Please help! Lowell/Smile CA turned up!

[Vampyra]

Thanks Rory I thought it was the case but one needs to be sure. So 2 unenforcables - I got a Barclaycard Student Application form from Cabot - and 5 no shows. Not a word from Fredrickson International/Bryan Carter re: CCA on NatWest overdraft, nothing from 1st credit, 2 holding letters from CapQuest and 1 from Lowells and this time next week the SAR on HBOS will have reached 40 days.

 

[rory32]

Sounds good so far!!

[ian1969uk]

That 'credit agreement' is exactly the same as Smile have just sent me.

 

It lacks two prescibed terms:

 

1. No interest rate - it does state an interest for transferred balances but not a general interest rate for the card.

2. No credit limit - not even a statement of how this will be determined.

 

This type of 'agreement' is COMPLETELY unenforceable, even in court.

[Vampyra]

Also no right to cancel, I believe, Ian. Thanks for your input and glad I'm not the only one with this!

[ian1969uk]

The right to cancel, as well as default charges, are missing. However, neither of these are prescribed terms and wouldn't make an agreement completely unenforceable. Luckily for us, the lack of interest rate and credit limit do this perfectly well!!

[Vampyra]

Lucky old us! LOL

 

We can only compliment these banks for their lack of legal paperwork and slap dash written credit agreements!

[andrew1]

Give it the test:

Financial Agreement Solutions

[Vampyra]

I tried this Andrew. It's asking me for a duration of the agreement which there isn't and the repayments which there are not and the total amount payable, which there isn't so I have don't know for APR, 60 months just to get a figure in there and constant regular payment of 0, and £500 as the total amount of credit, though it doesn't say it on the form.

 

Very scant info but the verdict is:

 

YOUR CREDIT AGREEMENT MAY BE UNENFORCEABLE

(The Court is precluded from making an enforceability order)

 

The assessment table below shows that there are certain terms on your credit agreement that are in breach the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Regulations.

 

The court is precluded from making an enforcement order if the rules and regulations on signing an agreement are not complied with unless a document containing all the prescribed terms was signed by the debtor. The court is also precluded if certain provisions relating to cancellation were not complied with.

 

[ian1969uk]

It doesn't need the test, it's completely unenforceable, no doubt about it.

 

It lacks two of the three prescribed terms.

[Vampyra]

It's a helpful site for people though Ian and we are going to try to work through some really clear and simple FAQ's for people in the Deed of Assignment thread. Maybe you would like to help too? All valuable knowledge will help

[ian1969uk]

Oh yes, I don't doubt that the test is helpful, but I was simply making the point that these Smile agreements are clearly unenforceable without running it through the test.

 

There is a problem with that page, though, in that it won't accept a huge number of agreements because they are missing some of the information that it requires. It needs an option to say that something is simply not on the agreements.

[remus]

OK Vampyra, found you, no need to answer in DOA:p

[Vampyra]

A non-executable piece of paper resembling a CA was sent from Lowells from Co-Op Smile.

 

It arrived after the default date but just inside the criminal offence date - however I would argue I requested a fully & correctly executed copy of my CA and they didn't provide this within the 42 day limit so they have, in all logic committed an offence.

 

I sent a letter out to them stating this and that they cannot persue this debt whilst it is in default. Also as they have been unable to prove the debt is owed by way of a properly executed CA and no proof that they even own the debt, I asked them to set the balance to zero and cease processing my data.

 

I also stated that :"Should you attempt to pursue any legal action on this account against me it will be averred that the proceedings of the claim are both unlawful and vexatious for the reasons above."

 

I recieved this in reply:

 

Dear Miss Vampyra

 

We have now referred your account to our client for their autherisation that legal action be commenced against you and we expect an answer from them within the next 10 days.

 

If you contact us now and negotiate settlement of your account by way of full and final settlement or a monthly repayment plan we will submit your proposal to our client and await their final decision. This will also delay or halt any potential legal action being taken against you which may be by way of BANKRUPTCY proceedings should your balance exceed the involvency threshold.

 

We do not intend to correspond with you further regarding this matter, unless you enter into an agreement with us for re-payment of the debt. Any further correspondance may then be from the court if legal action is commenced against you, (if this is seen as a viable option), or from a licenced Field Agent who may call at your property during a period to be notified to youto either collect the outstanding debt or assess your means with a view to continuing with any permitted action to recover the debt.

 

Call NOW on telephone number 0845 279 7122

 

Your sincerely

A. Turd

 

OK people, another company refusing to acknowledge the Data Protection Act request and anything to do with the fact that they can't collect.

 

Your thoughts and input please!

[dannyboy660]

Surely this is just another frightener??

 

Stick to your guns and slap it into them. If they were going to take court action they would have done it to pre-empt anything you may be planning. I think you've got them on the ropes.

 

MR A TURD?????? :grin: :grin:

 

Laughed so loud, my boss came over to see what I was doing......... 8)

 

 

Go get 'em Vamps.

[rory32]

The threat of bankcruptcy (which would benefit neither party) is usually the last act of them throwing their toys out of the pram.

 

We have now referred your account to our client for their autherisation that legal action be commenced against you and we expect an answer from them within the next 10 days.

Rather non commital that there will be any legal action.

 

Any further correspondance may then be from the court if legal action is commenced against you, (if this is seen as a viable option),

 

Even more vague.....don't they know whether it's viable? I thought they were professionals

[babybear39]

Subscribing...

 

Good luck 'nd *hugs*

[Vampyra]

 

MR A TURD?????? :grin: :grin:

 

Laughed so loud, my boss came over to see what I was doing......... 8)

 

 

Go get 'em Vamps.

 

Well we are not allowed to write their real names are we?

 

The threat of bankcruptcy (which would benefit neither party) is usually the last act of them throwing their toys out of the pram.

Rather non commital that there will be any legal action.

Even more vague.....don't they know whether it's viable? I thought they were professionals

 

Indeed!

 

I assume and I know assumption isn't clever, but I assume they have sent the original letter I sent to Lowells onto the Co-Op and they are looking into whether it's worth bothering with.

 

Isn't the insolvency threshold £750 anyway? I may be wrong here, but this is for less than that.

[Vampyra]

Ooh Rory - did you get my elongated PM?

[rory32]

Isn't the insolvency threshold £750 anyway?

Yes but most DCA's seem to think they can make you bankrupt for anything over £3.50.

 

Got your PM - I'll give you a reply later.

[babybear39]

£3.50

[Vampyra]

Well y'know BB they have to make money somehow and as they probably only pay £3.50 for each debt, you have to admit they have to bankrupt people to get their money back!

[babybear39]

*BB offers all alledged creditors £3.50 each in F+F*

[harrythehawk]

There are alot of ifs and mays in the letter, stick to you guns and fight them with the rubbish CA "if" they go to court. I got a court threat where there was no proper CA for La Redoute and I responded with a "bring it on" letter ..... still waiting for my summons which was threatened about 6 or 7 weeks ago, that letter had "if" and "may" in it too !!