Cap1 & CCA return

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Your set-aside application should include the statement that the court has made an error in law & then explain why

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

John Lewis's 12 + 30 are up on the 14 June.

 

I wont send them a non-compliance i will just complaint straight to OFT and TS. Like i said im not going to keep reminding them of thier obligations. The longer they fail to produce the agreement the better for me.

 

This is a quote from Laiste (who is very good, i hope she doesnt mind me using it) has changed my way of thinking:-

 

I think it is easy to fall into the trap of pursuing the recipient of the CCA request, and I can understand why it seems to be the logical thing to do. Also, given that there are a number of people on here giving advice which encourages sending the stop telephoning me letter, I am not at all surprised that people follow this advice. I think I am very much in the minority on here suggesting doing things differently. I will say though, I have helped a number of people (not on here) who have done what I advise and it has worked out very much to their

advantage!

 

Law is as much about tactics as it is about understanding the Common Law and legislation. It is unfortunate that some people dispensing advice are not doing it having considered the full implications for the debtor. Yes, calls from creditors and DCA's are a royal pain, but I think it is better to put up with calls from these morons for a period of time, rather than take the easy and IMO foolish option of sending a letter that may end up leaving you with no claim for damages, but still saddled with the debt! It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned!

 

The other and far more important consideration which I forgot to include in Cristal's thread is this, if you start sending letters filled with legal jargon, and advising said company of their unlawful/illegal conduct, you will alert them to the fact that you are legally savvy, so they will be disinclined to take you to Court. Well what's wrong with that, some people reading this will say? Well, until a Court claim is issued, the matter will rumble on and on......preventing you from getting on with your life! It also means that if they a weak case, or screw it up for some reason, they can't come after you again, they only get the one shot! By lulling them into a false sense of security, so that they think you're a bit dim, because you haven't responded to any of their calls/letters, they believe you're running scared and that if they issue a claim, you'll be easy pickings and are unlikely to defend the claim! Once they do this, when you file your def and c/c, they are locked into the situation and either have to go to Court, which they won't want to do, given the harassment you've documented in your claim, or they will have to pay you compensation, as the hope is their case will be very weak! It has to be said, their position is very much weakened even if they have a good case, if you have compelling issues to raise, such as harassment! Given the respective bargaining power of the creditor and the debtor, the creditor has it all and the debtor has none; it is hardly going to sit well with the Court, if the creditor, who has all the power, is seen battering the debtor into submission by the most aggressive and unreasonable means. I don't think the Judge is going to accept that the creditor telephoned 10 times a day for a period of 5mnths because he really liked the debtor and just fancied a chat!

 

You would be surprised what will make a creditor run away, so if you have a detailed account of harassment, perhaps Data Protection Act 1998 breaches, given that your personal info has been distributed to everyone apart from the milkman, defamation and the icing on the cake, (hopefully)-no agreement, or a fatally flawed one, you can make them suffer big time! Oh and when you're finished taking their money off them, you can report them to the OFT and hopefully get them stripped of their credit licence or given a great big fine as the OFT's powers have been increased as of April this year! Banks, credit card companies and DCA's are bullies, but if they are up against a competent opponent, especially one who has a long detailed account of harassment, amongst other issues, he is not likely to want the matter to end up in front of a Judge!

 

Maybe worth thinking about

 

I understand perfectly where Laiste is coming from & such advice should be given very serious consideration & should be dependent, to a great measure, on whether you’re a defendant or claimant

However my experience is quite the opposite.

In the case of defendants when the opposition have come to realise that the consumer IS well versed in consumer law they have in most cases I have been involved with backed off never to be heard of again. The worst they have done is to sell the debt on but the new DCA on being told the circumstances often drops the matter after having been quoted the Harassment Act 1997. Also as the defendant it helps greatly if you can tell the court that you have reported the claimant for a breach of regulation

In the case of claimants it helps because the creditor doesn’t usually want to be exposed in court as not having complied with the regulation. It just adds a little zest to the banks need to settle

“You takes you pick then makes your choice”

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Hi all, can someone cast an eye over this letter and tell me if it sounds ok??

cheers....Russ

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

 

To Moorcroft Debt Recovery,

Thank you for your letters dated 14/05/2007 and 24/05/2007. As previously requested you have still as yet failed to supply a true and genuine copy of the alleged Consumer Credit Agreement, Terms and Conditions and Statement of Account as required by law no later than 13th April 2007. deleted

I understand a criminal offence may have been committed and subsequently a compliant has been passed to the relevant authorities.

 

As a consequence of the failure to comply with the statutory responsibilties under the CCA 1974 please take note that I do not recognise this alledged debt nor any liability to your company whatsoever

 

Furthermore I have discovered that you have been taking money from me for non existant loan agreements. I require this money be paid back within the next 14 days! Failing which I reserve the right to seek whatever legal recourse there is open to me.

 

I would remind you that failure to supply a properly excuted 'signed' agreement is a complete defence against any enforcement

 

I am fully prepared to vigorously defend any legal action taken by either EGG PLC or Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd. After almost 4 years trying to address my concerns with EGG PLC and Moorcroft.

 

Should you attempt to visit me as threatened then be advised that I shall consider your actions to be criminal tresspass and shall report you accordingly.

 

As a result of my past experiences with your company I shall not enter into any direct discussions either on the telephone or face to face and I am only prepared to take this matter forward in writing.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

See above Don't quote the regs verbatim, only in general terms as I have. Don't do their work for them let them figure it out

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

AC Write once more & tell them if they refuse continualy to perform their responsibility you will report them for maladministration.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

When referring to previous corre/docs (both their & yours) include copies

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Sorting it would also be a good idea to advise the CRA that as you

 

"have advised you of your erroneous data you can no longer rely on the 'good faith' argument to support your position which is to be remembered as being in direct violation of the Data Protection Act 1998. Therefore if I find your action together with your client has caused me any loss whatsoever I will seek recompense through the courts in necessary"

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Ok then go ahead with your threat issue proceedings It'll cost £30 which of course is recoverable

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Perhaps you would like to send them & the bank the following:

 

Our Ref: WM/BS/Information Commissioners Office – England 090306

 

Information Commissioner's Office - England

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

 

 

 

9 March 2006

 

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Information Commissioner's Opinion re: Unenforceable Credit Agreements and Credit Reference File Default Entries

 

LACORS (the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services) provides advice and guidance to help support local authority regulatory and related services. It was set up in 1978 to coordinate the enforcement activities of trading standards. Since 1991, LACORS has also worked on food safety and is currently responsible for a range of other regulatory and related services.

 

LACORS is a local government central body created by the UK local authority associations which comprise of the Local Government Association (LGA), Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA), Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) and Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA).

 

LACORS Consumer Advice and Education group is seeking clarification of the Information Commissioner's opinion on the issue of defaults being noted on credit reference files where a creditor has accepted that an agreement is unenforceable.

 

A specific example of this type of case would be where a catalogue company has supplied goods to a consumer on credit without entering in to the required credit agreement with the consumer. The consumer has made some repayments (certainly enough to cover the cost of the goods received but not enough to cover all interest and charges) but has been advised that the agreement is unenforceable and has therefore informed the trader that she will not make any more payments on the account. The trader has conceded that there is no enforceable agreement but is threatening to make a default entry on the credit reference file.

 

The opinion of LACORS is that where a creditor accepts that an agreement is unenforceable against a consumer they should not be permitted to 'punish' the consumer by placing a record of the 'default' on their credit reference file. To do so would be unfair and unreasonable. It would also lessen the impact of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act which make it clear that a creditor should not be allowed to enforce a credit agreement where the agreement is improperly executed.

 

 

 

In reaching this opinion LACORS have taken note of the Information Commissioner's instruction (reported in "Which?" September 2003) that On:line Finance Ltd should remove a default notice that the company had placed on a consumer's file despite their decision that it would be uneconomical to take the matter to court.

 

As there seems to be some inconsistency in the advice received from the Information Commissioners helpdesk we feel it would be beneficial for trading standards departments, consumers and businesses to have written guidance from the Information Commissioner on this issue which can be circulated to consumer advisors nationally and ensure consistent advice on this issue in future.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Margaret Humphreys

Policy Officer – Consumer Credit

LACORS

email: [email protected]

direct line: 020 7840 7213

[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

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

I don't know but have you paid the debt? because unless it was by deed, which is like a mortgage and allows 12 years the debt was time barred after 6 years & should you have refused to pay it they would have been not only be breaching the OFT guidelines but also possibly guilty of criminal harassment. and yes they are taking the ( ) That's my closing the stable door comment - Now report them to TS as has already been advised it would appear

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Hi Everyone

 

Sorry to go off on another tangent but I've been in correspondence with NatWest for quite an extended period about a loan that my sister and I took out that related to a business we were running in 2000/01. They kept staving off my original request for agreements under the CCA with apologiesfor not being able to locate them etc. They are now saying that as the loan was to our limited company and that we signed personal guarantees it is not regulated by the CCA.

 

They have not supplied copies of the personal guarantees (I am going to request them) and I wondered if what they are saying is correct or if, as they are now claiming the money as if it were a personal loan (in other words the business is now irrelevant as they obviously can't claim from a limited company that has folded), whether it is in fact regulated by the CCA.

 

Incidentally they took no action on this loan for over three years and we assumed it had died with the company.

 

This is pretty technical I know, but I wondered if anyone had experienced a similar situation or at least some knowledge of whether NatWest is correct in its claim.

 

Hope you can help.

 

Although I am surprised that they didn't, I suspect an oversight on their part, but if neither of you give a personal guarantee then they became creditors of the business not you & any debt incurred by the company is lost. That's why it's called 'limited company' The limited should read 'limited as to liability'

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

this is the letter I am going to send. Any comments?????

 

 

CREDIT & BUSINESS SERVICES LTD & COPES SOLICITORS.

CBS HOUSE Unit F,The Courtyard

ALBAN PARK ALBAN PARK

ST ALBANS ST. ALBANS

HERTFORDSHIRE AL4 0LA HERTFORDSHIRE AL4 0LA

 

CBS ref:

 

Dear Sir/madam,

 

I have not been provided with a copy of the true signed executed Agreement containing all the prescribed items as requested by me under Section 78 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974, despite my properly formatted and paid for request dated 30th May 2007 which was received by CBS Transcom on 1st June 2007. (copy enclosed)

 

I have made a record (deleted) that CBS Transcom has totally ignored my (deleted repeating yourself) correspondence (deleted again repeating yourself) which is as well as being in breach of statute also in breach of both the FSA and Banking Code guidelines.

 

TAKE NOTICE that CBS Transcom are now in DEFAULT of Section 78 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974, and that CBS Transcom are not entitled to enforce the alleged Agreement until it is produced and that the account is now in dispute.

Furthermore I would respectfully remind you that failure to produce a properly executed signed agreement is a complete defence against enforcement

 

Therefore any legal action that you are considering taking against me will be defended by me vigoriously. (deleted no need to refer to your cca)

Furthermore, the only correspondence I have received regarding this alleged debt has been from your Solicitors “Copes” (dated 18th June, received 20th June 2007).

 

Please also take note that I have certainly NOT given and DO NOT intend to give my consent for your company to process or share my personal data, which includes the sharing of such data with “Copes” Solicitors from whom I received a letter regarding this alleged debt, I don't appreciate aggressive, threatening bullying letters being sent and if I receive anymore before my CCA request has been satisfied I will report the solicitors to the law society!

 

Please also note that any sharing or processing of data without the authority of the data subject contravenes the Data Protection Act and I hereby request therefore that both you and “Copes” Solicitors immediately cease and desist from such processing (in any form and for any purpose) of my personal data, and to remove any Defaults or negative entries on my Credit file.

 

I expect written confirmation that the necessary action has been taken to comply with this request within 7 days of receipt of this letter, failing which I shall report your company to the relevant authorities, including but not limited to Trading Standards, The Office of Fair Trading and The Information Commissioners Office.

 

 

Regards,

 

See in red above

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

That would make sense!!

 

If you are a sole proprieter your classed as self-employed & it's doubtful the the PPI would be suitable. Therefore they could be liable for mis-selling PPI.

 

If so your friend should write informing that she has kept up with the previously agreed payments & she considers their present demand is simply a means by which they can rescind that agreement.

 

Tell them in no uncertain terms that if they should proceed with their unreasonable demands then she will prepare a counter claim for mis-selling

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Yes Car Credit or rather their owners are being sued by every man & his dog for mis-selling PPI.

 

They are already paying back thousands in compensation Check the web

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

I've some questions.

The OFT have said that twelve pounds is OK for a late fee charge on a credit card.......What is this for? It is still stated a penalty for late payment and should reflect the true cost........the true cost of what ......what cost?

I can't get my head round that, has it actually COST the bank anything???they will make interest on the unpaid amount for another month longer so where does their cost come from?.... they dont write you a letter.... they dont return a cheque ....or a direct debit so what has it cost them, anyone got any answers???

 

sparkie

 

Maybe this should be on the penalty charge forum

 

sparkie

 

Sparkie NO! NO! This is becoming like an urban myth.

 

No the OFT haven't said anything of the sort.

 

They have said they WON'T intervene if the charge is £12 or below but that even that may be unlawful (which it is) & it's for a court to decide

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Sparkie, you need to stop saying this. I've noticed you've posted this a few times and it's not right. There is no recourse to common law for the creditors, so please stop saying there is or you'll frighten people and put them off tackling these companies.

 

Quite right Ian

 

Sparkie there is no recourse to common law for a creditor where there is an unenforceable agreement - see HOL Wilson - v - Secretary of State.

 

This HOL case is why they have removed sec 127 of the CCA which gave this protection for all agreements signed before April 2007.

 

There are tens of thousands of pre April 2007 unenforceable agreements out there which are only now coming to light because consumers are sick to death of being ripped off by the banks.

 

Consumers are now using every legal means to challenge the banks & if that means the consumer is unduly enriched by not having to pay then sobeit

 

As a direct result of their own avarice they are now reaping what they themselves have sown

 

Sparkie I also seem to recall you posting this before & being corrected for it. If you do post such comments again I feel I will have no choice but to advise a Mod of your posting of mis-information

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Sparkie no one objects to anyone having a different opinion but you have expressed the same opinion repeatedly & have been advised by some knowledgeable members repeatedly that the creditors have no other recourse to enforcing a debt if they fail to comply with the CCA 1974. Yet you have continued to expound your theory which has no basis in either law or fact.

 

It has also been mentioned that the government HAVE closed the loophole by removing s127 but only for agreements post April 2007

 

As much as they might like to they cannot ignore the 74 Act & make the 2006 changes retrospective & if they did it would be well & truly open to challenge in the courts.

 

I am sorry if you take umbrage at being corrected or that you might be reported for posting misguided theories & misleading information which could do damage to the site by frightening newbies away but I remind you in your remarks you mention not member but 'members' I would hope that would give you food for thought.

 

Anyway sorry to see you go & good luck in your endeavors with the banks

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Subscribing

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Blade if they have registered the default they 'own' the debt. Catch them out by sending MBNA a SAR