Cap1 & CCA return

[pudsters14]

Can anyone have a look at my thread, have rcvd some wierd letters from MBNA on Mr Pudsters account http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/77464-pudsters14-mbna.html#post678400

 

thanx

 

Pudsters14

x x x x x x

[hisholinessthepope]

Had a quick read looks brilliant Peter! I will print it off and read it all properly later (only way I can keep up on this thread is to print each finished page and read it in hard copy lol).

 

Also I can then keep the best bits for easier look up later.

 

Well done again Peter and others.

[rory32]

the fowling four

Another of your freudian slips Peter

 

Like the letter though.

[Peterbard]

Another of your freudian slips Peter

 

Like the letter though.

HI

 

Correccted

 

Thanks for that

 

Regards

Petr

[SteveH2508]

The Rt. Honourable Ian McCartney MP

Department of Trade and Industry

1 Victoria Street

London

SW1H QET

 

Dear Sir

 

Ref: Refusal or inability of the OFT to enforce defaults and offences under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I write to you in a matter of great concern regarding the above.

Currently there are a number of creditors that blatantly disregard the requests made by members of the public to provide information as regulated by section 180 of the Act.

We have a number of records of cases where creditors have failed to comply with the copy of documents regulations and in particular sections 77-78 of the Act and are currently in the position where they are not only in default by non-compliance but have committed an offence.

The designated procedure in these cases is to report the offence to the OFT for investigation and subsequent prosecution if required.

We find however that the response we receive from the OFT is that they cannot afford or do not wish to pursue the action.

The result of this is that the creditor continues to pursue the debt unlawfully causing great distress to the debtor.

Brief examples of cases currently in this position are detailed below. We have many examples of this inaction by the OFT but perhaps the following four will suffice to prove the point.

 

1)

Type of request section 78

 

04 July 2006

Request for copy of agreement received by Morgan Stanley,

 

14 July 2006 No response received within the period as per section 78 of the act the creditor are now in default

 

04 August 2006

No response received within 42 days - Creditor has now committed an Offence

 

Creditor continues unlawful pursuance of the alleged debt, whilst in dispute, through multiple debt collection agents, who use harassing and covert tactics. Therefore, I make a formal complaint to Consumer Direct Ref: 127558

 

Consumer Direct pass my complaint to Kent TS

 

Case Number #127558

 

16 November 2006

I move house, case no. 127558 passed to Eastbourne, Sussex TS

 

 

16 February 2007

Letter received from MS dated (after months of investigation by TS) enclosing a credit card mailer, stating "enclose copy of the executed credit agreement”, which does not meet any of the conditions of the request made and is not a copy of the credit an agreement..

 

01 June 2006, Ms. Sandra Thornton, Fair Trading Officer, Trading Standards, East Sussex, states that no action against Morgan Stanley will be taken.

 

 

2)

 

Section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

1st March 2007 Date Request sent

 

No response within 12 working days, they are now in default

 

No response within 42 days they have now committed an offence

 

23rd April 2007 Date default reported to MBNA

 

18 May 2007 Date default reported to OFT

 

 

31 May 2007 Date default reported St Helens Trading Standards

 

NO response from OFT to date

 

Whilst in default and contrary to the Consumer Credit Act the Creditor

- Continuing to charge interest

- Continuing to demand payment

- Telephone calls demanding payment

 

I am still awaiting any feedback or conformation of complaints from OFT.

 

 

3)

 

Received default notice from Lowell Finance

 

2nd February 2007:

I contacted Lowell finance by phone as I had no knowledge of any agreement with them.

 

They said debt originated from earlier debt they had bought from bought from Capital one Ltd.

 

Sent Capital One a request for Copy agreement under section 78 of Act

 

12 working days no response, they are now in default

Reported default to Trading Standards Tameside

 

20th February 2007

Wrote to creditor stating that they were in default and were not to pursue the “debt" under section 78(4)

 

Trading standards said that this was not their area and to contact the FSA

 

The FSA said that it was definitely the remit of the OFT and gave me the number of Consumer Direct Tameside,

 

Creditor continued to harass for payment

 

42 days passed still no response from Capital One or Consumer Direct

 

Current position:

Default for agreement is still on the register and Lowell Finance still pursuing “Debt,”

 

I note from reading your annual reports that there have been no prosecutions under section 774(b) or 78(6)b on recent record.

I know from my work with various voluntary organisations including the Consumer Action Group that this is contrary to the number of complaints that are placed.

 

The last example is of a request made to the Creditor under the 1998 Data Protection Act with similar results

 

01.03.07 Capital One sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) ( Subject Access request under the 1998 Data protection Act) received 02.03.07. Protracted correspondence from this period.

 

01.05.07 Again reminded them that they had not sent Agreement.

 

16.05.07 Capital One advisor called me regarding the account and I asked him where the Agreement was he said “he had got it there and would send it out to me.

 

23.05.07 Received document that did not comply to the request made under

the Act.

24.05.07 Complaint to Nottinghamshire Trading Standards

 

25.05.07 Email from Nottinghamshire Trading Standards referring me to Consumer Direct

 

25.05.07 Complaint to Consumer Direct

 

30.05.07 Email from Consumer Direct stating that the query is out of the scope of Consumer Direct and Trading Standards regarding the breaches committed by Capital One and was referred to FOS and Information Commissioners Office.

 

Complaint Number WM-CC-124282.

Complaints had already been lodged with FOS and Information Commissioners Office on ` 25.05.07

 

I am sure that you agree that consumer confidence in the regulation of credit providers is a major factor in ensuring the health of the commercial sector in this country.

 

I see that in your annual reports for 2007 objective one, you state:

 

” We will develop further, through casework practice, negotiation and consultation with others, our policy on remedies, in particular relating to settlement of public enforcement cases and redress for the victims of unlawful behaviour.”

 

And in objective four,

 

"We will work with co-enforcers and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive policy on the enforcement of consumer law. In particular we will continue to work with the Financial Services Authority on our Joint Action Plan and with TSS to ensure UK-wide consistency”

 

Would you please advise on what enforcement action someone who is in the position of a debtor who is refused their statutory rights under sections 77-78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are, and in particular in particular:

 

1) To whom should the complaint for none compliance be made TSO or FSA?

 

2) What redress does the consumer have if these requests are ignored?

 

The recent amendments to the Act (2006 CCA) regarding the compulsory issuance of annual statements under section 77(a) and 78(a) in additiont to the other measures in the new Act to increase transparency of operation in the consumer credit market are widely welcomed. I am sure you agree however that without the required regulating and enforcement procedures in place they are going to be as ineffective as the earlier legislation.

 

I await your earliest response

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Pete F Bardsley

(Consumer Advice Group)

 

Peter

 

A few typos and grammar corrections for you. I like the purpose though.

 

Go for it!

[monopoly23]

At the end of the paragraph titled and in objective four, it says in particular in particular

[Peterbard]

The Rt. Honourable Ian McCartney MP

Department of Trade and Industry

1 Victoria Street

London

SW1H QET

 

Dear Sir

 

Ref: Refusal or inability of the OFT to enforce defaults and offences under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I write to you in a matter of great concern regarding the above.

Currently there are a number of creditors that blatantly disregard the requests made by members of the public to provide information as regulated by section 180 of the Act.

We have a number of records of cases where creditors have failed to comply with the copy of documents regulations and in particular sections 77-78 of the Act and are currently in the position where they are not only in default by non-compliance but have committed an offence.

The designated procedure in these cases is to report the offence to the OFT for investigation and subsequent prosecution if required.

We find however that the response we receive from the OFT is that they cannot afford or do not wish to pursue the action.

The result of this is that the creditor continues to pursue the debt unlawfully causing great distress to the debtor.

Brief examples of cases currently in this position are detailed below. We have many examples of this inaction by the OFT but perhaps the following four will suffice to prove the point.

 

1)

Type of request section 78

 

04 July 2006

Request for copy of agreement received by Morgan Stanley,

 

14 July 2006 No response received within the period as per section 78 of the act the creditor are now in default

 

04 August 2006

No response received within 42 days - Creditor has now committed an Offence

 

Creditor continues unlawful pursuance of the alleged debt, whilst in dispute, through multiple debt collection agents, who use harassing and covert tactics. Therefore, I make a formal complaint to Consumer Direct Ref: 127558

 

Consumer Direct pass my complaint to Kent TS

 

Case Number #127558

 

16 November 2006

I move house, case no. 127558 passed to Eastbourne, Sussex TS

 

 

16 February 2007

Letter received from MS dated (after months of investigation by TS) enclosing a credit card mailer, stating "enclose copy of the executed credit agreement”, which does not meet any of the conditions of the request made and is not a copy of the credit an agreement..

 

01 June 2006, Ms. Sandra Thornton, Fair Trading Officer, Trading Standards, East Sussex, states that no action against Morgan Stanley will be taken.

 

 

2)

 

Section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

1st March 2007 Date Request sent

 

No response within 12 working days, they are now in default

 

No response within 42 days they have now committed an offence

 

23rd April 2007 Date default reported to MBNA

 

18 May 2007 Date default reported to OFT

 

 

31 May 2007 Date default reported St Helens Trading Standards

 

NO response from OFT to date

 

Whilst in default and contrary to the Consumer Credit Act the Creditor

- Continuing to charge interest

- Continuing to demand payment

- Telephone calls demanding payment

 

I am still awaiting any feedback or conformation of complaints from OFT.

 

 

3)

 

Received default notice from Lowell Finance

 

2nd February 2007:

I contacted Lowell finance by phone as I had no knowledge of any agreement with them.

 

They said debt originated from earlier debt they had bought from bought from Capital one Ltd.

 

Sent Capital One a request for Copy agreement under section 78 of Act

 

12 working days no response, they are now in default

Reported default to Trading Standards Tameside

 

20th February 2007

Wrote to creditor stating that they were in default and were not to pursue the “debt" under section 78(4)

 

Trading standards said that this was not their area and to contact the FSA

 

The FSA said that it was definitely the remit of the OFT and gave me the number of Consumer Direct Tameside,

 

Creditor continued to harass for payment

 

42 days passed still no response from Capital One or Consumer Direct

 

Current position:

Default for agreement is still on the register and Lowell Finance still pursuing “Debt,”

 

I note from reading your annual reports that there have been no prosecutions under section 774(b) or 78(6)b on recent record.

I know from my work with various voluntary organisations including the Consumer Action Group that this is contrary to the number of complaints that are placed.

 

The last example is of a request made to the Creditor under the 1998 Data Protection Act with similar results

 

01.03.07 Capital One sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) ( Subject Access request under the 1998 Data protection Act) received 02.03.07. Protracted correspondence from this period.

 

01.05.07 Again reminded them that they had not sent Agreement.

 

16.05.07 Capital One advisor called me regarding the account and I asked him where the Agreement was he said “he had got it there and would send it out to me.

 

23.05.07 Received document that did not comply to the request made under

the Act.

24.05.07 Complaint to Nottinghamshire Trading Standards

 

25.05.07 Email from Nottinghamshire Trading Standards referring me to Consumer Direct

 

25.05.07 Complaint to Consumer Direct

 

30.05.07 Email from Consumer Direct stating that the query is out of the scope of Consumer Direct and Trading Standards regarding the breaches committed by Capital One and was referred to FOS and Information Commissioners Office.

 

Complaint Number WM-CC-124282.

Complaints had already been lodged with FOS and Information Commissioners Office on ` 25.05.07

 

I am sure that you agree that consumer confidence in the regulation of credit providers is a major factor in ensuring the health of the commercial sector in this country.

 

I see that in your annual reports for 2007 objective one, you state:

 

” We will develop further, through casework practice, negotiation and consultation with others, our policy on remedies, in particular relating to settlement of public enforcement cases and redress for the victims of unlawful behaviour.”

 

And in objective four,

 

"We will work with co-enforcers and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive policy on the enforcement of consumer law. In particular we will continue to work with the Financial Services Authority on our Joint Action Plan and with TSS to ensure UK-wide consistency”

 

Would you please advise on what enforcement action someone who is in the position of a debtor who is refused their statutory rights under sections 77-78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are, and in particular in particular:

 

1) To whom should the complaint for none compliance be made TSO or FSA?

 

2) What redress does the consumer have if these requests are ignored?

 

The recent amendments to the Act (2006 CCA) regarding the compulsory issuance of annual statements under section 77(a) and 78(a) in additiont to the other measures in the new Act to increase transparency of operation in the consumer credit market are widely welcomed. I am sure you agree however that without the required regulating and enforcement procedures in place they are going to be as ineffective as the earlier legislation.

 

I await your earliest response

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

Pete F Bardsley

(Consumer Advice Group)

 

Peter

 

A few typos and grammar corrections for you. I like the purpose though.

 

Go for it!

 

Thanks mk2

 

Department of Trade and Industry

1 Victoria Street

London

SW1H QET

Dear Sir

 

Ref: Refusal or inability of the OFT to enforce defaults and offences under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I write to you in a matter of great concern regarding the above.

Currently there are a number of creditors that blatantly disregard the requests made by members of the public to provide information as regulated by section 180 of the Act.

 

We have a number of records of cases where creditors have failed to comply with the The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations and in particular sections 77-78 of the Act.

These companies are currently in the position where they are not only in default by non-compliance to secton78-78 but have committed an offence.

The designated procedure in these cases is to report the offence to the OFT but this has been proved to be less than satisfactory.

They firstly have to be badgerd into taking an interest and most advisers seem unaware of the legislation. When we do eventually manage to register a complaint, the response we receive is that they cannot afford, or do not wish to, pursue the action.

The result of this is that the creditor continues to pursue the debt unlawfully causing great distress to the debtor.

Brief examples of cases currently in this position are detailed below. We have many examples of this inaction by the OFT but perhaps the following four will suffice to prove the point.

 

1)

Type of request section 78

 

04 July 2006

Request for copy of agreement received by Morgan Stanley,

 

14 July 2006 No response received within the period as per section 78 of the act the creditor are now in default

 

04 August 2006

No response received within 42 days - Creditor has now committed an Offence

 

Creditor continues unlawful pursuance of the alleged debt, whilst in dispute, through multiple debt collection agents, who use harassing and covert tactics. Therefore, I make a formal complaint to Consumer Direct Ref: 127558

 

Consumer Direct pass my complaint to Kent TS

 

Case Number #127558

 

16 November 2006

I move house, case no. 127558 passed to Eastbourne, Sussex TS

 

 

16 February 2007

Letter received from MS dated (after months of investigation by TS) enclosing a credit card mailer, stating "enclose copy of the executed credit agreement”, which does not meet any of the conditions of the request made and is not a copy of the credit an agreement..

 

01 June 2006, Ms. Sandra Thornton, Fair Trading Officer, Trading Standards, East Sussex, states that no action against Morgan Stanley will be taken.

 

 

2)

 

Section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

1st March 2007 Date Request sent

 

No response within 12 working days, they are now in default

 

No response within 42 days they have now committed an offence

 

23rd April 2007 Date default reported to MBNA

 

18 May 2007 Date default reported to OFT

 

 

31 May 2007 Date default reported St Helens Trading Standards

 

NO response from OFT to date

 

Whilst in default and contrary to the Consumer Credit Act the Creditor

- Continuing to charge interest

- Continuing to demand payment

- Telephone calls demanding payment

 

I am still awaiting any feedback or conformation of complaints from OFT.

 

 

3)

 

Received default notice from Lowell Finance

 

2nd February 2007:

I contacted Lowell finance by phone as I had no knowledge of any agreement with them.

 

They said debt originated from earlier debt they had bought from bought from Capital one Ltd.

 

Sent Capital One a request for Copy agreement under section 78 of Act

 

12 working days no response, they are now in default

Reported default to Trading Standards Tameside

 

20th February 2007

Wrote to creditor stating that they were in default and were not to pursue the “debt" under section 78(4)

 

Trading standards said that this was not their area and to contact the FSA

 

The FSA said that it was definitely the remit of the OFT and gave me the number of Consumer Direct Tameside,

 

Creditor continued to harass for payment

 

42 days passed still no response from Capital One or Consumer Direct

 

Current position:

Default for agreement is still on the register and Lowell Finance still pursuing “Debt,”

 

I note from reading your annual reports that there have been no prosecutions under section 774(b) or 78(6)b on recent record.

I know from my work with various voluntary organisations including the Consumer Action Group that this is contrary to the number of complaints that are placed.

 

The last example is of a request made to the Creditor under the 1998 Data Protection Act with similar results

 

01.03.07 Capital One sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) (Subject Access request under the 1998 Data protection Act) received 02.03.07.

Protracted correspondence from this period.

 

01.05.07:again reminded them that they had not sent Agreement.

 

16.05.07 Capital One advisor called me regarding the account and I asked him where the Agreement was he said “he had got it there and would send it out to me.

 

23.05.07 Received document that did not comply to the request made under

the Act.

24.05.07 Complaint to Nottinghamshire Trading Standards

 

25.05.07 Email from Nottinghamshire Trading Standards referring me to Consumer Direct

 

25.05.07 Complaint to Consumer Direct

 

30.05.07 Email from Consumer Direct stating that the query is out of the scope of Consumer Direct and Trading Standards regarding the breaches committed by Capital One and was referred to FOS and Information Commissioners Office.

 

Complaint Number: WM-CC-124282.

Complaints had already been lodged with FOS and Information Commissioners Office on ` 25.05.07

 

I am sure that you agree that consumer confidence in the regulation of credit providers is a major factor in ensuring the health of the commercial sector in this country.

 

I see that in your annual reports for 2007 objective one, you state:

 

” We will develop further, through casework practice, negotiation and consultation with others, our policy on remedies, in particular relating to settlement of public enforcement cases and redress for the victims of unlawful behaviour.”

 

And in objective four,

 

"We will work with co-enforcers and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive policy on the enforcement of consumer law. In particular we will continue to work with the Financial Services Authority on our Joint Action Plan and with TSS to ensure UK-wide consistency”

 

Would you please advise on what enforcement action someone who is in the position of a debtor who is refused their statutory rights under sections 77-78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are, and in particular:

 

1) To whom should the complaint for none compliance be made TSO or FSA?

 

2) What redress does the consumer have if these requests are ignored?

 

The recent amendments to the Act (2006 CCA) regarding the compulsory issuance of annual statements under section 77(a) and 78(a) in addition to the other measures in the new Act to increase transparency of operation in the consumer credit market are widely welcomed. I am sure you agree however that without the required regulating and enforcement procedures in place they are going to be as ineffective as the earlier legislation.

 

I await your earliest response

 

 

yours faithfully

 

 

 

Pete F Bardsley

(Consumer Advice Group)

[Peterbard]

At the end of the paragraph titled and in objective four, it says in particular in particular

HI#

 

Well spotted

corrected

 

Regards

Peter

[lookinforinfo]

Peter your letter is a very measured one and I can undeestand your

frustration with the regulating authorities inaction.

 

However, I cannot but wonder whether part of their inaction is due in no small

measure to the fact that when the original agreement is not produced, it

appears that the debtor ceases to continue paying off the debt.

 

It does seem extremely harsh that not only should the creditor perhaps make

a loss on the loan, but that we expect the OFT or whoever to punish them

further with a fine and a criminal record.

 

I may be wrong, but I suspect that when the CCA was originally drafted,

that it was never envisaged that so many executed agreements would be

unobtainable. Moreover, it may well be that the legislators expected many

debtors to continue paying off their debt even in the absence of said

agreement since they would be aware that there was an obligation at the

very least to honour their contract.

 

Given the seeming wholesale loss of the original contracts and the reneging,

if I can put it so strongly, of debtors when the OA is not forthcoming, is it

any surprise that companies are going unpunished by the governing bodies

when the Law appears to be so weighted [though I grant it was perhaps unwitting] in our favour at the moment.

[Peterbard]

Peter your letter is a very measured one and I can undeestand your

frustration with the regulating authorities inaction.

 

However, I cannot but wonder whether part of their inaction is due in no small

measure to the fact that when the original agreement is not produced, it

appears that the debtor ceases to continue paying off the debt.

 

It does seem extremely harsh that not only should the creditor perhaps make

a loss on the loan, but that we expect the OFT or whoever to punish them

further with a fine and a criminal record.

 

I may be wrong, but I suspect that when the CCA was originally drafted,

that it was never envisaged that so many executed agreements would be

unobtainable. Moreover, it may well be that the legislators expected many

debtors to continue paying off their debt even in the absence of said

agreement since they would be aware that there was an obligation at the

very least to honour their contract.

 

Given the seeming wholesale loss of the original contracts and the reneging,

if I can put it so strongly, of debtors when the OA is not forthcoming, is it

any surprise that companies are going unpunished by the governing bodies

when the Law appears to be so weighted [though I grant it was perhaps unwitting] in our favour at the moment.

Hi #

I do Take your point L and being an ex trader myself understand where you are coming from.

However if you read some of the reports on the OFT website i thnk you will see how heavilly they seem to take the interests of the creditor over those of the debtor.

It seems to me that the debtor has so few tools at his disposal if he wants them to take notice of his request that he must use whatever he can and if that involves withholding payment ,so be it.

It seems little enough to ask that a credtor should keep correct records of their transactions, that is all that is required of them.

I think when you think of the amount of money they make off us it is little enough to ask.

I must add that in my role as a Credit Union Chair i come across money lenders that charge redicuous rates of interest and secton 77 is the only means of putting matters straight, particularily when they invent their owninterest rates as they go along.

 

Best regards

Petr

[un1boy]

Peter your letter is a very measured one and I can undeestand your

frustration with the regulating authorities inaction.

 

However, I cannot but wonder whether part of their inaction is due in no small

measure to the fact that when the original agreement is not produced, it

appears that the debtor ceases to continue paying off the debt.

 

It does seem extremely harsh that not only should the creditor perhaps make

a loss on the loan, but that we expect the OFT or whoever to punish them

further with a fine and a criminal record.

 

I may be wrong, but I suspect that when the CCA was originally drafted,

that it was never envisaged that so many executed agreements would be

unobtainable. Moreover, it may well be that the legislators expected many

debtors to continue paying off their debt even in the absence of said

agreement since they would be aware that there was an obligation at the

very least to honour their contract.

 

Given the seeming wholesale loss of the original contracts and the reneging,

if I can put it so strongly, of debtors when the OA is not forthcoming, is it

any surprise that companies are going unpunished by the governing bodies

when the Law appears to be so weighted [though I grant it was perhaps unwitting] in our favour at the moment.

 

I understand what you are saying, but, the way these banks treat us is disgusting and for anyone (the OFT etc) to think that we would "honour" as contract with them is disgraceful - when do they treat us with respect?

 

At the end of the day, the CCA is there to protect the consumers, as is the OFT and if these companies are breaking the law then they deserve to reap the consequences, however "harsh" they may seem.

 

And, when they are racking in profits of over 7 billion pounds, it's not like they can't afford it!!

[ian1969uk]

Peter your letter is a very measured one and I can undeestand your

frustration with the regulating authorities inaction.

 

However, I cannot but wonder whether part of their inaction is due in no small

measure to the fact that when the original agreement is not produced, it

appears that the debtor ceases to continue paying off the debt.

 

It does seem extremely harsh that not only should the creditor perhaps make

a loss on the loan, but that we expect the OFT or whoever to punish them

further with a fine and a criminal record.

 

I may be wrong, but I suspect that when the CCA was originally drafted,

that it was never envisaged that so many executed agreements would be

unobtainable. Moreover, it may well be that the legislators expected many

debtors to continue paying off their debt even in the absence of said

agreement since they would be aware that there was an obligation at the

very least to honour their contract.

 

Given the seeming wholesale loss of the original contracts and the reneging,

if I can put it so strongly, of debtors when the OA is not forthcoming, is it

any surprise that companies are going unpunished by the governing bodies

when the Law appears to be so weighted [though I grant it was perhaps unwitting] in our favour at the moment.

 

Sorry, but you make it sound like the debtor stops paying and walks away, and the whole world is rosy.

 

In reality, they are still subject to huge amounts of harassment by the creditor and subsequent DCA's. They also have a default put onto their credit record which will mean credit is an absolute no-no for 6 years.

 

The odds are stacked so far in favour of the creditor it's unreal. Don't forget, they can whack up the interest rate whenever they feel like it for no apparent reason. They can change the credit limit at will. They can adjust the minimum payment on a whim.

 

Asking for the original agreement is the only real tool at the debtor's disposal. if the creditors, who make billions each year from these tactics and unlawful charges, can't be bothered to keep correct records and documents, then i for one am not going to feel in the slightest bit sorry for them.

[the main man]

Taken from their website

 

About the Office of Fair Trading

 

The OFT is the UK's consumer and competition authority. Our mission is to make markets work well for consumers.

We pursue this goal by:

• encouraging businesses to comply with competition and consumer law and to improve their trading practices through self-regulation
  
• acting decisively to stop hardcore or flagrant offenders
  
• studying markets and recommending action where required
  
• empowering consumers with the knowledge and skills to make informed choices and get the best value from markets, and helping them resolve problems with suppliers through Consumer Direct.

Was their "Mission" canceled ??

[lookinforinfo]

I think Peter understood what I was saying. I was looking at the situation

from the regulatory bodies point of view rather than our views on the forum.

 

Indeed I saw a Judge in his summing up in one case, point out the inequity of

the position as it now stands where non production of the original agreement automatically makes the debt unenforceable.

 

I don't think the legislators expected that so many creditors would be unable

to produce the original contracts-possibly a result of a misinterpretation of

the six year rule and the Data Protection Act. Perhaps when the finance

houses improve their record keeping, the OFT will take stronger action-

especially against the worst offenders-which tend to be the DCAs rather

than the original lenders. I for one won't be holding my breath.

 

.

[hisholinessthepope]

With so many creditors unable to produce the credit agreements that's all the MORE reason to have these people properly policed and accountable.

 

As for the regulatory bodies, there are about to be exposed for their own failings!

[out of cash]

well said couldnt agree more with you on this:D

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

The OFT are like the other so called regulators have been exposed as being as a much use a chocolate teapot.

 

As for the creditors they have introduced systems in order to save costs which completely disregard the CCA. For years they have relied on the ignorance of the consumer.

 

Thier unbridled avarice is now coming back to bite them as it has caused the ordinary consumers to fight back after aquiring the knowledge to do so.

 

For myself I have absolutely no sympathy for the creditors & if the can't get paid sobeit!

 

They have had their own way for far to long & before I hear the moral argument I would just say when they acquire some morals then I will care

[joneshousehold]

I think Peter understood what I was saying. I was looking at the situation

from the regulatory bodies point of view rather than our views on the forum.

 

Indeed I saw a Judge in his summing up in one case, point out the inequity of

the position as it now stands where non production of the original agreement automatically makes the debt unenforceable.

 

I don't think the legislators expected that so many creditors would be unable

to produce the original contracts-possibly a result of a misinterpretation of

the six year rule and the Data Protection Act. Perhaps when the finance

houses improve their record keeping, the OFT will take stronger action-

especially against the worst offenders-which tend to be the DCAs rather

than the original lenders. I for one won't be holding my breath.

 

.

 

I understand what you are saying but I equally think the legislators thought the mainstream credit industry would never be so reckless as to fail to comply with the basic legislation that has been in place for over 30 years. The punishments were envisaged for the small time lenders who employed strong arm tactics to enforce extortionate agreements. It is a sad fact (for them) that the credit industry thought it did not have to heed the same legislation.

[angry cat]

Peter,

Your letter is excellent, there were a few typos which have already been corrected by other members.

 

The sending of your letter is the only and correct way forward for consumers who are left 'At Risk' because of the apparent inability of the enforcement offficers of the ("Act") to protect them.

 

Let us all hope that the letter will prove that TS are not doing their job correctly and that the higher authoritiy will listen, take notice!

 

Love AC

[un1boy]

I think Peter understood what I was saying. I was looking at the situation

from the regulatory bodies point of view rather than our views on the forum.

 

Indeed I saw a Judge in his summing up in one case, point out the inequity of

the position as it now stands where non production of the original agreement automatically makes the debt unenforceable.

 

I don't think the legislators expected that so many creditors would be unable

to produce the original contracts-possibly a result of a misinterpretation of

the six year rule and the Data Protection Act. Perhaps when the finance

houses improve their record keeping, the OFT will take stronger action-

especially against the worst offenders-which tend to be the DCAs rather

than the original lenders. I for one won't be holding my breath.

 

.

 

Ahhh, ok.....

[yaffsimone1]

Hopefully Peters letter will do something.

 

I have contacted the FOS and OFT highlighting my creditors' refusal to produce agreements, many of which have now committed an offence, i must be doing something wrong because all i am getting back from them is 'thank you for your complaint regarding those R-soles, however, we are unable to intervene with individual cases' or something like that. So bascially they are going to do bugger all:mad: so these creditors get to carry on on their merry way.

[un1boy]

Hopefully Peters letter will do something.

 

I have contacted the FOS and OFT highlighting my creditors' refusal to produce agreements, many of which have now committed an offence, i must be doing something wrong because all i am getting back from them is 'thank you for your complaint regarding those R-soles, however, we are unable to intervene with individual cases' or something like that. So bascially they are going to do bugger all:mad: so these creditors get to carry on on their merry way.

 

Nah, you're not doing anything wrong at all.....they are like that anyway.

 

The FOS told me that although they have to consider the law, they don't have to comply with it!

 

What tha fa?!

[Sparkie1723]

Every single member should make an appointment to see their M.P., if we get 15 to 20 Mp's asking the same question in the H of P about the failure of the OFT to do the job they were set up for things WILL happen.

 

I've got my M.P. involved in my case (see latest post) on RBOS forum and he has give the RBOS 1 month to satisfy his questions or he will bring my case to the floor of the H of P......different issue same thing though.

 

sparkie

[yaffsimone1]

Sparkie,

 

could you post the link to that thread of yours for me. I think getting the MP's involved is a great idea.

[yaffsimone1]

Dont worry...found it.

 

Im on page four and OH MY GOD....edge of the seat stuff cant wait to read the rest.

 

Looks like the rest of my work day has come to an abrupt end:D