Unenforceability & Template Letters II

ricardovich

arkm12 wrote: »

sorry forgot to add i asked them to send letters and not phone so i have records of the the options they give me and to quote that they will not accept fortnightly or monthly payments from me and they said they are a phoning only company and dont send letters is this right

I'm not the expert here - but you may have come across the only company in the world that wont send out any letters!!! Even Ryanair will send stuff through the post if pushed:rotfl:

Tell them to go to hell (politely) until they have the common, business courtesy of putting any demands, information or, indeed, your legally required CCA in writing to you.

Cheeky beggars:mad:

arkm12

all they sent me was a yellow warning card telling me to send full payment i always ask for letters so i have a record of everything. i thought it was strange lol. thankyou

benadabec

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hiya

Dump the claims company - these are scammers with no idea and they will rip you off time and time again! Then come here, start at post 1 and send a CCA request yourself, to each creditor and when they do not reply in 14 days you stop paying them.

They are already in default to you, therefore your so called claims management [STRIKE]con[/STRIKE] - sorry company, should know this and should have already issued s.10 cease & desist/account in dispute letters to each of those delaying.

They have no right to a delay - the law stipulates that they have 12+2 days before entering default status. Therefore you ought to cease paying (unless they are secured or you are worried about default etc)....

Do you need me to ring your claims management [STRIKE]con[/STRIKE] company to tell them their job: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Thanks for your prompt advice

So you suggest that I start again by sending the letters myself. However, the claims company has already done x amount of legwork/paperwork and have contacted the CC companies giving deadlines. Is it not worth amending the dispute letter to send to the nefarious accounts to include the fact that they have been contacted on my behalf? And to contact the claims comp and concur out the fact that after the 12+2 days and subsequent 30 days the CC's would have entered default status? I appreciate your sentiments towards the *scammers* but it seems a lot of work done only to restart the process

Also, does it make any difference that the claims company are regulated by the Ministry of Justice and Consumer Credit license approved?

never-in-doubt

Wispa1 wrote: »

Hi NID,

Just to clarify please, they have sent my original application form which is one of the ones I filled in store that is titled "An application to open a BHS Gold Account - A Credit Agreement regulated by the CCA 1974". Dated 5/8/98. It has been signed by both myself and the sales assistant. Do you think this is enforceable? The other one they have sent me is for Mothercare, which is pretty much on the sme lines but dated 13/6/04. Would it still be the above letter I send. Sorry if I am asking silly questions - I think I am just being a bit of a bimbo on the prescribed terms front. Thanks for all your help

Its unlikely they have sent a compliant agreement, i.e. the prescribed terms or something will be wrong... especially with a storecard! However it would be ebst to send the dispute letter to them yes, see what they respond with (does no harm)...

Same process for all cards...

never-in-doubt

arkm12 wrote: »

hi im a newbie so bear with me if i go on. was paying wescott for my natwest credit card which they have just past it to allied international they told me that i couldnt make monthly payments i either paid in full (they did take off 200 pounds lol )or pay over 3 months of £500 i told them i couldnt do it and they were quite nasty about it so i have sent them this morning a cca request letter but now im wondering have i done the right thing i have been defaulted by natwest c/c in nov 2005. i also have other debts defaulted do i send letters to them as well. (all taken out between 2000 and 2004)

If you have any defaults dated before 24.11.2003 then they are Statute barred so do not write to them just yet! As for the others, why don't you just ignore them cos they will 'vanish' after 6 years anyway? i.e. if you have a default from Natwest dated 2005, in 2011 it will be gone!

You admit liability then 6 years start from now - not then!

I'd be sitting tight for 2 years myself and let Limitations Act kick in

never-in-doubt

arkm12 wrote: »

sorry forgot to add i asked them to send letters and not phone so i have records of the the options they give me and to quote that they will not accept fortnightly or monthly payments from me and they said they are a phoning only company and dont send letters is this right

Then you ignore them and use this as a breach on their behalf - as above, personally i'd ignore them!

never-in-doubt

arkm12 wrote: »

all they sent me was a yellow warning card telling me to send full payment i always ask for letters so i have a record of everything. i thought it was strange lol. thankyou

LOL, you do right but they are talking !!!!!! so don't worry about them! Next time they write just send it back 'unknown at this address' :rolleyes:

never-in-doubt

benadabec wrote: »

Thanks for your prompt advice

So you suggest that I start again by sending the letters myself. However, the claims company has already done x amount of legwork/paperwork and have contacted the CC companies giving deadlines. Is it not worth amending the dispute letter to send to the nefarious accounts to include the fact that they have been contacted on my behalf? And to contact the claims comp and concur out the fact that after the 12+2 days and subsequent 30 days the CC's would have entered default status? I appreciate your sentiments towards the *scammers* but it seems a lot of work done only to restart the process

Also, does it make any difference that the claims company are regulated by the Ministry of Justice and Consumer Credit license approved?

If you want it may be better to go to the claims company and tell them to get a shift on before you cancel with them - they will take a fee at the end though right? Also, they confirmed several agreements are enforceable right? Then what?

Its up to you what to do but yea, if anything wait and see what happens.... maybe don't start again but give them a deadline.

The lender goes into default after 12+2 days - forget the extra 30 days, that is to satisfy a court we'd given them ample time to respond - you can still default them after the 14 days.

Regards to the licence - yea, a lot have licences but doesn't mean much! Think driving, a lot of people have a drivers licence but not all of those can actually drive

arkm12

never-in-doubt wrote: »

If you have any defaults dated before 24.11.2003 then they are Statute barred so do not write to them just yet! As for the others, why don't you just ignore them cos they will 'vanish' after 6 years anyway? i.e. if you have a default from Natwest dated 2005, in 2011 it will be gone!

You admit liability then 6 years start from now - not then!

I'd be sitting tight for 2 years myself and let Limitations Act kick in

my defaults go from 2005 to 2007 i have been making regular payments to all of my debts for some time most are with dca i actually paid wescott for the natwest credit card 3 weeks ago but last week allied international got in touch and demanded full payment so by paying wescott for so long i have already admited it havnt i ? sorry new to all this legal stuff

vicky12

Hi Never In Doubt....
Could you please have a read of the following letter I have recieved from Barclaycard today and let me know what you think etc.
They origionally sent me a photocopy of one of their blank terms and conditions forms as a response to my origional cca request.
They also enclosed an origional Barclaycars conditions form which had no reference to me at all. Along with a letter stating my current balance and next payment due date. The letter also stated that they would forward a copy of my current barclaycard cedit agreement under seperate cover stating that they had now completed their duties under the consumer credit act.
To summerise to date they have sent me nothing with my name address or signiture on and certainly not my origional signed credit agreement.
I have since sent off the second letter to them and this is their response.
I think it is just a fob off letter but would very much appreciate your thoughts on the matter if you wouldn't mind.

Reference: Section 78 of the Credit Consumer Act 1974

I write further to the letter whereby you note dissatisfaction to the documents you recieved in relation to a request made under Section 77/78 of the consumer credit act 1974.

Firstly , credit cards are regulated under Section 78. Section 78(1) of the act states that the creditor shall give the Debtor a copy of the executed agreement and a statment of account which is practical to refer. Regarding a statment of account which is pratical to refer, the letters which we sent in response to a section 78(1) request includes this information. To cover the issue of executed agreement.

How doe's the act define an "executed agreement "?

" Executed agreement" is definedin section 189 of the Act as, " a document, signed by ot on behalf of the parties, embodying the terms of a regulated agreement".

What do the rules say about providing a copy?

The consumer credit (Cancellation Notices and copies of documents) Regulations 1983 ("the regulations") made under the act deal with how we provide a copy of an agreement. These regulations provide that any copy of the agreement supplied to a debtor should be a 'true copy'. Regulation 3(2) provides that a copy may omit certain information, which allows you to be provided with a true copy, not a complete copy.

What happens if the origional agreement has been varied since it was origionally signed?

The regulation also set out what should happen where the agreement has been varied since it was signed. Regulation 7 provides creditors with a choice of including in the copy of the executed agreement either a copy of the latest notice of variation relating to each descrete term which has been varied, or an easily legible statment of the terms varied. Regulation 7 does not state that a copy of the agreement shall include a statment of the varied terms.
Regulation 7 allows us to provide you with a "true copy" which sets out the terms and conditions current at the time of provision of the copy.

Conclusion in relation to the document we have to provide.

a "copy" of an agreement will satisfy the requirements even if the signiture box and/or the signitures are not included as clarified by Regulation 3(2) of the consumer credit ( Cancellation Notices and copies of documents) Regulations 1983.

The definition of "executed agreement" refers to a document embodying the terms of the regulated agreement. When this is read with Regulation 7 - for agreements that have been varied - a copy of the origional agreement would not embody its terms. A copy of the agreement as varied would embody its terms.

The issue of what is an executed agreement has been interpreted in the High Court. It was held that an executed agreement begins as the credit agreement which is sent to the cardholder when they recieve their credit card; therefore, establishing what is the origional executed agreement. When the agreement has been varied, Regulation 7 mentioned above applies.

To summarise , if the agreement has not been varied, we must send the origional executed agreement; this would be the credit agreement which is currently regulated. If the credit agreement has been varied we must send the current agreement as this will contain the terms of the regulated agreement. We have sent you this and the origional executed agreement for reference.

To address any issue about our lack of compliance with section 60 of the consumer credit act 1974. Section 60 relates to the form and content agreements. All barclaycard agreements are in compliance with this. You may state that the application form which we provided you, for reference, when you made a request under section 78 does not adhere to section 60. This is not a complete copy of your application form, but rather an excerpt to show you signed an agreement with us. Whan you completed your application form, the document would have been presented to you in full, in a legible form, and would have adhered to the requirements under section 60 of the consumer credit act 1974.
I hope that this letter has helped with your concerns about the documents that you have been supplied under section 78 of the consumer credit act 1974, you should carry on paying the debt you have occured on your account. We do not class the account as in dispute, you have been supplied with the relevent documentation under section 78 of the consumer credit act 1974, and we will carry on with collection services. If you send us further correspondence questioning compliance with these areas of law, we are not obliged to respond beyond the statutory response we have already given you. We would require you to provide comprehensive legal and documentary evidence to support your claim to ascertain wether response is necessary.

Yours Sincerely.

Any help is very much appreciated NID.

Thanks Stuart