1st Credit

[spark1]

Ronmay

 

Either research "Defamation" and also search this forum for information. There was a case not long ago, can't remember where I see it, but someone got a out of court settlement in the region of £6,000 regarding a situation similar to yours. If not find a no win no fee solicitors.

 

 

Questioner

 

The Adjudicator at the FOS believed the actions of 1st credit (and its mates) warranted a payment of x amount of pounds for the great deal of distress and inconvenience caused by the threat of legal action, bankruptcy proceedings and doorstep visits, because the debts were disputed at a early stage (in other words 1st credit should of left her alone) Anyway, I asked for the Ombudsman to review the complaint, because I want it put on record she owes no debts. The debts maybe in dispute, but they are not hers anyway.

 

The ICO are also involved with complaints against 1st Credit aswell, but until I get the full out comes, I won't being posting information.

 

Spark

[questioner]

I am still getting the impression that I am best to pay the tokens to the calmer OCs, for now, and let them ship the account off to a DCA before I ask for CCAs and halt payments.

 

I may be wrong tho?

[diddydicky]

cheers,what do you suggest I do,thanks again

 

well unless you have the odd 150,000 plus lying around not an action for defamation thats for sure

[lexis200]

my thoughts too

 

so are they saying CCAs dont have to have our names on ? must be wrong surely

It clearly states in the CCA that signatures and certain other information may be omitted as long as the copy is a true copy (ie the same in content as the application you would have signed). In order for this to happen though it must also be from the same period as your account would have been opened. The purpose of sec78 is to see what terms you would have signed up to, hence the acceptable omitting of certain info. However, all this means is that they can comply by sending a blank agreement (from the same period) and the other necessary bits, but if they are seeking to enforce or want to take you to court they will then need the actual factual signed by you document, and it will need to be correct in both form and content if it is to be seen as enforceable.

thats not a proper CCA copy

 

It looks like BC have alreday told CS to get stuffed (CS closed the account) and they in turn palmed this one off onto RW who are getting the same bog off treatment from BC now.

 

RW say I have to pay them in 10 days.

 

Now come on - this mess aint even got my name on it. I could relate to ANYONE.

 

They don't have this luxury with a SAR though, as they should provide a copy of the document. Having said that though I've just had a typed sheet of OH's info sent in lieu of an agreement by Citi. Apparently they can just send the info contained in documents rather than the docs themselves, but it does beg the question why on earth would they transcribe the info on the doc instead of just sending the agreement itself? This makes me far more suspicious than them not sending the signed agreement on a sec78 request!

[spark1]

well unless you have the odd 150,000 plus lying around not an action for defamation thats for sure

 

 

Heres the thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/204296-aktiv-kapital-successfully-sued.html

 

Heres the link to the story

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/8098674.stm

 

You don't need a large sum of money. If you find a no win no fee solicitor who will take it on, also see below.

 

NewsDesk-UK: THIS IS LIBEL

Edited July 18, 2009 by spark1

[diddydicky]

They don't have this luxury with a SAR though, as they should provide a copy of the document. Having said that though I've just had a typed sheet of OH's info sent in lieu of an agreement by Citi. Apparently they can just send the info contained in documents rather than the docs themselves, but it does beg the question why on earth would they transcribe the info on the doc instead of just sending the agreement itself? This makes me far more suspicious than them not sending the signed agreement on a sec78 request!

 

because they have microfiched it and destroyed the original?

[lexis200]

Here's hoping:D

[Crapstone]

I am still getting the impression that I am best to pay the tokens to the calmer OCs, for now, and let them ship the account off to a DCA before I ask for CCAs and halt payments.

 

I may be wrong tho?

 

The sensible side of me says to address your debts first and not rely on the CCA arguements.

 

On the plus side, the longer the debt is outstanding the less chance it has of being collected or enforced and once it's gone off to the DCA much is lost in the transaction.

[questioner]

because they have microfiched it and destroyed the original?

 

 

Quite so - as appears to be the case in the docs I have uploaded onto this thread.

[questioner]

The sensible side of me says to address your debts first and not rely on the CCA arguements.

 

What is gained by that course of action?

 

On the plus side, the longer the debt is outstanding the less chance it has of being collected or enforced and once it's gone off to the DCA much is lost in the transaction.

Yes - this seems more logical and as Robinun Wee proved when they asked Barclaycrud for help against me and got ticked off, it seems to throw a stick into their spokes. Even if BC had the proper CCA they seemed to be telling RW to go stuff there selves as dealing with the request from me was there responsibility now and not theirs. Lessons here for us all hey.

 

Cant wait to get the next letter off RW regarding my memo about the scribble they sent in answer to my CCA request. S'truth - didt even have my name on but was just a nasty old sludge of terms and conditions. I thiink these DCAs use our CCA documents to rest their coffee on.

 

 

Once it's gone off to the DCA much is lost in the transaction.

 

Perhaps that is to our best advantage and should take priority here?

[questioner]

"but it does beg the question why on earth would they transcribe the info on the doc instead of just sending the agreement itself?"

 

 

Yes I think DD is right about unacceptable docs. It makes little financial sense for them to drag on a case for months or longer if they have the right CCA docs to show us. DD'S LETTER ABOUT CHALLENGING THEM TO SHOW THE ENFORSABLE DOCS AT A BANK AT OUR EXPENSE PUSHES THEM INTO A CORNER TOO.

 

They want the full amount off us and hanging on to a requested CCA doc like a terrier with a bone would be very illogical and very time consuming for them.

 

Worst crudite for instance have told me in writing that the only have the bad scan of what I requested under s78 and nothing more, yet they still insist that they are in the sacred right to hound me.

 

 

They know they are of dangerous ground with the authorities (back to Feb with OFT and my latest complaints) so pushing their luck like this would seem stupid in they really had the correct docs.

 

Either they have long - term very cunning plans (based on not giving us the CCA docs we request) or alternativley, they are very arrogant and silly people who are relying on fear and hollow threat to gain complience . This seems to be the main debte in all this.

 

Perhaps the truth lies in some dark middle ground they try and inhabite against us?

 

They want our dosh as fast as possible so..?

[questioner]

Part of me feels like writing to 1st crudités and other vultures like so.

 

Look – I have been fairly asking you for many months to give me a properly legible copy of enforceable CCA docs and you have admitted (in writing) that you have not got anything except the terrible scan of something illegible to meet my request. I have also offered to actually pay to see the requested CCA docs that you say you do not have. In light of this please now kindly close this case as you are simply wasting your stamps in writing to me over this ludicrous matter. We both know that your asinine threats are based on hoping to drive me into giving you money. I have explained at great length many of the legal ramifications of your actions and how the authorities are currently dealing with you, behind the scenes, over my complaints. Your unwise and callous actions will I believe be the downfall of your company in the near future.I look forward to your rejoinder informing me that this long drawn out fiasco has been closed.

-----------

 

Don’t worry, I wont send it but it makes you feel like this.

[babybear39]

Just quote Furguson v British Gas Trading 2009 at them

[questioner]

Just quote Furguson v British Gas Trading 2009 at them

 

 

I see . Would that worry the crudites much?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/195020-warning-debt-collectors-their.html

 

 

I am now all for taking the fight to the enemy.

[babybear39]

Seeing as 1st crud are under OFT scrutiny already they should be wary of harassment as well

[questioner]

Seeing as 1st crud are under OFT scrutiny already they should be wary of harassment as well

 

I believe that I have suffered nothing but hassassment since their first legal threat many months ago.

 

Yes, OFT are getting plenty of feeback from me too.

[lexis200]

Originally Posted by Crapstone

The sensible side of me says to address your debts first and not rely on the CCA arguements.

What is gained by that course of action?

 

It is a personal choice what you do and when regarding payment/non-payment, but this is my take on why I think the above statement by Crapstone is correct

 

Because if they have an enforceable agreement and you've already stopped paying you're going to end up with a default on your file (maybe not an issue for you but will be for some), or possibly (depending on how long the CCA stuff gets drawn out for) end up in court.

 

They do not get penalised by the courts for not supplying the agreement in the time-scales allowed. Not right I know, but it's not an issue for them from that point of view. So they suddenly find an agreement 6 months after you've refused to pay them, take you to court as they now want to be damn sure you're going to pay seeing as you've held off for so long previously, and then have an enforceable agreement. Worst case scenario I admit, but it's a possibility.

 

I personally think the idea of making sure you have at least got a payment plan in place if you're in trouble, then working out if they can legitimately demand money is a sensible one. If things go titsup it's going to look far better for you if you end up in court if you can be seen as having attempted to keep payments up. If you've just decided 'right, 12+2 days are up, I've been paying normally up until now but now I'm holding payments back' and they turn up an enforceable agreement you are not going to be on the judges good side. Plus the bank will probably be rather less amenable to an offer made after stopping payments and CCA'ing than if it's done before hand.

 

This is especially important in my view if you have not informed the bank of any problems with paying. If you stop paying rather than informing them of issues that have arisen, again, it's going to look antagonistic if you are unlucky enough to end up in court.

 

If you (I'm using you as a general term here, not in relation to anyone specific!) however are just chancing your arm with a CCA request but can in fact afford to pay cards back, then obviously you want to be 99.999% certain they've got nothing before you stop paying, otherwise you'd be shafted if they do find something later in the day!

 

Really, you just want to keep in mind that everything you do with regards to creditors should be done with a judge in mind. If you don't come across as reasonable and fair, it's going to be that much harder to convince them of any argument you want to forward.

[diddydicky]

It is a personal choice what you do and when regarding payment/non-payment, but this is my take on why I think the above statement by Crapstone is correct

 

Because if they have an enforceable agreement and you've already stopped paying you're going to end up with a default on your file (maybe not an issue for you but will be for some), or possibly (depending on how long the CCA stuff gets drawn out for) end up in court.

 

They do not get penalised by the courts for not supplying the agreement in the time-scales allowed. Not right I know, but it's not an issue for them from that point of view. So they suddenly find an agreement 6 months after you've refused to pay them, take you to court as they now want to be damn sure you're going to pay seeing as you've held off for so long previously, and then have an enforceable agreement. Worst case scenario I admit, but it's a possibility.

 

I personally think the idea of making sure you have at least got a payment plan in place if you're in trouble, then working out if they can legitimately demand money is a sensible one. If things go titsup it's going to look far better for you if you end up in court if you can be seen as having attempted to keep payments up. If you've just decided 'right, 12+2 days are up, I've been paying normally up until now but now I'm holding payments back' and they turn up an enforceable agreement you are not going to be on the judges good side. Plus the bank will probably be rather less amenable to an offer made after stopping payments and CCA'ing than if it's done before hand.

 

This is especially important in my view if you have not informed the bank of any problems with paying. If you stop paying rather than informing them of issues that have arisen, again, it's going to look antagonistic if you are unlucky enough to end up in court.

 

If you (I'm using you as a general term here, not in relation to anyone specific!) however are just chancing your arm with a CCA request but can in fact afford to pay cards back, then obviously you want to be 99.999% certain they've got nothing before you stop paying, otherwise you'd be shafted if they do find something later in the day!

 

Really, you just want to keep in mind that everything you do with regards to creditors should be done with a judge in mind. If you don't come across as reasonable and fair, it's going to be that much harder to convince them of any argument you want to forward.

 

my only concern about your summary is that whilst it is defensible to say to a court that you were making payments totally oblivious to the fact that there was no enforeceable agreement /or no agreement at all

 

once the time is up for them to respond to cca request or they have provided an unenforceable agreement which you dispute then you can stop paying and it is not a good idea to contradict yourself by continuing to make payments towards that which you dispute

Edited July 19, 2009 by diddydicky

[Hacked_Off]

i had a letter from1st yesterday. I have no idea which debt it is. i have an iva for my barclaycard,capital one,welcome finance so im assuming its going to be one of them. after everything ive read about them im honestly bricking it

[diddydicky]

i had a letter from1st yesterday. I have no idea which debt it is. i have an iva for my barclaycard,capital one,welcome finance so im assuming its going to be one of them. after everything ive read about them im honestly bricking it

 

saying what?

[Hacked_Off]

Dear Sir madam

 

1st Credit is attempting to contact the above named regarding a personalmatter.

 

your address has been supplied as a posible address for our subject who was previously resident at (previous address)

 

Please contact our offices imediatly on tlephone number 0870... and quote the above 1st credit reference number at which time further information can be provided.

 

If yo are not the individual we are attempting to contact or have information that may assist please call us at your earliset convienience in order that we may correct our records.

 

If no responce is recieved within ten days of issue we will assume that you are the individual we wish to contact and will of course ensure that all relevent correspondance is sent to you.

 

Yours faithfully

[Duffers Mum]

Thats a phising letter, they send them to everybody who they think might be the person concerned, I would file it under J for junk and totally ignore it.

[questioner]

DD SAYS

 

"once the time is up for them to respond to cca request or they have provided an unenforceable agreement which you dispute then you can stop paying and it is not a good idea to contradict yourself by continuing to make payments towards that which you dispute"

 

That is the line I have taken, for to pay an alleged debt that is in dispute would seem silly I feel to any logical judge and smack strongly of contridicting oneself. I cannot see logic in the reverse.

 

 

You can image it .........

 

Judge

 

So Mr Blogs, you say that you dispute this account due to appropriate CCA docs that have not been provided to you, yet you are still happily paying this company your money - why so? Can you not make up your mind herein?

 

Mr Blogs

 

Eh.....

 

 

The offer to continure payments can be there when the suitable docs are provided, if at all. No one pays a debt that may be false and I have already dismissed one, which was not even mine from the Westcoot firm.

 

To keep paying shows our logical judge that the account is not really in dispute and that the debt is still very much on.

 

I believe they must respect such a strong stance more then hedging our bets.

 

It is up to the creditors to prove that debt exists/enforcable docs exist, surely? Any aggression must also be show to come from them and not us. We are the victims of their abuse.

Edited July 20, 2009 by questioner

[lexis200]

my only concern about your summary is that whilst it is defensible to say to a court that you were making payments totally oblivious to the fact that there was no enforeceable agreement /or no agreement at all

 

once the time is up for them to respond to cca request or they have provided an unenforceable agreement which you dispute then you can stop paying and it is not a good idea to contradict yourself by continuing to make payments towards that which you dispute

 

Yep, see your point, but I counteract that problem by stating to them (both over the phone when I feel like talking, and in at least one letter so it's in writing) that I am paying only as a gogw to give them time to come up with the goods. I make sure it is clear I am doing this only to be reasonable to them (which lets face it only makes one of us being reasonable;)), and that as the agreement they have sent is duff I actually have no legal obligation to offer payment. Same if they haven't sent anything at all.

 

The benefit for me in this method is that it is in black and white that they have not sent the correct document, but that I am giving them more time to do so as they may have to retrieve it from archives etc. I don't see how this can look bad to a court - after all as we keep saying we are laymen, so must do what we would consider to be reasonable. Also, it keeps them off your back whilst you find out as much as possible before diving in. It's just my cautious nature with financial stuff, but I'd rather pay a few extra months and be 99.9% sure of my ground than dive in after 12+2 days and not really have much of a clue what they hold. Obviously this does depend on the situation and I judge each accordingly - if they send a document at 12+2 and state categorically that they do not hold anything else then so be it (although having said that Cap1 stated that after the CCA but then managed to find an agreement when I SAR'd them:rolleyes:).

 

The main reason for the response though was just to back up Crapstones argument that it's probably not a great idea to rely solely on the CCA if you're in trouble. There are way too many pitfalls, and if you haven't tried to sort things out before embarking on it and it all goes wrong, it's going to make things that much harder for you in the long term.

 

This is one of those scenarios when I personally think it would get a judges goat and you are more likely to get a moral ruling than a based-in-law one (which although could be appealed, is obviously best avoided if possible). If you are in financial trouble, but rather than initially trying to sort it out with the creditors you go straight for the CCA in the hopes of getting a write-off or similar, and then they find something enforceable and take you to court, it's going to look very much like you are a won't pay rather than a can't pay. The other way round would show you tried to help the situation, they played silly buggers, you decided then to find out what your rights were etc etc. IMHO that's going to reflect much more favourably on you.

 

*** blinking auto words coming up!!! I write the initials S A R and put apostrophe 'd' after it and it comes up as the full word, which makes the apostrophe bit incorrect. I change it to 'ed' and it stays as the initials. Bah humbug:mad:

Edited July 20, 2009 by lexis200

[lexis200]

DD SAYS

 

"once the time is up for them to respond to cca request or they have provided an unenforceable agreement which you dispute then you can stop paying and it is not a good idea to contradict yourself by continuing to make payments towards that which you dispute"

 

That is the line I have taken, for to pay an alleged debt that is in dispute would seem silly I feel to any logical judge and smack strongly of contridicting oneself. I cannot see logic in the reverse.

 

 

You can image it .........

 

Judge

 

So Mr Blogs, you say that you dispute this account due to appropriate CCA docs that have not been provided to you, yet you are still happily paying this company your money - why so? Can you not make up your mind herein?

 

Mr Blogs

 

Thanks judgie, I should point out I'm not happily paying them, I was simply giving them more time to find the agreement that they should hold as I am aware they may well be held in vast archives that take time and money to search thoroughly. It seemed wrong to me to withold money that may be due if it was simply a case of them needing more time. However, having allowed them x weeks/months, it has become apparent that they do not have a contract with me and as such I have now ceased payments as they do not have the right to claim them from me.

 

 

The offer to continure payments can be there when the suitable docs are provided, if at all. No one pays a debt that may be false and I have already dismissed one, which was not even mine from the Westcoot firm.

 

To keep paying shows our logical judge that the account is not really in dispute and that the debt is still very much on.

 

I believe they must respect such a strong stance more then hedging our bets.

 

It is up to the creditors to prove that debt exists/enforcable docs exist, surely? Any aggression must also be show to come from them and not us. We are the victims of their abuse.

 

I think we need to be clear here as we may be getting slightly crossed wires.

 

I'm not saying that I would ever go on paying ad infinitum. I just don't agree at all with the idea that if they don't respond favourably/at all to an initial CCA request that we should be rubbing our hands together and cancelling d/d's. From what I understand of your particular case, you have received a dodgy application and have not just left it there, but tried to tell them it's wrong and tried again to get an actual agreement? I am naturally more cautious in my approach and I try again and again and again, however I do not think you have done anything wrong as you have given them opportunity to rectify the situation. Is that about right?

 

Also, as I mentioned before, my main point was simply not to put all your eggs in one basket. Go along the CCA route, but make sure you keep your options open as it will be easier to work up to a CCA request than to start there and then potentially have to work backwards and get payment plans etc agreeed if they find enforceable agreements.