CCA request declined for no sig on old Lombard Loan

[Bazooka Boo]

I thought it was a CCA request you were after?

If it was a SAR did you enclose the £10 fee? Or are they talking bowlarks and getting themselves confused?

[register]

lol! they are indeed confuse! perhaps i should reply to tell them that?

 

thans for thje reply

[Sand-Dancer0191]

If you are a business and would like more detailed guidance, download OFT1272 - Guidance on section 77, 78 and 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - the duty to give information to debtors and the consequences of non-compliance on the enforceability of the agreement (pdf 330kb).

 

Should be read by these ***k heads

[diddydicky]

can you post up the DN and termination letters (minus personal details) if there is an unlawful repudiation you need to accept it in writing not just ignore it

[register]

hi, i dont have scanner so i cant sorry. please could you explain what yhou mean by accepting it?

 

also, lombard replied today to my telephone harrasment letter stating that i have no complaint.

 

they vaguely listed some of the phone calls they made and the reasons for them..

 

they did not mention the calls made to my parents house.

 

she wants me to reply within 8 weeks or she will close my complaint.

 

im complaining directly to th financial ombudsman stating this. im a bit riled that all the template letters i have sent have not made much of a difference to their position.

[diddydicky]

if a party to an agreement indicates that he intends to, or has unlawfully repudiated the agreement ( told you he no longer intends to fulfil his obligations) then you get the choice to either accept that unlawful repudiation on account of it is clear that he no longer intends to perform under the contract, or you can choose to hold him to the contract

 

In most circumstances taking the latter course of action requires no action on your part (since theoretically the other party could write yo you a hundred times a week and make the threat- and you would get fed up keep having to write and refute it

 

however if you accept the unlawful repudiation- because it is clear the relationship has broken down- it is better for you to confirm this in writing and take the opportunity to releuve yourself of any continuing obligation under the agreement.

Techincally your acceptance does not "end" the contract- insomuch as you would still retain the right- under the contract to sue for damages- but to all intents and purposes- your acceptance means that as neither party is now performing - the agreement is effectively at an end

 

thus you would be liable in the case of an unlawful repudiation of a credit agreement- only for the amount of arrears that were outstanding at the time of the unlawful repudiation

 

Most people will wait for the creditor (who usually unlawfully repudiates by way of an invalid DN) to terminate - however in the strict sence - an unlawful repudiation occurs when a party to the agreement envinces the other party of his INTENTION to cease to perform

 

therefore if the DN sends an invalid DN - so that you have no intention of complying with it, and the creditors states that if you fail to comply by a certain date he WILL terminate and/or demand payment of sums not yet due under the agreement- you could take him at his word that that is what he intends to do- as he is bound by his word and accept the DN itself as an unlawful repudiation.

 

if you fail to accept in writing the unlawful repudiation- your acceptance can be assumed from your actions - but this opens a minefield and one cagger already lost a case simply because the judge ruled that he did nothing - whereas if he had accepted the repudiation he could have accepted it

 

in that case the cagger was not making payments- after the unlawful repudiation he still continued not to make payments

 

by not making his "election" clear- the judge ruled that there was no proof that the non payments to the creditor that occurred after the unlawful repudiation were anything other than a continuation of the reason for non payment prior to the repudiation-

[Bazooka Boo]

DD was that the case where by the defendant argued that if he had been given the required amount of time to rectify (14 days) then he would have done so, but the crux of the issue was with the OC taking an excessive amount of time to bring action after they UR the contract, therefore the defendant wasn't disadvantaged by the OC's actions?

[diddydicky]

DD was that the case where by the defendant argued that if he had been given the required amount of time to rectify (14 days) then he would have done so, but the crux of the issue was with the OC taking an excessive amount of time to bring action after they UR the contract, therefore the defendant wasn't disadvantaged by the OC's actions?

 

i dont buy this " defendant was or wasnt disadvantaged ballcocks " and hopefully the brandon appeal will sort it

 

 

most of the CCA is predicated on the fact that a few individuals might benefit by the strict application of the act- but this was for the wider good

 

i fail to see why parliament would have thought any differently when it came to holding the creditor to issuing the DN "with precision" (which i believe is the wording used in the act- as is the requirement to leave the debtor in NO DOUBT as to what will happen if he does not remedy the DN)

 

I would say, putting my phd in the "bleedin obvious" to work....... that if the effect of the DN was to leave the debtor wondering, whether the creditor was going to do what he said in the DN if the debtor failed to remedy- or when he was going to do it........that this leaves the debtor in DOUBT ! - which- unless i am mistaken- is precisely what the act says that the creditor MUST NOT do!

 

 

 

the DN is in a form prescribed by parliament and they changed the 7 to 14 days

 

if parliament had intended that less than 14 days was to be de minimus or that it was subject to the defendant being disadvantaged it would have said so- this is a consumer PROTECTION act not a normal commercial contract

 

simililary if parliament had intended that the 14 days did not apply if the creditor then left it 2,3 4.5 weeks or months to do what he said he would do in the DN on or after the expiry of the remedy date (which is supposed to leave the debtor in no DOUBT) then parliament again would have said so

 

the judge in brandon was biaised/****ed/bent or whatever reason he gave for coming to that decision

Edited January 20, 2011 by diddydicky

[Bazooka Boo]

DD to be my brief if I end up in court!!

[diddydicky]

the problem with that is that common sense doesnt always equate with the law

[register]

i have another letter today from lombard. this seems to be a reply to the "Debt Letter - When company refuse CCA due to no signature" template we have here.

they state that DSAR carries a fee of £10.00 and CCA £1.00.

 

blah blah then they sate that if i supply a signature and fee, they will be more than happy to supply the requested information.

 

its hand signed in blue ink, but does actually read like a template letter.

[Bazooka Boo]

They are correct about the fees, however, they are deluded about the signatures in order to respond to your request for information.

Here is the ICO's view on signatures and requests for information:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/checklist_for_handling_requests_for_personal_information.pdf

 

So regardless of whether or not it was a CCA request OR a DSAR what they are in fact saying is that they are unsure as to your identity please supply your signature to confirm this.

However all you should say is that,

 

"The time in which to confirm my identity was before your first threat letter, as you are now unsure that you are chasing the correct person, and have confirmed in writing that you have breached the DPA which you state you do not wish to fall foul of, you will close your files in regards this matter as you are unsure as to my identity.

I can confirm that your failure to carry out the required Identity checks prior to sending me, confidential and sensitive information has been reported to the ICO for investigation, the only correspondence I require from you now is your complaints procedure, and confirmation that you have closed your files accordingly, any further attempts to contact me, will be reported as harassment."

 

Or words to that effect...

Edited January 21, 2011 by Bazooka Boo

[42man]

[diddydicky]

lucky beggar!!

[register]

They are correct about the fees, however, they are deluded about the signatures in order to respond to your request for information.

Here is the ICO's view on signatures and requests for information:

 

So regardless of whether or not it was a CCA request OR a DSAR what they are in fact saying is that they are unsure as to your identity please supply your signature to confirm this.

However all you should say is that,

 

"The time in which to confirm my identity was before your first threat letter, as you are now unsure that you are chasing the correct person, and have confirmed in writing that you have breached the DPA which you state you do not wish to fall foul of, you will close your files in regards this matter as you are unsure as to my identity.

I can confirm that your failure to carry out the required Identity checks prior to sending me, confidential and sensitive information has been reported to the ICO for investigation, the only correspondence I require from you now is your complaints procedure, and confirmation that you have closed your files accordingly, any further attempts to contact me, will be reported as harassment."

 

Or words to that effect...

 

Thanks. I know! that was more or less what the template letter i sent them said!

 

"Further, I note that you have sent statements and correspondence containing sensitive private information to me at same address as that detailed in my s.78(1) request. If you are concerned that you are corresponding with the correct person I wonder why you have not verified the information before."

 

thanks for that bazooka boo. you guys write so well! i will reply with that piece of text you have written. i really appreciate all your help on here!

[register]

thanks 42man too, im using most of your template letters. im not too good at writing things like that, i really am grateful!

[Bazooka Boo]

Your welcome, a problem shared is a problem halved, just post up what you intend on sending first before sending it, just to check you won't leave yourself wide open to any comeback.

[register]

Dear Sirs.

RE : xxxxx

Ref your letter dated 19/01/11 requesting payment for Data Subject Access Request under the DPA.

Please be advised that no DSAR was ever requested from you.

A request under the CCA was requested along with statutory fee of £1.00

Reference my letters sent 13/12/10 and 10/01/11 which was formal request pursuant to s.77(1) of the consumer credit act 1974, which you have declined .

Further, I note that you have sent statements and correspondence containing sensitive private information to me at same address as that detailed in my s.78(1) request. If you are concerned that you are corresponding with the correct person I wonder why you have not verified the information before.

 

The time in which to confirm my identity was before your first threat letter, as you are now unsure that you are chasing the correct person, and have confirmed in writing that you have breached the DPA which you state you do not wish to fall foul of, you will close your files in regards this matter as you are unsure as to my identity.

I can confirm that your failure to carry out the required Identity checks prior to sending me, confidential and sensitive information has been reported to the ICO for investigation, the only correspondence I require from you now is your complaints procedure, and confirmation that you have closed your files accordingly, any further attempts to contact me, will be reported as harassment

 

Yours sincerely.

[Bazooka Boo]

Sounds good enough to me! Alternatively you could just send them the failed letter?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?436-Failure-to-provide-a-copy-of-the-agreement-within-the-prescribed-timescale.

[register]

thanks , ive already sent hem the failed letter.I( i think i was calling it 'the 2nd cca letter') do you think i should also send it again?

 

thanks for all the help

[Bazooka Boo]

If you have already sent them the failed letter and they are still choosing to ignore you, then reciprocate their attitude, why waste your time and effort playing letter tennis with them?

[register]

yeah. i wasnt sure if i should do that. but flip them! THANKS VERY MUCH SO FAR!

[Bazooka Boo]

So long as your house is in order with copies and a diary of events as to what letter was sent when, then I wouldn't be in the slightest bit worried.

[register]

minor update.

my debt seems to have been passed to apex credit management.

they demand full payment of course.

will i just ignore everybody who sends me letters and prepare for court?

[Bazooka Boo]

Look it is now doing the merry-go-round of the lowest form of DCA's ie, it has reached the bottom of the barrel, one loser has flogged it onto another loser who has zero history of the account, simply because they are in the business of buying lemons.

 

There is zero requirement to reply to their computer, it will go unread, as none of their staff is old enough to read yet, least of all open their eyes, all you need do is to keep up your complaints about these extremely immature puerile companies to the OFT&TS via http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/contact

 

Ignore them, there is absolutely nothing they can do, apart from threaten you with words they find in the dictionary!