Unenforceability & Template Letters II

HotLegs

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Nooo - i've just been busy updating another thread - sorry! BRB



Niddy legs it to log into his email and wipe hotlegs bum as well as hold her hand through the process....... lol :rotfl::rotfl:

Nutter!!!!:rotfl:

never-in-doubt

HotLegs wrote: »

NiD have you forgot about me again? :rotfl:

Send this: 3. CCA Query

The prescribed terms are not intact and it is spread over 5/6 pages without reference to the linked pages. See what they come back with

pepe2008

never-in-doubt wrote: »

But don't ask for it - its SB'd so ignore them! Pointless. :beer:

...unless the poster has made payments within the last six years of course. If I haven't read stuff correctly I apologise, laying here with sore belly after a hernia op!........just need a positive result on my Citi/1st Credit FOS Complaint to make me feel better. Happy New Year NiD.

never-in-doubt

pepe2008 wrote: »

...unless the poster has made payments within the last six years of course. If I haven't read stuff correctly I apologise, laying here with sore belly after a hernia op!........just need a positive result on my Citi/1st Credit FOS Complaint to make me feel better. Happy New Year NiD.

Hiya mate - Happy New Year :T:D

I'm kinda hinting though, pay attention here, that a default cannot be added twice - as CRA's only retain defaults for 6 years and the debt is so old thus the entry has been removed, why bother paying? There is nothing they can do other than civil action against him which would be fruitless and a waste of time.

I'm kinda saying stop paying, no need to!

Watch the barrage of abuse come from the do-gooders

HotLegs

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Send this: 3. CCA Query

The prescribed terms are not intact and it is spread over 5/6 pages without reference to the linked pages. See what they come back with

Thanks NiD:D Do you know why they sent the 2009 amended terms since they knew that the previous was unenforceable? OH told me to ask you that :rotfl:

HotLegs

What terms do you think are not intact in the original CCA? OH is gonna get a slap now :rolleyes: Thanks hun for your patience

never-in-doubt

HotLegs wrote: »

Thanks NiD:D Do you know why they sent the 2009 amended terms since they knew that the previous was unenforceable? OH told me to ask you that :rotfl:

They can send additional terms with it, as part of the CCA Request but they should be linked to within the original agreement and they are not. So, what i'm saying is that the original CCA will have a set lot of terms from that date and usually they will have something allowing an addition of terms throughout the agreement. If they feel the debt is enforceable they can send all the term amendments relevant to the account, albeit you still go by the original ones which will be unenforceable.

Maybe they just dont know what was on the original CCA so they are blagging it sending these terms thinking you'd miss it - who knows, banks are funny creatures

Point is, that junk they sent you is not enforceable, in my opinion. However dont expect the lender to agree with that - ohhh, nooo! They will still argue no matter what you send back!

never-in-doubt

HotLegs wrote: »

What terms do you think are not intact in the original CCA? OH is gonna get a slap now :rolleyes: Thanks hun for your patience

It is not for us to tell them what terms are missing - it is for them to prove to us that they are intact. A good lawyer may be able to rip-it-apart better than me so you can never say never. :rolleyes:

Send the query letter and see what they come back with! In fact I know what they will come back with, the same as the previous 10 (read back a bit and you'll see their standard reply duplicated through different users).....

Edit - just seen page 1 (never noticed that before) and this contains the prescribed terms in section 1. (Key Financial Info) .

pepe2008

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hiya mate - Happy New Year :T:D

I'm kinda hinting though, pay attention here, that a default cannot be added twice - as CRA's only retain defaults for 6 years and the debt is so old thus the entry has been removed, why bother paying? There is nothing they can do other than civil action against him which would be fruitless and a waste of time.

I'm kinda saying stop paying, no need to!

Watch the barrage of abuse come from the do-gooders

Remind me to PM you with the details of my Citi/1st Credit Complaint. I think you'll find it interesting:D.
....and the Barclaycard situation, you'll like that one even more:eek:

HotLegs

never-in-doubt wrote: »

It is not for us to tell them what terms are missing - it is for them to prove to us that they are intact. A good lawyer may be able to rip-it-apart better than me so you can never say never. :rolleyes:

Send the query letter and see what they come back with! In fact I know what they will come back with, the same as the previous 10 (read back a bit and you'll see their standard reply duplicated through different users).....

Edit - just seen page 1 (never noticed that before) and this contains the prescribed terms in section 1. (Key Financial Info) .

In section 1 of the original CCA the credit limit is not stated or the manner of it's determination or that there is no credit limit.