Cap1 & CCA return

[JonCris]

I'm paying no bugger & it's getting quite funny. They keep asking for money.....nay pleading more like & I keep hitting them with SAR & CCA demands & letters demanding that they comply with their legal responsibilities & I am now getting letters from either the creditor, their lawyers or their DCA's most of which appear to have crossed in the post

 

I always give them a litany of events pointing out their failures & it's clear that not always is it the same person dealing with the matter or that they read their file as each time they have to go back to the drawing board......I've become quite a dab hand at cut & paste

[JonCris]

maybeline

you don't to & can't 'prove' a negative They have to prove they sent it

 

Tide Turner

Consumer Direct often give misleading & downright wrong info as some here can attest to.

 

Terminator

I'm always polite. I completely ignore their requests/demands & counter with my own & it's clear I ain't dealing with the sharpest tools in the box or they can't be bothered......too complicated you see doh!

 

They get into a blue funk.........I don't know how many letters I've got stating "we are looking into your complaints" etc etc.

 

I often suggest, politely of course, that they might like to coordinate their responses if for no other reason than to save paper thereby making a real contribution to saving the planet........but they never respond to that comment!

 

It's called playing them at their own game

[JonCris]

Tam you can get "choose to refuse" which means you can block not only anonmyous callers but also a further 10 numbers of your choice.

 

When you put their number into the system & if they are using 0807 or 0845 none geographical number you get their normal landline number given back to you on the automated system

 

As Terminator says 0870 numbers are considered premuim rate & should not be used. To do so is a breach of the OFT guidelines

[JonCris]

Ah! yes the old Datsun/Nissan Finance house who's boss was jailed for tax evasion........I think

[JonCris]

I think where there has been such hikes in interest rates under the present climate (the banks losing their pot of gold) there may be grounds for arguing that these new rates are penalty charges in all but name & NOT just due to ordinary commercial decisions.

[JonCris]

tam surely the 6 year limitation can only be invoked (subject to sec 32) to defend against claims on accounts or in causes that ceased or happened more than 6 years ago & not on going accounts. If the account is still open or if the account was closed less than 6 years ago even though it ran long before 6 years then perhaps the banks cannot rely on section 5 of the act.

 

In my view the limitation act was not intended to allow anyone to escape their blanket liabilities but like latches to protect defendants from being pursued long after the event when witnesses and/or documents might be no longer available to the defence. In the case of penalty charges that dioes not apply...........Any views

[JonCris]

Hi tam

 

What I'm suggesting is if the account is ongoing then perhaps the 6 year limit cannot apply much like it does when the debtor are paying off a debt more than 6 years old. We will have acknowledged that debt right upto our last payment which may be last week.

 

In other words they can't claim the pre 6 year debt IS enforcable whilst our pre 6 year claim is not

[JonCris]

Tam correct...........It's my view that limitation clock starts running from the time of knowledge of the claimant & not cause.......much like it does with personal injury. Many of the cases now being brought involving asbestos are the result of contamination from many years back (50-60)

[JonCris]

Yes but the argument as that the limitation is, like PI, based in knowledge & not the event, causation.

 

Yes I agree with your premise that if the account is still ongoing then the cause is ongoing & pre 6 year events on the same account (or same bank for that matter) cannot by definition be viewed by either the litigants or the court in isolation & should be considered as a single action when considered by the court.

 

After all if you cause a loss to a person pre 6 years & continue to do so due to their ignorance you can't then claim limitation protection when they suddenly discover they have a claim. Apart from everything else to uphold such limitation is against natural justice

[JonCris]

Tam I don't think you could apply an estimate until after you have concluded you DPA litigation. If the bank WAS able to convince the court that they no longer held the data the court might strike out any claim for that period which may still be considerably pre6 years.

 

Un1boy they claim they don't have to hold it but if they have the data (as they all do) then they have to supply it irrespective of it's age. Some members have had data supplied going back a couple of decades..

 

Watch out for the letter which says "the bank is not required to retain data over 6 years old".......or words to that effect......NOTE they don't say they don't have it..........they claim they don't have to have it.

 

My reponse is to write back & request when, where & how they disposed of my data. If they do have it as it's part of their procedure to keep it then they would have to make up a tissue of lies to not admit it

[JonCris]

Tam

 

Abbey have data going back too 1923! as do many of the banks,.

 

Remember we had a whistle blower who worked in their storage facility in Milton Keynes who told us

 

Not much paper as most of it is on microfiche which they thought would save them but for the Information Commissioners recent ruling

[JonCris]

Hi all could I just mention that you are already in the process of recovering their unlawful charges.

 

After that is accomplished is the time to invoke section 85 when you can tell them that their agreement is unenforcable so they can now go take a running jump for any outstanding monies.

 

Remember THEY wouldn't hesitate to use any breaches by YOU to THEIR advantage

[JonCris]

It does have to be a 'true' properly executed copy on which your signature must be present if they want to enforce the debt.

 

The copy agreement without signature is meant to be sent to you at the outset & the none-inclusion of a signature was for security reasons in case it got lost in the post

[JonCris]

Hi Terminator

 

I think so have been re-reading the CCA & I have to say there are a number of other sections we can invoke which will drive the money lenders potty as, like their failure on agreements, I suspect they will not be able to pit up a counter argument.

 

I beginning to hear the pips squeek

[JonCris]

I agree Tam. I also agree that with passage of time coupled by our natural habit of NOT questioning our betters these companies have become blaise about their behaviour.

 

It only because there is beginning a sea change in attitudes brought about by citizens being pushed around by the jobsworths who want to 'fine' them at every opportunity & being seen by local authorites & government as a cash cow That we are beginning to inform ourselves to the extent that we are now able to fight back with confidence & in the knowledge that we probably know more than our apponents.

 

Also we can't rely on the so called reglutory

agencies as they are a joke so we have to take matters into our own hands

[JonCris]

This is exactly how the CCA regards it so they are actually working ot the letter of the act, you make the request by exceeding the overdraft level, they consider it and either decline or accept it, acceptance is usually made by paying the item, there is not really a need to write and tell you they accepted it.

 

What argument would you use if the overdraft was from the outset entirely due to penalty charges & NOT as requested

 

Account credit balance = nil.......DD arrives for £5....bank rejects same......adds unlawful penalty charge of £35 to your account.....balance now in debit to the amount of £35........which was NOT requested but imposed arbitrarily

[JonCris]

Hi Inkog

 

Yes but in view of the proximity of these rises to the battle to recover unlawful charges & the large amount being refunded there may be grounds to determine this extra interest as unlawful.........in other words penalty charges in all but name...........As a result they may fall within the UCCT as being unfair...........Something I suggest we need to look at in the near future

[JonCris]

I understand some banks are setting the interest rate for individual customers dependant on the historic conduct of the account............I think this would clearly be seen as a penalty in the same way as their current charges............We just need to establish a pattern

[JonCris]

Yes Pam

you may also like to mention that their Lordships stated (to para phrase)that if this finding was a windfall for the debtor...........so be it.......& in Wilson the sums were many 10's of thousands.......so the same is going to apply in the piffling sums, which by comparison, we are referring to.

 

I also think where we are relying on the act we should, although not directly relevant, refer to this case to remind the court that their duty when interpreting the present CCA & the UCCT must be skewed towards the consumer whether they be debtor or creditor

[JonCris]

Yes Pam

Of course they will argue market forces.......but on what grounds......more consumers are hiding their money under their beds........No.....their argument will & already is I believe the fact that they are having to rethink their penalty charges regime.............In fact I think someone from the banks quite recently stated as much.............They actualy stated in the media something to the effect that their interest rate charged would depend on the individual customers conduct of their account

 

Can anyone who remembers it find it?

[JonCris]

Hi....any idea where I can find a link to the case?

 

Here Uni

 

House of Lords - Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant)

[JonCris]

InKogneeto - I had the same wth Cahoot - have challenged them but unfortunately, both their T&C's & the Banking Code have nothing to stop them doing this.

I also had the upper limit of loan reduced for which their T&C's say there must be "a valid reason" and their valid reason was that I was not the only one they had done it to, it's based on my borrowing blah, blah. But given that this was purely a matter of principle for me, if you like "sharp practice", & I've got bigger fish to fry, (like waiting for reply to my S85 letter to MBNA) I haven't pursued it further.

 

Hi Ladybird

 

I would remind you that THEIR T's & C's also 'allow' them to impose penalty charges.......so just because it's mentioned doesn't mean it can't be challenged

[JonCris]

un1

 

You should look at the 2006 Fraud Act. If they have misled you as to their reasons then they could be guilty of a criminal offence...........Even an internal email, even if not sent, could be conscrued as being an offence

[JonCris]

un1

 

it'll be like the endowment scandal..........it's doubtful they will offer........ we will still have to claim a refund from the banks.........However like the endowment sellers they might be required to send out a letter

[JonCris]

Do you mean about my current bank? Well, they said to me "we don't have to give you a reason, and we will not"

plus they only gave me 12 days (which is in the Terms and conditions!) They've treated me like a piece of crap....I don't really wanna back with them now....but it's the principle......

 

If I sent a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) would they have to tell me the reason? the Information Commissioners Office said only if they have it in a relevant filing system!

 

You stated earlier that they told you you where being 'managed down' if so then that's a reason & if was for anything different it was a lie which under the new Fraud Act amounts to a criminal fraud.

 

I think since losing the microfiche argument it's safe to bet their filing system is relevant