Argos Card & JB Debt Recovery

[pt2537]

Hi all,

 

Just a thought.

 

Could a Mod possibly change the thread title to Argos Card & Fredrikson International please?

 

Thanks

 

 

N.P

Yep, have done so and as for Carters, tell em that they need to provide you with documents that are enforceable and compliant with the CCA

 

now that letter must be replied to as it is a LBA in effect so it must be replied to under the pre action protocols

[lihi]

Hi NP

 

Just to give you an update until February 2008 I was outsourced to a London Borough Council working on opposite end of the floor as trading standards, I took it upon myself to confirm the information I had received from CAG and also my interpretation of the law along with the Argos CCA, to double check that my colleagues in London were correct I also forwarded the Argos agreement to Kent trading standards (my local office).

 

Both said exactly the same, the APR is missing as is the information box informing you of your right to complain to trading standards, the agreement is therefore an application form and NOT an agreement. Only one of those terms has to be missing to render the agreement unenforceable (I'm getting good at this ).

[N.P]

Yep, have done so and as for Carters, tell em that they need to provide you with documents that are enforceable and compliant with the CCA

 

now that letter must be replied to as it is a LBA in effect so it must be replied to under the pre action protocols

 

Hi Paul,

 

Thanks for the name change.

 

As for Carters, would the letter in Post 128 of this thread be suitable to send these knobs? If not, is there anything suitable somewhere I could use?

 

 

Hi NP

 

Both said exactly the same, the APR is missing as is the information box informing you of your right to complain to trading standards, the agreement is therefore an application form and NOT an agreement. Only one of those terms has to be missing to render the agreement unenforceable (I'm getting good at this ).

 

Mmmm,

 

Thanks for that lihi, you sure are getting good at this stuff. Pity I`m not all that with it

 

Anyway, I`m think of sending these muppets your letter from Post 128.

 

Any recommendations?

 

Thanks again people.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

[lihi]

 

Anyway, I`m think of sending these muppets your letter from Post 128.

 

 

 

I would only send 128 in response to an LBA.

 

Remind me again, have they actually sent you a CCA? If they have I'll dig one of my letters out.

[pt2537]

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER

XX/XX/2008

Dear Sirs,

Account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

 

This account is in Dispute .

 

On xx/xx/2007 I wrote to xxxxxxxxx requesting that xxxxxxx supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for this account.

In response to this request I was supplied a mere application form which did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553

 

The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

1. Number of repayments;

2. Amount of repayments;

3. Frequency and timing of repayments;

4. Dates of repayments;

5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable

 

 

 

Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

Further more, since the prescribed terms referred to above do not appear within the agreement your client has supplied, the agreement is rendered totally unenforceable, as the prescribed terms must be contained within the agreement and not a separate document, case law confirms this opinion

 

I refer you to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

 

”[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated

consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

 

 

"33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which

are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the

minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

 

Therefore the prescribed terms cannot be contained within a separate document outside of the agreement

 

In addition should you continue to pursue me for this debt you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection

The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I have enclosed an excerpt from page 5 of the guidance which states

 

 

 

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

 

h. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

 

As it stands, the document supplied by your client is not a valid credit agreement nor is it enforceable by any court

 

What I Require

 

Firstly, I require all correspondence in writing from here on; any persistent attempts to contact me by phone will be reported to Trading Standards, the Financial ombudsman service and the Office of Fair Trading. In addition I may report your conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society

 

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that your clients do not hold a signed copy of a credit agreement containing the prescribed terms. Therefore the fact that they do not hold such document means that you cannot obtain an enforcement order in court. The case of Wilson-v-FCT sets this out as previously referred to above

 

However should you believe that you have grounds to enforce this agreement, please provide me with a signed copy of the credit agreement that you would consider relying upon? Should you ignore this request I will report you to the Office of Fair Trading to consider your suitability to hold a credit licence in addition to a complaint to Trading Standards, as you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40

 

Since the agreement your clients have supplied as it stands is unenforceable, should you be unable to produce a compliant agreement it would be in everyone’s interest to consider the matter closed and for you to write the debt off. I suggest you give serious consideration to this as any attempt of litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages. I respectfully request a response to this letter in 14 days

 

I trust this out lines the situation

 

 

 

that should despatch Mr Brain-Drain

[lihi]

Brilliant PT!!!!!!

[N.P]

Hi Paul and lihi,

 

Thanks for that Paul, I`ve just had a quick whip through that and it seems to be the bee`s knee`s, or the dogs bollocks or as someone else put it, the mutts nuts.

 

I`ll print it out and send it off tomorrow, of course I`ll smarten it up and put the heading in BIG BOLD, RED TEXT, so the empty head can see it.

 

Keep watching lihi, no doubt there will be some sort of crap heading my way

 

Thanks again.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

[N.P]

Hi all,

 

Right, I`ve had a look over the letter supplied by Paul (pt2537) and made a slight change and tidied it up a little.

 

 

 

22nd April 2008

 

 

Dear Morons,

 

Reference: ARG/********

 

 

Re: My request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

 

This account is in Dispute.

 

On 24 July 2007 I wrote to Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd requesting that Moorcroft Debt Recovery Ltd supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for this account. Some eight months later, in response to this request, Fredrickson International Ltd supplied me with a mere application form which did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The cover letter was dated 6th March 2008.

 

The document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553

 

The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following:

 

1) Number of repayments;

2) Amount of repayments;

3) Frequency and timing of repayments;

4) Dates of repayments;

5) The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable.

 

Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states:

 

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

Further more, since the prescribed terms referred to above do not appear within the agreement your client has supplied, the agreement is rendered totally unenforceable, as the prescribed terms must be contained within the agreement and not a separate document, case law confirms this opinion

 

I refer you to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

 

”[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated

consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Schedule 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

 

"33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which

are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the

minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

 

Therefore the prescribed terms cannot be contained within a separate document outside of the agreement

 

In addition should you continue to pursue me for this debt you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection

The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I have enclosed an excerpt from page 5 of the guidance which states

 

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

 

h. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

 

As it stands, the document supplied by your client is not a valid credit agreement nor is it enforceable by any court

 

 

What I Require

 

Firstly, I require all correspondence in writing from here on; any persistent attempts to contact me by phone will be reported to Trading Standards, the Financial ombudsman service and the Office of Fair Trading. In addition I may report your conduct to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society

 

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that your clients do not hold a signed copy of a credit agreement containing the prescribed terms. Therefore the fact that they do not hold such document means that you cannot obtain an enforcement order in court. The case of Wilson-v-FCT sets this out as previously referred to above

 

However should you believe that you have grounds to enforce this agreement, please provide me with a signed copy of the credit agreement that you would consider relying upon? Should you ignore this request I will report you to the Office of Fair Trading to consider your suitability to hold a credit licence in addition to a complaint to Trading Standards, as you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40

 

Since the agreement your clients have supplied as it stands is unenforceable, should you be unable to produce a compliant agreement it would be in everyone’s interest to consider the matter closed and for you to write the debt off. I suggest you give serious consideration to this as any attempt of litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages.

 

I respectfully request a response to this letter in 14 days.

 

I trust this out lines the situation.

 

Your sincerely,

 

 

 

N.P

 

 

 

 

I was just wondering, is there anything else I need to edit / remove before I send this off to that bot splat Carter? Please let me know soon, so I can get it off today.

 

Also, I thought there was a lot of interest in the Carter bloke, regarding him trading under the name Byan Carter Solicitors. I`m not sure what it`s all about but I`m under the impression this guy is dodgy and shouldn`t be trading under that name. If that is the case, then the letter I received is BRYAN CARTER & Co SOLICITORS. I there anything I need to remind this arse wipe of?

 

Anything anyone can add to wind this crank would be much appreciated.

 

I`ve just noticed as well, on the back of their letter are a numbers of ways I can pay by, should I be soft enough to, that is. They list every Credit Card under the sun. Is this allowed?

 

Right, hope you people can help me on this one.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

[SWIS]

I joined these forums to look at how people have dealt with DCA's after a minor altercation with Lowells. Now, I have read a lot of threads and generally, many people have a case to avoid paying debts (statutue barred being an example)

 

I am going to get a barrage of abuse here and if it makes you feel better so be it.

 

YOU took their money, YOU spent it on god knows what. YOU are clearly avoiding paying your way. And guess what. I have an Argos card and knew the score when I took it out. I make a payment evry month because I have spent their money.

 

This is as clear a case of abuse of this forum as one is likely to find. Tell me to get stuffed. I dont care.

 

I will leave you with a quote from NP

 

'It`ll also let them know that I`m no soft s**t who is going to give in to bully tactics and intimidation techniques'

 

How dare they ask for their money back? Tut tut..

 

(Waits for the technical loophole arguments)

 

I run my own business and a few people like you would put me out of business. Yes they are a big company and aren't going to miss 3 grand. But it puts the interest rates up for us Argos card holders who DO pay their way.

 

Rant over.

[N.P]

Hi SWIS,

 

Thanks for the post.

 

Yeah, your entitled to your say, point noted and ignored.

 

However, if you had fallen behind with payments for whatever reason and you started getting grief from DCA`s, who by the way DO lie and, DO bully and DO intimidate people to sometime the point of suicide then I`m glad to be looking for a way out, or maybe just a way to take control of things, the way I want.

 

You will also find that these so-called agreements aren`t really stuck to word for word, they write them not me, and if there`s something wrong with them that enables people to dodge, or whatever phrase you choose then that`s Argos`s fault, not mine.

 

Have you ever wonder just how much interest you pay oin them cards? Don`t you think it`s a total ripp off? Of course you don`t, your a Buisiness man yourself who will also ripp people off, no doubt.

 

By the way, I didn`t take their money. Most of that debt is actually interest and PPI, which is also another con.

 

Rant over.

 

 

 

P.S. What was your altercation with Lowells, did you get fired from there for being crap at your job?

[N.P]

By the way,

 

Even murderers, rapists, peado`s and smack heads are entitled to a defense, so what`s your rant on that? They shouldn`t?

[SWIS]

By the way,

 

Even murderers, rapists, peado`s and smack heads are entitled to a defense, so what`s your rant on that? They shouldn`t?

 

 

so a legal loophole is enough to wriggle your way out of what is right?

 

the retort above really does sum up your pathetic outlook.

 

Would you applaud a child rapist for beating the legal system on a technicality?

 

I will answer for you. No you would not.

 

I suggest you acquire a more mature outlook on your responsibilities.

[SWIS]

And one more thing, your constant arrogant attitude and use of guttural language towards these DCA's and your original creditor is perhaps the reason why the forum 'big guns' are not falling over themselves to rush to your aid.

 

Re-read the entire thread and evaluate your comments.

 

You don't really have a moral leg to stand on.

 

Fin.

 

PS,

 

And no I dont rip people off, I am a well respected businessman in my community with ties to several 'charitable causes'

[N.P]

For the record,

 

I didn`t write the legal system either, if I did, they wouldn`t get away on a technicality.

 

And just who are YOU to lecture ME on my responsibilites? NO BODY, that`s who!

 

I suggest you go and do something constructive, like write an agreement that no one can wriggle out of, after all, you wouldn`t want to get ripped off would you?

 

You still haven`t mentioned the dealings you had with the DCA, are you ashamed to put it down, or think your better than everyone else.

 

As far as I`m concerned, my financial business is my own and no one else, unless I say so. Not the Banks, not the DCA`s and certainly not yours, Mr Business Man!

[pt2537]

PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL

 

if this results into personal insults i will have no choice but to moderate the offending posts

[SWIS]

For the record,

 

I didn`t write the legal system either, if I did, they wouldn`t get away on a technicality.

 

And just who are YOU to lecture ME on my responsibilites? NO BODY, that`s who!

 

I suggest you go and do something constructive, like write an agreement that no one can wriggle out of, after all, you wouldn`t want to get ripped off would you?

 

You still haven`t mentioned the dealings you had with the DCA, are you ashamed to put it down, or think your better than everyone else.

 

As far as I`m concerned, my financial business is my own and no one else, unless I say so. Not the Banks, not the DCA`s and certainly not yours, Mr Business Man!

 

 

Is that why you are baring your soul on an internet forum pleading for help?

 

 

Aren't you a touchy one?!

 

As you are so keen for the low down on Lowells:

 

they wrote to me trying to get a 'debt' from 11 years ago repaid. Unfortunately for them they had the wrong person. I ALWAYS settle my debts.

 

That's all..

[pt2537]

SWIS

 

 

please go and read the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2001] 3 All ER 229 Court of Appeal ruling

 

then you will be in a better position to pass comment

 

in particular pay attention to para 26 a small quote is here

 

In effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed

terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary

disposition, or gift, of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never

entitled to have them repaid;

 

 

NP is entitled to a defence as much as anyone else,if a lender fails to follow the requirements of the legislation, which incidentally has been around for a few years now, then they are fully aware of the implications and it is irresponsible lending for them to hand over monies which they know they will not be entitled to be repaid

[SWIS]

I am not doubting that they may not have followed procedure and I am no DCA or Troll. Fact is, he is avoiding a financial responsibility no matter how many technicalities there are.

 

No more from me on the subject.

 

That's all.

[N.P]

Smashing!

[pt2537]

No responsibility arises in law, and not by loophole either by the words of an Act of Parliament namely the Consumer Credit Act 1974, where a lender does not include the required terms in a credit agreement

 

the law looks upon this as a gift of monies which are not returnable

 

that is all that needs saying on the subject

[N.P]

Morning all,

 

Just a quickie to say the letter in Post 158 was sent this morning, First Class Recorded.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

[N.P]

Morning all,

 

Right, the letter was delivered to empty head on 24.4.2008.

 

Let the beatings begin.

 

 

N.P

[N.P]

HI all,

 

How is everyone today?

 

Right, we have an UPDATE.

 

This morning I received a letter from someone totaly new, a JB Debt Recovery.

 

Has anyone heard of them? I haven`t, although I haven`t had a search around yet.

 

It`s definately regarding the Argos Account, so I guess Fredrikson / Bryan Carter must have passed it back.

 

This is the Third DCA, or fourth if you include Carters.

 

It goes something like this -

 

 

 

 

 

As usual, it`s urgent, they say I have ignored all previous correspondence, I have to contact them immediately, and if I don`t pay up within the next 7 days, they may think about something else.

 

This one seems to be from a squiggle with a signature like the Britsh Home Stores logo.

 

Not sure how to reply to this one, as they last time it was passed on they showed up with a dodgy CCA, but it has now been passed back again. So, any help would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

[pt2537]

Hi NP

 

Oh Dear, McMuffins at work eh? Donkey filleting time me thinks

 

I guess its time to write another letter to them as long as you have teh danglies for the battle that is:p

 

if you have then they can be quite easily despatched

[N.P]

HI Paul,

 

Yep, I`ll fire off whatever you say, £4.60 on a Special Delivery letter every month is pretty good going really, compared to what these imbeciles will want, LOL.

 

I just find it amusing that it`s been around 3 DCA`s and a pretendy Solicitors and they`re still trying.

 

Reckon we could keep this up for another 5 years? By which time it`ll be Statute Barred or they`ll have ran out of DCA`s.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P