Cap1 & CCA return

[diddydicky]

By way of an update, this is yet another money making [problem] by Experian. Firstly, i would have thought that under the data protection act, we should al have free access to any information that a CRA has on us.

 

Experian advertises a "free month", but as you can see from my entries, it took a whole bunch of time for them to respond to my request for a correction request. Now I have to wait while they write to Lowells and CapQuest to give "permission" to correct incorrect information. So I now move into the 6.99 a month fee to be able to track the outcome.

 

What a [problem] from Experian!

 

mmmmmmm, they give you access for free for a month to check your files, for which you have to enter your personal information and past and current address,

 

........ and then sell the information to debtor tracing agents as a cheap way of finding debtors who have moved house!!

[diddydicky]

My thread is here

 

1st Crud are claiming I have no prospect of defending the claim, however they have no legible agreement, the document which they variously claim is an agreement or an application is unreadable, dates from 20 years ago, and has no sign of prescribed terms, there is no default notice, no termination notice, no accounts.

 

They do seem to have a couple of 'closing statements', though these have not been related to the illegible application/agreement and I am unable to make head nor tail of them.

 

They also now claim that a payment was made into the account in Nov 2002, but provide no evidence...

 

I basically what to know if they have any prospect of winning this and what argument can I expect?

 

Appreciate anyone's input...

 

you might need to click the triangle and check with the site team what regulations applied 20 years ago as i dont know- but IMO they have about as much chance given the information you state they have/dont have, as knitting fog!

[diddydicky]

Agreed. Satisfied as I am after putting several well-earned broadsides across HBOS, RBS, and their DCA muppets my file - and my wife's - is completely trashed. Sure, we still own our home but will doubtful get another mortgage if we ever wanted to move. And by the time the files are cleared of negative points, no bank would enetrtain us for a mortgage, given our ages.

 

Not that it bothers me too much. I'd be quite happ to rent if I ever had to. And when you look at the suffering and deprivation in other parts of the world, well, your own problems kinda get put into perspective.

 

But there is one thing I have learned in the past few years: I would never trust anyone who deals in finance ever again.

 

not necessarily so, the numbers of people that are now with negative files are becoming so great after this recession that there will HAVE to be an amnesty of sorts in order for lenders to lend!

 

i think if bos denied me a loan on the grounds that i was not creditworthy i might be tempted to write and ask them if they were not being a tad hypocritical!

[diddydicky]

To further clarify, this is an extract from the thread that I originally replied to:

 

"That the prospect of a bad credit file being the main worry with a lot of people - some for good reason who may need a mortgage - I took the view that it was having a very good rating that got me in this position and therefore having a bad one would not be a problem. In fact its almost a warning to DCA's and creditors theres no point in doing anything to this guy - if we make him bankrupt he owes so much no one will get anything ! "

 

i understood what you meant, and i would say that a lot of people who THINK they NEED credit actually don't - they have just gotten used to life with it and can't bear the thought of life without it

 

another poster above was right when he said the banks will return to the old ways of lending- and that is right

 

quite simply, whether we like it or not - we have to get back to a society where, in the main, if we cannot afford it- we cannot have it and should make do and mend or learn to save for it

 

a hard lesson for us all - but we may as well learn it!! the days of "live now and pay later" i suspect are gone for many a year

[diddydicky]

the trouble with credit cards is that when they are issued to you - you mistakenly think you have XXXXXX pounds and its yours to spend

 

it isnt, it wasnt, and it shouldnt have been!

[diddydicky]

Oh bugger......think thats the point I fell down on, having to repay 'em

 

Evening DD and all

 

Can any of you lot help Spookey out with an up and coming defence needed?

 

Agreement looks sound but theres a big chunk of PPI and charges if you have any ideas .....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/223857-advice-required-plz-court.html

 

evening- sorry i'm not your man for figures- they give me a headache!

 

someone will be along i'm sure

[diddydicky]

I haven't been to court but I'm inclined to go with barty there. There are just too many ways they can prove you owe them, so to my mind the best thing would be to take the moral bit out of it and try and get the judge to think of it as a straight dodgy contract case.

 

Statements, letters prior to any problems etc will prove you've had the money, so to say that you can't answer unless they show you a specific form of proof seems a little dubious. I think I might not like that too much if I was judgy, but as I said I've never done court, so this is just my view as an outsider so to speak!

 

i agree- what's more i will (if i get that far) do so by including the question and the answer in my witness statement .

 

if i am asked the question i will then refer to the witness statement which has already covered it

 

more likely however that having mentioned it openly in the witness statement it ****es on the other sides chips a fair bit and takes away the surprise element that the n question relies upon to fluster you.

[diddydicky]

just seen another product for 19 dollars called telezapper, apparantly when you are called by an auto dialler- it recognises the auto dialler and sends a specific signal back to the auto dialler telling it theta the number is unobtainable and the auto dialler automatically (well it would - wouldn't it) deletes the number from its database

 

Cool Eh!!

 

ive e mailed the company and asked if they do one that can be used in the UK i'll let you know the outcome

[diddydicky]

:D:D:D:D

Remind me never to have a slap up fish and chips dinner with you DD:D

[diddydicky]

if it was 2002 you might have a problem with statute of limitations

[diddydicky]

notwtihstanding the limitations on debts- i was under the impression that there is a 7 year limitation on brining most types of civil actions- but i stand to be corrected on this

[diddydicky]

nope..it can be 12 years for a mortgage or interim charging order........personal experience

 

Dave

 

i think you are referring to debt limitation

 

i am referring to limitations on bringing a civil action - a different thing!

[diddydicky]

the act says that the original agreement SHOULD be produced in court

[diddydicky]

'Should' and 'must' are two different animals

 

correct

[diddydicky]

I had a Barcleycard in 1995 which i never paid off me and my husband split up and i had alot of debt i was paying some of it every month. I havent paid it off yet and not made a payment for years once a year a debt company write to me its never the same one, its been 13yrs now, should it not be wrote off? or should i ask for the cca?

 

Please help

 

Mandie

 

if you havent made a payment OT acknowledged the debt for 6 years (check it carefully) then you are "home and free"

[diddydicky]

Go on- i dare you- have a larf with them

 

 

 

dear Sirs,

 

i write to you with regard to your "Aversion" to providing a photocopy of a document.

 

You are absolutely correct in stating that you are not obliged to provide a photocopy of an original document

 

the purpose of my letter is to counter the brainwashing of your "masters" in beleiving that the consumer credit act or some other legistalation decreed that you be exempt from such a course of action in order that you may frustrate what is a simple request from your "customer"

 

the requirements to produce "true copies of documents" were of a time when photocopiers and maybe even carbon paper were but mere twinkles in inventors eyes

 

therefore the scribe was obliged to produce a "true copy" from a document to his best ability and was required to reproduce it in as near the original layout as possible.

 

clearly in this process he could not re- produce the signatures on the document since this would be forgery

 

Any sane person (including the chap on the clapham omnibus) would accept the arrival of modern technology within his/her office environment and realise that producing a true copy of an original document on the photocopier was not only far more cost effective in financial and time terms , but is as easy as sitting ones naked bum on the copier and pressing the button at the office party.

 

The customer therefore,, who himself undoubtedly possesses a photocopier- (such is their universal popularity) , upon receipt of barely legible , grainy or part copied documents - or not even the documents he has asked for, is naturally going to question why this is so

 

The more so since he knows that a true copy CANNOT be made from memory, may not be what the person producing the copy thinks the original would have looked like and may not be a copy of a "similar" document to that which was in existence at the particular time of an agreement.

 

he will therefore naturally tend towards the opinion that he has been deceived, duped, fooled into thinking that the person who made the "true copy" did not have the original document in his sight when he made that "true copy"

 

Indeed , he may feel that in such circumstances perhaps two documents have been "merged into one" or that more likely what he has been sent has been produced from a microfiche, with it 's tell, tale signs, and which itself is a copy of a document and not an original

 

The customer may then make more demands to be satisfied that his creditor, who has after all set up a "customer relations department" might in fact be falling short of its charter and be more concerned instead with protecting the creditor than supporting the customer because it is likely that the creditor has not really got an original executed credit agreement.

 

The customer would ask himself why the creditor concerns himself with numerous letters and contracts with debt collectors to attempt to extract money from the customer with threats and demands when all along all he needs to do to get what he wants (money from the customer) is to remove the bum prints from the glass, put the original agreement on there, press the button and spend 35p to post it to the customer.

 

Having enlightened you to life on the the "other side " of the fence, perhaps you might feel a little more bold in using the photocopier- it would make life so much more simple for all of us

 

if of course you do not have the original agreement, why not again cut to the chase and just admit this fact and again we can then attempt to resolve matters to our mutual satisfaction

 

Y F

[diddydicky]

Personally I think it's dangerous to get facetious in such situations - just in case it ever does get to court and the judge suffers from the customary sense of humour failure.

 

I would just ask innocently in a short and polite letter why it is not possible to simply send a legible photocopy of the original signed agreement as requested. If they write back saying "they don't have to" they are not answering your question - and you can write back and ask them why they have not answered it - ad nauseam. Even better get a dedicated (i.e. not your usual personal) e-mail address and pester them with free e-mail requests daily.

 

Am I right in saying that with the £10 SAR they MUST send a photocopy of the signed original - or state it has been mislaid?

 

BD

 

judges have just as much a sense of humour as anyone else and is suggest the jduge would be entirely in agreement with the sentiments of the letter

 

its horses for courses- i have sent such a letter but it was posted in jest so take it or leave it

[diddydicky]

ahhh you learn something every day vint

[diddydicky]

Personally I think it's dangerous to get facetious in such situations - just in case it ever does get to court and the judge suffers from the customary sense of humour failure.

 

I would just ask innocently in a short and polite letter why it is not possible to simply send a legible photocopy of the original signed agreement as requested. If they write back saying "they don't have to" they are not answering your question - and you can write back and ask them why they have not answered it - ad nauseam. Even better get a dedicated (i.e. not your usual personal) e-mail address and pester them with free e-mail requests daily.

 

Am I right in saying that with the £10 SAR they MUST send a photocopy of the signed original - or state it has been mislaid?

 

BD

 

there is no obligation whatsoever for the creditor to supply the original agreement or document

 

the SAR requires them to send the INFORMATION they hold about you not the documents you have signed , how they supply that information is up to them

 

some do send the original docs, some dont but there is no compulsion

 

only CPR31.16 will get you that and even then you are likely to be refused and have to make an application to the court (with good grounds) in order to get it.

[diddydicky]

And if you get an order to allow inspection of the original agreement and when you try to arrange to view it the answer is that it has been destroyed and there is only a microfiche copy available ...what then ??

 

then they o not have an original executed credit card agreement upon which to base a claim

 

of course they could ask the court to accept the microfiche as the agreement

 

whereupon you will want a myriad of witnesses including the person who first put the original on to microfiche, when and how they did it - the rules and guidleines associated with it, you will ask them in court how they can recall. amongst the thousands of copies they did- they can remember doing this one,

 

where the original went and why it was destroyed

 

the person who produced the copy of the microfiche and so on

 

lots of third party and heresay evidence for the creditor to contend with

 

i'd be amazed if they went ahead in this case (but i'm no expert)

 

 

personally i would NEVER use CPR 31.16 and prefer instead for various sound reasons to wait until they issue a claim then use 31.14 to exactly the same effect

 

the likelyhood of them doing so with only a microfiche as evidence is (IMO) remote

 

far more likely that they will keep trying to bull**** and/or pass it around the DCA merrygoround

[diddydicky]

Nwf

[diddydicky]

Take care my friend as what they may have supplied may appear unenforcable that does not mean they do not have an enforcable one that they can produce in court. These a very slippery and parasitic organisations.

 

i dont think you will find that they deliberately withhold the "good one" whilst sending you crap

 

more that they "archive" old records (often in a disused bunker on an airfield in khazakstan and it takes a lot of time and trouble to retrieve them- they bull**** you and only make a real effort to get the original if they have to

 

alternatively they have long since microfiched and/or destroyed them but will not admit it until they have to

[diddydicky]

yes, don't you ever listen??

 

the advice on this forum regarding talking to your creditors on the phone is probably the number one top dollar piece of advice you are ever going to get

 

DONT DO IT

 

having done it i would suggest that you now write to them and ask them to confirm their offer in writing.

 

dont be surpised if they dont!!

[diddydicky]

the legislation referred to is not retrospective

 

a court is denied the opportunity unders s127(3( to enforce a defective agreement which is missing prescribed terms entered into before april (i think its april) 2007

[diddydicky]

i would not get too "het up" about cccs being "funded" by the finance industry

 

the funding as i understand it is by way of a "levy", therefore the notion that cccs are in some way controllled by the finance industry would be a little wide of the mark IMO