Link Have just Defaulted a Barclaycard debt that was in a DMP since 2009 - help!

[michaelt]

The problem with our argument on pre-ticked is a difficult one to prove one way or the other, its true as far as we are concerned but the banks as usual would rather just deny it knowing as we do its difficult to prove.

 

I have had the usual bobbins about being a non-advised sale etc,etc,etc and have countered these arguments following threads from this forum.

 

The main focus of my argument is that the Credit Agreement does not in any way state that

 

Your Repayment Protection - is optional and is take the credit agreement with PPI or leave it.

 

---------

Egg now that multiple credit checks and re-applying for a new agreement harms your credit rating so it follows that most people will be forced into taking PPI with the current agreement, AND

 

If the PPI is cancelled because its not optional so is the whole of the credit agreement. Hence forced PPI sale

 

Am I barking up the wrong tree here as an argument - opinions and advice would be appreciated - thanks in advance

 

Sorry just posted in the Thread : FSA Handbook

 

Where they posted the following details

 

PAGES 15 & 16 of this earlier document make interesting reading

 

"We identified a common failing of not disclosing to the customer that the

term of the cover was shorter than the term of the credit agreement and the

consequences of such mismatch. Our view is that failing to disclose such a

16 CP10/6: Payment Protection Insurance complaints (March 2010)

mismatch and its financial consequences to the customer would not comply

with the Principles. From the introduction of ICOBS 6.4.9R(3) this would also

have been a breach of the rule."

 

this means the purchaser of PPI thought he was buying insurance for the length of the loan not just for 5 years r

 

-----------------------

AND ON PAGE 34

 

"Balance

3.10 The main objection from the industry was that the overall effect of the guidance

was unbalanced and unfair because it made it very difficult for firms to reject any

PPI complaint, even where the firm felt it had acted quite correctly at point of sale.

Three main critcisms were that:"

 

-------------------------------

PAGE 54

 

Consumer Credit Act implications

We agree that the approaches give rise to some implications for the existing credit

agreement(s) under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA).

We contacted the Office of Fair Trading to understand the implications for firms in

this area and reached the following conclusions.

Where the PPI is sold alongside a loan, there are in fact two credit agreements.

One for the principal loan and a second to finance the optional PPI. The former

is debtor-creditor (d-c) and the latter is debtor-creditor-supplier (d-c-s). This is

irrespective of whether the creditor is also the supplier of PPI.

In CCA terms, where the PPI is sold alongside a loan, there are multiple agreements

within section 18(1)(a) CCA. Each part – the principal credit agreement and the

PPI credit agreement – would be treated as a separate agreement by virtue of

section 18(2). They may be documented together, subject to the Consumer Credit

(Agreements) Regulations 1983 (CCA Regulations). Regs 2(8) and 2(9) of the

current CCA Regulations allow for a common heading and signature box and

common statements of protection and remedies. Reg 2(7) requires an additional

form of consent.

If PPI is found to have been mis-sold, the remedy is generally to return the parties

to the position they would have been in had the PPI not been taken out. This should

lead to the cancellation of the PPI credit agreement and refund of monies paid by

the debtor. This is consistent with Article 15.1 of the new Consumer Credit Directive

which states that ‘where the consumer has exercised a right of withdrawal, based on

Community law, concerning a contract for the supply of goods or services, he shall

no longer be bound by a linked credit agreement’.

As the PPI credit agreement is separate (for CCA purposes) from the principal credit

agreement, it should be possible to cancel the former without affecting the latter.

Clearly though, if payments were made together as a single monthly instalment, the

amount of the instalment will need to be adjusted (as our approaches indicate). This

would not require a modification of the principal credit agreement. It would simply

be a consequence of cancellation of the PPI credit.

Even if the principal credit and PPI credit were treated as one agreement for CCA

purposes (which we do not believe would be the intended effect of section 18

CCA), it would be possible to modify the agreement to remove the PPI elements.

This could be done via a modifying agreement for section 82(2) CCA purposes. The debtor would have to agree (but we generally see no reason why he would not).

Alternatively, the creditor could simply refrain from collecting part of the payment

and from enforcing the relevant aspects of the agreement. This could be done as

a unilateral concession, although this would be less satisfactory from the debtor’s

point of view as it would not have the effect of amending the contract and in

theory the creditor could withdraw the unilateral concession at any time. It is better

(and clearer all round) to have a modifying agreement, signed by both parties, and

binding on both of them. At the very least the concession should be documented in

some durable way, such as a letter acknowledging it, given the potential for disputes.

Consequently, we do not see why our approaches discussed above should raise CCA

enforceability issues.28 However, a firm should take care in how it documents the

arrangements and what information it gives to the consumer.

---------------------

The above comments on [Consumer Credit Act implications] seems to be along the lines of my current argument with Barclaycard.

 

Where if the Credit agreement if it is one agreement with PPI and in no way states that it is optional - does this mean that the credit agreement if it has the PPI cancelled - that the whole agreement has to be cancelled too, meaning that its a forced PPI sale/agreement.

 

Is the above a correct paragraph a correct interpretation of the above article/comment, thanks in advance

[xyz1000]

Thanks DX for your reply

 

Link Financial £763

 

Sorry I cant remember who I owe what to originally - Barclay Card and possible a Lloyds card

 

What does cash cowed mean?

 

Debts were taken out between 2002 and 2009

[dx100uk]

cash cowed means you are paying a debt that you don't need too to no powers DCA's

they ARE NOT BAILIFFS.

 

Link Financial £763 send a CCA request

[xyz1000]

Link Financial £763 is showing on Noddle and Experian as green no default. None of the others are to be seen on either report.

 

My credit score isn't to be bad it is on Fair. That is what made me think that the defaults had come off I am confused now.

 

Jan 2010 I started the DPM

[dx100uk]

Not what I asked.....

But looks like some where taken out at a previous address

 

Bet the Link debt is a Barclaycard?

[xyz1000]

I was at my current address. I would have to look into who the Link debt was with originally as not sure.

[dx100uk]

Ok

[xyz1000]

Bet the Link debt is a Barclaycard - Yep

 

I sent off 4 cca requests today with the £1 postal orders.

 

Also on Step change its states that the money I am paying Westcot was originally Lloyds.

 

Should I send a Cca to Westcot too?

 

Also DX you said to stop the payments to Stepchange. Should I just call them and say that I will take over them myself now?

 

I don't want anything to against trying to get a mortgage but don't really want to pay £220 in a couple of days !

 

thanks

[dx100uk]

Bet the Link debt is a Barclaycard - Yep - now there a surprise!!

 

I sent off 4 cca requests today with the £1 postal orders.

 

Also on Step change its states that the money I am paying Westcot was originally Lloyds.

 

Should I send a Cca to Westcot too? no their client

 

Also DX you said to stop the payments to Stepchange. Should I just call them and say that I will take over them myself now? yes and yes

 

I don't want anything to against trying to get a mortgage but don't really want to pay £220 in a couple of days !

 

thanks

 

 

get an sar running to BC if you've not already done so

 

 

dx

[xyz1000]

ok will do thanks DX

 

 

 

BC showing as 0 normal so don't understand if that defaulted or not

[dx100uk]

bet the report shows no data on the link BC debt from before they bought it

[xyz1000]

bet the report shows no data on the link BC debt from before they bought it. It just states normal with 0 balance, any ideas why?

 

Does anyone have a link to a sar letter template please?

[dx100uk]

click the sar in your post^^^^

 

 

does the data on links entry go further back than the date they purchased the debt?

[xyz1000]

click the sar in your post^^^^ thank you

 

does the data on links entry go further back than the date they purchased the debt -

nope BC shows 27/07/2006 (account started)

Settlement Date22/09/2016 Assigned to CAIS member 01/10/2016

 

link shows

27/07/2006 account started with 7 green ticks no other dates.

 

So really the BC would have defaulted and dropped off but Link have started it up again. Is that right?

[dx100uk]

need to prove that BC default hence the sar.

 

but id guess yes they did

so that'll be vanishing from your file soon as well then....

 

typical game link play

 

dx

[martin2006]

BC will show as 0 because they have sold it on, probably to Hoist Portfolio Holdings 2 Ltd, that is who now owns the BC debt and sure Hoist will appear on your file if not already, then soon will.

[dx100uk]

Plink already have it..

[martin2006]

Sorry missed seeing the confirmation that plink have it, BC tended to use Hoist more recently as well as plink

[dx100uk]

bet they'll supply the usual 620000 filing cabinet stuff in regard to the CCA too...

[xyz1000]

Update :

 

Plink. Letter received stating they take up to 30 days to provide.

[xyz1000]

Hi

 

I have got the paperwork back from Barclay's which shows the account defaulted in 2006.

the one that plink brought a few years ago.

 

I am having difficulty getting the debt removed from my credit file.

Do you have any ideas on how I can do this? .

 

Also I don't know why on my credit file it is showing red for credit saying I am using 150% of my available credit.

I don't have any new accounts open which I owe money on.

 

Is it possible that this can this continue to go against me when it was over 10 years ago that I was over my credit limit?

[dx100uk]

if you've proof of default notice by the OC then send that to plink and demand the account is removed

give them 14days else you'll start a complaint with the ICO and seek financial compo

[xyz1000]

ok will do thanks

[xyz1000]

I have been told that Barclaycard didn't register a default on my report, So Plink will not remove it.

 

 

The statements from BC show that I was being charged a default fee in 2009 before going onto a DMP.

 

Are they able to do this?

Put in on the report when they brought it in 2017 seems well unfair if I have now got that on there until 2023.

[dx100uk]

who told you BC didn't register a default??

 

nearly every original creditor always defaults an account upon sale

just see the 100's of claimform threads here regarding debt buyer taking people to court

every one of them is defaulted

 

a debt buyer cannot register a default.

 

sorry link are laughing at you and taking you for a mug

which is what they always do...

 

dx