions brought under Coronavirus Regulations, which has found that alarming numbers of cases were wrongly charged..."   Above quotes from the Bindman's article, not the decision.  Case arose from the first lockdown and was in Wales.  Same now?  Also was about not being at home - not mask wearing.    
    • No the first LBA was delivered by royal mail, but I responded by email, sorry if I didn't make that clear.   I look at redacting the emails tomorrow, got to get some sleep now.   Thanks
    • ok well that changes things alot. you've accepted one before by email  and now they are doing it again ..   might have shot yourself in the foot until now lets get some 1st aid done.   gonna be a pain to redact but i'm gonna need to see all the emails in/out please in ONE MULTIPAGE PDF from/inc  date of their last PAPLOC   redact them properly !! read our upload guide carefully   you may  think this is immaterial, but its not, esp important is their and your exact wording
    • OK I've looked back at my emails and it appears I've been dealing with shoosmiths since the start of 2019 when they sent a LBA that I'd totally forgot about.   I replied that I didn't recognise the debt and we got into a big letter tennis over the facts.   They then went quiet and then contacted me again in April 2020 asking for income and expenditure details to work out a payment plan with them.   After I responded with my covid comments they went quiet again.   And now they are back with another LBA and I haven't responded to that.   Hope that clears it up. 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Consumer Credit agreements part 3


Guest 5YearPlan

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3627 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

i would not think that the document posted could possibly be a re construction- it MUST be a photocopy or microfiche copy of an original document

 

 

also 9-2-2 would i doubt be the date as written by the company and i suggest must be in the applicants own hand- therefore this must be a copy of an original document IMO

 

however, the tick box suggests that the document was NOT completed by the customer and would therefore suggest that it might NOT have been completed "off trade premises"

 

so where precisely was the form completed, and by whom? a shopping centre?

 

where the details of how you could cancel it sent to you in the post?

 

there would appear to be no provision within either side of the document for the creditor to execute it- thus confirming that it is in fact an application form

 

The application form itself will constitute an agreement IF it can be shown that the debtors signature is contained within the same document as the prescribed terms

 

i cannot see any reference on one side of the document to the other- which may suggest that they are in fact two separate documents

Edited by diddydicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

hi thanks for the advice and imput guys i seem to have managed to create 2 seperate posts some how but both are the same matter can i just post a link to my original post

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?281046-mbna-cc-fraud-thief-convicted-HF-still-want-balance-off-me-passed-to-DCA-help and sorry if ive caused any confusion

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think they had credit cards etc. back in the year 2 :???: - when Jesus was a 2 year old - although I do believe King Herod ran courses in consumer relations, debt collection etc. for the local DCA's! :-) His methods seem to even survive to this day in some areas.

 

BD

£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Link to post
Share on other sites
the tick box suggests that the document was NOT completed by the customer and would therefore suggest that it might NOT have been completed "off trade premises"

 

so where precisely was the form completed, and by whom? a shopping centre?

 

where the details of how you could cancel it sent to you in the post?

the form was filled in by a woman i presume was an agent or rep of nbma she aproached me in a shopping centre, she filled in all the details i just signed it presuming i was applying for credit card

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking through this thread for any commments which refer to an agreement for current account overdraft charges. the claim i have against me is for this type of debt . most of the info i can find is referring to credit card agreements.

 

i have asked for copies of me agreement and t&c's etc amongst other docs. D & G solicitors are claiming under part V exemption they do not have to provide an agreement for this type of debt nor do they have to supply a default notice ( BTW - which i did not get)

 

Would be grateful if any one has any comments on this??

 

this is my thread if anyone wants to have a browse.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?275863-Urgent-Help-Needed!-HSBC-Filed-Claim-at-Court-What-do-i-do

 

domino rally

Link to post
Share on other sites
himeans2anend

the agreement was taken out in 2002

 

In that case it will be regulated by the '1983 Agreements Regulations and this affects where and whether there ought to be notices of Cancellation...i.e 'your rights to cancel' etc....

 

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites
In that case it will be regulated by the '1983 Agreements Regulations and this affects where and whether there ought to be notices of Cancellation...i.e 'your rights to cancel' etc....

 

 

m2ae

HI m2ae

that was the only thing they produced this is where im at at this point in time if youd like to take a look and thanks for the info greatly apreciated http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?281046-mbna-cc-fraud-thief-convicted-amp-they-still-want-balance-off-me-passed-to-DCA-help

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to jump in here...can someone tell me the difference between and expempt agreement (s.16 CCA) and an Unregulated agreement?

 

More specifically, a £47,530 loan from a finance company, secured by 2nd charge taken out in June 2005.

 

what would this loan agreement come under? I know it's unregulated, but is it an 'exempt' agreement? They are 2 distinctly different things I am told...anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello sorry to jump in but have received a recon agreement from Cabot together with this letter which totally baffles me ?

What does the recon have to show. At the same time I had a SAR's Citi and had received the following items :

Statements up to Sept 2010. The last statement I have is dated October 2006 and I have them all prior to that. and now to the statements which are a nonsense...all the statement post 2007 are a load of nonsense.

Customer Service Notes copy which includes three entries - two mentioning account sold to Cabot and one mentioning my SARlink3.gif. There is a note on the bottom which says ALL CUSTOMER SERVICE NOTES PRIOR TO THIS PURGED FROM SYSTEM;

Copy of the Income and Expenditure which I gave them in July 2006 - they do not have the letter sending it out but I do as well as the letter refusing to accept me onto a reduced payment scheme in reply to my Income and Expenditure.

NO CREDIT AGREEMENT nor an application form was enclosed but they have said that they have given me a copy of the information held on the application (btw they got my name wrong !) this is just a computer print out.

I have sent a letter to Citi stating that they have not complied.

So really what do I need from them or Cabot ?

Thank you for reading

Rescanned further down !

Edited by gettingsorted
Link to post
Share on other sites

So sorry - it was scanned in like that in error - do you have the facility to twist it round in adobe ? I have tried to twist it and then save it but it still saves it upside down ?

If not I will have to rescan at home tonight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to use Adobe "rotate view" to rotate the document clockwise (twice) to get it right way up - no need to rescan on this account.

 

However you have still left the exact balance in the body which might idfentify you to Cabot.

 

Cabot's letter is pure bluff. They are saying they are "entitled" to enforce (and define enforce). They are right in they are ENTITLED to go to court - but what they DON'T say is that LEGALLY they CAN'T actually get a court to rule you MUST pay up just with a reconstituted copy - they MUST have the original. However beware of the Judge lottery as some judges don't actually understand the Carey judgement properly - and get misled by devious lawyers.

 

They must have taken a long time to put this work of fiction together because it's very well worded - intended to deceive you but without actually lying outright.

 

Personally I would now reply using P1's excellent CPUTR 2008 letter - which I believe removes the capability of them continuing to bluff. They either have an original, including your signature - and my reading of CPUTR 2008 is that they must give you such a copy on demand - or they haven't - and they must then say so and stop bluffing.

 

You might also want to bone up on the full Carey judgement (you can get it from Google easily) and quote the relevant bitys about enforcement and providing a full trail of all original copies each time the T&C's were changed - but this shouldn't be necessary if they understand what CPUTR 2008 does to them.

 

Anyway it's nice to see someone force them to spend so much time creating such a clever pack of lies!

 

Good luck!

 

BD

£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for the comments -

 

Ok here's a proper copy right way round and without the balance !

 

Where can I find a copy of the letter CPUTR 2008 letter - bearing in mind what I got from Citi there seems to be a lack of proper documents around ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you very much for the comments -

 

Ok here's a proper copy right way round and without the balance !

 

Where can I find a copy of the letter CPUTR 2008 letter - bearing in mind what I got from Citi there seems to be a lack of proper documents around ?

 

Look at this post and others earlier on from PriorityOne on the same thread - might be just what you need to do now?

 

good luck!

 

BD

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?173201-why-you-shouldnt-use-section-77-78-CCA-1974-if-you-want-the-signed-agreement&p=3209722&viewfull=1#post3209722

£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Link to post
Share on other sites

hete it us Gettingsorted..BD has given you the link to trevor33 and trevor33 received the full trancscript from me in relation to the interpretation of the OFT of CPUTR 2008 regs 5, 6 and 7

 

Susan Edwards, Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading May 2008Misleading 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 Tradingclip_image001.gif 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.

 

 

rgds

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you

 

Do you think this will do or should I expand ?

 

Dear Sirs

I do not acknowledge any debt to your company

 

I refer to your letter dated xxxxx , where you enclose a reconstituted true copy of an agreement.

 

May I remind you of your obligations under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (specifically regulations 5 and 6) and the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection. I therefore request that you confirm whether you currently hold or have ever held a properly Executed Credit Agreement pertaining to the above account and if so please forward a copy to me by return.

 

I attach for your information a copy of the relevant Regs of CPUTR 2008 for your information

 

If you DO NOT have a signed, properly executed Consumer Credit Act Agreement pertaining to myself, then I require written confirmation by return (CPUTR 2008 reg 5 and 6).

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Susan Edwards, Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading May 2008

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 TradingRegulations 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

remove the "i do not acknowledge any debt" comment

 

Unless you have never had the use of the money, which i would suggest is not the case here

 

you have to remember if this goes to court, that letter will be disclosed, whereby the judge will see that letter as an attempt to debt avoid and it is likely the judge would take a harsh approach

 

thats my view of course, but i am in and out of course daily with clients and if i had a pound for each time a judge commented on that line i would be rich

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you remain silent on this point, are you admitting the debt by saying nothing? no of course not

 

i am saying you look like a filthy debtor for the court,

 

My principal solicitor said to me while i was training, " never send anything that you wouldnt want to be placed before a judge"

 

I am in and out of court daily, i am providing you with an insight, as to the view of the courts which i am seeing, and many of my clients use the phrase like that from these forums and it is most unhelpful.

 

So, up to you, but if you listen to what im saying, you will ditch the sentence

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...