Robinson Way \ Harwich Farrelly issue cap1 debt

[adenjago]

Have you changed address within the past six years? If so you would have needed to check the previous address too.

 

No....... we moved to our current address in 2003...the CCJ was registered 2006

 

there is no financial link then no.

 

Does This applies to companies doing credit checks for say hire purchase

[cerberusalert]

Just done a search on the Trustonline and it return the Following.........( i assume it is not classed as a High Court ??)

You did check the right name?

 

Does This applies to companies doing credit checks for say hire purchase

 

Yes, unless you are financially linked nothing should show. A search is done on the person not the address.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Just keep paying as you said.

A CCJ only shows that an order has been made

the courts don't report further on payments.

[adenjago]

Just keep paying as you said.

A CCJ only shows that an order has been made

the courts don't report further on payments.

 

Okay thanks guys....i think first port of call needs to be Northamton Court...we got married in 2002 so it should not be in my wifes previous name

Edited August 6, 2011 by adenjago

[cerberusalert]

If it was obtained more than six years ago Northampton won't be able to help, all records will be archived and cannot be retrieved without a court case number. It won't be on the Trust site either so should not be showing on a credit file under the Public Record Information section.

[adenjago]

If it was obtained more than six years ago Northampton won't be able to help, all records will be archived and cannot be retrieved without a court case number. It won't be on the Trust site either so should not be showing on a credit file under the Public Record Information section.

 

Won't the six years go from the date it was registered ??? Which was 2006 according to experian ....which should make it drop of next year ?

 

So should I query this with experian first ????

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Yes the date of registration is the important one.

So it should still be available.

[cerberusalert]

It's odd that it's not on the Trust site because that is where the CRAs get the record from.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It's not unknown that CCJ's have not been

posted on the trust site but it is certainly

unusual.

[cerberusalert]

The Trust site is the only public record IIRC so unless it's on there it shouldn't show on the CRA under 'Public Record Information'.

[adenjago]

The Trust site is the only public record IIRC so unless it's on there it shouldn't show on the CRA under 'Public Record Information'.

 

I suppose it be best to contact the court first and then dependent on the outcome, query this with experian ????

 

Once again guys many thanks...

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

You are right Aden.

[adenjago]

Hi guys ...quickie update

 

the CCJ relates 2005/06 Council Tax. which is a long story ....the quick story

 

our council tax which we had always been paying had been calculated wrong so we had being under paying...and by the time we found out got passed to a court even though we had being paying the cancel tax but the figure we were paying was short and a miscalculation by the council.....and by the time we had got it all sorted and paid it had already gone to some debt collection agency who we did not deal with we paid the council back dirct

 

I have informed them that it has been fully paid but they require proof. I have contacted NUL Borough Council Tax Office and they have agreed to forward to me a letter stating that the amount has been fully paid

 

would that be sufficient to get it removed ?? or is that what the courts are requesting the proof for ??

[cerberusalert]

It can only be removed if the debt was paid within a month of the judgement, otherwise it will drop off naturally six years from the judgement.

[adenjago]

My wife forgot to ask why they required the proof....what what the court request the Proof for then ??....any idea's

 

......I can't remeber when it got paid, will have to wait for the Information back from the council

[adenjago]

It can only be removed if the debt was paid within a month of the judgement, otherwise it will drop off naturally six years from the judgement.

 

Will it be classed as settled\satisfactory and will that make a different to searches or can I put a dispute on like with the other account I have down with experien

[cerberusalert]

When a CCJ reaches six years it is removed from all records whether satisfied or not. If it hasn't been paid the creditor would need to apply to a court for permission to enforce. This is rarely if ever given because a court deems that they have already had plenty of time to enforce.

[cerberusalert]

what what the court request the Proof for then ??....any idea's

So they can give you a Notice of Satisfaction.

[adenjago]

So they can give you a Notice of Satisfaction.

 

the notice of satisfaction i assume will go on the credit Record ??

 

 

it's okay i have found the answer here.....

 

http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/legal_issues_explained/certificate_of_satisfaction.php

Edited August 8, 2011 by adenjago

[adenjago]

That is correct citizenB .......for RBS since my initial SAR was sent\dated 30th June 2011.

 

Harwich Farrelly\Robinson Way

 

I have just received a new letter, this time not from Harwich Farrelly, but from Robinson Way, but is not like previous letters from them which the last letter I sent to them was in 2nd June 2011, stating that account is in dispute, and no mention of my previous correspondence with Harwich Farrelly stating their the account is in dispute over there "non-Compliance" over not producing a valid CCA

 

But I have noticed the Address at the Top is different to the Address I had previously responded to

 

Since then regarding this account, my correspondence has been with Harwich Farrelly who have still not produced a valid CCA agreement despite my SAR, they have only produced the "guaranteed Acceptance form" but this does not contain the prescribed Terms

 

obvously I know these are same the people but just to curious to know why they have no reverted back to Robinson way ? or what they hope to achieve by doing this

 

Im sure I have seen a Template letter stating that cannot make a home visit with my consent\ authorisation but I can't seem to find it, but also Im also pretty sure this account is still is dispute so this would negate there right to a home visit

 

I really like the bit at the bottom stating "your account will not be overlooked or forgotten"

Edited October 25, 2011 by dx100uk
image removed pers info showing

[adenjago]

Sorry I missed them out ......doing too much at once

 

Amended copies

 

 

and the second

 

 

 

Any advise in regards the respoonse

Edited October 27, 2011 by adenjago

[Guest]

they are basically saying that what they have sent satisfies your cca request, and that they 'believe' that what they have would be 'sufficient' if it went to court.

they have sent something in response to your request which they believe is an accurate recon? so, they can continue collection activities up to and including court action. whether it is or not an accurate recon that satisfies s78 would ultimately be for the court to decide. and, whether or not they have the correct documentation enough to enforce would again be for the court to decide.

so, it would depend on how you want to approach things? ie dispute all the way (possibly to court), or try and negotiate first?

 

you shouldn't now get anymore phone calls!

[adenjago]

thanks ford, I have a had alook around and can't see many post regrading "Guaranteed Acceptance Forms" apart from this one that leads my to belive it is unenforciable due to

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?220164-Capital-One-Enforceable-Guaranteed-Acceptance-Form

 

from cerberusalert

If the T&Cs are not part of that document then it's unenforceable. The prescribed terms must be within the four corners of the document & these include reference to the credit limit, repayment terms %APR etc.

 

but there is no conclusion though ?? I think I might try sending the letter postred in the above thread

 

or something along these lines

 

I write in response to your letter dated XXXXX

 

Your letter is incorrect and frivolous, you are fully aware of legally valid reasons why no payment has been made on this account, namely that the agreement which underpins this account has not been supplied despite a perfectly valid request and furthermore, it is suggested that notwithstanding the failure to supply a copy, the agreement itself is improperly executed, devoid of all prescribed terms and deficient in respect of detail relating to APR, total charge for credit and statements of rights ,remedies and protections as required by schedules 1,2 and 6 Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983

 

Therefore the agreement as outlined in section 65 (1) Consumer Credit Act must be laid before the court to be granted an enforcement order before any further action can be taken

 

It is my view that the court would not grant such an order due to the deficiencies that I have outlined within the agreement, furthermore the absence of any documents disproving my points itself speaks volumes

 

Therefore, I would indeed welcome the opportunity to place this before the court. furthermore should you proceed with the threats to issue a court claim I will make an immediate application to have it get=_blankset aside for the grounds outlined above, also I shall refer the judge to this letter when the matter of costs falls due

 

I trust this outlines my position clearly enough for you

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I have seen many GAFs in the past and the

''authorised''/ ''executed'' copy returned to

the debtor, it was a common practice until

a few years ago, and I think it may well be

sufficient to prove liability.

[Guest]

aden

ok

as long as you are aware that they can continue collection activities up to and including court action.

 

could consider adding something along the lines of (edit/expand to suit):

you are reminded that an accurate recon of the original 'agreement' must be provided in response to a cca request (recent kotecha v phoenix CA case). please confirm in writing that what you have provided is an accurate recon of an original agreement that you rely on.

furthermore. you are again reminded of s127 (if applicable), s6x cca which requires that there be a signed document that contains all of the prescribed terms.

........

 

what do you think?

Edited October 29, 2011 by Ford
typo