LTSB and 1st Credit - oh joy...

[DieLTSBDie]

OK, long story.

 

 

I had a LTSB loan and current account, which were closed over five years ago.

 

The only transactions that came out for months before that were LTSB’s own charges.

 

I’m well aware that this means the ‘accounts’ are close to being statute-barred.

 

In fact, looking through the statements, if LTSB’s own charges are not classed as being ‘my payments’ by law, then the accounts would be SB already..

 

Anyway, shortly after that, the account was predictably passed to various DCAs, by which time LTSB had ‘consolidated’ the two accounts into one.

 

I sent a CCA request to AIC some years ago, and got a written confirmation from them that the CCA I’d asked for was unobtainable.

 

I still retain that letter now.

 

Then, shortly after that, LTSB sent me a mocked-up agreement – for an account I’d never had.

 

I ignored correspondence after that, as I knew that ‘agreement’ wasn’t valid.

 

I should mention that when the ‘accounts’ were with LTSB, they were subject to a myriad of various different problems (‘War and Peace’ has nothing on all that!) – claim-backs, complaints, and info requests all unfulfilled.

 

For several years, nothing at all – until now.

 

It looks as if said ‘consolidated’ account has now been ‘de-consolidated’, and one of them’s in the hands of the shifty 1st Credit.

 

In their letter, a black-and-white LTSB ‘Notice of Assignment’ arrived in the same Reigate envelope as 1st Credit’s standard ‘Account Assignment’ document.

 

Their letter wasn’t sent recorded – in fact, apart from two orange bar code lines, there was no franking at all on it.

 

I’m well aware that 1st Credit are trying their luck, and the ‘I Have No Knowledge Of This Debt’ letter’s already gone out by recorded.

 

However, there are a few points I’m a little unclear about and I’d like to ask :-

 

1) Are LTSB’s own charges deductions classed as being ‘my payments’? I should mention that I was disputing the validity of charges for a long time before the ‘accounts’ were closed.

 

 

2) Shouldn’t LTSB have sent me a NoA direct? This hasn’t happened.

 

 

3) Can LTSB consolidate accounts, and then ‘de-consolidate’ them back without consent?

 

 

4) LTSB and [problem] both issued two default notices each – none of which are valid. As the accounts have been closed without valid default notices, where do I stand on that?

 

 

5) Being that AIC were pursuing the ‘consolidated’ account and a CCA request to them, then does the CCA request still stand with 1st Credit? The account amounts that AIC and 1st Credit differ quite drastically.

 

I'm very grateful in advance, for any advice and clarification offered.

[citizenB]

however, there are a few points i’m a little unclear about and i’d like to ask :-

 

1) are ltsb’s own charges deductions classed as being ‘my payments’? I should mention that i was disputing the validity of charges for a long time before the ‘accounts’ were closed.

 

only payments made by you would intefere with sb status - if you have not made any payments or acknowledged liability for a period of 6 years then it is statute barred.

 

 

2) shouldn’t ltsb have sent me a noa direct? This hasn’t happened.

 

this has been the subject of much debate - who has to let you know.. As long as either oc or new owner advises then that is ok, apparently.

 

 

3) can ltsb consolidate accounts, and then ‘de-consolidate’ them back without consent?

 

hmm, another hotly debated subject. Consolidation would normally require a new contract to be entered into. It would appear that hasnt happened. By merging contracts with different cca protections, they are depriving you of those very protections.

the loan is well and truly protected by the cca1974 act. The current account o/draft has limited protection under the act.

 

4) ltsb and [problem] both issued two default notices each – none of which are valid. As the accounts have been closed without valid default notices, where do i stand on that?

 

ltsb do have a serious problem with their default notices - so this could well serve you in good stead. However, you will need more than just dodgy default notices if this ends up in court. If they have terminated the accounts and it would appear they have done.. Then i dont think they can issue corrected dns.

 

 

5) being that aic were pursuing the ‘consolidated’ account and a cca request to them, then does the cca request still stand with 1st credit? The account amounts that aic and 1st credit differ quite drastically.

 

an s78 request (cca) requires that you are provided with:

a copy or reconstruct of the original document

a statement of account showing how they have arrived at the balance being pursued (to include charges etc)

terms and conditions from both inception and at time of default.

until these are provided then they are in breach of the request and as such can telephone, write,harass, threaten and issue a claim.. But.. They cannot obtain judgment !!

i'm very grateful in advance, for any advice and clarification offered.

 

 

hth

[Bandit127]

If you think the accounts are statute barred, I would SAR Lloyds to start with. This will give you the statements that will allow you to see when your last payment was made. If you have not paid (or offered to pay) since then you know when the SB date is. It costs £10 and takes 40 days to arrive.

 

If your debts ARE statute barred you do not need to worry about CCA, NOA etc.

[DieLTSBDie]

only payments made by you would intefere with sb status - if you have not made any payments or acknowledged liability for a period of 6 years then it is statute barred.

 

Goody.

 

 

 

this has been the subject of much debate - who has to let you know.. As long as either oc or new owner advises then that is ok, apparently.

Anything in legislation about that?

 

 

 

 

hmm, another hotly debated subject. Consolidation would normally require a new contract to be entered into. It would appear that hasnt happened. By merging contracts with different cca protections, they are depriving you of those very protections.

 

No agreement to consolidate was ever made by me. In fact, the 'mocked up agreement' I referred to earlier, was for a credit card account.

 

Apart from my never having, using or requesting a credit card (not through any company), it wasn't even my handwriting. Plus some of the details were incorrect as well. And yes - I still have that document.

 

 

 

the loan is well and truly protected by the cca1974 act. The current account o/draft has limited protection under the act.

When you say 'limited protection' could you elaborate on that a little further?

 

ltsb do have a serious problem with their default notices - so this could well serve you in good stead. However, you will need more than just dodgy default notices if this ends up in court. If they have terminated the accounts and it would appear they have done.. Then i dont think they can issue corrected dns.

 

They're invalid because they jumped the gun in closing the accounts down - insufficient time allowed. [problem]'s later default notices only allowed a 7 day window (I know the window is a minimum of 14).

 

Plus, if the DN was dated on a day that turned out to be a Sunday, then that day can't be counted as Day One, can it?

 

Best of all though, [problem]'s default notices were issued later than LTSB's.

 

 

 

an s78 request (cca) requires that you are provided with:

 

a copy or reconstruct of the original document

a statement of account showing how they have arrived at the balance being pursued (to include charges etc)

terms and conditions from both inception and at time of default.

 

until these are provided then they are in breach of the request and as such can telephone, write,harass, threaten and issue a claim.. But.. They cannot obtain judgment !!

As I mentioned before, the bulk of the time's been delegated to various DCAs pursuing the consolidated account, for which the CCA request was sent. The OC can't just 'de-consolidate it back' in a vain attempt to circumvent that unfulfilled request, can they?

[DieLTSBDie]

I sent a SAR to LTSB years ago - which is something else that was incomplete. Because it was incomplete, this was a central reason for why I refused to budge.

 

Besides, the 'I Have No Knowledge' letter's already been sent.

 

So, for now at least, I'lll be able to wait and see what they come back with.

 

Possibly, one of their comedy letters offering Generation Game prizes...

Edited August 17, 2012 by DieLTSBDie

[citizenB]

only payments made by you would intefere with sb status - if you have not made any payments or acknowledged liability for a period of 6 years then it is statute barred.

 

Goody.

 

 

 

 

this has been the subject of much debate - who has to let you know.. As long as either oc or new owner advises then that is ok, apparently.

Anything in legislation about that?

 

If there is, I am not aware of it... I will ask for you.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?123087-DLC-Hillesden-assignment

 

This thread might have something that is useful - post #9 looks to have quite a bit of information.

 

 

hmm, another hotly debated subject. Consolidation would normally require a new contract to be entered into. It would appear that hasnt happened. By merging contracts with different cca protections, they are depriving you of those very protections.

 

No agreement to consolidate was ever made by me. In fact, the 'mocked up agreement' I referred to earlier, was for a credit card account.

 

Apart from my never having, using or requesting a credit card (not through any company), it wasn't even my handwriting. Plus some of the details were incorrect as well. And yes - I still have that document.

 

To quote an earlier comment of yours.. "Goody"

 

the loan is well and truly protected by the cca1974 act. The current account o/draft has limited protection under the act.

When you say 'limited protection' could you elaborate on that a little further?

 

I am sure there has been a proper explanation of this posted somewhere on CAG - I will try and track it down for you.

 

 

 

ltsb do have a serious problem with their default notices - so this could well serve you in good stead. However, you will need more than just dodgy default notices if this ends up in court. If they have terminated the accounts and it would appear they have done.. Then i dont think they can issue corrected dns.

 

They're invalid because they jumped the gun in closing the accounts down - insufficient time allowed. [problem]'s later default notices only allowed a 7 day window (I know the window is a minimum of 14). 14 days for DNs issued after 19 December 2006

 

Plus, if the DN was dated on a day that turned out to be a Sunday, then that day can't be counted as Day One, can it?

 

Correct - A default notice MUST be in the prescribed format, allow 14 clear days to remedy. Can only ask for genuine arrears. With regard to posting..

Posting allowances are : 2 business days for 1st class and 4 business days for 2nd class or UK Mail/TNT - business days are Monday to Friday - weekends and Bank holidays are discounted.

If a Default notice is posted on say a Friday then Saturday and Sunday must be discounted for posting dates and the first posting day is the Monday (unless it is a Bank Holiday) In your case the first posting date would be the Monday - it would also knock off one day from any allowance they gave in the DN. If that makes sense. There are plenty of regulations to support this, around CAG.

Best of all though, [problem]'s default notices were issued later than LTSB's.

 

That sounds about right for ****

 

 

an s78 request (cca) requires that you are provided with:

 

a copy or reconstruct of the original document

a statement of account showing how they have arrived at the balance being pursued (to include charges etc)

terms and conditions from both inception and at time of default.

 

until these are provided then they are in breach of the request and as such can telephone, write,harass, threaten and issue a claim.. But.. They cannot obtain judgment !!

As I mentioned before, the bulk of the time's been delegated to various DCAs pursuing the consolidated account, for which the CCA request was sent. The OC can't just 'de-consolidate it back' in a vain attempt to circumvent that unfulfilled request, can they?

 

I wouldnt have thought so.. but someone with more knowledge would need to confirm. There are plenty of those on CAG and I am sure one will soon trip over this thread sometime over the weekend.

 

 

 

 

I had this stored on my computer.. unfortunately I dont have the link to the actual post.. you would need to do a search for it..

 

Assignments

20. Notice in writing.

 

 

 

In order that the assignee may obtain the benefit of the Law of Property Act 1925, express notice in writing of the assignment must be given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the debt or the chose or thing in action

2. Where there are joint debtors and covenanters, notice to one who is a bankrupt is unnecessary

3. The notice need not be formal

4, and need not be written with the intention that it should perform the function of giving notice

5; but it must be given even though the debtor cannot read

6. The assignment only operates under the Act as from the date of the notice

7, that is, the date on which it is received by or on behalf of the debtor

8. If the debt is released or extinguished by payment or otherwise before notice is given, there is no transfer under the Act

9. It has been held that if the date of the assignment is wrongly stated the notice is ineffectual

10, though if no date is given at all the notice may be good

11. It may also be ineffectual if it does not state the amount of the debt correctly

12.The Act prescribes no limit of time within which the notice must be given

13, and a notice given after the death of the assignor

14, or after the death of the assignee

15, is effectual.

 

The Act does not prescribe that the notice must be given by any particular person

16. Thus it may be given by the personal representatives of a deceased assignee, even though no notice has been given by him or by the original or any intermediate assignee

17. In the case of a company, notice to the manager at the works, though not communicated by him to the head office, may be sufficient

18. It is thought that where there have been two assignments of the same debt, of both of which notice has been given to the debtor, but the assignee under the second assignment, without having notice of the first, gave notice to the debtor of his assignment before notice was given of the first assignment, he will have priority

19. If a debtor has given a negotiable instrument, for example a cheque, in payment of the debt, a subsequent notice that the debt has been assigned may be disregarded by the debtor even if the creditor still holds the cheque

20.

 

 

 

 

1 Amalgamated General Finance Co Ltd v CE Golding & Co Ltd [1964] 2 Lloyd's Rep 163 (no legal assignment because no notice to underwriters); Shaw v Applegate [1978] 1 All ER 123, [1977] 1 WLR 970, CA (equitable assignment of benefit of negative covenant became legal when notice given to covenantor). It seems that notice should be served on every person who would be a necessary party to a claim on the debt: see Josselson v Borst [1938] 1 KB 723 at 736, [1937] 3 All ER 722 at 727–728, CA, per Greer LJ, and at 740 and 732 per Slessor LJ. Notice should, accordingly, be given to all trustees: see para 53 post. In relation to a cause of action in tort see also Perry v Tendring District Council [1985] 1 EGLR 260; RL Polk & Co (Great Britain) Ltd v Edward Hill & Partners [1988] 1 EGLR 142.

2 Law of Property Act 1925 s 136(1). An assignment will be good in equity as between assignor and assignee without notice: Gorringe v Irwell India Rubber and Gutta Percha Works (1886) 34 ChD 128, CA. See further para 42 post. The suspensory character of the proviso in Gatoil Anstalt v Omennial Ltd [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep 489 meant that the notice of assignment did not satisfy the requirements of the Law of Property Act 1925 s 136 (as amended).

3 Insolvency Act 1986 s 345(4); Josselson v Borst [1938] 1 KB 723, [1937] 3 All ER 722, CA.

4 Denney, Gasquet and Metcalfe v Conklin [1913] 3 KB 177.

5 Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607, [1968] 3 All ER 824, CA.

6 Hockley and Papworth v Goldstein (1920) 90 LJKB 111 (where the debtor's inability to read was well known to all the parties, and clear oral notice was given but was ineffective).

7 Law of Property Act 1925 s 136(1).

8 Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 2 KB 1, [1942] 1 All ER 404; Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1973] 2 All ER 476, [1973] 1 WLR 757 (affd [1974] 1 All ER 161, [1974] 1 WLR 155, CA); and see para 21 post.

9 Lee v Magrath (1882) 10 LR Ir 313 at 319, 326, CA (where the transferor appointed the debtor her executor); Re Westerton, Public Trustee v Gray [1919] 2 Ch 104 (payment of interest to assignor of fund before notice of assignment of fund). Cf Jenkins v Jenkins [1928] 2 KB 501.

10 Stanley v English Fibres Industries Ltd (1899) 68 LJQB 839; WF Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169, [1956] 1 WLR 419, CA. It is not so in the case of an equitable assignment: Whittingstall v King (1882) 46 LT 520.

11 Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607, [1968] 3 All ER 824, CA.

12 WF Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169, [1956] 1 WLR 419, CA, obiter per Denning LJ.

13 See Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530 at 538, CA.

14 Walker v Bradford Old Bank (1884) 12 QBD 511; Re Westerton, Public Trustee v Gray [1919] 2 Ch 104.

15 Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530, CA.

16 See Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530 at 538, CA.

17 Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530, CA (where the notice was given by the executor of a sub-assignee).

 

 

 

[citizenB]

When they issued the Default Notices - did they issue for the consolidated account or for the separate accounts ?

 

If the issued DN on a consolidated account (which didnt actually exist) then that would null and void it.

[DieLTSBDie]

When they issued the Default Notices - did they issue for the consolidated account or for the separate accounts ?

 

If the issued DN on a consolidated account (which didnt actually exist) then that would null and void it.

 

No, they were all issued (all four of them) before the accounts were consolidated.

 

It seems that shortly after they closed the separate, LTSB consolidated them (again, without any prior consent or agreement).

 

Also, being that [problem] issued DNs of their own, being that they basically ARE LTSB, and being that 'their' 7-day window DNs were issued later, then they would have be classed as 'corrected' DNs, would they not?

 

Me being the cautious type, I've retained the original loan doc (it's invalid also - incorrect APR calculation, among other things) AND the 'consolidated' fake agreement.

 

I daresay if it did go to court, and I pulled out the latter, then that wouldn't go down too well with a judge.

[citizenB]

Certainly looks as though they have created a major problem for themselves and are prepared to rely on harrassment to obtain their goal ! Oops

[DieLTSBDie]

Certainly looks as though they have created a major problem for themselves and are prepared to rely on harrassment to obtain their goal ! Oops

 

How do I send a PM?

 

I have a couple more questions to ask, but just in case 1st Credit or LTSB are reading, I don't want them to see it - I'm well aware that DCAs read these forums.

[citizenB]

You have to reach a certain level of posting before being able to use the pm facility. Although you are able to private message any site team member. Just click on a user name at the left of the screen and it will take you to a list of what you can do... one of them being send message.

 

Or go to top of screen - user cp and see the list down the left hand side.