1st credit - the saga continues

blind-as-a-bat_2

I believe it does devonsdreamer (but wait for someone else to confirm by all means)

It would make me nervous just to send the money without them acknowledging it was being sent to the right place.

This is one time ringing them is possible, they are a lot more friendly if your offering paymant, but i would excersise cation if they ask for you to pay by debit card there and then, being the untrusting sole that i am:p :rotfl:

But if your sure the details for payment are correct i cant see why you shouldnt send it, then send them proof by recorded delivery of the time and date of the paymant and ask for written confirmation the matter is closed

devonsdreamer

I just spoke with national debt line for hubby - they also said that using the details in not the best idea and also the letter does not state that they will mark accont as settled. They suggested write again offering what we offered last time and again requesting payment details and written confirmation this will be the end of it all.

blind-as-a-bat_2

devonsdreamer wrote: »

I just spoke with national debt line for hubby - they also said that using the details in not the best idea and also the letter does not state that they will mark accont as settled. They suggested write again offering what we offered last time and again requesting payment details and written confirmation this will be the end of it all.

I must admit i would be more confortable with it in writing before you paid too and is not unreasonable.

I have seen a few threads where they make a discount offer a few times before getting nasty so i wouldnt feel rushed, but they have also proved they dont always follow the same pattern so i would act on it straight away to be safe

full and final satisfaction should mean the same as settled but i cant help feeling there is an iterpritation issue hiding in there too, and it certainly doesnt say what they will mark your OH credit file with at all so i think cation is wise thinking on it further.

While ever your offering a chunk of money they should be a bit more amicable......for now:rolleyes: Just stress its from a third party though and the offer is time limited, play them at there own game:p

excel1

have you sent an SAR request to see how much of this debt is made up of unlawful charges? this could bring it under £750 which is minimum for BR or even wipe it completely, yes i now these are stayed but puts account in dispute until its resolved.

debt_doctor

fermi wrote: »

Rings a bell. I think we have gone over whether these can be CCA'd before.:o

Yep, overdrafts are exempt agreements so not subject to s77 / s78 of CCA. Had that confirmed by a district jdge in court last week.

HSBC had been requested by us to provide true copy of a personal loan agreement of £ 15000, and wrote back to us saying they had 'converted' the loan in to an overdraft, which is exempt from CCA, and took client to court !

The judge said that he agreed that overdrafts were exempt agreements but the bank could not simply convert the loan to an overdraft to avoid the requirements of s77 / s78. ( actually what he said to their solicitor was " do not attempt to avoid your legal responsibilities in my court again" ! )

Judge ordered the bank to provide the detals requested with 14 days or amount outstanding will be written off. They already confirmed to us that they do not have a true signed copy - nice victory !

DD

blind-as-a-bat_2

debt_doctor wrote: »

Yep, overdrafts are exempt agreements so not subject to s77 / s78 of CCA. Had that confirmed by a district jdge in court last week.

HSBC had been requested by us to provide true copy of a personal loan agreement of £ 15000, and wrote back to us saying they had 'converted' the loan in to an overdraft, which is exempt from CCA, and took client to court !

The judge said that he agreed that overdrafts were exempt agreements but the bank could not simply convert the loan to an overdraft to avoid the requirements of s77 / s78. ( actually what he said to their solicitor was " do not attempt to avoid your legal responsibilities in my court again" ! )

Judge ordered the bank to provide the detals requested with 14 days or amount outstanding will be written off. They already confirmed to us that they do not have a true signed copy - nice victory !

DD

Thats good to hear and a good result DD, i have 6 cca requests outstanding for my other half at the moment, (trying to avoid her having to follow me into BR)two of wich have admitted in writing that they have no cca so its good to hear that the courts do make the right call still if they still try to persue it (which they are at the moment:rolleyes: , but just empty threats so far:p )

finito

DD,

Why is it banks believe they have the right to do as they want in order to get around the law, including some very shady tactics as you have indicated above. Yet they try and nail the rest of us to a cross if we so much as put a full stop in the wrong place.

I have to say, my opinion of the vast majority of banks and financial institutions I have had the misfortune to deal with is that I wouldn't trust them to sit the right way on a toilet seat!!:eek:

debt_doctor

finito wrote: »

DD,

Why is it banks believe they have the right to do as they want in order to get around the law, including some very shady tactics as you have indicated above. Yet they try and nail the rest of us to a cross if we so much as put a full stop in the wrong place.

I have to say, my opinion of the vast majority of banks and financial institutions I have had the misfortune to deal with is that I wouldn't trust them to sit the right way on a toilet seat!!:eek:

I agree, they see themselves as all powerful, and to an extent they are. It can be very difficult for 'the little guy' to get a result - but its nice when they do !

DD

fermi

debt_doctor wrote: »

Yep, overdrafts are exempt agreements so not subject to s77 / s78 of CCA. Had that confirmed by a district jdge in court last week.

Yes. The OFT (under under s74 CCA1974) has given them an exemption regarding having an agreement in a form that can be requested.

From the OFT publication 786a.

1.4 What is covered by the s74 determination?

A determination under s74(3) was made by the OFT with effect from 1 February 1990. It applies to d-c agreements enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a ‘bank’ as defined in the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879, provided that certain conditions are satisfied – see Q1.5.

A separate determination was made in respect of certain agreements connected with the death of a person.

Copies of the determinations may be obtained from the OFT.

Agreements covered by a s74(3) determination, and satisfying the relevant conditions, are exempt from most Part V rules including s61(1) on execution. However, the Agreements Regulations will apply to any document embodying such an agreement, and to any term expressed in writing – see Q1.2.

1.5 Are all bank overdrafts exempt?

The s74 determination in respect of bank overdrafts (see Q1.4) applies subject to the following conditions:

• the creditor must inform the OFT in writing of his general intention to enter into such agreements;
• the debtor must be informed, at or before the time an agreement is concluded, of the following:

o the credit limit (if any)
o the annual rate of interest and any charges applicable, and the conditions under which these may be varied
o the procedure for terminating the agreement;

• the above information must be confirmed in writing.

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

fiveyearplan

I certainly wouldn't be worried of their Statutory Demand threat if you only owe that amount. It would cost them more to make you bankrupt and no guarantee they would get anything back for it.