Connaught/ 1st Crudit / Citi/ originally RBS Card

[seriously fed up]

In November in a moment of weakness when they got me on the phone, I agreed to make a one-off payment of £101 to IQOR (BoS debt that has defaulted to them) with my debit card. I am quite clear that this was a ONE OFF payment, but then in December another payment to IQOR - again for £101 - came out of my bank account, again by debit card. Tonight I have had a look at my bank account and they have just done it again.

What can I do to put a stop to this? I know I could cancel my existing bank card and ask my bank for a new one, but that's a bit of a hassle . What would anyone suggest doing?

For info, I am looking at going into a Trust Deed (Scottish IVA), or perhaps using most of the remaining equity on our house to offer my creditors a percentage payment in "full and final settlement" - probably about 50%. Most are defaults to DCAs. Any views on these two strategies would be appreciated as well.

Thanks

[rory32]

I would actually complain to your bank and inform them that your card has been fraudulently used.

 

For info, I am looking at going into a Trust Deed (Scottish IVA), or perhaps using most of the remaining equity on our house to offer my creditors a percentage payment in "full and final settlement" - probably about 50%. Most are defaults to DCAs. Any views on these two strategies would be appreciated as well.

Can you give us a breakdown of your debts (only give rough amounts)? When they were taken out roughly and who they were with.

[seriously fed up]

I have over £100,000 in credit card debts, which have come about mainly as a result of a consultancy client not paying me £68k owed for work over a number of years (some money would be paid but not it all - long story). Its to a variety of cards - TSB, MBNA, BoS, Egg, M&S. I reckon that all but 25k is in default and been sold to a variety of DCAs who are pursuing me with varying degrees of vigour. I have been putting off doing something about it because I was always hoping that the client would pay up. A writ has been served on them now, but its going to be three or four months before that gets to court and there is no guarentee.

As well as these unsecured debts, I have a loan to my bank that has about 5k left to pay back, and a 65k mortgage on a house worth about 160k. Does that help. I actually have all this written down in detail and if you advise me how to do this i could attach it to a pm.

[MARTIN3030]

Thread moved here.

[seriously fed up]

sorry dont understand this - moved here. Moved where?

[rory32]

sorry dont understand this - moved here. Moved where?

 

You're thread has been moved to the Dealing with Debt in Scotland Forum.

[Moonlighter]

Hello Seriously Fed Up

 

You are doing the right thing by dealing with these debts now and not waiting until the legal matter regarding your own debtor is resolved.

 

Have you spoken to an Insolvency Practitioner or debt counsellor about your options regarding your debt situation?

 

Is the property in your own sole name, and have you looked into whether or not you would be able to remortgage in the current climate and could afford the repayments? Are you still self-employed or in employment?

 

kind regards

Moonlighter

[blueda]

seriously fed up, i would not rush into re-mortgaging as a solution, re-mortgaging has never been an option for me, i have declined such advice from so called financial advisers, they are out for themselves with advice as bankers are, the debt collection agents will in time settle for payments you can afford, my debt is now down to £5,300, it used to be a lot more, and the creditors ( 5 accounts now ) are getting £27.00 per month between them through a debt management company, others accepted considerable arranged reduced settlements as full and final payments, hope this helps.

[IdaInFife]

As Rory has stated if you did not authorize the continual payments you can ask the bank to claim these back and stop any futher payments. They will try totell you they cannot so this and you may need to get a new card although this hasnlt stopped contimual payments being deducted for others.

 

 

Ida x

[seriously fed up]

My debt to Citibank was sold to 1st Credit in the third quarter of last year. I used to get called by one of their representatives in a very bullying matter and would make a monthly payment just to get rid of him (whether I could afford it or not, and quite often I couldnt). Then I heard - on this forum - about Consumer Credit Agreement and the problems for "nice people" like 1st Credit if they couldnt produce them. So on 12th December last year I made a statutory request to 1st Credit for my CCAs (there were two cards) with Citibank, using the usual excellent template from this site "1. You must supply me with a true copy of the alleged agreement you refer to. This is my right under your obligation to supply a copy of the agreement under the legislation contained within s.78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s.77 (1) for fixed sum credit) - your obligation also extends to providing a statement of account. I enclose a £1 cheque in payment of the statutory fee. 2. A signed true copy of the deed of assignment of the above referenced agreement that you allege exists should this debt be sold or assigned to your company. "

Within a few days this elicited a "nice" letter (well dealing with "nice people) saying that they would go off and look for these agreements and when they produced them they would expect me to produce a proposal for immediate repayment of the debt. By the 30th January this year I hadnt heard another word from them (either by letter or by phone), so I sent off another template letter - the one that ends up "as at (in my case, 16th January 2009 - which was taking a liberal attitude in their favour in calculating the date) this account became unenforceable at law and it is now my intention to refer this matter to the enforcement authorities. Any default notices or adverse comments your company have recorded on my credit reference file should be immediately removed. Failure to respond favourably to this letter within seven (7) days of receipt will result in immediate litigation being commenced against your company without further notice." This elicted a response saying no more than that my letter had been passed to the appropriate dept. As of today (5th March) I have heard no more. A reasonable assumption would be that Citicard havent come up with the goods. But a few questions to which I would be terribly grateful for a reply (as I have a few other CCA requests out that might well not produce what is required either):

1. does failure to produce a CCA within the time limit make the debt unenforceable for all time? Or IF they can produce it outwith the time limit does that make the debt enforceable again?

2. what should I do with 1st Credit - leave them alone or poke them some more?

3. can 1st Credit sell the debt to someone else, so I would have to go through the whole loop again (albeit with the same outcome at the end)?

Any advice would be very welcome.

[fuzzybobble]

I'd do nothing, unless they start demanding money again. Then you can send the account in dispute template letter.

 

1st Credit have to behave themselves now, as the OFT are keeping a close eye on them.

[seriously fed up]

Is account in dispute letter, the one that begins

"This letter is a formal request pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I require you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement relating to the above account, together with any other documentation the Act requires you to provide.

 

I expect you to comply fully and properly with this request, within the statutory time limit. You are reminded that should you fail to comply with my request, the provisions of s.77 will apply."

 

If it is then they have already had that one. My letter of 30th Jan read

 

Begins

I refer to my letters to you requesting copies of any Consumer Credit Act agreements in relation to both the above accounts, which you advise me you have bought from Citi Financial Europe. The appropriate fee (£1.00 and not £10.00 as your letter erroneously states) for this was included in my letters and, I note from my bank account statements, were cashed by you. You wrote to me on 17th December last year advising me that you had arranged for copies to be provided.

The Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for this request to be carried out before your company enter into a default situation. If the request is not satisfied after a further 30 calendar days, Your company commit an offence. Even bearing Christmas and New Year in mind, it is quite clear that the first date has passed, as well as the second (16th January 2009).

 

As you are no doubt aware subsection (6) states:

 

“If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

 

(a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) If the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

Therefore as at 16th January 2009 this account became unenforceable at law and it is now my intention to refer this matter to the enforcement authorities.

 

Any default notices or adverse comments your company have recorded on my credit reference file should be immediately removed.

 

Failure to respond favourably to this letter within seven (7) days of receipt will result in immediate litigation being commenced against your company without further notice."

Ends

 

 

Should I leave them to stew after this one (sent about five weeks ago)

[westendwendy]

Your company commit an offence

 

This part no longer applies.

 

I would just sit back and wait now,it will be interesting to see how 1st Credit behave now on disputed debts especially after the OFT's warning.

Edited March 5, 2009 by westendwendy

[blipvert]

IMHO, we're in unchartered waters. Yes, they've had a yellow card and that may ultimately end in a red. However, their 'in house', 'solicitors' are still sending out threatograms.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/187516-1st-credit-threatening-force.html

Edited March 5, 2009 by blipvert
added quotes around the word: solictors

[xyzylt]

BBC NEWS | UK | Rise in debt collector 'mistakes' have a look at this on the bbc. i have just sent all my letters and demands to the OFT and to watchdog.We also have a Consumers Minister Garath Thomas what about sending him a copy of all your letters and threats. the more the merrier.

[ODC]

Strange that even the BBC fail to mention the head of the CSA is also a Company Director of Worst Credit who have had their knuckles severely rapped by the OFT

[seriously fed up]

finally got something from 1st Credit - dated 4th March, so it took them about five weeks. I know the devil of things like this is in the detail, so I have scanned the whole letter into this post. It reads Begins Thank you for your letter of the 30 January 2009 of which the contents are noted. I can confirm that we received your request for the original copy of agreement and pursuant to your request we are waiting for said documents from the original creditor, once received we will write further. You are correct, we are required to provide a copy of the agreement requested under the Consumer Credit Act within 12 working days; that period has now expired, which means that the agreement cannot be enforced until agreement is provided. It is also correct that if the default of the credit agreement continues for one month, that an offence may be committed. However, if an offence is committed, that does not affect the rights and duties between us. The Act provides defences to any offence which we believe would apply, in this case where we have to obtain documents and information to answer your request from the original creditor. We are aware that we cannot enforce a debt until the Consumer Credit Act request has been adhered to. Our client states that the debt is outstanding and remains payable. I am unaware of any legislation that states a default notice or data that is believed to be correct must be removed whilst a Consumer Credit Act request is being dealt with. We further note that you have omitted to sign your letter, please ensure all future correspondence is signed. Compliance Officer Registered No. 3752940 in England and Wales Registered Office: Hill House, 1 Little New Street, London EC4A 3TR Ends Some observations of my own 1. interesting that they want me to sign in future. I wonder why? 2. they are unclear about exactly who owns the debt? Is it 1st Credit - see ref to "client" in penultimate paragraph. On the other hand, they refer to the "original creditor" in their second paragraph. 3. while confirming that the "agreement cannot be enforced until the agreement is provided" (and its 3 months now and counting since first requested), in the next paragraph they suggest that "if an offence is committed that does not affect the rights and duties between us". Leaving the issue of the consequence (and recognition) of committing an offence, how do we know what the rights and duties are if we dont have a copy of the original signed agreement concerning these rights and duties. I am sure there are other elements of this that might be interesting to others with more knowledge and experience of this than I do, so I would be interested in any comments that anyone else might want to make, and also suggest future action (or inaction).

[cymruambyth]

Your letter seems to have a slightly different tone from others . They need to check their information as the offence of not supplying no longer exists. It is possible to argue that if there is no CCA, then there is no permission to process your information.

I would send them the account in dispute letter which I'll post when I find it.

You do not have to sign your letters and don't do so.......cut and paste.....

[cymruambyth]

You can either ignore them or if they are still trying to get you to pay, the following was copied from somewhere on this site

 

Dear morons,

 

I refer to your letter dated xxxx, the content of which is noted. I do not acknowledge any debt to you or any company you claim to represent. All communication must be in writing.

 

On (date) I made a formal request pursuant to s.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. You failed to comply fully and properly, and so the request remains in default. Therefore, the provisions of s.78 (6) apply, and your threat of legal action is unlawful.

 

[The only document that your client supplied, which they averred was the credit agreement, did not comply with s.61 of the Act, which renders the agreement unenforceable by virtue of s.127(3).]

 

Clearly, the alleged debt is disputed. You have been provided with full details, but have failed to make any substantive effort to resolve the dispute. It should not be necessary to remind you that the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection is clear that failing to suspend collection activity whilst a dispute is unresolved is an unfair practice. Your activity also appears to be contrary to ss.3(b) & 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

 

Take notice that if you intend to send a representative to my home, I will not offer an appointment; any visit would therefore be contrary to the OFT Guidance and also CPUTR).

 

Yours etc.

 

Amend to suit (I've amended some of it already), do not sign etc...Only use the bit in blue if you've received anything 1st crud purport to be a CCA...

 

Add a line stating the letter is a formal complaint and requesting a copy of their formal complaints procedure. They then have 8 weeks to resolve it to your satisfaction, after which, you complain to the FOS, who, if they take up the case, will charge 1st crud £400 + for the pleasure regardless of the outcome

[seriously fed up]

OK thanks for the advice which I will take up and let you know how things go Just one question, you say that "Your letter seems to have a slightly different tone from others . " Is that in a good or a bad sense?

[ODC]

They have had to change their generic threatomatics since the nOFT slapped their wrists

[sosumi]

OK thanks for the advice which I will take up and let you know how things go Just one question, you say that "Your letter seems to have a slightly different tone from others . " Is that in a good or a bad sense?

In a good sense I think sfu. In a 'can't say what we usually say on account of the OFT' sense.

[cymruambyth]

I would describe you letter as slightly more concilliatory and less threatening:D

[lickthewallfatboy]

humble pie on the menu at worst crudit towers then?

 

[fuzzybobble]

humble pie on the menu at worst crudit towers then?

 

 

I think Uncle Bob has gone from smoked salmon sandwiches to peanut butter in the last few weeks.

 

Let's hope he has a severe allegy to nuts.