Unenforceability & Template Letters II

never-in-doubt

Goodtimesahead wrote: »

nid> see thread below, is it true that a CO cannot be obtained if a property is jointly owned/mortgaged if a debt (credit card)is solely in one name? I have searched the web and I am getting conflicting views What's your take on this please?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1839539

I honestly don't know for certain mate. Not something i've studied in depth so will stay out of this one if you don't mind....... If you feel you need an answer then start a new thread and see what people come back with. Consider contacting Tixy/10past6/Herbie21 as they may be your best option. :D

Tixy

Goodtimesahead wrote: »

nid> see thread below, is it true that a CO cannot be obtained if a property is jointly owned/mortgaged if a debt (credit card)is solely in one name? I have searched the web and I am getting conflicting views What's your take on this please?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1839539

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I honestly don't know for certain mate. Not something i've studied in depth so will stay out of this one if you don't mind....... If you feel you need an answer then start a new thread and see what people come back with. Consider contacting Tixy/10past6/Herbie21 as they may be your best option. :D

Hi Goodtimes

Not actually something I know a lot about either (:o) but I think if the property is joint and the debt is individual they actually get a restriction rather than a proper CO. I think even lenders don't know the difference very well. Essentially my understanding though is if there is a restriction when the property is sold the lender with the restriction 'holder' should be told it has been sold and then has to apply for anything they are entitled to only from the equity share of the person whose name the debt was in.

Sorry I know that sounds all a bit garbled but its not something I've come across a lot.

Goodtimesahead

Tixy wrote: »

Hi Goodtimes

Not actually something I know a lot about either (:o) but I think if the property is joint and the debt is individual they actually get a restriction rather than a proper CO. I think even lenders don't know the difference very well. Essentially my understanding though is if there is a restriction when the property is sold the lender with the restriction 'holder' should be told it has been sold and then has to apply for anything they are entitled to only from the equity share of the person whose name the debt was in.

Sorry I know that sounds all a bit garbled but its not something I've come across a lot.

Thanks for your info, not sure how to start a new thread on this?:o

never-in-doubt

Goodtimesahead wrote: »

Thanks for your info, not sure how to start a new thread on this?:o

Click here: Debt-Free Wannabe

Then click this (top left corner):

Ethereal_Gaz

Hi again NID.
Could you please take another look at: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2225739&highlight=debitas

I was just asking if I need to send CapOne all the documents they have requested as mine could be misleading.

Only reason I ask is because I’m self employed. My last income tax return is from 2008-2009 where I earned a lot more than I will be this year as I’m now on a reduced hourly rate and didn’t have any work for 4 months of this year. Also, I’ve been “borrowing” as much as I can from the business account to put into my personal account to try to pay some of my 3k overdraft and stop the ridiculous £1 a day Halifax charges & interest. It will mean I’ll have to take less money out later in the year. This could also make it look like I have more disposable income than I have and I don’t want them coming back to me saying I need to pay more than I can afford.

never-in-doubt

Ethereal_Gaz wrote: »

I was just asking if I need to send CapOne all the documents they have requested as mine could be misleading.

Mate if that's what you think then go for it - to be honest i'm not the best person to ask when it comes to paying back debts that you evidently can't afford. Best to stick to your other thread and bump it up so people see it.

If you want to pay set amounts back then you need to speak to your creditors or speak to CCCS or the likes - then agree a structured repayment plan and stick to it. They must agree to affordability though, thus I say speak to a debt counsellor service such as CCCS.

astravanman

Hi NID,
Received a response to our CCA from Hillesden Securities dca. They took over a Citi bank cc debt. Any thoughts or just sit back and wait?

---

We are still awaiting a copy of your original agreement and statement of account from the original lender. When these become available they will be forwarded to you.

If we are unable to forward a copy of the original agreement, we will be able to supply a true copy of the document which will comply with section 77 - 79 of the CCAct 1974.

We would like to draw your attention to the recent ruling in the case of McGuffic V RBS judgement dated 6 October 2009 in relation to "what is considered enforcement" ; the judgement stated that the bringing of proceedings is not enforcement. It follows that demanding payment is a step taken prior to the commencement of proceedings and therefore not considered enforcement. We will continue to report the account status to the CRA's as this is also not considered as enforcement.

Whilst we may not be able to enforce the agreement until the documentation is provided, the monies remain outstanding and the underlying obligation to repay remains intact. In view of the above judgement the account will remain with our collections department for collection activity to continue.

fto

Hi,
I have had a reply from natwest. They have sent me a badly scanned signed credit card application, i signed ten years ago, a load of terms and conditions ( no signature on them) & a statement.
The letter from them says:

In terms of CCA copy document regulations,the true copy requirement can be satisfied by providing a copy agreement at the date the card agreement was made and providing that plus a copy of the current terms of the card agreement.I have enclosed the s78 (1) information.


What do I do next....is this good news or bad.

scarednshakin

Hi NID

Got contact from Moorcroft today on behalf of Bank of Scot. They have sent out an application for with OH's sig on it and it says on the application form 'credit card agreement regulated by CCA 1974'. Also sent T&C, current one and also what is the original but has a different address to the application form.

The application form has the right address for when the card was taken out but the T&C is a much later address. What do I do next? Many thanks as always SNS

bexiboo84

Hiya, in respect of this one below with the suggested letter, i have an outstanding default that was recenly discovered, wont be removed until March 2012. However if i sent the letter below what my chances of it being removed. Its with Virgin and a mobile contract, the default is £307.00. But how does the alternative line in the letter work in my favour?

Any help would be appreciated

ta

never-in-doubt wrote: »

This letter would be sent to a creditor/DCA whom you want to pay, lets say a mobile phone bill of £80 - it's clearly not worth a default so send this and see what the lender says - usually they'll agree cos they want money - a default issued with no money does them no good.

This doesn't tend to work with banks, but will do for utilities and/or catalogues. However if a DCA is dealing then always worth a go - so long as you can afford it of course! Just add the amount you wish to offer in exchange for default removal.

Remember to edit the 50% to whatever you prefer - although 50% is a great starting point...

F&F Offer in exchange for Default Removal