CAA request updates / results part 2

stapeley

Well well a interesting couple of weeks . A few different takes on the Manchester Judgements . Here is mine .


The companies that have claimed to be able to write off your debt have been stuffed !
But it was never my view that we could write off our debts through CCA REQUESTS .
By taking this issue to court claiming against the credit companies was a misguided long short .These companies were never going to have the money or muscle to beat the banks .
It would have been easier to defend their position , the burden would have shifted to the credit card companies to prove their case .
It still remains a fact that credit card companies have in many cases, lost the original paperwork. They can therefore not reconstruct accurately a CCA as suggested in reports of the judgement .
If a debtor is taken to court by a Debt collection agency , the burden of proof will still be difficult for them without direct access to the original documents.And as we have found out in many cases , these are not obtained when the account is bought .
It has been suggested that the wording of the CCA requests be altered to ask if the creditor hold the original documents . Hopefully more on that later .

But my advice is DON,T PANIC !

The next few months will be interesting with some DCA claiming alsorts of rubbish . We will now need to see what the OFT say.

evilcartman

I sent a S77/78 notice by Special Delivery to Egg in mid-December. Their 12 days have elapsed and i have had NO reply whatsoever from them.

Is it safe for me to assume that the debt is now unenforceable since they ahve failed to comply with their CCA obligations?

Should I now wait for the month to expire so that they are in criminal breach of the CCA? And what follow-up letter should I send?

Thanks.

never-in-doubt

evilcartman wrote: »

And what follow-up letter should I send?

Thanks.

2. CCA Reminder

newdad1

Hi NID

Im a newbie to the site and have read your posts about CCA and their enforceability with interest and cant thank you enough for providing this info/service.

I am keen to go down the route of checking the enforceability of the agrrements I have specifically with SKY CARD that have recently changed to Barclaycard by sending a new card in the post. I would like to ask 2 questions

1. Have I missed the boat with SKY changing to Barclaycard, as it is SKY who I originally took the card with back in 2005??

2. If I decide to go down this route will I get a default against me and subsequently ruin my credit chances if the agreement is found to be un enforceable??

Sorry if I have broken any etiquete here, as I say I am a newbie and learning"!!!

Thanks

chinawhite_2

Hi

its now over 30 days since i sent the two 12 +2 letters to MBNA and still nothing received. I have had twelve calls from them today alone - do I just keep ignoring the calls and wait for response in writing ????

many thanks

never-in-doubt

chinawhite wrote: »

Hi

its now over 30 days since i sent the two 12 +2 letters to MBNA and still nothing received. I have had twelve calls from them today alone - do I just keep ignoring the calls and wait for response in writing ????

many thanks

All templates are what to send etc are here: Unenforceability & Template Letters II

You need to send the following letter to them; if it is MBNA that is ringing you just amend the letter slightly as it is designed to send to the DCA:

Dear Sirs,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.

The alleged debt, in relation to the above numbered reference is unenforceable under s.127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and will remain so until such time as the original creditor complies with my s.78 request for a copy of my agreement. They are now in default of my CCA Request (and OFT Debt Collection Guidelines), as such, I consider this account to be in serious dispute, especially due to the fact that whilst the CCA Request remains in default (outstanding), enforcement action is not permitted in line with s.127 (CCA1974).

Consequently, any legal action you pursue will not only be fully and vigorously defended, it will also be averred as both unlawful and vexatious. As such I respectfully suggest that this account is returned to **Original Creditor name here ** for immediate resolution prior to my seeking legal advice; due to the fact you cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities as the account was already in dispute at the time you became involved.

If you decide to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

Back to the phone calls, I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls and I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only. I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.

Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company may be recorded and used in evidence and I expect this harassment to cease immediately.

Yours faithfully




Sign digitally

never-in-doubt

newdad1 wrote: »

I am keen to go down the route of checking the enforceability of the agrrements I have specifically with SKY CARD that have recently changed to Barclaycard by sending a new card in the post. I would like to ask 2 questions

That's fine so long as you agreed to the change, which I assume you were by accepting it?

newdad1 wrote: »

1. Have I missed the boat with SKY changing to Barclaycard, as it is SKY who I originally took the card with back in 2005??

No but they may not have the original CCA from the original skycard application. Bear in mind Barclaycard always maintained the Skycard - from inception to closure.

newdad1 wrote: »

2. If I decide to go down this route will I get a default against me and subsequently ruin my credit chances if the agreement is found to be un enforceable??

If you go down the unenforceability route you'll end up with a default for definite. That is why unenforceability is not to be used as a tool to escape debts but more as a last resort when you're already defaulted and struggling to stay-afloat :rolleyes:

Also, there is a specific unenforceability thread here: Unenforceability & Template Letters II

BASSETT

I requested CCA from 1st Credit who are dealing with my Marbles credit card. Didn`t receive anything from them so sent them the CCA Dispute Letter. Yesterday I received a reply that states at the top "Final Response".
I`m unable to scan and upload so I`ll just quote a few sentences and see what you make of it.

"We have requested the copy agreement from the original creditor, this will forwarded on to you as soon as it is received."

"We recognise that the copy agreement has not been supplied within the specified time, however you should note this is no longer a criminal offence"

"The debt remains due and payable, although currently unenforceable. Once the copy agreement has been supplied we will resume request for payment"

"The statement of account....£1322.03 outstanding" I paid £1 for this!

"Please enlighten us as to what your specific dispute is which necessitates your request for a copy agreement"


There is more but it`s too much to post. They also quote the recent case of McGuffick v Royal Bank of Scotland.

stapeley

A lot of debate is now going on regarding the Manchester test cases . In summary they decided as a response to a CCA request , companies are allowed to send a unsigned copy if taken from the original. This does not mean that they would not have to produce the signed original in court .
In one case the Judge said the burden of proof rested on the debtor to show he did not sign a C C Agreement . However if the creditor was to take a debtor to court the burden of proof would rest on them to prove they did sign a compliant Consumer Credit Agreement . So as a defence if they were to turn up with only a application form for example , a defendant could say "I do not remember signing a CCA. Please may I see the original paperwork it is claimed I signed."

Surely a response of " we are sorry your Honour we only have copies of our agreements that were in use at that time. It may be that we did send out the card or loan and allowed monies to be used before securing the proper paperwork ."
I believe that practice has already been judged as to be deemed a gift in court .

Weekend_warrior

Does anyone know if there will be an appeal to the Manchester test case?
also I wonder if the Judge had a vested interest in the case before his Judgement, perhaps he has shares in some d.c.a. group or Bank as I have always thought the Judiciary were very corrupt.
I have also noticed that since New Year I have had a few letters from Aktiv Kapital again chasing me for 3 seperate debts that last year they admitted the do not have the original c.c.a.'s for them, so I refused to pay them telling them the debt is unenforceable is this still true after the Manchester ruling.
I live in Scotland.

W.W.