Debt written off due to Carers Allowance?

[davey77]

The post today:

 

From Debt Managers: (Barclays/Russel Aitken)

 

You have failed to respond to our previous communications. therefore our doorstep agents have now been instructed to call at your address to collect the full amount owed.

 

You have a final opportunity to prevent this happening by simply calling the above number. You may even be entitled to a discount of up to 30% (without predjudice) for an immediate settlement.

 

Failure to respond to this letter will result in our agent calling.

 

My reply to the above letter:

 

Dear Sir, Madam,

 

Thank you for your letter received today 30 July 2007, (dated 25 July 2007). I am at a loss to understand your recent communications though as it was my understanding that it was your intention to take this matter to the County Court as per the detail of your letter of the 11 July 2007.

 

My reply to that letter dated 18 July 2007 was to state that Debt Managers Ltd were already in receipt of a Consumer Credit Act 1974 request (s77-79) that was sent to your office 2 July 2007 by recorded delivery. You had 12 working days to supply said agreement (19 July 2007) before the law stated you were in Default and thereby making the alleged debt unenforceable under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Your letter seemed to indicate that simply by acknowledging the above request you were somehow exempt from obeying the law:

 

“We refer to your correspondence of 18/07/07. We write to advise that we are not in Default as we acknowledged your request for a copy of the signed agreement”

 

This is, of course, is incorrect and the law is quite specific in this regard as you are no doubt aware subsection (6) states:

 

If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

 

(a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) If the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

Your letter of the 23 July 2007 confirmed receipt of the above request and also clearly confirmed you were awaiting the relevant documents to be passed to you by Barclays.

Several of your previous letters in point of fact have given the clear impression that imminent Court Proceedings were to be engaged in relation to this matter and a letter from Russel Aitken - Solicitors around the 18 July 2007 confirmed your instructions to them to initiate immediate Court Proceedings.

 

I have therefore been awaiting the relevant Court Papers in regard to this but have to date received nothing from you in this respect.

 

Of course, your actions currently contravene OFT collection guidance of which you have been made previously aware of in my letter to you dated 18 July 2007 which states:

 

"It is an unfair practice for a creditor to continue collection activity on a debt which is being disputed."

 

Not only is the account in dispute but unenforceable due to the CCA non-compliance in the statutory timeframe given within the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but it certainly seems you have been unaware/ miss-informed as to the above Act and your legal obligations and responsibilities therein.

 

Your latest letter received today contains your intention to instruct your agents to call at my address. This action of course would be unlawful due to the reasons stated above in regard to the unenforceability of the alleged debt and therefore you would have no legitimate reason for visiting my address or accessing my property. Any such attempts, on legal advise, would be met with a police presence, possible litigation as to unlawful harassment and also possibly Fraud as i understand the new Fraud Act 2006 in that:

 

"(3) Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

 

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is

under a legal duty to disclose, and

 

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss."

 

Perhaps Russel Aikens - Solicitors, would be able to offer you legal advice pertaining to your current position in law and i suggest that you seek this information as soon as possible thereby enabling you to contact me in writing as to your immediate and true intentions and if it is your intention to proceed to Court regarding this matter i suggest you initiate such action at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours sincerely, Me

[davey77]

From crap1:

 

Dear Mr x,

 

IMPORTANT - YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY

 

STATEMENT OF DEFAULT

You account is now offically in default.

 

As of the 27/07/07 you have defaulted and you owe us £1,491,42.

 

1. We have terminated your account. This means you have permanently lost your account and all spending privileges on your card.

 

2. We have the right to demand that you pay your full balance immediately. We may add any reasonable costs we incur as a result of recovering the amount owed.

 

3. We will nofity the credit reference agencies that you have defaulted on your agreement. This may affect your ability to obtain credit from other lenders.

 

4. We may place your account with, or sell your account to a debt collection agency, which may use door-to-door collections or begin legal proceedings to recover all sums owed to us.

 

Our nominated representative will contact you shortly.

 

Yours sincerely,

Valerie Lipton

Director of Collections

[humbleman]

From crap1:

 

Dear Mr x,

 

IMPORTANT - YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY

 

STATEMENT OF DEFAULT

You account is now offically in default.

 

As of the 27/07/07 you have defaulted and you owe us £1,491,42.

 

 

3. We will nofity the credit reference agencies that you have defaulted on your agreement. This may affect your ability to obtain credit from other lenders.

 

 

I wish we as consumers had the same rights as them, i.e. register defaults when they don't comply with the CCA requests. Bit of an unfair agreement (if any) don't you think.

 

In any case as someone has already pointed out you can only issue default on a valid agreement.

[davey77]

Hey Humbleman. Sorry for the late reply. Yes i totally agree. The law is there but it only seems to work for the creditors. I know and you know they shouldn't issue a default on an account that is in dispute or without a properly exectued agreement. There doesn't seem to be anybody out there to stop them. My complaints to TS have gone practically un-answered and the FOS haven't contacted me yet either.

[davey77]

In the post today were 2 replies to my letter below to Debt Managers (Barclays).

 

Printed in 'tickbox' style:

 

Others your letter of 30/07/07 refers. We have to advise that our letters of 18/07 and 25/07 were issued in error and no court action is being rasied by us in respect to this account. As you are aware we did request a copy of the application from Masterloan and as we have not been provided with it to date we we have closed our file and returned it to them. We confirm that no further action will be taken by us. We apologize for the confusion regarding our letters and hope this now clarifies the position.

 

And also....

 

We refer to your recent request for additional documents/information and write to advise our Client MASTERLOAN are unable to provide any furhter details.

 

In these circumstances, we have closed our file and returned it to them.

 

We can confirm no furhter action will be taken by Debt Managers Limited in realtion to this account.

 

Signed 'squiggle'

 

 

My reply to the above letter:

 

Dear Sir, Madam,

 

Thank you for your letter received today 30 July 2007, (dated 25 July 2007). I am at a loss to understand your recent communications though as it was my understanding that it was your intention to take this matter to the County Court as per the detail of your letter of the 11 July 2007.

 

My reply to that letter dated 18 July 2007 was to state that Debt Managers Ltd were already in receipt of a Consumer Credit Act 1974 request (s77-79) that was sent to your office 2 July 2007 by recorded delivery. You had 12 working days to supply said agreement (19 July 2007) before the law stated you were in Default and thereby making the alleged debt unenforceable under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Your letter seemed to indicate that simply by acknowledging the above request you were somehow exempt from obeying the law:

 

“We refer to your correspondence of 18/07/07. We write to advise that we are not in Default as we acknowledged your request for a copy of the signed agreement”

 

This is, of course, is incorrect and the law is quite specific in this regard as you are no doubt aware subsection (6) states:

 

If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

 

(a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) If the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

Your letter of the 23 July 2007 confirmed receipt of the above request and also clearly confirmed you were awaiting the relevant documents to be passed to you by Barclays.

Several of your previous letters in point of fact have given the clear impression that imminent Court Proceedings were to be engaged in relation to this matter and a letter from Russel Aitken - Solicitors around the 18 July 2007 confirmed your instructions to them to initiate immediate Court Proceedings.

 

I have therefore been awaiting the relevant Court Papers in regard to this but have to date received nothing from you in this respect.

 

Of course, your actions currently contravene OFT collection guidance of which you have been made previously aware of in my letter to you dated 18 July 2007 which states:

 

"It is an unfair practice for a creditor to continue collection activity on a debt which is being disputed."

 

Not only is the account in dispute but unenforceable due to the CCA non-compliance in the statutory timeframe given within the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but it certainly seems you have been unaware/ miss-informed as to the above Act and your legal obligations and responsibilities therein.

 

Your latest letter received today contains your intention to instruct your agents to call at my address. This action of course would be unlawful due to the reasons stated above in regard to the unenforceability of the alleged debt and therefore you would have no legitimate reason for visiting my address or accessing my property. Any such attempts, on legal advise, would be met with a police presence, possible litigation as to unlawful harassment and also possibly Fraud as i understand the new Fraud Act 2006 in that:

 

"(3) Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

 

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is

under a legal duty to disclose, and

 

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss."

 

Perhaps Russel Aikens - Solicitors, would be able to offer you legal advice pertaining to your current position in law and i suggest that you seek this information as soon as possible thereby enabling you to contact me in writing as to your immediate and true intentions and if it is your intention to proceed to Court regarding this matter i suggest you initiate such action at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours sincerely, Me

[hellhasnofury]

In the post today were 2 replies to my letter below to Debt Managers (Barclays).

 

Printed in 'tickbox' style:

 

Others your letter of 30/07/07 refers. We have to advise that our letters of 18/07 and 25/07 were issued in error and no court action is being rasied by us in respect to this account. As you are aware we did request a copy of the application from Masterloan and as we have not been provided with it to date we we have closed our file and returned it to them. We confirm that no further action will be taken by us. We apologize for the confusion regarding our letters and hope this now clarifies the position.

 

And also....

 

We refer to your recent request for additional documents/information and write to advise our Client MASTERLOAN are unable to provide any furhter details.

 

In these circumstances, we have closed our file and returned it to them.

 

We can confirm no furhter action will be taken by Debt Managers Limited in realtion to this account.

 

Signed 'squiggle'

 

Well done Davy,

 

Your letters are excellent, may I pinch bits of them for my battle.

[Josie8]

subscribing

[davey77]

Well done Davy,

 

Your letters are excellent, may I pinch bits of them for my battle.

 

Thanks HHNF! Sure thing.. help yourself to anything in my thread. Copy and paste as you like certainly.

Hope things are well with you! D

[davey77]

Hello.. sorry haven't been about much. The letters really have only just started coming in again after a break it seems but also i have a bit of a romance on the go and that has been a (welcome) distraction!!

 

So... to catch up a bit. CAPITOL ONE have gone back to sending computer letters after the personal response to my assertion that an application form was non-compliant. So i have sent them this:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am in receipt of your recent letter once again asking for payment relating to the above account.

 

It was my understanding that, after your acknowledgement of my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service in your letter dated 16th July 2007, that you were therefore fully aware i consider the above account to be in dispute. Therefore your current stance in asking for payment contravenes OFT guidelines in that “According to OFT Debt Collection Guidance it is an unfair practice for a creditor to continue collection activity on a debt which is being disputed.” A statement i have brought to your attention which you have previously also not taken into account.

 

As you have confirmed your understanding of my complaint to the FOS it is off great concern and disappointment that you continue to pursue the alleged debt whilst an account is in dispute and in so doing completely ignoring OFT guidelines and the Consumer Credit Act.

 

I suggest before you continue to write in such a manner you consult your legal department and reaffirm yourself with your obligations and my rights as a consumer before you continue to flout these regulations so blatantly.

 

Once again, I should like to remind you that the account is currently in dispute. That, as far as i am concerned, and also after advice from several legal and well respected organisations including the RT Hon Ian McCartney MP - Minister for Trade Investment and Foreign Affairs, the CCA request has not been complied with in full of which you have been made aware on several occasions.

I hope you are also aware that Capitol One cannot pass a debt to a third party whilst an account is in formal dispute.

 

You have given me your final response in this matter which i understand enables the FOS to investigate fully. I hope this permanently clarifies the situation for you regarding the above alleged debt, your responsibilities as a legally abiding Creditor and your obligations towards consumers. I also trust that in the mean time you dissuade from inappropriate requests for payment and harassment to that effect in which time the FOS can proceed at their discretion.

 

Yours sincerely, Me

 

[davey77]

As for Barclays... Debt managers wrote to me the other week (i think i put that on here?!) to say they could not supply the agreement and were giving the account back to Barclays. Then i had a strange letter directly from Barclays which said:

 

Dear Mr x,

 

Reference: SECTION 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I write to further to your letter dated 29 June 2007 requesting information regarding your Barclaycard Account under the above Act.

 

Unfortunately at present I am unable to deal with your request, as you have not supplied us with sufficient information.

 

Therefore, please can you provide further information, for example, current and previous accounts numbers and also should you have recently moved, please provide details of your previous addresses.

 

I apologise that i cannot be of further assistance to you at present, however i look forward to receiving the information required.

 

In the meantime, should you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Helen Gould

Court Orders and Disclosures Clerk

Legal and Regulatory Compliance

Dept LRC

 

My reply to this was:

 

Dear Sir, Madam,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 14 August 2007 re my request for information under the Consumer Credit act 1974 (s77-79) dated 9 June 2007.

 

I am somewhat confused as to what ‘sufficient information’ is needed for you to complete said request. I have been in full written communication with Barclays and, until recently, Debt Managers Ltd and each time given my name, address and account number in every correspondence. These details, to clarify, are above and correct.

 

I understand that Debt Managers have closed their file in this matter and confirmed in writing no further action will be taken by them due to their inability to comply with the above request and have since passed the alleged debt back to Barclays.

 

Please be advised the under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act a creditor has 12 working days to supply said information in full before a default occurs. Following that, a one calendar month time limit applies after which a creditor has committed a criminal offence and as of the 18 August 2007, by my calculations, Barclays have committed such an offence as prescribed within the terms of the above Act.

 

Would you therefore please reply at your earliest convenience and in doing so include all relevant information under the above request or confirmation of your inability to do so.

 

Yours sincerely, me

[davey77]

Halifax, who have been ignoring me since i CCA'd Blair, Oliver and Scott and whom neither have ever sent me any documents since my original request to them in March have written although it looks rather a computer letter and not really to me personally. Actuallly i wrote to them a couple of days ago but our letters have crossed in the post. My letter first:

 

THIS LETTER REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I hereby serve you with this letter which should be accepted as a LETTER BEFORE ACTION as it is my intention to proceed with County Court Action in relation to a Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s77-79) request that has not been complied with by Halifax Plc or Blair, Oliver and Scott Ltd.

 

The original request was sent to Halifax plc 21 March 2007 by recorded delivery and the cheque for £1 as the statutory fee payable under the above act was cashed 4 April 2007. Cheque number 000565.

A second request was sent, again by recorded delivery to Blair, Oliver and Scott Ltd 28 June 2007. This second request also has been ignored.

 

As you are no doubt aware If a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid Consumer Credit Act request within a period of 12 days (not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all. This prevents enforcement with or without a court order. If a default lasts for a month (for example a calendar month) it constitutes a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine of £2500.

 

If i do not receive a reply within 7 working days of the date of this letter including either:

 

1. A properly exectued agrement, statement of account and terms and conditions fully compliant to the above act

 

OR

 

2. Confirmation from Blair, Oliver and Scott that they are unable to comply with the above act

 

i shall immediately begin Legal Action and will include damages/costs in such action.

I will also be informing the Office of Fair Trading of Blair, Oliver and Scott’s tacticks, communications, responses and blatant disregard for the Law.

 

No further correspondence will be entered into unless the reply recived complies with either 2 points stated above and no further time will be alloted for a response other than the 7 days stated.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

[davey77]

And the letter from HALIFAX this morning:

 

Dear Mr X

 

Your request for information

 

Further to your enquiry, I am pleased to confirm the information you requested has now been ordered.

 

We assume your request is to enable you to reconcile your bank charges and feel we should make you aware of our policy on handling complaint from customers about bank charges.

 

We believe our charges are fair, transparent and lawful. However, the bank (along with a number of other banks) has now become involved in legal proceedings with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in relation to bank charges which we believe will resolve the legal issues regarding the fairness and legality of your bank charges.

 

Until the determination of the legal issues in the above proceedings, we have asked the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to suspend the normal timetable for dealing with bank chrages complaints, and the FSA has agreed to this request subject to conditions that protect your rights.

 

If you do decide to register a complaint, please be advised that we will be unable to respond in full to your complaint, but we (together with the FSA and the OFT) think it is necessary to resolve the key legal issues before we decide how we should respond to any complaints.

 

Obviously exactly what will happen next will depend on the courts. We do not know how long the case will take - we have promised to proceed as quickly as possible but inevitably given the importance of the issues being considered this may take many months to finally resolve.

 

Should you decide to refer your case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), you should be aware that we have asked the FOS not to proceed with any other case they are hearing until the test case is resolved. The FOS has indicated as a general proposition that it will indeed not proceed with cases which rely on the legal issues being considered in the test case.

 

Similarly, you should be aware that if you choose to issue a claim in the Courts the bank will immediately apply to the Court for an order to stay your action until resolution of the bank's proceedings with the OFT.

 

The FSA requires us to ensure that any bank charge complaint will not be adversely affected by the delay in dealing with it. For customers for whom Scotland is the most likely jurisdiction, your right to refer your complaint to the FOS will not be affected. The FOS provides a convenient alternative to the courts, and is free for consumers. However, if you nonetheless wish to continue your claim through the courts in Scotland, you may wish to seek advice on maing a claim now to protect your rights in prescription although you will have to pay a fee.

 

You can check the latest position on our website at halifax.co.uk or bankofscotland.co.uk.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Chris Nelson

Data Subject Access Request Team

Customer Relations

[davey77]

As for Cahoot... they wrote via Debt Management and Recovery Services a month ago saying that as i have not paid the money i owe the account is being returned to Cahoot. Then i had a letter from Buchanan Clark Wells:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

We have received instructions from our above named clients to initiate formal debt collections proceedings for the unpaid debt as detailed above.

 

Please contact this office immediately in order that we can discuss a satisfactory settlement to this matter.

 

Unless you make arrangements to settle the account within 72 hours our agent may be instructed to attend your premises to establish your residency and reason for non-payment.

 

You must take this opportunity to settle the matter amicably in order to avoid possible legal action being instigated.

 

Please do not underestimate the seriousness of this matter and attend to this notice immediately as this will be your final opportunity.

 

If you are experiencing financial difficulties, or you wish to make a proposal please call us today.

 

My reply to this was the following:

 

I recently received a letter from you asking for payment towards the above account. I can only assume this was sent to me in error.

 

For clarification purposes. When the above account was handed to Debt Management and Recovery Services Ltd via cahoot i requested, as is my right, a copy of the Credit Agreement under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s77-79.) dated 9th July 2007.

A letter from Cahoot dated 11 July 2007 stated they do not charge for a CCA request and returned my cheque and i assumed the request was still being dealt with but as yet have not received the correct documents.

 

A letter from Debt Management and Recovery Services Ltd dated 20 July 2007 stated their intention the return the above alleged debt to Cahoot which was, coincidentally, just within the time limit permitted by law, thereby avoiding the legal ramifications which include imprisonment and/or a £2500 fine for non-compliance as laid out under the above Act.

 

It seems Buchanan Clark Wells have been falsely instructed to enforce a currently unenforceable debt and therefore are breaking the terms of the consumer credit act 1974 and OFT guidelines in that: “It is an unfair practice for a creditor to continue collection activity on a debt which is being disputed. “

 

Also, If Buchanan Clark Wells have been passed all relevant information there is no legal reason for any person/s to call at my address as intimated in your correspondence. This action of course would be unlawful due to the reasons stated above and any such attempts, on legal advice, would be met with a police presence, possible litigation as to unlawful harassment and also possibly Fraud as i understand the new Fraud Act 2006 in that:

 

(3) Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

 

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is

under a legal duty to disclose, and

 

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As Buchanan Clark Wells are now the owners/representatives of the above alleged debt and with reference to the above account I would be grateful in this instance if you would send me a copy of this credit agreement and a full breakdown of the account including any interest or charges applied, as is my right in law.

 

I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (sections 77−79), I am entitled

to receive a copy of any credit agreement and a statement of account on request. I enclose a payment of £1 which represents the fee

payable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I understand a copy of any credit agreement along with a statement of account should be supplied within 12

working days.

 

I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 creditors are unable to enforce an agreement if they fail to comply with the request for a copy of the agreement and statement of account under these sections of the Act.

 

The cheque enclosed for £1 to clarify any misunderstanding, is not payment but the fee payable only, under the above Act. Please do not underestimate the seriousness of this matter or your legal responsibilities and obligations.

 

 

Yours sincerely, me

[davey77]

I have also had my first reply from the Ombudsman re my complaint about Mints and the CCA (application form) they have been trying to tell me is good enough to comply with my request.

 

Dear Mr X,

 

Thank you for sending us your completed complaint form.

 

I enclose a leaflet which explains how we can help to resolve complaints. As you will see, before we can look into a complaint you must first have given the business concerned a chance to put things right.

 

I have therefore sent Royal Bank of Scotland details of your complaint and have asked them to deal with the matter. They should respond to the complaint in writing within 8 weeks of the date they hear from us.

 

On receipt of Royal Bank of Scotlan'd final response, if you feel that they have not put things right, or alternatively you have not heard from them after 8 weeks, please return the complaint form together with any supporting documentation.

 

I return any papers you may have sent us as they may be of help when you are dealing with Royal Bank of Scotland.

 

We will take no further action unless you contact us again.

 

The FOS have sent back all the correspondence i sent them which seems daft really as i suspect i will be sending it all back again. I did have a reply from Mint and this is what they had to say:

 

Dear Mr X,

 

A letter has been received from the Financial Ombudsman Service dated 16 August concerning your account.

 

I am sorry that you have not received the information you requested on 19 March 2007. Copies of our letter dated 2 April and 25 April are enclosed for your reference, together with a copy of your original application form. The current Terms and Conditions and also enclosed.

 

As we have been able to prove that the debt is yours i trust that you will contact the Debt Recovery Dept with your proposals to repay the accounts. The last payment received was £1 on 14 March 2007 and we therefore reserve the right to continue with formal action if we do not hear from you within the next 2 weeks.

 

My comments should resolve the issue that you raised, however, the complaint file will remain open until 16 October 2007 to ensure that you have had time to consider them. If you have any further questions, i hope that you will contact me to give me the opportunity to address them. If, however, you remain unhappy you can ask the Financial Ombudsman Service to look at your case again.

 

Gwyneth Smallbone

Senior Customer Advisor

Customer Care Team

 

My reply to this was to Mint directly as it seems like the FOS really will do nothing much until i get that all important 'final response'. I will wait to see what the reply is then send everything back to the FOS:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter received today in reply to being contacted by the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

I would appreciate some clarification as to the content and statement made in that reply which raises some concerns. In it you state, “I am sorry you have not received the information you requested on 19th March 2007”.

 

As you know, the information i requested was a copy of the original agreement, statement of account and terms and conditions per the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Section 77-79.) Under such a request i am entitled to receive a properly executed agreement and not a pre-contractual application form, Statement of account and terms and conditions relating to the original application date. Not the current terms and conditions but those in force when any application was received.

 

You also state that “...we have been able to prove that the debt is yours...” This, and your previous statement above seem contradictory in that the supply of the above documents per my request of the 19th March 2007 is what is required to prove an ongoing debt and not solely a copy of an application form as is my opinion and that of several legal and respected organisations from which i have sought clarification and advice in this matter including: RT Hon Ian McCartney MP - Minister for Trade Investment and Foreign Affairs.

 

I would therefore like your reply to clarify your statement wherein you admit you have been unable to supply the necessary documentation and/or your stance that In your opinion an application form is sufficient to prove the eligibility of a debt in such cases.

I should appreciate that your reply be a final response in that, should i not be satisfied with it’s content, i shall be able to forward your letter to the FOS enabling them to continue with their time scale and protocol.

 

 

Yours sincerely, me

[davey77]

In the post today:

 

From Buchanan Clark Wells (Cahoot).

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

You have chosen to ignore our previous attempts to settle this seriously overdue account.

 

Your name, address and account will now be passed to our field agents so that they can attend your premises to collect the amount due. Their final report may include recommendations to instigate legal action. If this is necessary you will also be responsible for court costs, legal fees and statutory interest, which will significantly increase the amount due.

 

Take further notice that in the event of judgement being carried against you your credit worthiness may become adversely affected and our client may issue enforcement proceedings.

 

Please do not underestimate the seriousness of this matter. To avoid this action being necessary, you must contact this office immediately.

 

We await your response.

 

.....And, 2 letters from the Ombudsman:

 

Dear Mr x,

 

Your complaint about Capital One Bank (Europe) plc

 

Thank you for sending us details of your complaint.

 

It would appear that Capital One Bank have not yet issued their final response on your complaint even though they have had the required eight weeks in which to do so (Actually they did issue a final response on the 16 July.)

It may be possible for the firm to issue their final response shortly; we have therefore contacted Capital One and requested that they issue their final response letter within the next 14 days.

We will contact you again upon receipt of their final response or when the 14 day time limit has expired.

 

And....

 

re. Your complaint about HFC Bank

 

Thank you for contacting us.

 

I am now passing your complaint to our casework administration area to await allocation to an investigation team. The attached information explains in more detail what will happen next.

 

One of my colleagues will write to you as soon as possible to keep you informed of how your complaint is progressing. In the meantime if you have any further information which might help us, please send it to us quoting our reference number above.

 

Please note that when the services of a solicitor, accountant or other advisor are used to bring a complaint to us, we do not normally award professional fees, in full or in part.

[davey77]

My reply to Buchanan Clark Wells:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am sorry to learn that after previously stating my case to you in a clear manner you are continuing to ignore the detail of my previous communication.

 

Your name and address will now be passed to the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) in a complaint regarding your failure to adhere to OFT guidelines and the Law regarding the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

To reiterate: The above account is currently in reasonable dispute.

 

Cahoot have failed to comply with a Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s77-99) request dated 9 July 2007.

 

A second CCA request has been sent to Buchanan Clark Wells dated 24 Aug 2007 and the cheque for the fee payable under the above Act has been cashed 30 August 2007. (Cheque Number *******.)

 

In respect of OFT Guidelines and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 i enclose separately the relevant sections of the above and suggest you familiarise yourselves with them as appropriate. I would also give a final statement to the effect that if i consider any actions, communications in any form to contravene the above Guidance/Act i shall immediately inform the relevant authorities including and not limited to: The Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Trading Standards, The Financial Ombudsman, The Local Constabulary and National Press:

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mr X

 

 

CC: Cahoot/Buchanan, Clark, Wells.

 

 

“Creditor responsibility for third parties

1.9 If consumer credit licence holders choose to do business or continue to do business with third parties engaged in questionable fitness behaviour, then their own fitness will be called into question. Our aim is to ensure that creditors do not ignore the unfair practices of debt collectors, whether in-house or external, acting on their behalf.”

 

(3) Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

 

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is

under a legal duty to disclose, and

 

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

 

Communication

2.1 It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear,

inaccurate or misleading manner.

 

e. failing to provide debtors or creditors with information on status

of debts, for example, not providing requested balance statements when

reasonably requested

h. asking or instructing debtors to make contact on premium rate

telephone numbers

 

False representation of authority and/or legal position

2.3 Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authority and/or the correct legal position.

 

b. falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when it legally

cannot

 

Physical/psychological harassment

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

f. pressurising debtors to pay in full, in unreasonably large instalments,

or to increase payments when they are unable to do so

 

h. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are

disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

 

i. failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued

 

k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt.

 

Charging for debt collection

a. claiming collection costs from a debtor in the absence of express

contractual or other legal provision

 

b. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay

collection charges when this is not the case, for example, when there

is no contractual provision

 

d. applying unreasonable charges, for example, charges not based on actual and necessary costs

e. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt.

 

Debt collection visits

2.11 Those visiting debtors must not act in an unclear or threatening manner.

2.12 Examples of unfair practices are:

 

a. not making the purpose of any proposed visit clear, for example, merely

stating that collectors or field agents will call is not sufficient

 

b. visiting a debtor when it is known they are vulnerable, for example, when a doctor's certificate has been provided stating that the debtor is ill

 

c. continuing with a visit when it becomes apparent that the debtor is

distressed or otherwise vulnerable, for example, it becomes apparent that

the debtor has mental health problems

 

d. entering a property uninvited

 

e. not leaving a property when asked to

 

f. visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the

debt is deadlocked or disputed1

 

g. not giving adequate notice of the time and date of a visit

 

h. visiting debtors, unless requested, at inappropriate locations such as work or hospital.

[davey77]

From HFC Bank:

 

Dear Mr X,

 

I am writing further to your complaint regarding the request for information of your account under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). Please allow me to express my apologies for the time it has taken to respond to your concerns.

 

Upon review I must inform you that HFC Bank's position regarding your complaint remains as stated in the final response letter of 13 June 2007, a copy of which i have enclosed and i have nothing further to add to this matter.

 

I must advise that you have exhausted HFC Bank's internal complaints procedure and no further correspondence will be entered into regarding this matter unless it is received from the Financial Ombudsman Service. Any correspondence received from you concerning this matter will be read and filed, but not responded to.

 

Once again, I am sorry we have been unable to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion for you.

 

Yours sincerely,

Karen Pointon

[davey77]

My latest reply to MBNA/Link Financial:

 

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Thank you for your letter dated 20 July 2007 in relation to my complaint. As you are no doubt aware i have previously, and still ascertain, that the documents supplied to me in relation to any CCA request have not been compliant. I have based my opinion on detailed research of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, statements from RT Hon Ian McCartney MP - Minister for Trade Investment and Foreign Affairs, and advise from various respected organisations.

 

The statement in your previous letter indicates that the above accounts, in your opinion are no longer in dispute therefore i must reiterate my stance on this point in that i consider the accounts to still be in reasonable dispute. As it does not require in such a cases for both parties to agree that an ongoing dispute exists for the dispute to remain valid I therefore remind you of my genuinely held opinion in this regard.

 

I notice you have sent me your final response enabling me to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) with a view to resolving this matter. This i have so done accordingly and expect MBNA/Link Financial to conform to Office of Fair Trading (OFT) guidelines whilst the matter is investigated by the FOS.

 

I continue to receive demands for payment from Link Financial and this action contravenes OFT Debt Collection Guidance and as such may i direct you to the detail therein specifically paragraph h & k respectively:

 

“Physical/psychological harassment

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

f. pressurising debtors to pay in full, in unreasonably large instalments,

or to increase payments when they are unable to do so

 

h. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are

disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

 

i. failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued

 

k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt.”

 

A letter from Link Financial dated 4 July 2007 raises concerns also as to their threat to add charges in relation to the processing and obtainment of documentation in that:

 

..“No administration charge has been applied to your account at this time and therefore any payment made with your request has been applied to reduce your outstanding debt. However, where cost is incurred by Link Financial for the provision of any statements by the Vendor we will pass these charges on to you.”...

 

As you are no doubt aware the statutory fee payable under the Consumer Credit act 1974 (77-79) for documentation in relation to such a request is £1 only. The above statement by Link Financial could be understood to contravene the Consumer Credit act 1974 and is also at odds with OFT Guidelines as stated below:

 

“Charging for debt collection

a. claiming collection costs from a debtor in the absence of express

contractual or other legal provision

 

b. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay

collection charges when this is not the case, for example, when there

is no contractual provision

 

d. applying unreasonable charges, for example, charges not based on actual and necessary costs

e. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt.”

 

I should like to remind MBNA at this point in time that they are responsible for the behaviour and conduct of any Debt Collection Agency connected to them as per OFT guidelines:

 

“Creditor responsibility for third parties

1.9 If consumer credit licence holders choose to do business or continue to do business with third parties engaged in questionable fitness behaviour, then their own fitness will be called into question. Our aim is to ensure that creditors do not ignore the unfair practices of debt collectors, whether in-house or external, acting

on their behalf.”

 

Once again, I should like to remind you that the account/s is currently in dispute. That, as far as i am concerned, and also after statements from several well respected organisations and individuals not withstanding the RT Hon Ian McCartney MP - Minister for Trade Investment and Foreign Affairs, the CCA request has not been complied with in full of which you have been made aware on several occasions.

 

I hope this permanently clarifies the situation for you on how i regard the above alleged debt, your responsibilities as a legally abiding Creditor and your obligations towards consumers. I also trust that in the meantime you dissuade from inappropriate requests for payment directly, or indirectly via Link Financial, allowing the FOS to proceed with their investigation at their own discretion and protocol.

 

 

Yours sincerely, me

[davey77]

From MINT/Blair, Oliver & Scott (Halifax) today:

 

Dear Mr X,

 

Thank you for your futher communication regarding the above account.

 

We are reviewing this issue and will contact you again within two weeks to let you know how we propose to resolve things for you, or at least to let you know how we are progressing.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Linda Hyde

Manager - Customer Care Team

 

....and from Blair, Oliver and Scott:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER

 

HALIFAX

 

We are urgently trying to contact you to discuss the repayment of your debt, however, you do not appear to have responded to our requests for payment or provided acceptable repayment proposals.

 

Please call the helpline number below to speak to our agents who will be able to discuss all your repayment options with you.

 

We would urge you to sort this issue out immediately to prevent us having to take further action to recover the debt. This action may include door-to-door collectors calling on you to discuss payment or court action to seek a judgement against you. If you are a homeowner and do not pay the amount the court orders you to pay, we may then reapply to the court for a charging order on your property. This will give us repayment of the outstanding debt from the proceeds whenever the property is sold.

 

Should you wish further advice regarding this matter we suggest that you contact a solicitor or your local Citizens' Advice Bureau, who can give you free money advice.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

D Hood - Balir, Oliver and Scott

[davey77]

Can anyone with previous understanding of these things point me in the right direction for filling in the N1 court form? (Assuming thats the right form.) I understand the general layout of it but if it's going to be for CCA non-compliance what do i put in the box under amount? Also are there fees involved and at what stage do i pay those and how much are they?? Many thanks! D

[davey77]

From Cahoot:

 

Dear Mr X,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 30th August 2007, the contents of which have been noted.

 

I write to confirm that we have previously requested a copy of your customer credit agreement on the 17th April, 30th May and 23rd July. I have today requested a further copy to be sent by recorded delivery which you should receive in the nest few days.

 

If you need any further assistance please contact us on the above number.

[davey77]

Going to SAR Cahoot. It's all i can think of doing with them at the moment.

[davey77]

A compliant i am going to send to the OFT:

 

Re: Complaint of creditors actions to CCA requests

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to raise some serious issues and bring to the attention of the OFT several criminal offences committed by creditors and also to question several points in relation to how the OFT and Trading Standards are supposed to react to, and enforce, such offences as laid down in law under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

It is my understanding that the OFT do not involve themselves directly in personal matters regarding consumers individual cases and am not asking for advice in this respect but i do wish some clarification and explanation of why many creditors and Debt Collection Agencies seem to act outside the law and OFT guidelines with impunity and are given carte blanche towards the legal obligations they are expected to adhere to regarding financial dealings with consumers.

 

The points I wish to raise are:

 

1. Why Trading Standards seem to ignore offences committed by creditors in respect to a Consumer Credit Act 1974 (section 77-79) request and why they fail prosecute any criminal offence committed.

I would like to ask how many prosecutions Trading Standards have instigated in the last couple of years due to failure to supply a properly exacted agreement after complaints by consumers?

 

2. That creditors and Debt Collection Agencies completely flout OFT guidelines in respect to pursuing a debt while the account is in reasonable dispute and/or CCA non-compliance and that creditors continue to ask for payment, threaten court action and visits by field agents and why these actions are permitted.

 

3. That creditors and especially Debt Collection Agencies communicate constantly in an unclear, threatening and evasive manner to consumers in that they often do not reply to specific requests and detail within correspondence sent by the consumer and reply with automated letters and in some cases tele messages simply stating “please call Lee on 0870 *** ***” and that this practice seems to be allowed to go unchecked and without direct or active enforcement.

 

4, Why application forms and incorrect documentation non-compliant to a Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s77-79) request are being sent, and belligerently defended, by creditors when OFT regulations clearly set out the prescribed terms and state that an improperly executed agreement is not enforceable, yet many creditors insist the prescribed terms laid down in the regulation do not apply to them.

 

I am sure that the OFT would suggest that my first point of call in any complaint regarding a creditors failure to produce a properly executed agreement would be Trading Standards and this i have done. TS have been sent a written complaint regarding these matters on 6 separate occasions regarding 5 individual creditors and to date, i am not aware of any action that has been taken by them to enforce the law and would like to know very much why Trading Standards give creditors the benefit of the doubt even when there is documented evidence of a criminal offence being committed in failing to supply a agreement?

 

It is my understanding after examining OFT regulations, the new Fraud Act 2006 and the Consumer Credit Act that:

 

...“If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

 

(a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) If the default continues for one month he commits an offence.”...

 

...“It is an unfair practice for a creditor to continue collection activity on a debt which is being disputed.”...

 

...“(3) Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

 

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is

under a legal duty to disclose, and

 

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.”...

 

... “ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are

disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment...

 

...”not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or

disputed debt.”...

 

I also understand that a statement by RT Hon Ian McCartney MP - Minister for Trade Investment and Foreign Affairs has indicated that an application form sent in response to a Consumer Credit Act request cannot be considered to be a properly executed agreement.

 

These are just a few points that i have based my actions in relation to creditor requests upon, and in doing so, i have reminded several creditors in my correspondence of these and many other facts contained within in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, OFT Debt Collection Guidance and the Fraud Act 2006.

Unfortunately, on the whole, these reminders of the law and guidelines have been utterly ignored by creditors and DCAs.

 

The documents that i have been sent in reply to my requests (if any) have been.

 

*Application forms

*Terms and Conditions not relevant to the original application date

*Incomplete statements

*Reconstructed and inaccurate documents

*No documents or response to request

 

To conclude i would like to give a brief summery of events and correspondence in relation to my CCA requests to creditors:

 

HFC Bank:

CCA request 21 March 2007. Documentation received 25 April 2007 (Non-compliant). Trading Standards informed 31 May 2007. Account in dispute. End of May passed to DLRS (debt collectors). CCA request 2 July 2007. 10 July documentation received (again non-compliant.)

 

MBNA:

CCA requests for two accounts 19 April 2007. May 2007 - Accounts sold to Link Financial (debt collectors) while in dispute. Documentation received 18 May 2007 (Non-compliant). Trading Standards informed 21 June 2007. CCA request to Link Financial 28 June 2007. Documentation received 25 July 2007 (Non-compliant). Link Financial threaten to add collection charges to overall debt.

 

Halifax:

CCA request 21 March 2007. No response. Trading Standards informed 30 May 2007. Account passed to Blair, Oliver & Scott ((debt collectors) June 2007. CCA request to Blair, Oliver & Scott 28 June 2007. No response. Still continue to receive demands for payment and threats of court action and visits to premises by field agents.

 

MINT:

CCA request 21 March 2007. Documentation received 26 April 2007 (Non-compliant).

Account in dispute. Trading Standards informed 31 May 2007. Still continue to receive demands for payment.

 

Capital One:

CCA request 11 April 2007. Documentation received 26 April 2007 (Non-compliant). Trading Standards informed 31 May 2007. Account in dispute. Still continue to receive demands for payment.

 

Please be aware i can corroborate the detail of this letter with copies of correspondence, proof of posting/receipts and bank statements showing cashed cheques should this be required.

 

I would appreciate an answer mainly to the 4 points raised in this letter as currently i feel extremely let down and demoralised by the actions that are allowed to go unchecked by Creditors and Debt Collection Agencies and as a full time carer for my elderly mother feel deeply let down by the authorities that are supposed to stand up for my rights as a consumer yet seem to allow the unlawful, threatening and misleading tactics of certain large companies to continue, acting outside of the law and without penalty or justification.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Me

[patrickq1]

your certainly going through it dave good luck mate

[gill5blue]

Hi Davvy

the letter to oft is absolutely brilliant, if every body did this then maybe they will get the message that these so called reputable companies encourage mis representation. I have been lied to by MBNA on a daily basis- if they simply gave me or any cagger a copy of the CCA which they should keep, there would be no problem.

Maybe PeterBard would like to read your letter