SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[ladybird17]

oh ok - it really doesn't matter, I was just being picky!

 

It's extremely similar to letter I sent to MBNA on Saturday - so we are neck & neck I think!

 

Glad the wedding went well - sorry you had to fork out on new PC though - mmm....have heard similar gripes about Vista.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Never mind Joesoap about your head on the chopping block. Just give them enough rope. You will have to take an N1 out against them to recover your money, but with CI, it will be enough to give Mr Wareing a headache. You can join the rest of the us MBNAers in adding to his angst.

[Richard Spud]

Hi Joe Soap - hope the wedding went well!

 

Your letter is fine - I just wonder about deleting the word "criminal"prior to offence? As I understand it, the jury is still out as to whether the offence is criminal or civil.

 

CRIMINAL OFFENCES UNDER THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

 

I note that there appears to be some confusion about whether offences under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) are criminal or civil matters which, I suspect, may be due to notices on the OFT website regarding the Director General of Fair Trading appointing a Tribunal to hear matters in respect of Consumer Credit Licence holders and the appeals process.

 

In this regard I suggest that both criminal and civil matters are provided for in the Act. However, it is my understanding that an offence committed under s.77(4) “Failure of creditor under fixed-sum agreement to supply copies of documents etc.” or s.78(6) “Failure of creditor under running-account agreement to supply copies of documents etc.” is provided for under s.167 of the CCA 1974 which states:

 

“167 Penalties

 

(1) An offence under a provision of this Act in column 1 of Schedule 1 is triable in the mode or modes indicated in column 3, and on conviction is punishable as indicated in column 4 (where a period of time indicates the maximum term of imprisonment, and a monetary amount indicates the maximum fine, for the offence in question)”.

 

Furthermore; “SCHEDULE 1 PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES” indicates:

 

Column 1 "Section - 77(4)"

Column 2 "Offence - Failure of creditor under fixed-sum agreement to supply copies of documents etc."

Column 3 "Mode of Prosecution - Summarily."

Column 4 "Imprisonment or fine - [Level 4 on the standard scale.]"

 

Column 1 "Section - 78(6)"

Column 2 "Offence - Failure of creditor under running-account agreement to supply copies of documents etc."

Column 3 "Mode of Prosecution - Summarily."

Column 4 "Imprisonment or fine - [Level 4 on the standard scale.]"

 

I believe that “Level 4 on the standard scale” is a fine not exceeding “£2,500”.

 

Given that Summary offences are “Prosecuted” and heard in the Magistrates Court I believe it is reasonable to assume that the above offences under the CCA 1974 are indeed “Criminal” offences but which are time barred if a prosecution is not laid before the Justices prior to the expiry of 6 months from the date of an offence being committed.

 

Moreover, in addition to the OFT, I understand s.161(b) of the CCA 1974 provides that local weights and measures authorities (County Council Trading Standards Departments) are the appropriate enforcement authorities to which, I suggest, any evidence should be provided.

 

I comment further that I suspect an enforcement authority to which evidence of the above offences is produced might consider matters under s.169 of the CCA 1974 and, indeed, s.40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 when debtors are pursued by a creditor (or the agent thereof e.g. a Debt Collection Agency) when a regulated agreement is unenforceable under s.77(4)(a) and s.78(6)(a) of the CCA 1974.

 

I hope this helps.

 

A Well Wisher.

[The Phantom]

I think that last post is incredibly informative

I wonder how often in reality TS is prosecuting based on the above though

(I mean really really taking appropriate enforcement action ?)

But I will make a note of the above just in case my local TS needs some guidance again (when I reported MBNA for their breach of the CCA for not providing an agreement they weren't even sure what to do about it, needed to check and call me back. When they called back they sort of sounded a bit relieved this was a local authority matter and they could brush it off to Chester TS)

[Guest Battleaxe]

Et tu Nicole99? Chester TS meet regularly with MBNA and reckon there are no problems.

[The Phantom]

I don't doubt it - that's what they probably call a good working relationship

[Movingon]

I don't think there is any such thing as a "civil offence". An "Offence" is a criminal act... full stop. If an Act of parliament states that "if he does so, he commits an offence", then it is, in fact, a criminal matter, FULL STOP. The only thing which changes depending upon which offence is committed is who the enforcement authority is.

 

For instance for a lot of offences under the CCA 1974, the EA is Trading Standards - whereas for offences against the person, the EA is usually the Police.

[angry cat]

It is a a legislative criminal offence...quasi criminal!

 

Anyhow, the following may be of assistance:-

 

 

 

 

 

167 Penalties

 

 

 

(1) An offence under a provision of this Act specified in column 1 of Schedule 1 is triable in the mode or modes indicated in column 3, and on conviction is punishable as indicated in column 4 (where a period of time indicates the maximum term of imprisonment, and a monetary amount indicates the maximum fine, for the offence in question).

 

 

 

(2) A person who contravenes any regulations made under section 44, 52, 53, or 112, or made under section 26 by virtue of section 54, commits an offence.

 

 

 

 

 

168 Defences

 

 

 

(1) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act it is a defence for the person charged to prove—

 

 

 

(a) that his act or omission was due to a mistake, or to reliance on information supplied to him, or to an act or omission by another person, or to an accident or some other cause beyond his control, and

 

 

 

 

 

(b) that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid such an act or omission by himself or any person under his control.

 

 

 

 

 

(2) If in any case the defence provided by subsection (1) involves the allegation that the act or omission was due to an act or omission by another person or to reliance on information supplied by another person, the person charged shall not, without leave of the court, be entitled to rely on that defence unless, within a period ending seven clear days before the hearing, he has served on the prosecutor a notice giving such information identifying or assisting in the identification of that other person as was then in his possession.

 

 

 

 

 

169 Offences by bodies corporate

 

 

 

Where at any time a body corporate commits an offence under this Act with the consent or connivance of, or because of neglect by, any individual, the individual commits the like offence if at that time—

 

 

 

(a) he is a director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate, or

 

 

 

 

 

(b) he is purporting to act as such an officer, or

 

 

 

 

 

© the body corporate is managed by its members, of whom he is one.

 

 

 

 

 

170 No further sanctions for breach of Act

 

 

 

(1) A breach of any requirement made (otherwise than by any court) by or under this Act shall incur no civil or criminal sanction as being such a breach, except to the extent (if any) expressly provided by or under this Act.

 

 

 

(2) In exercising his functions under this Act the Director may take account of any matter appearing to him to constitute a breach of a requirement made by or under this Act, whether or not any sanction for that breach is provided by or under this Act and, if it is so provided, whether or not proceedings have been brought in respect of the breach.

 

 

 

(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent the grant of an injunction, or the making of an order of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition or as respects Scotland the grant of an interdict or of an order under section 91 of the Court of Session Act 1868 (order for specific performance of statutory duty).

 

 

 

 

 

171 Onus of proof in various proceedings

 

 

 

(1) If an agreement contains a term signifying that in the opinion of the parties section 10(3)(b)(iii) does not apply to the agreement, it shall be taken not to apply unless the contrary is proved.

 

 

 

(2) It shall be assumed in any proceedings, unless the contrary is proved, that when a person initiated a transaction as mentioned in section 19(1)© he knew the principal agreement had been made, or contemplated that it might be made.

 

 

 

(3) Regulations under section 44 or 52 may make provision as to the onus of proof in any proceedings to enforce the regulations.

 

 

 

(4) In proceedings brought by the creditor under a credit-token agreement—

 

 

 

(a) it is for the creditor to prove that the credit-token was lawfully supplied to the debtor, and was accepted by him, and

 

 

 

 

 

(b) if the debtor alleges that any use made of the credit-token was not authorised by him, it is for the creditor to prove either—

 

 

 

 

 

(i) that the use was so authorised, or

 

 

 

(ii) that the use occurred before the creditor had been given notice under section 84(3).

 

 

 

 

 

(5) In proceedings under section 50(1) in respect of a document received by a minor at any school or other educational establishment for minors, it is for the person sending it to him at that establishment to prove that he did not know or suspect it to be such an establishment.

 

 

 

(6) In proceedings under section 119(1) it is for the pawnee to prove that he had reasonable cause to refuse to allow the pawn to be redeemed.

 

 

 

(7) If, in proceedings referred to in section 139(1), the debtor or any surety alleges that the credit bargain is extortionate it is for the creditor to prove the contrary.

 

 

 

 

 

172 Statements by creditor or owner to be binding

 

 

 

(1) A statement by a creditor or owner is binding on him if given under—

 

 

 

section 77(1),

 

 

 

section 78(1),

 

 

 

section 79(1),

 

 

 

section 97(1),

 

 

 

section 107(1)©,

 

 

 

section 108(1)©, or

 

 

 

section 109(1)©

 

AC

[Movingon]

Any chance you could tidy that up?

[Richard Spud]

I think that last post is incredibly informative

I wonder how often in reality TS is prosecuting based on the above though

(I mean really really taking appropriate enforcement action ?)

But I will make a note of the above just in case my local TS needs some guidance again (when I reported MBNA for their breach of the CCA for not providing an agreement they weren't even sure what to do about it, needed to check and call me back. When they called back they sort of sounded a bit relieved this was a local authority matter and they could brush it off to Chester TS)

OFFENCES UNDER THE CCA 1974 CONTINUED …

 

(N.B. The Cool Gif hides "2008" for some unknown reason) MOD NOTE: SORTED - YOU NEED TO DISABLE SMILIES ON POSTS WHEN NECESSARY

 

I quite agree with the above postings that a “Criminal Offence” is by definition a criminal matter which needs to be prosecuted, whereas civil matters result in liability being attributed to a party, or an injunction being granted etc. However, many contributors are probably aware that both remedies exist in particular statutory provisions. When the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (CCA 2006) is fully effective (probably by Summer 2008) even greater accountability will be required from Consumer Credit Licence holders; e.g. the provision for the OFT to impose civil penalties under ss.39A, B, C of the CCA 2006 in addition to the current “Criminal Offences” under s.39 of the CCA 1974 which are triable either way, that is, summarily in the Magistrates Courts or on indictment in the Crown Court which can, upon conviction, result in a maximum 2 years imprisonment and a fine.

 

As I intimated in my previous posting on this subject; I believe some confusion about civil and criminal liability may be confused due to OFT notes such as:

 

“It should be noted that proceedings under the Act [The Consumer Credit Act 1974] are not the same as those of a court and the adjudicator's findings are not the same as convictions by a court. Therefore where the adjudicator finds that an offence has been committed or a provision of the statute has been contravened, it does not mean that the person concerned has been convicted under court proceedings of that offence or of that contravention”.

 

The above is with reference to the revocation of a Consumer Credit Licence of a Liverpool Debt Collection Agency. See the Link below for Note “3” and your attention is also drawn to Note “5” for those who wish to check the details of a Consumer Credit Licence holder..

 

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT revokes licence of Liverpool debt collection agency

 

With regard to the CCA 1974 I believe that it is established at common law as matter of statutory interpretation that the drafting of s.77, 78 and 79 is worded so as to apply to the “Creditor” who is a person (A.K.A. an “Individual”) acting as a sole trader/business, a partnership/business or firm (consisting of two or more persons acting as an “Individual”) or a corporate body (an incorporated company within the jurisdiction of England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) all of which save for an incorporated company, I suggest, would be considered to be an “Individual” for the relevant sections. Unfortunately, s.189 of the CCA 1974 does not provide a definition of a “Person”, only an “Individual”, therefore I understand that it is case law (common law) which provides clarification with regard to “Person”.

 

I note that Angry Cat cites further provisions of the CCA 1974 from which it is noted that the words “Individual” and “Person” appear to be interchangeable in application. However, to illustrate my opinion in this regard I provide the following examples:

 

EXAMPLE 1

 

Fred Bloggs is a sole trader who provides funds under Regulated Consumer Credit Agreements to individuals/persons acting as “Consumers” (as I believe that generally a business/firm or company cannot act as a “Consumer” for the purpose of the CCA 1974) [to illustrate this consider persons shopping at MACRO for instance being a trade supplier and the customers accordingly are required to be traders / sole traders / partnerships / businesses / firms or companies – when Consumer Protection Laws do not apply]. Fred is therefore the “Creditor” under ss. 77 and 78 of the CCA 1974. Should Fred fail to comply with a s.77 or s.78 request by a debtor within 12 working days, as established, a Regulated Consumer Credit Agreement would be unenforceable while Fred remains in default in providing the required documentation (if there is any to provide). Also as established, one calendar month following the expiration of 12 working days Fred commits an offence. However I am led to understand that Fred could raise the defence provided by s.168 as Angry Cat has posted. I believe that the defence is available to Fred because he is not only a “Creditor” and an “Individual” he is also a “Person” who could be “Charged” with an offence.

 

Notwithstanding the above; I think all would agree that the legal position can be somewhat convoluted and unduly complex in these matters, but which I believe the aim of this Forum is: to empower Consumers / Customers / Tax Payers by the exchange of research, opinions and personal experiences for the common good and in the enlightenment as to the unfair practices that INCORPORATED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS in the UK employ far to often. With this is mind; I offer the following further example:

 

EXAMPLE 2

 

Fred Bloggs Limited provides the same services as Fred Bloggs (sole trader) does in EXAMPLE 1 above. The same events occur. I understand that Fred Bloggs Limited could not raise the same s.168 defence as Fred Bloggs (sole trader) because while Fred Bloggs Limited is a “Creditor”, it is not an “Individual , but it is an “Artificial Person” but not a “Person”, indeed it is a “Body Corporate” as stipulated under s.169 as posted by Angry Cat. Furthermore, s.169 provides for an “Individual” (A.K.A. a “Person”) to commit a like offence as a “Body Corporate” in particular circumstances. I suggest that a “Person” who is a Company Officer, Manager etc. in these circumstances could raise a s.168 defence while the “Body Corporate” could not. In effect I suggest that for the “Body Corporate” the offence would be a strict liability offence – to which there is no defence. In an attempt to illustrate this rather mute point, I submit that an Officer of the “Body Corporate” could also be a “Body Corporate” itself. Indeed, I understand it is often employed that a separate Incorporated Company is the Company Secretary of a “Body Corporate”. I suggest it follows that a “Body Corporate Company Secretary" of a “Body Corporate” committing the above like offence under s.169 could not raise a s.189 defence, but a Director (a “Person”) could avail him/herself to the defence.

 

I hope that it helps by my attempting an explanation of my understanding in this matter. However, as always my suggestions, submissions, understandings and opinions should not be relied upon. Nevertheless; I believe that our mutually beneficial exchange of information can assist others in presenting cogent evidence to the relevant authorities in the hope that a concerted effort will encourage some remedial action to be taken. Not necessarily prosecutions however, notices to desist being issued and, off course, the threat of the catchall provision under s.170(2) regarding a “Breach of requirement” may be sufficient to bring about a change of unacceptable practices.

 

In conclusion; it is unfortunate that the experiences of Battleaxe and Nicole99 with Trading Standards have been less than encouraging. Nevertheless; I think that the consensus of opinion is that the objective of proactive consumer action is to raise awareness amongst the general public of their rights and responsibilities, while being afforded the courtesy of fair and equitable treatment by financial institutions (and the agents thereof) when attempting to resolve consumer disputes – in the majority of cases concerning debt collection. While the institutions and the enforcement authorities may appear to be cosy bedfellows, I suggest that increased reporting by the public of relevant incidents will inevitably lead to an improved service. If that can be achieved without prosecutions so be it, after all it appears that consumers are attempting to gain information in order to address particular financial difficulties and address the uneven bargaining positions between the major financial institutions and their long suffering customers. Should my contributions to this Forum assist in that process, I have achieved my objective.

 

Please forgive the polemic, but my intentions to assist are honourable and well meant.

 

As always, I hope this helps.

 

A Well Wisher.

[Movingon]

It's a pity that legal matters cannot be adequately distilled down to the colloquial. I understood it... but how many visitors to this place will?

[Richard Spud]

It's a pity that legal matters cannot be adequately distilled down to the colloquial. I understood it... but how many visitors to this place will?

Hopefully it will encourage those who do not understand particular aspects to seek further and better information. If others can utilise information gained from the postings for presentation to their own advisers - that is fine by me. Otherwise, they are free to conduct their own research at a level of understanding to the individual contributor or seek advice elsewhere or in addition. A possible alternative is that more detailed and informative postings cease and the financial institutions continue unabated.

 

I apologise if my postings are not presented in colloquial terms. I have attempted to direct them at an appropriate level for the intelligent, but uninformed, reader - as I believe the majority of observers are likely to be.

 

A Well Wisher.

 

N.B. I have edited the above posting and this one following the valid comment from StoneHorse in a further effort to clarify my opinion. However, as I have intimated previously, and which I believe any reasonable person would accept, these matters can be rather convoluted and complex. It can be quite difficult to reduce personal opinions to writing which could be explained in a few spoken sentences and in this case I have deliberately avoided discussing the matter of “Mens Rea” (the state of mind of an individual but which can be attributed to the controlling management of a “Body Corporate”) and “Actus Reus” (an actual act) both of which are necessary for a conviction to be successful on prosecution of a “Criminal Offence”.

[Movingon]

Hopefully it will encourage those who do not understand particular aspects to seek further and better information. If others can utilise information gained from the postings for presentation to their own advisers, that is fine. Otherwise, they are free to conduct their own research at a degree of understanding to the individual contributor or seek advice elsewhere or in addition. The alternative is that postings cease and the financial institutions continue unabated.

 

I apologise if my postings are not presented in colloquial terms. I have attempted to direct them at an appropriate level for the intelligent, but uninformed, reader - as I believe the majority of observers are likely to be.

 

A Well Wisher.

 

Please don't take my post as a criticism. You done good

[elsinore]

No need to apologise Richard. Your erudition is most welcome. It seems to me that your posts are entirely objective, having been composed in a cool, cautious and considered way.

 

It’s difficult for many of us to be as objective, embroiled as we are in hardship, litigation and restitution. Our posts are inevitably coloured by our own situations and are often composed whilst under stress from creditors.

 

Im sure that there are others, like me, who are intrigued by your presence, which is nonetheless welcome.

 

It’s good to have a guiding hand.

 

Els

[elizabeth1]

Hopefully it will encourage those who do not understand particular aspects to seek further and better information. If others can utilise information gained from the postings for presentation to their own advisers, that is fine. Otherwise, they are free to conduct their own research at a degree of understanding to the individual contributor or seek advice elsewhere or in addition. The alternative is that postings cease and the financial institutions continue unabated.

 

I apologise if my postings are not presented in colloquial terms. I have attempted to direct them at an appropriate level for the intelligent, but uninformed, reader - as I believe the majority of observers are likely to be.

 

A Well Wisher.

Thank you so much for these posts - they really do help us!!!

 

The CCA & S85 etc.. are areas many of us are working with and the explanations you are helping us with are really good.

[Richard Spud]

Thank you for your kind comments, I am pleased to be of assistance. I believe that constructive criticism is healthy and promotes further investigation by interested parties. I certainly appreciate that objective views can be difficult to express from a subjective position when contributors are attempting to gather information that may not be readily available from the usual sources one would expect.

 

I have posted the following response to comments in other Forums. I include it hear as it may prove helpful in dealing with reasonably complex matters of law for those contributors who are no doubt experiencing some difficulty in obtaining reasonable information from very large and powerful corporate entities.

 

COPY OF DEED OF ASSIGNMENT (DOA) OF A DEBT

 

It may help if I suggest that while there is no obligation for a Creditor Assignee to provide a copy of a DOA when a request is made by a Debtor under ss.77,78 of the CCA 1974, there is no restriction on requesting the voluntary production in support of a claim of assignment. However, I doubt if a Creditor Assignee (or indeed the Assignor) would provide this information as the DOA would undoubtedly contain the consideration (the sum) paid by the Assignee. Nevertheless, I submit that if proceedings have been instigated in the County Court by the Creditor Assignee, then I believe the Defendant Debtor could serve on the Claimant a Part 18 Request For Clarification And Further Information (under the Civil Procedure Rules) referring to the DOA and enquiring if it is to be pleaded. I understand that a response is required to by way of a Statement Of Truth and any copy documents on which the Claimant intends to rely should be annexed thereto –the original documents to be produced at a subsequent hearing for inspection by the Court and the Defendant.

 

I assume that it is known that for a legal assignment (as opposed to an equitable assignment) of a debt to have effect so that the Assignee can sue in their/its own name, the requirements of the Law of Property Act 1925 need to be fulfilled and that the assignment is not effective until the Debtor has received a Notice of Assignment – not the date when the Notice of Assignment was posted. Consequently, should a Creditor Assignee be unable to provide evidence of service and the Defendant has not received a Notice of Assignment when proceedings have already been brought in the County Court then, I suggest, it might be reasonable to file an application for the Claim should be struck out on the grounds that Assignment has not been pleaded and that proceedings cannot be brought prior to the service of a Notice of Assignment.

 

Authorities to check:

 

Law of Property Act 1925 s.136

 

Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 2 KB 1; Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1973] 2 All ER 476 [1973] 1 WLR 757

 

Hope this helps.

 

A Well Wisher.

[ncf355]

Richard, in such a short time you have become a very valued contributor to this thread, many thanks for your input

[ladybird17]

I second that. Thank you Richard. Your evident legal knowledge - professionally acquired I am in no doubt - is exceedingly helpful.

 

You are right in assuming that you have, to a large extent, an "intelligent but uninformed audience" as you so diplomatically and eruditely put it!

 

However, given that many of us now are

(very!)slighly more familiar with deciphering Acts of Parliament & similar, your further explanations & clarification are invaluable!!

Thanks again.

[Seahorse]

And please convey my best wishes to Tonto, and give Silver a polo mint from me.

[joesoap]

I’ve started a thread Joesoapsson and CapOne.Fredrickson but would appreciate any advice on the CCA bit.

As I’ve said below, I don’t see why I should request a CCA off crap one but if anyone thinks otherwise, please feel free to let me know.

Having made a claim to cap one I received a reply from the infamous R Uddy. He reviewed his fees and said he would like to reduce them and will refund the amount on the next statement. The account has been closed since 2001 so what a clever dick he is. 'Phoned cap1 and won't see any cash, it'll be taken off the balance that was owed when the card was closed. Son’s (me really) been paying Fredrickson (a DCA) monthly payments to clear the debt and I have proof of payments (their own statements) but not unfortunately, the original letter advising me that they are pursuing the debt. However, I 'phoned cap1 and was informed that Fredrickson did not own the debt, merely acting on behalf of cap1. I had already requested a CCA from Fredricksons but they didn’t comply.

 

To sum up, I've written to both cap1 and Fredrickson to sort out the lie of the land. Who owns what, who is doing what and who the hell should I correspond with. Told crap one where the refund should go, preferably where the sun don't shine. Crap one has replied to me to confirm that they still own the debt but Fredrickson has been collecting. As the cca has not been sent by Fredrickson I've written to them to advise that an offence has been committed and no more payments will be made and to refund monies paid etc. Fredrickson advised me that the account had been put on hold in order that I could converse with crap one. They've totally ignored other correspondence. As a cca has not been returned, should I ask crap one for a cca? I don't see why as Fredrickson are/were acting on the behalf of crap one so they should be responsible. It appears that neither institution know who should be doing what. If this is the case, what hope have I got. Thank heavens for CAG.

I've just read Fredrickson's letter again and they have credited my son's account with £1. This will be the £1 I sent off for the CCA but was ignored. The original cca letter was not signed for but the postal order correspondence section confirmed that the actual po that was sent to Fred. had been cashed.

IanM

[Guest Battleaxe]

I’ve started a thread Joesoapsson and CapOne.Fredrickson but would appreciate any advice on the CCA bit.

As I’ve said below, I don’t see why I should request a CCA off crap one but if anyone thinks otherwise, please feel free to let me know.

Having made a claim to cap one I received a reply from the infamous R Uddy. He reviewed his fees and said he would like to reduce them and will refund the amount on the next statement. The account has been closed since 2001 so what a clever dick he is. 'Phoned cap1 and won't see any cash, it'll be taken off the balance that was owed when the card was closed. Son’s (me really) been paying Fredrickson (a DCA) monthly payments to clear the debt and I have proof of payments (their own statements) but not unfortunately, the original letter advising me that they are pursuing the debt. However, I 'phoned cap1 and was informed that Fredrickson did not own the debt, merely acting on behalf of cap1. I had already requested a CCA from Fredricksons but they didn’t comply.

 

To sum up, I've written to both cap1 and Fredrickson to sort out the lie of the land. Who owns what, who is doing what and who the hell should I correspond with. Told crap one where the refund should go, preferably where the sun don't shine. Crap one has replied to me to confirm that they still own the debt but Fredrickson has been collecting. As the cca has not been sent by Fredrickson I've written to them to advise that an offence has been committed and no more payments will be made and to refund monies paid etc. Fredrickson advised me that the account had been put on hold in order that I could converse with crap one. They've totally ignored other correspondence. As a cca has not been returned, should I ask crap one for a cca? I don't see why as Fredrickson are/were acting on the behalf of crap one so they should be responsible. It appears that neither institution know who should be doing what. If this is the case, what hope have I got. Thank heavens for CAG.

I've just read Fredrickson's letter again and they have credited my son's account with £1. This will be the £1 I sent off for the CCA but was ignored. The original cca letter was not signed for but the postal order correspondence section confirmed that the actual po that was sent to Fred. had been cashed.

 

IanM

 

You make the request to Crap One and address to Mr Robert Udy, Executive Office Manager

 

As Fredrickson's have stated they are only collecting on behalf of Crap One, Crap One still own the debt.

 

Tell fredricksons to take a hike.

[joesoap]

You make the request to Crap One and address to Mr Robert Udy, Executive Office Manager

 

As Fredrickson's have stated they are only collecting on behalf of Crap One, Crap One still own the debt.

 

Tell fredricksons to take a hike.

 

I'm with you BA, I've also had a reply on the other thread. It's just a shame I have to start all over again. Do I recommence instaments. If so, who to?

 

IanM

[Guest Battleaxe]

I wouldn't pay another penny over. i would also tell mr Udy that the account is in dispute and until it is completely resolved to your satisfaction no more money. I would cc this to Fredricksons.

 

You can be sure the Agreement is not a properly executed Agreement and I am you bet Section 61 has been breached also. then we have Section 85. let's pick it off one thing at a time and keep them working to earn their money.

 

Everything by recorded delivery to all parties. If Fredricksons try anything invite them to take you to court.

 

They now have to play by your rules.

[joesoap]

I wouldn't pay another penny over. i would also tell mr Udy that the account is in dispute and until it is completely resolved to your satisfaction no more money. I would cc this to Fredricksons.

 

You can be sure the Agreement is not a properly executed Agreement and I am you bet Section 61 has been breached also. then we have Section 85. let's pick it off one thing at a time and keep them working to earn their money.

 

Everything by recorded delivery to all parties. If Fredricksons try anything invite them to take you to court.

 

They now have to play by your rules.

 

Thanks again Battleaxe. Are you really? My number two son's working down your end well nearly, Cambridge. What's 63 miles

 

IanM

[joesoap]

As you can see from the above, I've had a spot of bother with the CCA. Thing is, I've a couple more. I've a debt with Mbna but Wescot are collecting although I am sure they bought the debt but have no concrete evidence. I had CCA'd them and they are out of time and I've sent the usual give is me money back, can't be enforced etc. As I've not heard a thing, should I CCA MBNA to be on the safe side. I don't want to but will if I have to.

 

Secondly, I've a debt with Bank of Scotland (as was) and Logic Plc is collecting. Again I don't know if the debt was purchased. Documents were lost in an unforseen accident. I haven't started any action yet on this one but will be shortly. Should I CCA BOS first or Logic or both.

 

I'm having a couple of days rest on Friday and Saturday, off to the Scottish Grand National at Ayr. I'm stopping in Prestwick so if there are any CAGer's in either the Red Lion or the Eagle who fancy a pint (or several), I'm happy to oblige. Can't be missed. I'm with eleven other old geordies. You may just hear us.

 

Ian