Cap1 & CCA return

[angry cat]

Well, I am EVEN MORE confused now!

 

AC has stated that TS are relying on section 7 to show that MS have not complied, but you are now saying that MS are relying on section 7 to show that they have!! :???:

 

Regards, Pam

 

Your are confused, I am confused...perhaps we are all confused!

 

I have been pressing TS to prosecute.

 

At first, TS stated that they were unable to prosecute re enforcement, due to a lack of established case law, TS then made an about turn by informing me that MS based their argument upon the 1983 Regs. regualtion 3. However, because TS has a different opinion which is reliant upon the 1983 Regs regulation 7, that they cannot enforce due to the differences of opinion/argument between TS & MS!

 

Basically, I am piggy in the middle here as I have nothing in writing from TS and nothing in writing from MS about their differnces of opinion regarding compliance. Both TS & I are waiting for the promised letter from MS, which if and when it comes may prove illuminating for us all. Don't hold your breath though Guy's, as any letter from MS will be written in such an ingenious manner in order that MS will avoid incrimination. Only time will tell and...I await the postperson with 'Crained Neck'.

 

Love AC

[ian1969uk]

The situation described above with Nat West would seem to present a perfect opportunity to keep up the pressure with a Section 85 default notice. After all, if they admit they can't find the original agreement, then how did they find it when S85 required them to send a copy of it with any re-issued card?

[ripoffstopper]

Thanks everyone, thats most useful. I will send a letter to NatWest and Capital One on Tuesday along the lines that Rhia has suggested.

Cheers ROS

[Rhia]

Your are confused, I am confused...perhaps we are all confused!

 

I have been pressing TS to prosecute.

 

At first, TS stated that they were unable to prosecute re enforcement, due to a lack of established case law, TS then made an about turn by informing me that MS based their argument upon the 1983 Regs. regualtion 3. However, because TS has a different opinion which is reliant upon the 1983 Regs regulation 7, that they cannot enforce due to the differences of opinion/argument between TS & MS!

 

Basically, I am piggy in the middle here as I have nothing in writing from TS and nothing in writing from MS about their differnces of opinion regarding compliance. Both TS & I are waiting for the promised letter from MS, which if and when it comes may prove illuminating for us all. Don't hold your breath though Guy's, as any letter from MS will be written in such an ingenious manner in order that MS will avoid incrimination. Only time will tell and...I await the postperson with 'Crained Neck'.

 

Love AC

 

The only action that is really open to you is to issue an N1 for non compliance under CCA. TS really should do this but they seem so useless when the consumer asks for help in these cases. There is nothing to stop you starting a civil action and that might concentrate MS's mind somewhat as they would have to comply or explain to the court.

It is about time TS stopped just looking at illegal car clocking and underweight bananas and took on some of the most appalling crimnal activity which is going on all the time across the UK and no-one is doing anything much to stop it.

[pford]

The only action that is really open to you is to issue an N1 for non compliance under CCA. TS really should do this but they seem so useless when the consumer asks for help in these cases. There is nothing to stop you starting a civil action and that might concentrate MS's mind somewhat as they would have to comply or explain to the court.

It is about time TS stopped just looking at illegal car clocking and underweight bananas and took on some of the most appalling crimnal activity which is going on all the time across the UK and no-one is doing anything much to stop it.

 

ermm ye we all know what is right but try telling ts that.

 

But can't agree with you more it is about time they started doing something about it

[pford]

got a letter ready for posting is it any good? in reply to their lastest responce.

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/21097-help-no-response-copy-7.html#post798739

[angry cat]

Thank you Rhia and davefirewalker for your replies I quote..."It is not that I am refusing to send you a copy of the original agreement, the reason I am not able to send this to you is because I have not been able to locate it. After a number of extensive searches, it has not been possible to find the original agreement for this account" ... and this was signed by a senior customer advisor.

 

Hi ripoffstopper,

 

I believe that the above statement may well assist you!

 

Because, in my case MS included the following in their Defence 1 July 2006, of my County Court Claim against them for penalty charges:-

 

"As at the time of filing this Defence, the Defendant has been unable to locate a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant. A copy of the current Morgan Stanley Gold Card Terms & Conditions is attached for reference purposes only. The Defendant intends to amend this Defence by attaching a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant once such document is located by the Defendant".

 

(***PLEASE NOTE THE ABOVE "ONCE SUCH DOCUMENT IS LOCATED")

 

Of course MS never amended their Defence, because they settled out of Court.

 

MS did not have a copy of the agreement last July 06, they could not supply it last August 06 at the end of the timescale allowed under the CCA 1974.

However all of a sudden after reporting them to TS, they came up with the 'knocked up' generic mailer in February '07...think about it!

 

AC

[zubo]

got a letter ready for posting is it any good? in reply to their lastest responce.

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/21097-help-no-response-copy-7.html#post798739

 

 

its bloody good mate - like how you intertwined yours with Mr Spud's words...

 

Z

[un1boy]

The only action that is really open to you is to issue an N1 for non compliance under CCA. TS really should do this but they seem so useless when the consumer asks for help in these cases. There is nothing to stop you starting a civil action and that might concentrate MS's mind somewhat as they would have to comply or explain to the court.

It is about time TS stopped just looking at illegal car clocking and underweight bananas and took on some of the most appalling crimnal activity which is going on all the time across the UK and no-one is doing anything much to stop it.

 

Any idea on what to put in POCs?

[Josie8]

Thank you Rhia and davefirewalker for your replies I quote..."It is not that I am refusing to send you a copy of the original agreement, the reason I am not able to send this to you is because I have not been able to locate it. After a number of extensive searches, it has not been possible to find the original agreement for this account" ... and this was signed by a senior customer advisor.

 

Hi ripoffstopper,

 

I believe that the above statement may well assist you!

 

Because, in my case MS included the following in their Defence 1 July 2006, of my County Court Claim against them for penalty charges:-

 

"As at the time of filing this Defence, the Defendant has been unable to locate a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant. A copy of the current Morgan Stanley Gold Card Terms & Conditions is attached for reference purposes only. The Defendant intends to amend this Defence by attaching a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant once such document is located by the Defendant".

 

(***PLEASE NOTE THE ABOVE "ONCE SUCH DOCUMENT IS LOCATED")

 

Of course MS never amended their Defence, because they settled out of Court.

 

MS did not have a copy of the agreement last July 06, they could not supply it last August 06 at the end of the timescale allowed under the CCA 1974.

However all of a sudden after reporting them to TS, they came up with the 'knocked up' generic mailer in February '07...think about it!

 

AC

 

 

T'is fraud me dear and also an apparant attempt to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception through production of a fraudulent instrument...................maybe a visit to the local rozzers would be in order??

[elizabeth1]

 

 

T'is fraud me dear and also an apparant attempt to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception through production of a fraudulent instrument...................maybe a visit to the local rozzers would be in order??

 

 

I couldn't agree more!! Seems to be the pattern with many documents that are being issued !!

 

We'd be in big trouble if we did this as individuals - makes me wonder how these comapnies are getting away with it on such a large scale? It is fraud and meddling with Docs isn't what these companies ought to be doing?

[paulwlton]

 

 

I couldn't agree more!! Seems to be the pattern with many documents that are being issued !!

 

We'd be in big trouble if we did this as individuals - makes me wonder how these comapnies are getting away with it on such a large scale? It is fraud and meddling with Docs isn't what these companies ought to be doing?

 

Highly relevant at the mo.

 

Paul

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/11427-walton-rbos-13.html

[angry cat]

Well, you know what they say...

"You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people, all of the time!"

 

paul, I note that your issue started around the same time as mine, last July '06.

 

Something must be done about these white collar Bandits, who are blatantly breaking the law, as well as deceiving the vulnerable consumer.

 

If TS are more interested in prosecuting the guy down the market who is selling bent runner beans/asparagus that do not conform with EU regs., (meaning they must be straight with no irregularities) or the other vendor who is selling his bananas by the pound and opposed to the kilo, then something is very clearly wrong!!!

 

AC

[paulwlton]

Well, you know what they say...

"You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people, all of the time!"

 

paul, I note that your issue started around the same time as mine, last July '06.

 

Something must be done about these white collar Bandits, who are blatantly breaking the law, as well as deceiving the vulnerable consumer.

 

If TS are more interested in prosecuting the guy down the market who is selling bent runner beans/asparagus that do not conform with EU regs., (meaning they must be straight with no irregularities) or the other vendor who is selling his bananas by the pound and opposed to the kilo, then something is very clearly wrong!!!

 

AC

 

I think most who have contributed to this thread would agree that mischief is widespread throughout the finance industry and it appears the more repuatable lenders are involved too.

 

Paul

[InKogneeToh]

 

If TS are more interested in prosecuting the guy down the market who is selling bent runner beans/asparagus that do not conform with EU regs., (meaning they must be straight with no irregularities) or the other vendor who is selling his bananas by the pound and opposed to the kilo, then something is very clearly wrong!!!

 

AC

 

TS will not take on the BIG BOYS!

[un1boy]

TS will not take on the BIG BOYS!

 

 

Nor will the CPS!!!

[JonCris]

Nor will the CPS!!!

 

Well they all need jobs when they leave!

[angry cat]

Well they all need jobs when they leave!

 

Also...the Information Commissioners Office appears indifferent!

 

I was absolutely astonished by what the Information Commissioners Office said to me last week:(

 

I rang the Information Commissioners Office to complain about MS, who have re-registered the Unlawful Default against me with Equifax (MS removed all payment history data after they settled my penalty charges claim)

 

I explained that MS should not be processing my data to third parties as they are unable to provide me the true executed agreement and that MS have committed a Criminal Offence under S78 CCA 1974. I went on to state that the Offence has been reported to TS who are still investigating.

 

Now to the crux of what Information Commissioners Office said to me-

"Surely MS must be able to send to a template copy of what the agreement would have looked like"...my mouth dropped open with amazement as the full meaning of what they were saying hit me!!!!

The conversation went on and all that the Information Commissioners Office could suggest was that I should submit a complaint form to them re: the processing. However, please be aware that it will take us at least 3 months before we even look at your complaint, as we are very busy. I bet they are.

 

I personally am not prepared to be fobbed off by these quaisi/qwango gov. departments, there must be justice obtainable somewhere.

 

AC

[JonCris]

The ICO the OFT and the BO are a complete and utter waste of space.

 

The nonsense you where told does not come as the slightest surprise to those using this site

[angry cat]

Sorry to be a pain guys!

but I'm having a bit of a barny with Egg as well!

 

Could you please check out the three following items that were sent to me in response to my Egg CCA Request, do they have all the prescribed terms and note on page 2 they signed 2 days prior to me

No1

 

 

Page 2

 

 

Note the first 2 pages are copies for a Boots advantage card and the doc has been overlaid onto egg paper. Egg signed 2 days prior 9 July 2001

 

Last page DD instructions

 

 

All that I have been sent are the three pages.

 

Are they coorect have egg complies? I have a nagging feeling that something is wrong.

 

 

AC

[un1boy]

Sorry to be a pain guys!

but I'm having a bit of a barny with Egg as well!

 

Could you please check out the three following items that were sent to me in response to my Egg CCA Request, do they have all the prescribed terms and note on page 2 they signed 2 days prior to me

No1

 

 

Page 2

 

 

Note the first 2 pages are copies for a Boots advantage card and the doc has been overlaid onto egg paper. Egg signed 2 days prior 9 July 2001

 

Last page DD instructions

 

 

All that I have been sent are the three pages.

 

Are they coorect have egg complies? I have a nagging feeling that something is wrong.

 

 

AC

 

Don't fprget they are meant to have sent you a copy of the T&C's at the time AND a statement of account!!

[zubo]

Don't fprget they are meant to have sent you a copy of the T&C's at the time AND a statement of account!!

 

There are also no default details.

 

I would reject this as NOT meeting the requirements of the CCA and ask them to fully comply without detailing what is wrong. In particular, I suspect that this like mine and others are reconstructed agreements - in particular I would hold the date differences as a particular pointer to that and in my book makes this agreement at best improperly executed and at worst likely to be fraudulent. But I would hold that ace back.

 

Remind them also that they are out of time, in default etc and all the consequences of that...

 

Z

[angry cat]

There are also no default details.

 

I would reject this as NOT meeting the requirements of the CCA and ask them to fully comply without detailing what is wrong. In particular, I suspect that this like mine and others are reconstructed agreements - in particular I would hold the date differences as a particular pointer to that and in my book makes this agreement at best improperly executed and at worst likely to be fraudulent. But I would hold that ace back.

 

Remind them also that they are out of time, in default etc and all the consequences of that...

 

Z

 

 

Thanks zubo,

I already have done just that.

 

However, the egg complaince dept., ignored my letter! and now they have set DLC plus APLINS solicitors upon me, GROAN.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/4267-angry-cat-egg-egg-9.html#post784900

 

AC

[JonCris]

Write to Aplins Solicitors & tell them their clients are in default & they better back off as their conduct can now be construed as criminal harassment

[zubo]

Write to Aplins Solicitors & tell them their clients are in default & they better back off as their conduct can now be construed as criminal harassment

 

Absolutely, they have no rights to enforce the agreement whilst in default - they have committed an offence in doing so.

 

Harrassment is another offence they will be committing.

 

Z