Unenforceability & Template Letters II

DeBilde

DGJsaver wrote: »

I have to ask....can someone answer this question for me , according to George UK on here , a bank can just send an agreement copy , that doesnt have to have signatures on.....am i being thick because this isnt (or doesnt appear) to be what niddy has told me...

Its on http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2214937&page=2

Yes, this is true. This however only satisfies the CCA Request Section 78. The key part is the enforcement of the debt (Section 127), for this they need the original agreement to enforce the debt through the courts. They will still chase and harrass you for the debt and they will trash your credit history but then we should all know this before we pursue this avenue.

Correct me if I am wrong NID.

Farmer_jones

First of all some history;

I wrote to Robinson Way asking them for a copy of the CCA, enclosing a £1. Usual stuff in reply (that was in November last year), no CCA, but a bunch of bank statements showing I owe Abbey (the claimant) nothing. Then earlier in January they sent a letter from their solicitors. I replied with a "whilst in dispute" letter. Its now gone back to Robinson Way, who have replied. The text of the letter is:

We refer to your recent correspondence in which you claim this account is not enforceable.

We are satisfied that the documentation provided is sufficient to demonstrate liability and we will not enter into repitive correspondence regarding this.

Your data will continue to be processed in line with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998, and the account will continue to be reported to credit reference agencies, where appropriate. If you neglect to make payment to us, further action maybe taken against you.

We require payment proposals within 14 days.

So whats my next action ? A revised CCA request, with a threat of me taking them to court ? I am happy to go all the way with this, and am contemplating taking them to court.

All help appreciated.

DGJsaver

DeBilde wrote: »

Yes, this is true. This however only satisfies the CCA Request Section 78. The key part is the enforcement of the debt (Section 127), for this they need the original agreement to enforce the debt through the courts. They will still chase and harrass you for the debt and they will trash your credit history but then we should all know this before we pursue this avenue.

Correct me if I am wrong NID.

Ahh , ok thanks mate , the way i read Georges post it seems to imply that the agreement without a signature is sufficeint to satisfy a CCA request...the end..
Cheers

never-in-doubt

DGJsaver wrote: »

I have to ask....can someone answer this question for me , according to George UK on here , a bank can just send an agreement copy , that doesnt have to have signatures on.....am i being thick because this isnt (or doesnt appear) to be what niddy has told me...

Its on http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2214937&page=2

You're mis-reading. I always say they can send a true copy - but to go to court they need the original.... the lender can send a reconstituted copy (legally known as a 'True Copy') but in order to take action, they need the original.

Ok, question for you, why would a lender go to all the trouble of making an exact replica (legally allowed) if they had a copy of the original? Surely it's quicker to make a quick photcopy...? Right?

Thus we always state that if they send a recon, chances are they don't have the original or they'd have photocopied it, right? lol

never-in-doubt

St0lli wrote: »

Sorry for the confustion. CitiCards issued the default, then they sent the termination. Next thing I know I have a letter from Clarity saying they want full payment. I sent a copy of the default and the termination letter in the file I emailed you but didn't send you the letter from Clarity. Would you like to see a copy of that as well?

St0lli

Ok send everything to Citi and ignore clarity who have no legal rights to the debt, as things stand.....

never-in-doubt

fto wrote: »

Hi NID,
Just received the following from MBNAA,This is after I sent the second letter.

we apopogise for the delay in responding in full to your request made under the consumer credit act.We hope to write to you futher regarding your your request in due course.
We note that the account was acquired from another lende some time ago,as such we need to obtain documentation from that lender.As soon as we receive that documentation we will forward it to you in responce to your request.
In the meantime, you should continue t make payments to the account.This has been confirmed in the recent high court judgement of Mcguffick v RBS on the 6 oct 09 in which Mr Justice Flaux directed that even in circumstances where a lendernhas not yet complied witha request under the act,that lender can continue to demand that payments be made to he account.
Then it advices me to contact cccs or payplan.
Which letter do I send next..........thanks

You wait - you do not make payments as they will not get the CCA (unenforceable). Forget the McGuffick case, it was specific to that case and has no relevance other than it allows provision for the lender to register a default, they still cannot take any other action.

You have to give them some time to get the document, when they fail then you close the file as unenforceable. If they do get it, post it up here and i'll have a look at it for you....

You have to stop paying, but then you will be defaulted (if not already).

never-in-doubt

AndyLGR wrote: »

I recently sent a request to the DCA (Fredricksons) for my capital one credit card account. They sent me a letter acknowledging receipt of the request and have also confirmed that my account is on hold, therefore should I now stop making payments to them by standing order?

Its up to you! Have they defaulted you? Is it your only debt or do you have several? No-one can tell you what to do, read page 1 and then from that make your own decision.

never-in-doubt

cejsmith wrote: »

I've just have a call from ARC re my egg cc, both look unenforcable ( touch wood), the question is why do credit card companies move the chasing around? First it was egg, then DLC and now ARC, surely it must cost money to move the accountants around.

I'm confused!!!

You had a call? Why are you speaking to them mate> defeats everything we try and teach on here........ :o:o

It doesn't cost anything cos it is not an absolute assignment, it is usually a simple assignment meaning the OC always (kind of) owns the debt.... don;t worry to omuch about this, so long as they notify you then can sell it 100 times - who cares? More chance of mistakes being made = better chance of getting things your way!

never-in-doubt

DeBilde wrote: »

Yes, this is true. This however only satisfies the CCA Request Section 78. The key part is the enforcement of the debt (Section 127), for this they need the original agreement to enforce the debt through the courts. They will still chase and harrass you for the debt and they will trash your credit history but then we should all know this before we pursue this avenue.

Correct me if I am wrong NID.

You're spot on mate :T:T:T

never-in-doubt

DGJsaver wrote: »

Ahh , ok thanks mate , the way i read Georges post it seems to imply that the agreement without a signature is sufficeint to satisfy a CCA request...

It is sufficient mate! But that doesn't mean they can take you to court with a copy - you need the original for the judge to take any formal action! I thought i'd explained this in great detail, in fact in almost every other post I confirm this mate - lol - are you having a bad day here?

I'm reading through my own posts and always stick the same facts, a lender can send a copy but that doesn't mean they can use it in court - I always say that - where have you seen me say otherwise?