Reliable collection and simplyBE CCA return

[penmarine]

Afternoon all got this letter from Reliable Collections today in regard to my CCA request. The covering letter states that "When responding to a section 78 request (I'd requested under both section 77 and 78) the lender does not have to provide a photocopy or other literal copy of the executed agreement nor provide a copy bearing or some proof of the customer's actual signature". Is this true, as the reconstituted "True Copy" has our new address on with no signatures and what looks like a photocopy of an old one with someone's signature from the OC but without the wife's signature on there. Just a bit of advice on how to proceed. The debt was originally with Simply Be if that has any bearing on the matter. Do I mug them off and put a account in dispute letter in when the 12 days is up? Or should I do something else? All help much appreciated. PM

[Bazooka Boo]

The attachments are too small to read, can you post them up using Photobucket or tinypic or something similar?

 

The description you have given does give rise to think they haven't complied fully with your request, but can't be sure till we can see the replies.

 

You do have to question that if they had the originals then why not simply give you copies of them regardless,? sounds like they haven't got a leg to stand on.

[penmarine]

another attempt at attaching decent sized documents.

Edited July 17, 2010 by penmarine

[penmarine]

[penmarine]

[penmarine]

[Bazooka Boo]

For unreliable collections, did you say the account was in dispute? If not do so, if they had a 'True' copy of your CCA then they would have supplied you with it, after all it makes no business sense for them to not send you it, as they are the ones wanting their money back!

 

They have referred to it as being 'reconstituted' but have failed to say why this is so?

 

If they genuinely have the original, they would have sent you a copy of it, and not felt the need to cloud the issue by sending you a reconstituted version, that means diddly squat.

[penmarine]

For unreliable collections, did you say the account was in dispute? If not do so, if they had a 'True' copy of your CCA then they would have supplied you with it, after all it makes no business sense for them to not send you it, as they are the ones wanting their money back!

 

They have referred to it as being 'reconstituted' but have failed to say why this is so?

 

If they genuinely have the original, they would have sent you a copy of it, and not felt the need to cloud the issue by sending you a reconstituted version, that means diddly squat.

 

Morning BB, yes the Account is In Dispute, I'll just leave it as it is, until they come back to me with an answer to how they are going to deal with the dispute. Thanks just waiting out on the rest now. Cheers PM

[Bazooka Boo]

Morning PM, account in dispute and no payments being made I hope?

[penmarine]

Morning PM, account in dispute and no payments being made I hope?

Hi BB yes Account in Dispute and no wonga to them, still not heard off any of the others yet either, all my accounts are in dispute now:grin:

[Bazooka Boo]

Good good. Wait for their next shady move...

[penmarine]

Good Evening CAGGERs been quiet on the western front for a while, bar a couple of letters from DCAs stating just because they didn't have a signed CCA they'd still demand money, IMHO chin up

 

However got a letter today from Simply Be (I thought Unreliable Collections was dealing as I normally get ****ograms off them). It reads as follows:

 

"Thank you for your letter blah, blah, blah"

"We have noted your comments regarding enforcement action and would draw your attention to the fact that this account was opened AFTER April 2007".

 

"In the absence of any valid dispute over the components that make up the balance of your account we consider your assertion that you have no legal liability for payment to be based purely on the fact that you claim that the relevant credit agreement has not been signed."

 

"You should be aware of the important changes implemented by the Consumer Credit Act 2006 in respect of credit agreements entered into after April 2007.

 

As your credit account was opened after this date, even if we are unable to produce a signed agreement (which is not admitted) we have the right to apply to the court for an enforcement order.

 

An order will be made under the provisions of section 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended by the Consumer Credit Act 2006) unless the court finds that prejudice has been caused as a result of your alleged failure to sign the agreement.

 

We do not consider that you ahve been prejudiced in any way by the alleged omission of your signature on your credit agreement, and we are confident that we would be successful in any application for an enforcement order in respect of the agreement.

 

If you continue to deny any liability in respect of your debt and fail to make any further payments towards it we can apply to the court for an enforcement order in respect of the agreement and reserve our right to seek costs and interest. In addition, our rights in relation to pursuing you for the cash balance of the goods are fully reserved."

 

Your further comment regarding Section 10 of the Data Protection Act have previously been responded to by our Legal Department."

We would therefore advise that the outstanding arrears are currently £xxxxx and an immediate payment is required to bring the account up to date. If you are currently experiencing financial difficulties, there are options available, which may help your situation. Where appropriate we can consider reduced payments and/or cancelling credit charges."

"We await your reply"

 

Tom Nally

 

Account Management Team.

 

Now my questions are what is an enforcement order?

Does the court paperwork have to be delivered a certain way i.e. recorded delivery, courier?

 

From the letter "even if we are unable to produce a signed agreement (which is not admitted)" is this Simply Be saying we have nothing, but we'll take you court regardless?

 

I've seen on other CAGGERs threads they've had the same paperwork as me in regard to unsigned photocopied agreements with the same Simply Be rep signature, some Lyman bloke and no customer signature.

 

I'm concerned for the wife as she doesn't work now, so has no money coming in at all.

Now I don't mind paying a couple of quid a month to them and I mean a couple of quid, however when she was working and paying, she would still on a monthly basis get charged an admin fee and interest for not paying the minimum repayment when she was under a debt management plan.

 

The amount never went down, just hoovered around the same amount.

 

I'm at my end with these guys and I'm at a loss at what to do next, just ignore them or offer a couple of quid a month on behalf of the wife? Any help mucho appreciated. PM

[Bazooka Boo]

Your links in #113, are these for the above dispute?

If so, then IMO the agreement looks, enforceable, BUT, I stand to be corrected on that, and my only question is ,where is the information regarding your right to cancel, did they send that at a later date, and have they resent that info now?

 

Your other links in the other posts, don' work so can't advise on those.

 

The agreement you took out post April 2007, was this online, in store or at home?

If it was online then your signature will have been a tick box, and most agreements are deemed enforceable after this date, as they closed all the loopholes after they realised they were losing money hand over fist.

[penmarine]

Hi BB confirmed from the Long Haired Colonel that it was done online, the post 113 was in relation to Simply Be/Unreliable Collections. As she's not working, not getting any money should I get a letter off for her and an offer of a couple of quid a month (seeing as I'll be paying) and ask for interest/charges, admin fee penalties to be frozen? Only problem is she doesn't work, but cannot prove it either, it's not like she got a p60 when she finished. I don't mind paying it for her but I ain't paying them what they want and I aint sending them my incomings and outgoings either, as I believe my finances have no bearing on her's and how much I should pay them? Is this correct? Ta PM

[Bazooka Boo]

Shame, online apps from Apr 2007 deemed compliant, but yes token payments of £1 a month could be made, or rather should be made just to keep the wolf from the door so to speak, they don't need to agree to this, just set up a standing order to pay it, you can of course send a letter explaining no longer working, circumstances changed, on benefits, so will only be paying token payments, and please can they stop interest & charges on the account to assist, when your circumstances change, they will be the first to know and payments can be increased.

 

Unreliable are only acting on behalf of their clients aren't they????

 

Simply be still own the account yes?

 

If the account has been flogged onto Unreliable, then they cannot ad charges and interest, not unless they have bought the agreement under the law of property act.

[penmarine]

I don't know if Unreliable bought the debt, when I CCA'd them they sent me there token photocopied agreement and a statement of account, no notice of assignment or any paperwork to say the debt had been bought by them. I just took for granted they were working on behalf of Simply Be. Surely they should have sent that sort of paperwork at the same time, if not do I have to send another request or should I just DSAR Simply Be or Unreliable to find out? And then sent up a token quid payment for the better half whilst I get the info from them? PM

[Bazooka Boo]

If you are going to SAR anyone, then it should be the OC, simply be, this 'should' hopefully throw up the notice of assignment, the cheapest option is to give them a bell first, see if they will divulge that info over the phone as to who they passed the account to, tell them that you want to pay them direct and not some middle man.