Unenforceability & Template Letters II

DGJsaver

Martin , i would suggest you are spamming this thread with inane drivel, please stop it

AliceBanned

Hi

I have read this thread with interest - I have a default on my file - Abbey Credit card - which is unpaid. I receive a letter about every six months from a debt collector but do not reply. According to checkmyfile.com this default will be removed from file in July 2011. My question is, if I started this process now, ie looking at the credit agreement and therefore contacting them, would this give them the right to start the whole six year process again, ie I could end up with the default on my file for ever?! Not sure whether contacting them is just stirring it all up whereas if I stay quiet they may leave me alone (as they have for 4.5 years apart from the occasional letters) and then remove it from my file. I would like to negotiate a settlement (amount owed £1600, so I would offer about £500) but again I have the same concerns about making any contact. Thanks for any advice on this.

never-in-doubt

Martin

Please start your own thread if you have issues - do not ruin my thread or i'll close it down.

Thanks
Niddy

never-in-doubt

scarednshakin wrote: »

Hi NID, slowly going through CCA's. Sent request to Next and not sure what to do now. They sent out a letter and a copy of a CCA with nothing on it, no name, address, sig.

The letter says 'Please find enclosed a true copy of the credit agreement. We are satisfied that this meets with our obligations under Section 78 of the CCA.

By way of explanation, under Section 78 of the CCA, Next must supply any customer with a True Copy of their credit agreement upon request. For the purposes of Section 78 a, a True Copy need not be an exact copy or photocopy, as long as it contains every material provision of the agreement signed. This means that it does not need to have a non-statutory information which was included for the creditor's own benefit or signature boxes. Therefore Next are not required to provide you with a signed copy of the agreement and this is made clear in Section 3(2) of the Consure Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations. We are required to provide you with a true copy and a true copy is enclosed.

In light of this, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that you did not order and/or receive the goods delivered, Next will continue to seek payment of the balance of ** owed by you. It is noted that you have neither denied ordering or receiving Next goods.

A default entry will therefore be made on the credit reference file, which may affect the ability to obtain credit in the future. Making payment to clear the balance will enable the credit files to show as satisfied'

Any help/advice on this appreciated, not sure how to respond to them. Thanks again SNS

What they say about receiving goods means nothing, it is a gift if they do not have the agreement so you simply send back the following letter: 3. CCA Query

They can add a default, as you already know.

never-in-doubt

Scouse19 wrote: »

H NID

I haven't been on for a while as it'd all gone quiet with the Halifax. Not sure if you recall but my last action was sending a letter questioning why they wouldn't send a photocopy if they had the agreement. Why would they send a reconstituted version instead when copying the original would be far easier (you used my letter as a template)...WELL, Halifax have sent me a letter today with another copy of the reconstituted version, photocopy of terms and conditions 2004 and they have also sent a cover letter which appears to admit that they don't have the original. Why do i think this? Because they include the line

"You entered into an agreement with us that was validly executed and the misplacing of the original document does not affect the validity of the agreement or the debt you owes (sic). The agreement remains enforceable and you should maintain your repayments"

What do you reckon on this? Fairfax Solicitors were chasing on Halifax's behalf and threatening CCJ but I haven't heard a peep from them for 2 months now. What's my next move? :-)

Just ignore them now - it is unenforceable until such time they send a true copy. If they hassle you, change the letter a little to suit (mention your previous attempts at getting them to comply etc) and send this: 3. CCA Query

never-in-doubt

I_am_not_a_sheep wrote: »

Hi, Sorry I didnt realise that everything was being posted on this thread, so I had started one of my own titled "sheep v lloyds"

I CCAed Lloyds earlier in Jan, and a few days ago I received what they are trying to say is my CCA.

I have scanned it all, and the scans run in number order, ie scan 1 and scan 2 are the header letter, which alone I thought made interesting reading!

Your link is here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2238687&highlight=

I do not have time to read all those links, just tell me what page the CCA & Terms are on and i'll look. Otherwise, sorry - just don't have the time to read 50 pages lol :rotfl::rotfl:

edit - its sorted (darkconvict checked for you), definitely not enforceable so send this: 3. CCA Query

AliceBanned

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Martin

Please start your own thread if you have issues - do not ruin my thread or i'll close it down.

Thanks
Niddy

I apologise if I have in error threatened to "ruin your thread". It was not intentional. Just seemed like a relevant place to post it, I don't know all the rules of this site like you clearly do. No need to be quite so harsh.

never-in-doubt

martinjohn wrote: »

well according to the manchester case they need to let you know if the debt is enforceable or not...

Martin,

Ive not got the time or patience to get involved in your argument, please therefore start your own thread - i'll answer the points relevant - that you've raised. Albeit you;re trying to make a point, but this means little being the guidance and rules are so wavy at the moment, basically the norm goes out the window whilst we await all the changes kicking-in.

What I mean is don't get too drawn in to what is/has happened in the test cases; you need to take this into account with each specific case therefore generalised advice is hard to give.

The lender needs to be more up-front and not deceive us, that is the OFT Draft Guidance presented after the Manchester cases. This is guidance, lenders/dcs's will take ages to accept this - get used to it for the time being - they will carry on lying, they always do.

martinjohn wrote: »

I would argue that the sainsburys agreement is questionable, my argument would be that the signature comes BEFORE these apparent prescribed terms,

There does not need to be a signature to satisfy s.78. However the lender does need the signed copy to comply in court. Similarly, if the signature is on a linked form (the CCA) then it is fine to have more than one page.

martinjohn wrote: »

MY basic understanding of contract law is that a signature always goes at the END of a contract. To say that well you can have further pages seems insaine to me.

Contract Law won't come into this, too expensive to prove/disprove and fight. We use CCA - and CCA only

martinjohn wrote: »

The heading for CCA 1974 comes twice within the agreement as well. So the document is arguably not one document. why have the CCA 1974 heading twice (i.e. again the middle of the second page? - was this just where its been photocopied?)

Possibly, but it can be on there 10 times if it wants - you're trying to argue on a technicality - won;t wash. Not with the judges latest rulings, you;re fighting a losing battle and giving people here a false hope - steady what you're 'thinking' - some things are better kept to yourself

martinjohn wrote: »

to say that the prescibed terms need to come BEFORE the signature? and the agreement was in 2005? It also should have a heading "KEY FINANCIAL INFORMATION" before the prescribed terms?
Further this is an "application form", can this truely be an agreement?

So long as it contains the prescribed terms then it will be enforceable - we are specifically referring to Consumer Credit Act and the acts within (i.e. s.127(3)) - NOT contract or any other laws...

martinjohn wrote: »

Finally, there is SO much confusion with regards to all this CCAing, i dont think weve heard the last of it....

No confusion here - i'm fine with it, shame the judges aren't as clued up! :eek:

Now please start your own thread and post me the link and i'll come on every so often! Thanks

never-in-doubt

AliceBanned wrote: »

I apologise if I have in error threatened to "ruin your thread". It was not intentional. Just seemed like a relevant place to post it, I don't know all the rules of this site like you clearly do. No need to be quite so harsh.

Did I even mention you? I was quoting MartinJohn - NOT you! :rotfl::rotfl:

I've responded to you over the page --->>

never-in-doubt

Sheena82 wrote: »

Hi NID thought you might be able to help me I sent off the letter to MBNA the last letter and I also sent a copy to my debt managment company cccs who have refused to stop payments can they do that ??? after all it is my plan.

Also I have heard back from a letter I sent to argos then can not provid me with a agreement but still want payment what letter will I send to them.

Thanks

You will need to cancel with CCCS if they refuse - after all you'll not be paying any of your creditors - will you?

With Argos, you cease paying and that is that - it is unenforceable and so you ignore them.... :beer: