Debt written off due to Carers Allowance?

[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

[davey77]

Thanks Patrickq! I appreciate the supportive words!

 

Yes gill5.. totally agree.. and thanks!

MBNA are one of the worst out there too in my opinion. My letter could have been even longer and i could have mentioned 13 phone calls a day (half from MBNA) before i changed my number and many other points but i would have ended up printing it in hardback otherwise!

ah yes, I'll let Peterbard know about my letter for sure.

[davey77]

Thanks mate..appreciate the help! That's funny as i was reading through my thread tonite and noticed that same change in tone as well!

 

Also been reading your thread on stolen benefits and wish you the best of luck with that!

I recall my benefits letters stating something like "this is the amount of money the law says you need to live on". That's an interesting legal point isn't it (somehow) as, if that is the minimum amount the law says you need, then i would ask what law over-rides that to allow someones benefits to be taken from them!

Will watch your thread with interest though!

[davey77]

From Buchanan Clark Wells today (Cahoot).

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

A review has been undertaken on your account and you have been selected to take advantage of a 25% reduction.

 

Your current balance is £5,100.40 and your settlement has been calculated at £3,825.30. Taking advantage of this opportunity will help restore your credit rating, as this account will be shown as settled by voluntary arrangement.

 

To benefit from this great reduction call our specialist team today on the number shown below to arrange payment by your prefered method.

[davey77]

I don't think creditors realised that one day everyman and his dog would be asking for a copy of their agreements. Bet they wish now they had acted more professionally though!

 

Ah, why thank you.. I guess then thats a good omen as in the films the Hero always wins!

[davey77]

Hi Maggiebroom!

Just spent some time reading your thread on crap1 and found it very heartening to see someone who hasn't given up and is still fighting the good fight!

Yes, feel free to take anything from my thread you find useful for sure!

I loved the fact that you got the MP involved but what a disappointment in TS's reaction! I total cowardly cop-out by them!

A good idea about informing the Watchdog program and i have threatened that myself but haven't seen it through (yet). And, I would also say that if you don't get satisfaction from your MP on this now then go a straight to a national newspaper!! They love these kinds of stories and the bad publicity is usually all that's enough to have big organisations begging for forgiveness!

I've subscribed to your thread and will watch with interest!!

Take care for now, D

[davey77]

Remember the "Free the Weatherfield One!" campaigns that sprang up across the country resulting from a storyline in Coronation Street and Tony Blair even made comments on Deirdre's trial in the House of Commons!!??

 

Well, you would think our cases would be important enough to raise in parliament too as that wasn't even real!

 

Gordon Brown said he is going to give pregnant mothers £150 towards buying fruit... You bet there's an election on the way!

 

By the way, Maggiebroom, if you do pass my OFT letter to an MP then just pm me for my name and address to go with it too as it will add more substance and i would be happy to do that for sure!

[davey77]

After 6 months since my first CCA request to Halifax, they have finally replied with a totally pathetic attempt! This is proof to me that they just don't have the agreement. I would love to take them to court but i just don't have the money at the moment so i am reporting this to the FOS instead for now:

 

Dear Mr x,

 

I refer to your recent communication (the LBA in other words) and enclose a list of charges between June 2006 and August 2007.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Garry Crawford

Team Manager, Customer Services

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Halifax1copy.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Halifax2.jpg

[davey77]

My reply to Halifax:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your recent communication dated 13 September 2007 in reference to my original request dated 21 March 2007 under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s77-79).

 

Unfortunately you seem to be completely unaware of what is required to be supplied regarding the above request as all I have received from Halifax in the six months since my request was included in your recent letter. Namely, a list of charges that have been applied to the alleged debt.

 

This is completely unacceptable as a suitable reply as laid down in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and OFT guidelines as sections 77-79 of the Act requires the creditor/owner to provide the debtor/hirer with a copy of a properly executed agreement and a statement of account on request.

 

As you have been unable to supply an agreement and after having been given 6 months and numerous reminders in writing to allow you to produce an agreement I must therefore assume that no such agreement exists and therefore do not acknowledge any debt to Halifax plc or Blair, Oliver and Scott.

 

It was my intention to proceed to court regarding this matter as you will have been made aware of from my Letter Before Action to you of the 21 August 2007 but as my finances do not permit this action i am reverting the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service with immediate effect.

 

Please be aware that a complaint has already been sent to Trading Standards and also the Office of Fair Trading regarding the failure by Halifax to supply an agreement and also other infringements of the Consumer Credit act 1974 and OFT guidelines.

 

A separate complaint has also been sent regarding the behaviour of Blair, Oliver and Scott in their failure to produce an agreement, refusal to communicate and misleading and immoral tactics regarding their methods of communication and complete disregard for the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and OFT guidelines.

 

Also, the conduct of Blair, Oliver and Scott will be brought to the attention of a local MP by a colleague.

 

You should note that according to 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.”

 

Should this matter be escalated to the County Court I shall be bringing these and other offences to the attention of the judge and understand that the criminal offence committed in failing to supply an agreement within the statutory timeframe on 2 separate occasions (Halifax plc 21 March 2007 and Blair, Oliver and Scott 28 June 2007) is punishable by a fine for each offence to the amount of £2500 (£5000 in total.)

 

Please be advised that the above account is clearly in dispute and as such i suggest you adhere to OFT guidelines and the Consumer Credit Act 1974, specifically the following:

 

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

disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment”

 

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

 

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 and unlawful requests for payment directly, or indirectly via Blair, Oliver and Scott, allowing the FOS to proceed with their investigation at their own discretion and protocol.

 

Any further communication that, in it’s content, infringes my rights under the above Act will be brought individually to the attention of the OFT and Trading Standards.

 

No further communication will be entered into unless suggested by the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

 

Yours Sincerely,

[davey77]

Thanks HHNF!

[davey77]

My complaint to the FOS re Halifax sent off yesterday:

 

DETAILS:

Wrote to Halifax 19th March 2007 (recorded delivery) asking for a copy of the credit agreement for the above account under the consumer credit act 1974 (77-79). I did not receive any reply.

On the 24 May 2007 received a letter stating that Blair, Oliver and Scott (Halifax in-house debt collection agency) had been passed the above account.

I wrote to Blair, Oliver and Scott 24 May 2007 explaining that Halifax were in default of the above request as of around the 6 April 2007 and that i did not acknowledge any debt to either Halifax or Blair, Oliver and Scott.

On 28th June i sent another CCA request to Blair, Oliver and Scott (recorded delivery) who have ignored that request.

The only reply vaguely relating to my original request was received 15 September 2007 consisting of a four line printout of charges. No properly executed agreement has been received by myself at any time.

Informed Trading Standards 30 May 2007 who have taken no action that i am aware of.

 

WHAT I WANT:

Supply a properly executed agreement, statements of account from application date to present, Terms and Conditions relevant to application date: in other words, fully compliant in every respect to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or written acknowledgment that they are unable to do so within a short time frame.

 

OTHER INFORMATION:

I understand the Ombudsman prefers a final response from an organisation before a consumer complaint is made but in this instance I have found that impossible due to the complete lack of communication from Halifax. They ignore all correspondence and refuse to reply in a professional manner to any detail or requests made to them.

Likewise, Blair, Oliver and Scott refuse to acknowledge letters or correspond with me on this matter.

 

I have spent six months trying to illicit a response from Halifax and recently threatened court action but my finances do not permit that at the moment so am relying on the Ombudsman to resolve matters.

 

I enclose with this complaint copies of the correspondence since my original CCA request in March 2007 and as you will see I have been generous in allowing enough time for Halifax to comply even though they have committed a criminal offence in not supplying the relevant documentation within the statutory timeframe.

[davey77]

In the post today:

 

From Blair, Oliver and Scott (exactly the same letter as of the 4th Sep (post 194 of this thread!). Guess they have run out of letters?!

 

From Mint:

 

Dear Mr x,

 

Further to our letter dated 31 August 2007, your concern had been passed to me for attention. I am sorry you are dissatisfied with our reply and the information sent.

 

My further review of this matter is taking longer to complete than i anticipated and i hope to be able to send you a full reply in the next 10 days, sooner if i can.

 

Your patience is appreciated at this time. My telephone number is above if you need to speak to me in the meantime.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Heather Compton-Edwards

 

... and from Crap1:

 

Dear Mr x,

 

I am writing in response to a letter recently received from the Financial Ombudsman Service about your complaint.

 

I understand your complaint is about the fact that you don't believe we have sent you a true copy of your credit card agreement, as requested under the consumer credit act 1974. The FOS has asked me to send you what we call a final response to your complaint, which is in line with our complaints procedure.

 

Once again, I enclose a copy of your signed credit card agreement. This is supplied in accordance with the consumer credit act 1974, Section 78 (1). You have stated that we have not supplied you with a true copy of your agreement. The copy agreement enclosed clearly shows both the signature of yourself and that of the athorised signature of Capital One. Under the consumer credit (Cancellation Notices etc) Regulations 1974, reg 2, it states there may be excluded from a copy agreement, the signature and date of signature. We believe therefore, that we have complied with your request appropriately.

 

I hope I've explained things clearly and we can now end this matter. Financial regulations require me to advise you that this is our final response to your complaint and if you are still unhappy with our response, you now have the option of contacting the FOS witin the next six months. Their address is in the leaflet I've included with this letter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ellie Renshaw

Executive office Manager

 

There wasn't a leaflet in the envelope!! But there was (again) the application form and she has highlighted in yellow the signatures and the credit agreement wording at the top.

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/CapitalOneCCAApplication.jpg

[davey77]

Totally agree with you there. And thats what i have been telling these dummies for months but they refuse to agree with with me (surprisingly). It has none of the prescribed terms and conditions, is pre-contractual etc. I spent last weekend going through OFT guidelines on agreements and there is no exemption to this rule.

 

Not sure how the FOS work now though. I imagine they will write to me to ask whether i agree with Crap 1's response or not?

[davey77]

Hey maggiebroom.. I shall do as you suggest and hang those bits of paper up in the loo for the right occasion! Just hope the ink doesn't come off!

Mind you, the recent romance is at an end now thanks to a text message received yesterday and as nobody is going to see my bottom these days i guess it won't matter much!