CCA reply from Hillensden/ DLC, translation, please

[dx100uk]

Hi Everyone,

As this is such a complicated case I was wondering if we should continue trying to get information from London Scottish. They claim in their last letter, that they have all payments details etc. on computer, but that I have to provide proof in the form of a payment book before they'll tell me anymore.

As I had sent a SAR request, which i believe has nothing debt etc, but it's just a straight forward request for information. So how can they refuse to give me the information that they claim they have?

Can we approach the information commission or someone to help with this? Or do we have enough information at the moment to proceed as we are?

 

bob

 

can you sanitise the letter and post it up?

 

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

as a picture[jpg] file

remove all pers info inc barcodes etc using paint program

but leave all figures and dates.

 

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf

than many single ones

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

NB:you can set where it goes in the post by hitting insert inline.

then hit reply button

 

 

i'm wonder what we can do here to push them a bit...

 

dx

[bob1835]

Hi dx100,

 

the final reply from london scottish regarding my SAR was posted back in post 141. I hope this helps...all other docs have been posted somewhere on this thread, just ask which ones you would like to see and i'll dig them out

 

cheers, bob

[dx100uk]

just updated meself........click burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....

 

 

i'd not worry

 

let the FOS deal with that if they need / want that info

 

dx

[bob1835]

Hi Dx,

 

Sorry about keeping you up so late last night.

 

I just wondered if you think it's worth making a complaint to the FOS about the missing information in the the SAR.

(London Scottish did include a FOS booklet with their final reply).

 

Or, as it's a data protection act thing, I should complain to the data commissioner?

 

Thanks again , bob

[dx100uk]

let see what happens first.

 

dont look at thetime of my last post then......about 4am!

 

dx

[bob1835]

Hi Dx,

 

If I intend complaining to FOS it needs to be posted in within the next two weeks!!!

 

As thats six months after i've received the Final Reply from Scottish London.

 

So, I was was wondering if there's any point in complaining to the FOS about an incomplete SAR, or just write to the Data protection folk instead ?

 

bob

[dx100uk]

i would think that you are quite within you right to

;link' the sar problem IN with your current PPI claim

 

as if the claim needs to go to the FOS, the ;lack' of data will obv be the reason

 

dx

[bob1835]

So basically, once I've got their reply for the PPI claim, I can add on their failure to provide a complete SAR and send both to the FOS.

 

Therefore, the six months i have to send a complaint, can be from the time I receive their reply for the PPI claim, correct?

 

I really didn't think of that. doh!

 

thanks again , bob

 

 

p.s. I just thought, the original reason for sending the SAR was to obtain info to help with the DCA, and not as attempt to reclaim the PPI.

 

Should i make a complaint about the lack of info in the SAR, if only so that the DCA can't claim that i had the opportunity to make a complaint but did not?

 

(this thread is really about stopping the DCA , it's just been side tracked recently by the PPI claim)

Edited February 25, 2012 by bob1835
added p.s.

[dx100uk]

no need the fos will deal if they need to.

 

however there is no reason why you cant complain to the ICO as in post 194 regarding the sar

 

dx

[ninety68]

I am passing through same problem

Edited February 26, 2012 by ninety68

[bob1835]

UPDATE: Just like any good horror story this one has just come back from the dead.

 

To summarize what has gone before (the story really gets started back in post 73).

 

Back in Feb 2011, I found out that my mother was being chased by DLC for an old loan from London Scottish. She'd paid a HUGE amount off, and still owned more than the original amount borrowed. And taking advice from members of CAG, I sent off a CCA request.

It turned out that she had in fact taken out over 14 loans from London Scottish (one following on from another) and a lot of these had a balance which was 'rolled over' onto the following loan. Some also had mis-sold PPI (my mother was a pensioner at the time) and with an interest rate on the PPI as high as 235%. Postggj pointed out (post 112) how can more than 50% of a loan be made up of PPI?

 

With a lot of help from CAG members, P1 and Dx100, citizenB, and many others, I sent a SAR to London Scottish

 

(ALL AGREEMENTS AND PPI INFO IN POST 105)

 

I received only a part of the information requested, so I asked for the rest. In response I got (post 114) - what P1 called a 'stupid letter' (post 115) or to quote P1 more fully...

 

“that has got to be one of the biggest heaps of tosh I've read on here for a long time....

 

They're trying to say that they have no statements.... so no records then? No history of any payments received on these accounts from doorstep collections? Then how the heck did they work out the amount to flog out to DLC? They've more or less admitted that they can't.

 

It's very tempting to say that it was paid up a long time ago..... No records; no proof. You could have a field day with this one.... and they'd be very, very stupid to go anywhere near a court with it!

 

Idiots!..”

 

Anyway to cut to the chase, P1 wrote a magnificent letter back in post 127, asking for the SAR information for a third time, and their response this time was.....(post 141)

 

...(more or less saying) LS has a record of the payments but they weren't going to give them to us, if we disputed the balance they asked us to provide proof in the form of the payment card issued and then they'll check their records for us . (This was a doorstop collection).

 

After this the thread went off on in a new direction, on how to reclaim PPI.......

 

Soooooo the good news ( hopefully ) the FSCS is now looking into the PPI stuff, and hopefully we'll get a fair hearing..

 

The BAD news is we recently received this letter from DLC, the first one for 18 months! Saying that they believe our complaint with LS has been resolved, (I of course dis-agree) and that if DLC don't hear from us by next Wednesday they'll pass the matter back to their collection boys and girls.

 

http://s1354.photobucket.com/albums/q685/bob_CAG/?action=view&current=26sept2012-retracted_zpsf961a0bf.jpg

 

So my question is, does anyone have any advice on how best to reply to the above letter?

 

I'm thinking of summarizing all three requests for SAR information, and the inconsistent replies from LS.

Plus mentioning that because the agreements are interlinked, and have 'charges with interests already levied rolled over, with more interests, and added mis-sold PPI' etc ...And well, as P1 said, the figure upon assignment is an amalgamation of incorrect balances, etc...

 

Then asking DLC to contact LS directly, and obtain the information requested so that we can all be clear on what the balance should be. I mean, DLC do have to prove that the balance when the loan was sold on was correct, correct? And it appears with this mess that's going to be an impossible task.

 

Anyway, any and all advice, or suggestions, observations, comments, etc, would be most appreciated,

 

Thanks in advance, Bob

 

 

p.s. Some of the highlights of the story so far:

 

post 84, post 85, post 87, post 88

 

post 94 P1 unlawful charges added?

post 96 Dx100 thinks agreement maybe lawful

post 97 P1 disagrees

post 99 P1 believes the balance upon assignment is incorrect

post 107 Dx100 believes if this went to court the Judge would JAIL them!!!

post 112 postggj more than 50% of loan made up of PPI

post 115 P1 no statements/ no records?

Post 122 P1 PPI should invalidate the assignment to DLC

Post 124 P1 “Stupid letter don't lose it”

 

 

p.p.s sorry about the length but hopefully it'll help you all to understand what a mess this is

Edited October 12, 2012 by bob1835

[ScarletPimpernel]

The reply to their letter should be quite short and simple:

 

Dear Sirs

 

Thank you for your letter dated xxxx in which you erroneously suggest that the dispute has been resolved. Regrettably, London Scottish Finance appear to be unable or unwilling to act properly in the matter.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt, the dispute is ongoing.

 

I appreciate that purchasing debts from failed companies may be fraught with difficulty, but any problems you have with your purchases are for you to take up with the seller. In the meantime, your mandatory obligations as the holder of a consumer credit licence stand, and any contact from your collections department will be reported as a breach of the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on Debt Collection.

 

I trust my position is clear; if you do not understand this letter you should seek professional advice.

 

Yours etc.

 

Getting into detail just invites them to get more involved, which will almost certainly be unhelpful.

[Bandit127]

Dear Sirs

 

Thank you for your letter dated xxxx in which you erroneously suggest that the dispute has been resolved. Regrettably, London Scottish Finance appear to be unable or unwilling to act properly in the matter.

 

For the avoidance of any doubt, the dispute is ongoing.

 

I appreciate that purchasing debts from failed companies may be fraught with difficulty, but any problems you have with your purchases are for you to take up with the seller. In the meantime, your mandatory obligations as the holder of a consumer credit licence stand, and any contact from your collections department will be reported as a breach of the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collection.

 

I trust my position is clear; if you do not understand this letter you should seek professional advice.

 

Yours etc.

 

A cracking letter SP and worthy of the best of the wordsmiths at DLC. (I suspect you have read even more DLC letters than I have...)

 

Nice...

[bob1835]

Wow! as easy as that? Thanks ScarletPimpernel, I'll be sending it recorded delivery tomorrow, and double thanks for the quick reply:-)

[twinkle1977]

nice letter scarlet pimpernel! I have been getting DLC and Apex letters for around 4 years now and I just do not respond to them.

I've had them all - solicitor threats, doorstep collection threats - several times over. I have another 2 years before I statue bar them but in the meanwhile, I'm getting a good collection of fire fodder, should there ever be a 'big freeze'...

[bob1835]

Quick question:

 

London Scottish has passed on the PPI claim onto Deloitte's to resolve.

 

Deloitte's form states that:

 

By signing section H if we pay compensation we will 'step into your shoes' and take over the rights to sue LS.

 

So the question is, should we trust Deloitte's to try and get the refund or take a different course?

 

thanks, bobby

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Always better to do it yourself imo.

[bob1835]

would that include the threat of taking court action? 'cus it's for my elderly mother, and I'm really looking for the least stressful way to proceed.

 

oh, and it's against London Scottish and they've gone into 'Administartion' - so I'm not sure if there is another way. Be interested to find out though !!!

 

p.s. do I need to send this recorded? rather not spend the money unless I have to

Edited November 4, 2012 by bob1835

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Always best to RD and check delivery.

[bob1835]

Thanks Brig, I'll send recorded then

 

The letter from London Scottish seemed to imply that as they're in 'Administration' the FSCS via Deloitte's was the only way to go.

 

I'm now wondering if there's an alterative.

 

If so, can anyone say what they are ? I've read a lot about reclaiming PPI on here, but as London Scottish has gone belly-up none of that seem to apply to this case.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Did you hear any more from DLC?

[dx100uk]

LS admin are coughing on PPI reclaims.

 

dont go near a CMC they have NO MORe powers than you.

 

dx

[bob1835]

Sorry dx, a CMC is a claims managment company correct?

 

I thought the route I was taking it, the FSCS via Deloitte's was something very different.

 

Maybe the only option I have because Scottish London are in 'Administration'.

 

LS said they had to pass the case on to them because of the 'Admin' thing

- LS are no longer responsible for PPI refunds.

 

Are you sugggesting otherwise?

 

SP, no reply from DLC since the letter was sent

[dx100uk]

i thought Deloitte wa acting as a CMC here...

 

ithink we've had this before

 

there is nothing to stop you doing it your self.

 

have a look in the PPI successes

 

i'm sure the administrators of LS have coughed at least once on PPI.

 

go thru them first

 

not the FSCS.

 

dx

[bob1835]

I've tried going direct to LS, even inclosed the spread sheet I had so much help with from here. But LS claims it's now on longer anything to do with with them, Are you suggesting they're being misleading?