Capquest - New Tactics

[Bazooka Boo]

Its not an untruth though is it? Depending on how you read it - the key words being

 

"it is necessary to do so"

 

However, based on what you have said it could be a misleading.

 

I guess it really depends which side of the fence you are sitting on, to the layman it will be read as if they are going to go to court and use bailiffs to recover goods to the value of, so yes it is misleading and is a blatant untruth, whatever you want to call it, it is a threat, and an empty one.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

OFT Guidance Section 2.1 applies

''It is unfair to communicate, in what ever form, with consumers in an unclear, inaccurate, or

misleading manner''

[Bazooka Boo]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

 

1 Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

 

(1)Any person who sends to another person—

(a)a [F1letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—

(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;

(ii)a threat; or

(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or

(b)any [F2article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

(2)A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows—

(a)that the threat was used to reinforce a demand [F3made by him on reasonable grounds]; and

(b)that he believed [F4, and had reasonable grounds for believing,] that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

[F5(2A)In this section “electronic communication” includes—

(a)any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)); and

(b)any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form.]

(3)In this section references to sending include references to delivering [F6or transmitting] and to causing to be sent [F7, delivered or transmitted] and “sender” shall be construed accordingly.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to [F8imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both].

 

It also grates me that some clown outfits think they can send out threatening letters to intimidate people in their own homes!

[Bobity]

Hi

 

Just started reading your thread NQ. I am also dealing with CQ. I've had a similar letter to yours back in early 2010 and have just received a Statutory Demand which I intend to try to get set aside. Is your OC with Egg? Mine is and is from 2000 so is also missing prescribed terms. It's disappointing to hear from others that judges are enforcing these. I don't think I will go to court as I would be terrified and totally brain frozen and be useless with the defence.

 

I also respond to every letter they send out and keep copies. Copies of my CCA seem to from microfiche, I don't think they would be able to produce the original. I have also SARed egg, but they have nothing on their records. Maybe you could try with a SAR to your OC?

[Bazooka Boo]

Send them a CPR31.14 request..http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part31.htm

[NorthernQuarter]

Hi

 

Just started reading your thread NQ. I am also dealing with CQ. I've had a similar letter to yours back in early 2010 and have just received a Statutory Demand which I intend to try to get set aside. Is your OC with Egg? Mine is and is from 2000 so is also missing prescribed terms. It's disappointing to hear from others that judges are enforcing these. I don't think I will go to court as I would be terrified and totally brain frozen and be useless with the defence.

 

I also respond to every letter they send out and keep copies. Copies of my CCA seem to from microfiche, I don't think they would be able to produce the original. I have also SARed egg, but they have nothing on their records. Maybe you could try with a SAR to your OC?

 

Hi Bobity,

 

Sounds as though we may soon be in a very similar situation though my OC was with Halfax PLC. I think Capquest are panicing in my case as in early 2012 the alleged debt will become staue barred anyway.

 

I don't know your personal circumstances but if you genuinely don't believe you owe them a penny like myself then I would certainly encourage you to fight these clowns, you don't even have to represent yourself, a friend or family member can speak for you. In my case should they take me to the courts I have a friend who is a lawyer at a top legal firm who is willing to help me if needs be (I've never been to court or in trouble in my life so share your apprehension).

 

I think I've had pretty much every trick via letter they have to offer, they gave up for a year, but one thing I do know is unless they do decide to take this to the court they will not stop sending out letters, they have never had my phone number so everything has been recorded and given the many inaccuracies, bare faced lies and complete disregard for what is legal I don't think personally they would have a leg to stand on.

[NorthernQuarter]

UPDATE;

 

Well I sent a letter back to CapQuest basically questioning everything in the letter they sent me, particularly the debt assignment and who actually owns it. They wrote back and blamed it on a clerical error (yeah right) and reiterated that although they appreciate the CCA (from 2002 doesn't contain any of the per-described terms I would have had plenty of time to contest this with the OC and they still believe it to be enforceable and sent me yet another copy of it with T&C and statements and passed it back to collections.

 

 

Here's what the letter said;

 

CapQuest Investments Ltd purchased the above referenced account on (Date) from OC with an outstanding balance of (Balance). CapQuest were not made aware of any dispute or issue with your account and were acting in good faith based on the information provided by the OC

 

With regards to CapQuest's letter dated (Date), please accept my apologies for the clerical error which has occurred with reagrds to it's content. I can confirm a claim would be issued in the name of CapQuest Investments Ltd and not OC as incorrectly stated in their letter. Thank you for advising me of this matter and please let me assure you this error has been recognised and rectified.

 

Please find enclosed copies of the Notice of Assignment, copy of your agreement, both orginal and current T&C together with statements of your account.

 

I appreciate that you believe the Agreement supplied is non compliant with the Consumer Credit Act of 1974. However, it is likely you would have recieved a copy of the Agreement when your card was issued and consequently CapQuest believe you would have had every opportunity to raise any issue or concerns you may have had in relation yo your agreement prior to use of your card to make purchases.

 

You have noted that the T&C are not complaint as they were forwarded to you on a separate document to the copy of the Agreement (I didn't in my recent letter but ok). Please be advised that the copy of Agreement may refer to the prescribed terms for the above referenced account; however it is sufficient for you to be provided with a copy of the full terms and conditions upon signing the Agreement.

 

In Carey vs HSBC the judge advised that the documents under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 do not need to be provided on a single piece of paper does not need to be a single piece of paper (This was how it was written) and there does not need to be a physical connection between the several pieces of paper for them to constitute a single document. The Judge in this case further advised that where the applicants signature and the prescribed terms appear on seperate pieces of paper, the questions to whether those pieces of paper together constitute one document is a question of substance and not form. You would have been provided a set of terms and conditions with the application form and would have been expected to read them before signing the Credit Agreement.

 

As advised previously OC reserves the right to distribute your data in the event of your account entering into default. By you signing the Agreement you have agreed to be legally bound bi its terms therefore you have given permission for your data to be processed by third parties if OC outsource your account to one of therir external agents. Due to you signing the Agreement and agreeing to be bound by their terms, we nor OC are in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (I didn't mention anything about this aspect in my letter either).

 

CapQuest are satisfied that the documentation supplied to you is enforceable (Well I am not satisfied it is) . Therefore I have returned your account to CapQuest's Collections Department to establish contact with you to discuss repayment of your account.

 

Does anyone have any suggestions on how I should respond to this, as it seems it just going round in circles.

 

Much appreciate your help and advise.

 

NQ

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Have read that through a couple of times

and I think they are correct in their statements in the reply,

please refresh my memory on the original debt.

[desperati]

subbing

[NorthernQuarter]

It refers to a credit card debt from 2002. Although they state in this recent letter that they bought the debt in 2008, they actually bought it in 2006 and I have the letters from them filed to prove that (They appear to change dates and information all the time). I requested a copy of the CCA back in early 2009 and when they finally sent it out it didn't have any of the per-described terms within it. They have ever since continued to send out the same document along with account statements and T&C. They themselves agreed in writing that the CCA was not enforceable, however they felt supported with a copy of the T&C and statements that it could be taken to court which thus far they have not done. They stopped all contact for almost a year between Aug 2010-July 2011 so I thought they had given up, however we're now back to the same circle of letters going back and forth. As the CCA predates the repeal of s.127 which states that s.127 is not repealed for agreements entered into before 6th April 2007 then as far as I'm aware (though I may well be wrong) this remains unenforceable and effectively becomes statue barred in around July 2012. I had a long dispute with the OC before this was sold.

 

NQ

 

Have read that through a couple of times

and I think they are correct in their statements in the reply,

please refresh my memory on the original debt.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi NQ, when was the last payment made

or any written acknowledge actually made??

[NorthernQuarter]

The last payment to the OC was made in 2005 then my dispute began with them, in 2006 I put all my debts into PayPlan and eventually paid the others off, one payment was made by PayPlan to this account in 2006 before I told them to remove this account from the payment list as I still believed I had cause to dispute the debt, the debt was then sold to CapQuest and no further payment has been made since then.

 

NQ

 

Hi NQ, when was the last payment made

or any written acknowledge actually made??

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Shame about the payplan would have been all over by now.

[NorthernQuarter]

Tell me about it

 

Any idea's on what I should do next, given the information what is your opinion on this, do you believe they actually have case with the various changes in the legal arena in concern to CCA's. Does the Consumer Credit Act mean anything any longer in terms of the per-described terms being required for agreements entered into before 2007, could they actually get this enforced with a non complaint CCA supported by statements and T&C's?

 

Thanks for your help

 

NQ

 

Shame about the payplan would have been all over by now.

[brokebutnotbeatn]

You could respond that as you are sure they are aware Carey cannot be use for varied agreements and ask them therefore to advise under CPUTR 2008 if they have a copy of the original agreement that as a claimant they would need to reley on in court - or words to that effect. See the sticky on CPUTR???

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The changes in case law are what they

are referring to, an agreement does not have

to be all one one page anymore a '' Document''

can consist of many connected pages.

 

The reconstituted agreement is just this, an if supported

with statements showing activity on the account and or

as I've seen a signed application form have been accepted,

and also the fact that a creditor can state that for an account

to have been opened and the facility utilised by the debtor

an agreement/contract must have been signed.

If the case did get to court they have of course the burden

of strict proof, but you would need an excellent defence,

The balance of probabilities would enter into the case,and

so of course does the attitude of the judge on the day.

 

All this has thrown the the old theories and arguments

on the validity, or non compliance of CCA's into some disarray .

[Bobity]

Hi

Just re-reading your thread - in the letter from CQ they say they that they sent you 'original and current terms and conditions'.

 

Can they do that? Surely current terms and conditions have nothing to do with the alleged debt as you wouldn't have seen them or signed them as they weren't in existence?

 

I've had a similar letter, not arguing the point just providing the agreement, t&cs and statements (yet again, third copy {think there is a 4th waiting for me}. t&cs only turning up in the last copy for the first time. I don't believe any terms and conditions were ever sent out to me at the time).

 

B

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The TERMS & CONDITIONS ARE THE

FOUNDATION OF ANY CREDIT AGREEMENT,without

them there is no agreement.