un1boy - N1 issued for breach of CCA request

[un1boy]

Hi Dave,

 

Thanks - I'll do that for sure, it was a bit late last night and didn't have time to format it correctly - the content is right though, eh?

[tomterm8]

Bank charges mate.

 

But... the case is based on the bank charges. So was this a partial settlement or a full & final settlement?

 

And you forgot to mention in your claim that the defaults were issued with an incorrect amount of money, and so invalid under english law?

 

And did you issue a section 10 notice under the data protection act 1998 to stop processing data, or rectify any mistake? if so, you need to mention that.

[un1boy]

But... the case is based on the bank charges. So was this a partial settlement or a full & final settlement?

 

And you forgot to mention in your claim that the defaults were issued with an incorrect amount of money, and so invalid under english law?

 

And did you issue a section 10 notice under the data protection act 1998 to stop processing data, or rectify any mistake? if so, you need to mention that.

 

Hi mate.

 

I got a full refund. The claim should be based on the lack of an enforcable cca agreement to be honest - I only mentioned the refund to highlight the fact that the defaulted balance was incorrect.

[un1boy]

Hi mate.

 

I got a full refund. The claim should be based on the lack of an enforcable cca agreement to be honest - I only mentioned the refund to highlight the fact that the defaulted balance was incorrect.

 

bump

[un1boy]

Guys - I think these would be better:

 

Plus interest pursuant to S.69 County Courts Act 1984 from date of issue to date of judgement/settlement at £0.41 per day OR at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

• In August 2006 the claimant requested a copy of the original executed credit agreement from the defendant under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended). The defendant has failed to supply an agreement which is enforceable under section 60 as it contains no prescribed terms. The defendant also failed to provide a copy of the original terms and conditions which were applicable at the time and a statement of account.

• The Claimant contends that:
   
  (a) The defendant has failed to comply with a request made under s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) since August 2006 to provide a copy of the executed agreement which has all the prescribed terms. Under s.78(6) of this Act if the Defendant cannot supply this information they may not enforce the agreement and if the default continues for one month they commit an offence.

(b) The defendant is still enforcing the agreement and it has caused undue costs to the claimant in that he has had to pay double monthly payments on a work related credit purchase

 

• Accordingly the Claimant claims:
   
  (a) The return of the amounts collected since the request was defaulted at a total of £xxx;
   
  (b) The removal of the account data registered with all Credit Reference Agencies;
   
  (c) Court costs;
   
  (d) Damages at the discretion of the court to compensate for distress and extra costs incurred by claimant.
   
  (e) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

• In accordance with the Act section 142(1)(b) the Claimant requests that the court declares the credit agreement unenforceable under section 65(1) by virtue of section 127(3).

What do you reckon?

[ncf355]

Thats VG un1!

 

Short but def to tyhe point, quoting all laws required without giving them to much info

 

Also where there is doubt about the legitimacy of the 'copy' sent (e.g: where we think there is fraud) this would push their backs against the wall

 

Nice m8

[un1boy]

Thats VG un1!

 

Short but def to tyhe point, quoting all laws required without giving them to much info

 

Also where there is doubt about the legitimacy of the 'copy' sent (e.g: where we think there is fraud) this would push their backs against the wall

 

Nice m8

 

Excellent, I'll send this one then - I think the other was far too complicated.

 

I need to do another one now for the OD.

[ncf355]

Just re read my post -

 

oi carn spoll, onestlee

[un1boy]

Hehe, no bother mate - here, I can just send 2 copies of the N1 in with a cheque in order for it to be issued, can't I?

 

It's just I'm not off now until Friday next week and want it issued asap.

[davefirewalker]

Hehe, no bother mate - here, I can just send 2 copies of the N1 in with a cheque in order for it to be issued, can't I?

 

It's just I'm not off now until Friday next week and want it issued asap.

 

Unless you do it via MCOL then you have to send 3 copies

 

they then send you one back...its a pain, but its how they do it

 

dave

[un1boy]

Unless you do it via MCOL then you have to send 3 copies

 

they then send you one back...its a pain, but its how they do it

 

dave

 

Ok, thanks.

 

I was going to be cheeky and claim CI on the amounts but to be honest 2k would really sort me out and all I really want is the removal of the defaults.

[un1boy]

Rite guys, I have changed them ever so slightly. This is the final version now, I'm nnot playing with it anymore unless anyone else has any comments/additions?

 

If not I will print these out tonight and send to the court first thing tomorrow!

 

Thanks again:

 

Payments since the account has been defaulted £xxx

Court Fee £xxx

 

TOTAL £xxxx

Plus interest pursuant to S.69 County Courts Act 1984 from date of issue to date of judgement/settlement at £0xxxx per day OR at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

• In August 2006 the claimant requested a copy of the original executed credit agreement from the defendant under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended). The defendant has failed to supply an agreement which is enforceable under section 60 as it contains no prescribed terms. The defendant also failed to provide a copy of the original terms and conditions which were applicable at the time and a statement of account.

• The Claimant contends that:
   
  (a) The defendant has failed to comply with a request made under s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) since August 2006 to provide a copy of the executed agreement which has all the prescribed terms. Under s.78(6) of this Act if the Defendant cannot supply this information they may not enforce the agreement and if the default continues for one month they commit an offence.

(b) The defendant has failed to supply the terms and conditions which were relevant at the time the agreement was signed and a statement of account, despite various requests by both the Claimant and Trading Standards.

© The defendant has failed to supply a copy of the original default notice in order to check it complied with section 88 of the Act, despite various requests by the Claimant and Trading Standards

© The defendant is still enforcing the agreement and it has caused undue costs to the claimant in that he has had to pay double monthly payments on a credit purchase.

• Accordingly the Claimant claims:
   
  (a) The return of the amounts collected since the request was defaulted at a total of £xxxx;
   
   
  (b) The return of £xxxx in extra charges paid towards a Hire Purchase agreement due to the data the defendant is processing;

(c) The removal of the account data registered with all Credit Reference Agencies;

(d) Court costs;

 

(e)Damages at the discretion of the court to compensate for distress and extra costs incurred by claimant;

 

(f) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just;

• In accordance with the Act section 142(1)(b) the Claimant requests that the court declares the credit agreement unenforceable under section 65(1) by virtue of section 127(3).

• By virtue of the unenforceability of the credit agreement as item 1 above, the defendant has no rights, as precedent set in Wilson and others v Secretary of State for Trade and industry (Appellant) [2003] UKHL 40. Therefore the Claimant claims all monies received by the Defendant to the Account.
  
  I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true.

[M.Willows]

Hi All

 

Looks very clear to me , I will be doing an N1 shortly for Hillesden for non compliance , I am a bit concerned asking for everything back I have paid them though.I am still thinking of the arguements they might have with this , logically it still boils down to them having the agreement , but they might have had it in the first place then lost it a week before the CCA, would this matter?

[un1boy]

Hi All

 

Looks very clear to me , I will be doing an N1 shortly for Hillesden for non compliance , I am a bit concerned asking for everything back I have paid them though.I am still thinking of the arguements they might have with this , logically it still boils down to them having the agreement , but they might have had it in the first place then lost it a week before the CCA, would this matter?

 

I don't want everything back - only the amount i have paid since it was defaulted.

 

If they can't provide the agreement then they should refund everything mate, doesn't matter when they "lost" it,

[hisholinessthepope]

This is the single most important document as far as the CCA is concerned, without it the creditor is stuffed! Either they have it or not. The fact they had one and lost it will be of no amusement to the courts. As for claim it all back, I have a new gem to share with the CAG upon my return from vacation! I will be claiming everything.

 

Hi All

 

Looks very clear to me , I will be doing an N1 shortly for Hillesden for non compliance , I am a bit concerned asking for everything back I have paid them though.I am still thinking of the arguements they might have with this , logically it still boils down to them having the agreement , but they might have had it in the first place then lost it a week before the CCA, would this matter?

[un1boy]

This is the single most important document as far as the CCA is concerned, without it the creditor is stuffed! Either they have it or not. The fact they had one and lost it will be of no amusement to the courts. As for claim it all back, I have a new gem to share with the CAG upon my return from vacation! I will be claiming everything.

 

Do you mean the agreement is?

[hisholinessthepope]

Apologies, yes the credit agreement.

[M.Willows]

Please keep us posted your holiness , as I need info on this as soon as possible as no agreement has been supplied and ready to do my N1.

Thanks

[un1boy]

Guys - the FOS ruled that the agreement was enforcable when I complained to them and I am now scared that the bank will try to use this in their defence.

 

I am right in thinking that it doesn't matter and that the FOS shoudl not of ruled that it is enforcable ?

[ncf355]

Un1,

 

dont get stressed mate

 

Ignore the FOS , its the courts opinion that matters

[un1boy]

Un1,

 

dont get stressed mate

 

Ignore the FOS , its the courts opinion that matters

 

Thought so, thanks.

[shane5408]

Guys - the FOS ruled that the agreement was enforcable when I complained to them and I am now scared that the bank will try to use this in their defence.

 

I am right in thinking that it doesn't matter and that the FOS shoudl not of ruled that it is enforcable ?

 

I don't believe it, did they give their specific reasons as to why they believe it is enforcable and explain what legalties they base their decision on?

 

I have to admit, that was one of my fears of using the FOS or information comissioner rather than taking it straight to court, they are so unreliable on the of chance they rule the agreement as enforcable they could then use this in court

[shane5408]

and more importantly, sorry for your loss! forget to mention.

[un1boy]

and more importantly, sorry for your loss! forget to mention.

 

loss?

[un1boy]

I don't believe it, did they give their specific reasons as to why they believe it is enforcable and explain what legalties they base their decision on?

 

I have to admit, that was one of my fears of using the FOS or information comissioner rather than taking it straight to court, they are so unreliable on the of chance they rule the agreement as enforcable they could then use this in court

 

 

Nope- the FOS guy just said that they look at these things simply - he said, "it's obvious there is a debt and it is obvious that you owe, so you should pay it."

 

I told him it was unenforcable by virtue of 124(4) of the Act and he said that they only have to take the law into account, not abide by it.

 

He said, the debt is there and you're an intelligent lad and you obviously know that you owe it. we are here to settle disoutes where banks lend irresponsibly, eg lending thousands of pouds to someone who cannot comprehend the contract they are entering in to etc.

 

He was an arrogant bar-steward and I won't waste my time appealing.