Allied International Credit

[car2403]

I'd include reference to the DPA, but it doesn't have to be in a great amount of detail at this stage;

 

The Defendant further avers that the Claimant is in breach of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998, in that it is processing data without consent due to having no legal agreement under the Consumer Credit Act.

 

You will expand on it at a later date, anyway. (See my Barclays POC again)

 

Looks good to me, just needs ending with this;

 

THE CLAIMANTS REQUEST FOR A COURT ORDER

 

In view of the arguments in this document, the Claimant respectfully seeks that the Court;

a. Determines the rights of the parties to each of the alleged Consumer Credit Agreements and seeks a declaration from the Court under s.142 CCA 1974 that the debts are unenforceable and that any application for an Enforcement Order under s.65 CCA 1974 will not be entertained, either now, or at any future time; and

b. Awards damages to the Claimant in the sum of £1,000, due to the Defendants failure to Default and Terminate the Claimants overdraft account in the lawfully prescribed manner; and

c. Orders the enforcement of the Defendants compliance with the Claimants Statutory Notices under s.10 and s.12 DPA 1998; and

d. Issues an Order, pursuant to the Courts powers contained within s.14(1) and s.14(3) DPA 1998, that the Defendant immediately blocks, erases or destroys those data and any other personal data in respect of which he is the data controller and which contains an expression of opinion which appears to the Court to be based on the inaccurate data and order the data controller to notify third parties to whom the data have been disclosed of the blocking, erasure or destruction.

I, speedtrip, the defendant in this case, believe that the facts stated in this document are true.

Signed:

[speedtrip]

Thanks for your reply CAR and for your suggestions.

 

To clarify, should I dispense entirely with my first draft 'post 98'8) and use my last two posts or should I use them both.

 

I am just editing now in order to fax through.

 

Regards.

[car2403]

Sorry it's a little late - just back from Court myself - but you should hash those last 2 together, IMHO.

 

Post 98...

 

"in the alternative, where it is held that the claimant is entitled to bring this claim, the defendant will plead as follows", then...

 

hash the last 2 bits together.

 

What did you submit in the end?

[speedtrip]

No worries CAR, in the end I took relevant parts from post 98 and combined with your prose. I was happy with this and faxed through and they confirmed receipt when i phoned.

 

Just received a letter saying they have sent my response to the claimant and they have 28 days to respond so waiting for them to contact me.

 

I think their claim is the standard frightener piece and im calling their bluff to seer their cards i guess ... what do you think will happen now?

 

Anything else I can do at this stage?

[speedtrip]

CAR just had a letter from SC&M.

 

On their client instructions they have asked the court for a Judgement Order which will be sent to me in due course via the court.

 

They have also told me methods of payment they will accept.

 

They also say that if payments are not made in accordance with judgement order I may incurr additional costs etc

 

The balance has already gone up to reflect their costs.

 

They have not acked my two letters received by their client and scm by Special Deilvery ( i have proof)

 

I am assuming that Judge will order a stay to allow the bank to supply all the information i requested in my SAR so that I may adequately prepare my defence.

 

Whats the next step?

[car2403]

Scare tactics, IMO.

 

They can "ask" for Judgment, but they won't get it as you've entered a defence.

 

Next step? Wait it out - you should receive an AQ to complete next.

 

If I get time, I'll think of a suitable response to this letter - like writing the Court to tell them they are attempting to intimitade you.

[speedtrip]

Thanks CAR, I thought that might be it ... i like the sound of your letter,

[car2403]

Can you post up the wording of that last letter? I'm sure I've responded to this on another posters' thread before.

 

Might be this one?;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/81224-spiritgirl-various-dcas.html

[speedtrip]

as follows:

 

"Following our clients instructions in this matter you are advised that we have requested the County Court to enter judgement against you. A judgement order detailing payment will therefore be send to you by the court in due course.

 

The next two paragraphs explain how i can make payment by standing order or bank giro credit slips.

 

Please ensure that payments are made in accordance with the judgement order to prevent enforcement proceedings which will incur additional court fees and solicitor costs for which you may be liable"

 

Any thoughts

[car2403]

Can you post up the wording of that last letter? I'm sure I've responded to this on another posters' thread before.

 

Might be this one?;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/81224-spiritgirl-various-dcas.html

 

As I said, standard stuff - read this and the following posts;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/81224-spiritgirl-various-dcas-28.html?highlight=instructions#post1322079

 

(I'm surprised I can even remember 11th January 2008!)

[speedtrip]

Just received a letter from SC&M advising that they are seeking their clients instructions and will write to me later.:-|

[speedtrip]

have just recd poc for lloyds credit card, ref post 66

 

POC as follows:

 

1. by an agreement in writing & regulated by the CCA 1974 the claimants issued to the defendant a credit token lloyds bank gold card for the purpose of the defendant aquiring goods etc on credit.

2. clause 7 of the agreement provided that the claimants would furnish the defendant with a monthly statement showing the balance currently due, the miniumum payment to be made and the date for payment. if the balance was not paid then provided the defendant made the min payment on or before such dates the remainder of the balance should remain outstanding and the defendant should pay interest upon it each month in accordance with clauses 8&9 of the agreement.

3. in breach of the agreement the def failed to make payment and on ****** the claimants issued a default notice pursuant to section (87) (i) of the CCA 1974.

4. on ********* the claimants did issue a formal demand to the def.

5. The claimants therefore claim the balance due under the agreement (plus sols costs) £********

 

 

 

As you will know from previous posts lloyds have already written and told me they no longer have the CCA (referred to as card application).

 

Also the default they issued was inaccurate as it contained unlawful bank charges

 

I intend to :

 

• defend and inform the court that i need to see the CCA/info the claimant intends to rely upon in court.
  
• write to lloyds with a suitable response including SAR (template suggestions anyone)
  
• write to the OFT etc as lloyds are breaking debt collection guideines without a valid cca
  
• also still waiting for their promised response re bank charges, may recalcuate using revised method of interest .. any pointers here?

Would welcome any input or suggestions to help me prepare a timely and measured response.

 

Regards

[Gingerbaby]

Hello,

I have been reading through this thread and am very interested in anyone theat could offer me advice i had been pursued through AIC and also Debt Managers on behalf of Lloyds TSB regards the sum of £5000 i had sent in a CCA request back in december and none of the dca's were able to provide this, the matter was then refered back to Lloyds and again i asked them for the CCA again i recived absolutely nothing from them and now today i have been contacted by Robinson Way for the same debt whom state if i do not pay the amount in full in 5 days they are sending a doorstep collector out

 

Can anyone offer me any advice or is this now a case of sending another CCA request

[ODC]

As far as I am aware your original request for a CCA still stands and as such the debt is in dispute and should not have been passed on.

 

Send this to Robinson Way

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir or Madam,

Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with the **original creditor/DCA** and has been since DATE 2007.

Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

 

My last letter from **original creditor/DCA** was DATE and intimated that my complaint would be

resolved on **DATE**, this obviously hasn’t happened.

As **original creditor/DCA** are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, OFT Collection Guidelines, *Subject Access request and have also breached *s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the **original creditor/DCA** for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as **New DCA** cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If **New DCA** chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines

 

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

[Gingerbaby]

Thanks for this although they have again advised me that they are going to send the debt collectors out to visit me in 5 days unless i pay

 

So if i send the attached will this prevent this action as this is now about the 3rd company that Llyods have instrcuted on me and none are able to provide the CCA, also to date i have not had any letters from Robinson Way just a phone call

[ODC]

Add this paragraph to the letter to RWC

 

I note it is your intention to arrange a “doorstep recovery agent” to call with me. Please be advised that under OFT rules, such persons can only visit me at my home if they make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you or anyone you may appoint.

 

There is only an implied license under Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and civil action will be taken.

[speedtrip]

bump, would appreciate some help with my post 112,

 

thanks

[speedtrip]

Following on from previous posts regarding my overdraft lloyds DPA Team have responded as follows;

 

Your request has been passed to us for attention etc.

 

Thank your for your postal order for £11 which was received on **/**/**. However, please note that section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not apply to current accounts even where there are planned or unplanned overdrafts. This is because the act does not require these agreements to documented in executed agreements within the meaning of the act. The two personal loans were closed (read repaid) in 1997 and 2000 respectively and in we no longer these account.

 

For this reason I have enclosed the cheque for £1 to refund the fee you paid for a section 78(1) request under the CCA 1974.

 

They have agreed to supply the SAR by 17/5/08.

 

Notes:

 

• the SAR took 28 days to reach the DPA Dept and it was sent by next day delivery
  
• it has come back direct from the DPA team without going through their complaints with whom I have been dealing in the past.
  
• SC&M acked my letter approx 14 days after receipt but they do not appear to keeping in touch regarding their clients instructions
  
• there seems to be no co-ordinated response from them or lloyds

 

Scare tactics, IMO.

 

They can "ask" for Judgment, but they won't get it as you've entered a defence.

 

Next step? Wait it out - you should receive an AQ to complete next.

 

If I get time, I'll think of a suitable response to this letter - like writing the Court to tell them they are attempting to intimitade you.

[empowered]

Hi Speedtrip - having noted your comments to my post on N.P.s thread have popped over to read your thread! Makes for fascinating reading - can't wait for the outcome. Will start my own thread when things start turning nasty but at the moment it is still running similar to other peoples stories!

[speedtrip]

With respect to my alleged o/d debt referred to in previous posts in this thread I have now recd AQ with deadline set as 8/5/08 and would appreciate some guidance. I have prepared the following;

 

AQ/N150

 

Section A - Settlement:

 

No - but considering sending letter offering bank charges as settlement as shows willing to judge. I will send letter and answer yes to Q1/Q2? Q3 No

 

Section B - Location:

Yes - The Defendant thanks the Court for reallocating ro local court as he is a Litigant in Person

 

Section C - Pre-action protocols:

Part 2 - No. Reason (attached sheet): This agreement is a regulated debtor-creditor agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant has been in default of a formal & legitimate request made under s77 and s.78(1) Consumer Credit Act (1974) since *****. to obtain copies of the originally executed credit agreement this alleged debt refer to. The request was sent via Royal Mail with recorded delivery, enclosing a statutory fee of £1.00 per account. Royal Mail confirms receipt of this request on the *************, which gave the Claimant twelve working days from receipt of the request, to provide said documentation, as stipulated in Regulation 2 of The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983. The deadline to comply with the request was, therefore, ************** and to date this information has not been supplied. The Defendant has no information to supply, and the burden of proof is on the Claimant to supply documents supporting their claim as per CPR part 16, which they have not done.

 

 

Section D - Case management information:

What amount of the claim is in dispute: £00000

 

Have you made any application(s) in this claim? No

 

Witnesses: Me - witness of fact

 

Experts: No

 

Track: Small Claims Court (straightfoward case)

 

Section E - Trial or final hearing:

How long do you estimate the trial or final hearing will take: 1hr

 

Section F - Proposed directions:

Have you attached a list of directions? Yes

Have they been agreed? No

 

Section G - Costs:

Estimate of costs incurred to date: (need to calculate this)

Estimate of overall costs: (need to calculate this)

 

Section H - Other Information:

Have you attached docs? No

Do you intend to make any applications in the immediate future? No

 

Any other information:

If the Court is in agreement, the Defendant respectfully requests that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order.

 

The Defendant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously;

 

Without production of the requested documents, the Defendant is at a disadvantage and is unable to serve a complete Defence in response to the documents requested (further to that filed on **/**?**). Failure of the Claimant to supply the requested documentation will inhibit the Court's ability to deal with the case.

 

. The Defendant believes that it will form part of the Claimants’ case to this Claim that this agreement is not a regulated agreement under the CCA 1974. The Defendant avers, however, that this is a regulated agreement and falls under the remit of that Act. To help clarify these matters, this is an extract from a Court case (Coutts v Sebastyen) and is part of the summing up by the Judge in relation to effect on overdrafts and the function of the CCA in such circumstances;

 

 

“The Defendant provided an overdraft on the account;

a. The agreement was a regulated debtor-creditor agreement within the meaning of s.8 and s.13© of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, providing for 'running-account credit' within the meaning of s.10(1)(a) of the Act (in effect, a revolving credit within an agreed credit limit); and

 

b. That, as such, it was subject to the requirements of Part V of the Act (including the requirements as to documentation set out in sections 57 to 63 of the Act) save and in so far as it was excluded or exempted from such requirements.

 

Section 65 in Part V of the Act provides that an "improperly executed" regulated agreement is unenforceable by the creditor without a court order. It is common ground that a regulated agreement is "improperly executed" for this purpose if the requirements of sections 57 to 63 have not been complied with.

 

Section 74 of the Act provides for the exclusion of certain agreements from Part V. It provides as follows (so far as material):

"74. – (1) This part …. does not apply to –

(b) a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, …

(3) Subsection 1(b) … applies only where the OFT so determines, and such a determination –

(a) may be made subject to such conditions as the OFT thinks fit …

(3A) …. in relation to a debtor-creditor agreement under which the creditor is …. a bank …. the OFT shall make a determination that subsection 1(b) above applies unless it considers that it would be against the public interest to do so.

 

THE DETERMINATION:

 

The Determination (which is signed by the Director of Fair Trading) is made under section 74(3) of the Act. I set it out in full:

 

"1. Under the powers conferred upon me by s.74(3) and (3A) and s.133 of the Consumer Credit 1974, I, the Director General, being satisfied that it would not be against the public interest to do so, hereby revoke with effect from 1st February 1990 the Determination made by me in respect of Section 74(1)(b) and dated 3 November 1983 and now determine that with effect from 1st February 1990 Section 74(1)(b) shall apply to every debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a bank.

2. This Determination is made subject to the following conditions:-

(a) that the creditor shall have informed my Office in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply;

(b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:

- of the credit limit, if any,

- of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,

- of the procedure for terminating the agreement;

and this information shall be confirmed in writing.

© that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than 7 days after the end of that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable.

3. In this Determination the terms 'creditor' and 'debtor' shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section 189 of [the Act]. The term 'bank' includes the Bank of England and banks within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 as amended."

 

Should the Claimant not have the documentation required to progress this case, the Defendant would respectfully suggest that there is no case to answer.

 

Therefore, it stands to reason that this documentation must be disclosed before the case can progress any further.

 

 

DIRECTIONS

 

 

1. The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court:

• Copies of the Credit Agreement, and all documents referred to within it, which complies with Consumer Credit Act (1974) and all subsequent regulations;
  
• A copy of any Default Notice issued, compliant with s.87(1) Consumer Credit Act (1974) and Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations (1983) (SI 1983/1561) as amended;
  
• Any document, contract or deed of assignment (if applicable);
  
• Any notice of assignment (if applicable), with proof of service of the same compliant with s.196 of the Law of Property Act (1925);
  
• A statement of account, signed by or on behalf of the Claimant showing:

- the state of the account, and

- the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the Defendant to the Claimant, and

- the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the Defendant does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the Defendant to the Claimant;

• A transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest and alleged repayments;
  
• A full breakdown of how the sum claimed has been calculated;
  
• Copies of any statement or other document that the Claimant seeks to rely upon

If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order.

 

2. The Defendant shall within 28 days of service thereafter file and serve the following:

• An amended Defence sufficiently particularised in response to the documents supplied by the Claimant

If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.

 

 

Notes for CAG:

 

The alleged debt is >£5k and includes approx £3000 in bank charges (o/s claim with lloyds awaiting OFT ruling) which I could offer as settlement ahead of the 8th?

The default notice they allege issd would have included these charges so technically this is inaccurate and they have incurred a breach here too.

I wrote to AIC and they have breached on my request for sight of the CCA

I wrote 7th March asking for copies of what they intend to rely upon in court and sent a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) but nothing yet but due by 17/5/08.

They have written as per post saying that S78(1) CCA 1974 does not apply to current accounts because the act does not require these agreements to be excecuted within the meaning of the act. I would like to write back now and challenge this and will try and post my draft response here.

[speedtrip]

Looking for some feedback on the following draft regarding alleged overdraFT which I intend to send to Lloyds or should it go to SC&M their sols?

 

Speedtrip

 

I am writing to follow up my letter of ******** in respect of the above court claim and your letter of ****** ref **************.

 

 

CCA Request

Dealing with your letter of ***** first you state and i quote

 

 

“ s78(1) of the CCA 1974 does not apply to current accounts even where there are planned or unplanned overdrafts. This because the act does not require these agreements to documented in “executed agreements” within the meaning of the act.”

 

 

With respect I do not agree with your interpretation of the act and I firmly believe that this is a regulated agreement and falls under the remit of that Act.

 

 

To help clarify these matters, this is an extract from a Court case (Coutts v Sebastyen) and is part of the summing up by the Judge in relation to effect on overdrafts and the function of the CCA in such circumstances;

 

“The Defendant provided an overdraft on the account;

a. The agreement was a regulated debtor-creditor agreement within the meaning of s.8 and s.13© of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, providing for 'running-account credit' within the meaning of s.10(1)(a) of the Act (in effect, a revolving credit within an agreed credit limit); and

 

b. That, as such, it was subject to the requirements of Part V of the Act (including the requirements as to documentation set out in sections 57 to 63 of the Act) save and in so far as it was excluded or exempted from such requirements.

 

Section 65 in Part V of the Act provides that an "improperly executed" regulated agreement is unenforceable by the creditor without a court order. It is common ground that a regulated agreement is "improperly executed" for this purpose if the requirements of sections 57 to 63 have not been complied with.

 

Section 74 of the Act provides for the exclusion of certain agreements from Part V. It provides as follows (so far as material):

"74. – (1) This part …. does not apply to –

(b) a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, …

(3) Subsection 1(b) … applies only where the OFT so determines, and such a determination –

(a) may be made subject to such conditions as the OFT thinks fit …

 

(3A) …. in relation to a debtor-creditor agreement under which the creditor is …. a bank …. the OFT shall make a determination that subsection 1(b) above applies unless it considers that it would be against the public interest to do so.

 

THE DETERMINATION:

 

The Determination (which is signed by the Director of Fair Trading) is made under section 74(3) of the Act. I set it out in full:

 

"1. Under the powers conferred upon me by s.74(3) and (3A) and s.133 of the Consumer Credit 1974, I, the Director General, being satisfied that it would not be against the public interest to do so, hereby revoke with effect from 1st February 1990 the Determination made by me in respect of Section 74(1)(b) and dated 3 November 1983 and now determine that with effect from 1st February 1990 Section 74(1)(b) shall apply to every debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a bank.

 

2. This Determination is made subject to the following conditions:-

(a) that the creditor shall have informed my Office in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply;

(b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:

- of the credit limit, if any,

- of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,

- of the procedure for terminating the agreement;

and this information shall be confirmed in writing.

 

© that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than 7 days after the end of that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable.

 

3. In this Determination the terms 'creditor' and 'debtor' shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section 189 of [the Act]. The term 'bank' includes the Bank of England and banks within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 as amended."

 

 

Subject Access Request

With repect to my Subject Access Request I see you judge I will receive this information by 17th May 2008 which I assume is the 40 working days you are entitled to. Given that my letter of ******** in response to your court claim was delivered by recorded delivery on ******** to Lloyds and your appointed solicitors it seems to have taken a whole month to reach your department for action which is very disappointing and I will be bringing this to the courts attention as I believe you have already breached the 40 days permitted under the Data Protection Act 1998. I do think the court would look favourably upon this.

 

 

Request for copies of Information referred to in your POC

Moving on, in that same letter *******to your solicitors and to yourself I requested copies of the information that you would be replying upon in court and to date this has not been received . This is also very disappointing and will prevent me from preparing my defence in the correct manner so I am considering bringing this to the courts attention.

I would summarise as follows;

 

Given that I first requested the consumer credit agreement from you appointed agent ********** on *************** and received by them *********** by recorded delivery it is very disappointing that I have only been able to elicit a response to my enquiry under threat of your legal action. I feel that you and your agent have acted in an obstructive manner or if i am generous you do not have a full grasp of the legislation which is completely inappropriate for a major UK bank, and after all it is quite a simple request. I would add that the failure to comply with my request for the credit card agreement which is my legal right under the CCA 1974 constitutes a breach and once a calendar month has passed it falls into Legal Dispute and until this is satisfied the debtor is under no obligation to pay such alleged debt. However, Lloyds and their agents AIC have chosen to ignore my request for months, continuing to harass me for the alleged debt and by these actions have contravened debt collection guidelines laid down by Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, Protection from Harassment Act 1997. If I was in a mind to I could also report these intrusions to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading as breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine

 

 

Then there is the delayed response to my Subject Access Request and the lack of information coming back from Lloyds following a court claim that you initiated.

 

 

I would also add that your mismanagement of my personal details in relation to thus unsubstantiated debt is not in the spirit of the Data Protection Act 1998, in particular the information you share with credit reference agencies and I suspect this is misleading and damaging to my character.

 

 

 

Then there is level of the alleged default which would have included unfair bank charges (I have an outstanding claim with you) and at time of issue the default would have been inaccurate and misleading which in itself invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998 and is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give the Claimant a claim for damages. (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

 

However, I am a reasonable person and I feel it would be more responsible for us to reach an amicable solution without having to waste the courts valuable time. As such I am sure we could negotiate a solution which would bring this matter to swift conclusion.

 

 

You are no doubt aware that I have an outstanding bank charges claim with Lloyds and I suggest this sum could be used to settle this matter.

 

 

This will effectively mean that this alleged debt with Lloyds would be returned to a nil balance and closed forthwith. In addition all defaults registered with credit reference agencies would be updated to show that they have been satisfied in full to satisfy the Data Protection Act 1998. In return I will not pursue this matter any further, and will not claim against Lloyds for damages for defamation of character.

 

 

I feel that this is a fair offer and reflects the compounded effects of the unlawful charges (as agreed by the OFT) levied by Lloyds and accrued interest therein.

 

 

I look forward to your prompt response,

Regards,

[steven4064]

Hiu speedtrip

 

You might find this useful http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1496445.html (section I is section H on your AQ)

[speedtrip]

Thanks Steven for this, as you can see I am fighting this on two fronts, namely;

 

Credit Card with no CCA ... this is at the stage where I need to submit a defence and I am fairly ok with the defence and so post my revised draft for feedback.

 

Overdraft with No CCA... this is a little less clear and there seem less examples/threads but I will have another go and see if I can improve on it unless somebody has direct feedback right now.

 

Still on the o/d Do you think the letter on my previous post is a good idea. It is almost 2 months since I wrote requesting copies of the information referred to in their POC in particular the agreement they refer to and zip so far. They are saying it will another 2 weeks which will be after the AQ deadline.

 

I guess i could do a move to strike, or should I confront them now with my letter?

[steven4064]

2 things:

 

1. Overdrafts are covered by the CCA 1974 but do not have a credit agreement as such. Any agreement is contained in the bank's standard T&Cs

 

2. If they don't send information in time (and they almost certainly won't) you can put a draft order for directions in with your AQ which asks for all the information you are missing see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html

[car2403]

Ah... We're getting in to the OFT determination issue again here...

 

The overdraft is regulated by the CCA but is exempt, under s.74 and a determination issued by the OFT from it, from having to comply with the Part V requirements as to form and content.

 

Having said that, the determination has certain "requirements" that must be met before they can benefit from it - this includes sending you information within certain timescales when you took the OD out. Put simply, if they can't prove they complied with the determination, they don't get the benefit of it - the upshot of that happening would mean they would need to have complied with the Part V requirements as to form and content (a properly executed agreement would need to exist) and, where they didn't, the debt would be unenforceable.

 

There's mixed views as to how to progress with all this - creditors rely on not having to comply with CCA requests, as they seem to think this exemption covers that part of the Act also. I'd have to disagree. My advice, then, is to send a CCA request and stir up this particular hornets nest. Generally, the opinion on the forum is that a SAR is the way to uncover this information - but you would need to specifically request this data, as it's unlikely to be disclosed under a SAR that is requested using the standard templates on here.

 

This determination thing is a minefield, TBTH, but it will work to your advantage as it's unlikely to be effective for them to defend/continue fighting you, etc, once they realise you know your stuff. My Barclays thread is here, which contains most of these issues, if you're interested;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/110184-car2403-barclays-bank-default.html