CAA request updates / results part 2

leanne82duke

yes welcome and yes it was definatly them that stopped taking payments in march 2007, checked the d/d and kept it on the d/d list for a while just in case.
i then started paying them again in appx july 2007 after they contacted me saying that it was my fault. i sent them copies of direct debit list to prove it (pointless) anyway last payment to them was in november 2009 after they didnt provide me with my cca.
and it is a reconstituted sig and does not even look like mine.

never-in-doubt

leanne82duke wrote: »

yes welcome and yes it was definatly them that stopped taking payments in march 2007, checked the d/d and kept it on the d/d list for a while just in case.
i then started paying them again in appx july 2007 after they contacted me saying that it was my fault. i sent them copies of direct debit list to prove it (pointless) anyway last payment to them was in november 2009 after they didnt provide me with my cca.
and it is a reconstituted sig and does not even look like mine.

Hold fire - i'll sort you a reply and post it here later for you ok?

never-in-doubt

Hiya

Before I can do a response, please advise the following:

leanne82duke wrote: »

they have enclosed a personal loan agreement, but it is not my signature on it

Is it signed though, in your name? If so, is it the married or maiden name and was the name used correct at the date of agreement? What I mean is if you were Miss Smith on 01/01/2000 and married Mr Brown on 05/10/2000 and took the loan out on 10/06/2000 it should by all accounts be signed in your maiden name of Smith and dated on the actual date you did take the loan out.

So, is the date correct or is it incorrect?

leanne82duke wrote: »

and it has my maiden name on, in which the loan was originally taken out.

Confused? So you're saying this is right then? i.e. the loan had your maiden name and was signed using the maiden name? If so, why mention it lol? I'm confused - please clarify....

leanne82duke wrote: »

I was married in the april of that year.

Is this relevant, i.e. were you married when the alleged loan was taken out? Or am I misreading, and you're telling me that the facts are you took the loan out before you were married and they have presented an agreement using your maiden name but with a date after you were married proving you couldn;t have signed that agreement?

leanne82duke wrote: »

it was also apparantly signed in lincoln where i lived at the time, but was "witnessed" by someone in wotton bassett, swindon, (this was where the original loan was taken out 2 years before this)

Right, making more sense now - so the loan was taken out in your maiden name in (for example) 2004 but the agreement they sent you was dated 2006 (i.e. + 2 years)? Do you know the witness or is that a member of their staff?

Can you elaborate and explain the relevance of this, i.e. is the agreement witnessed by someone in lincoln whereby genuinely it should have been wotoon? So in essence the date they have used proved that the loan was taken out earlier and also at a different address in a different name?

I need to know the date on the agreement they sent you and the date you actually took the loan out.

never-in-doubt

Hiya - I need to complete this but need you to answer the last post here: #255

You should sent the following letter back to the Lewis Group - lets see how they like this! :rotfl:

Dear Sirs,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

Having recently requested a copy of the alleged original Credit Agreement (CCA), in line with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s.77-s.79), I was dismayed to receive what can only be described as a fraudulent document. My reasons for this claim are set out below:

• Awaiting info from here: #255

Kindly take a look at the following article which may shed some light on what the law considers a 'True Copy' and what the law considers 'Fraud' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8393768.stm
I quote, from this article:

The OFT goes on to advise that lenders would be acting unfairly, and potentially in breach of their consumer credit licenses, if they misled borrowers by:

• hiding or disguising the fact that there was never a proper signed agreement in the first place
• providing only a copy of the current terms and conditions, not the original ones

I refer back to your letter where you quote "we refer to your recent letter in which you have stated that we are obliged to provide a copy of the agreement whether we ar the original creditor or not. Please note that section 189 of the consumer credit act 1974 relates to agreements which have had the rights and duties formally asigned to another party. please be advised that we ar not the creditor or the asignees in this matter. the creditor is welcome financial services and we are merely instructed to act on thier behalf to recover any outstanding balance due. notwithstanding the above, in any effort to resolve your dispute , we have obtained a copy of your agreement from our client and enclosed the same herewith."

I'd like to spend a few moments on this, not dwelling too much on your shoddy use of grammar and punctuation (of which my quote is a direct quote). The first point, which you assume to be factual, is in fact incorrect. To reiterate my point:

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties. Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b), 6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

I think the above is self explanitory and requires little more than reiterating an important part of the quote which is:

'If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor'

Also, the original creditor (Welcome) seem to think that by providing the documents attached with your letter, that they have satisfied their obligation under s.77-s.79 CCA (1974). Can I just check, as i'm slightly confused, where within s.77-s.79 of the CCA(1974) does it mention that you can fabricate a totally fraudulent document and purport it to be a copy of an original? If you'd please be so kind as to point me in the right direction...

I think you can see where I am going with this? I therefore think it is best we start again and ignore your letter as the junk it is. Please do not waste my time any longer by sending me junk; if you want to play silly beggars be my guest and i'll see you in court. The entire content of this letter is directed at both yourselves and the original creditor (Welcome).

So, as you have failed to comply with my lawful request for a true, signed copy of the agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it, failed to send a full statement of the account and failed to provide any of the documentation requested but instead sent a forgery, any legal action you pursue will be averred as both unlawful & vexatious. Furthermore I shall counterclaim that any such action constitutes unlawful harassment and pursue legal action for the attempted fraud. You may also consider this letter as a statutory notice under s.10 of the Data Protection Act (1998) to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies.

Any attempted argument regarding case law such as McGuffick v RBS will be dismissed as this particular case has no bearing on the legal reporting methods that a lender has with the CRA, namely adding derogatory data whilst an account is in dispute, this account clearly is disputed.

As a result of everything put together in this letter, I do feel it would be in your best interests to consider this matter closed and write off the balance as a business loss. The last thing you need right now is bad publicity and a legal loss, by presenting a forged document that we both know does not and will never satisfy clear guidelines set out in s.127(3) CCA(1974). Should you refuse to comply, you must within 30 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data and your reasoning as to why you issued a forged document under the pretence it was a copy of the original. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’; You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends. Should you not respond within 30 days I expect that this means you agree to remove all such data.

Need I remind you that a creditor is not permitted to take ANY action against an account whilst it remains in dispute? The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies.

* You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.
* You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.
* You may not pass the account to a third party.
* You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.
* You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit. You have 30 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint. I therefore request a copy of your official complaints procedure which you are obliged to supply. Please remember, a disputed account does not obtain a final response until both sides have counter argued and come to a dead-end which this case, certainly is not. In light of this and the above content, I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter and look forward to hearing from you, or Welcome, in writing within 30 days.

Yours faithfully

Sign digitally

hackenbush

Thanks Neverindoubt. I'm only just beginning to understand how the forum works and so have posted stuff all over the place and generally in the wrong place!

But thanks for the feedback! I will send the query letter to Egg and await their threats!

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No. It is not compliant. Send this: 3. CCA Query :beer:

I replied to your PM and asked you to post the content in a new post here: Unenforceability & Template Letters II

leanne82duke

to save you more confusion i will fill in the blanks, thanks very much for the help.
i seem to be able to confuse people, its a skill!? lol maybe i should get a job with the banks? maybe not lol x
but again many thanks
i will let you know what happens in due course

RIANNA30

never-in-doubt wrote: »

If they have not sent the CCA then they are in default and the DCA can take no formal action, i.e they cannot get any kind of judgment so they cannot enter your house nor can they add a ccj.

As you've reported this to the FOS i'd wait on their reply. However do not accept any payment at this stage, also you'd want payment made in cheque to you - not against the alleged debt. Bear in mind if the agreement cannot be found then you owe nothing so why should they reduce the debt? The money should go to you because you complained.

See where i'm coming from with this?

Different with charges and PPI - this is always deducted from any balance but you are talking about an external complaint and therefore any redress should be sent via cheque to yourself.

Hadn't thought about it like that, thanks! I shall wait for the response
from the FOS and then ask for my cheque!

chinawhite_2

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No. It is not compliant. Send this: 3. CCA Query :beer:

I replied to your PM and asked you to post the content in a new post here: Unenforceability & Template Letters II

Hi NID

thanks to the reply to my other query re: egg, will send reminder letters for each account, I just wondered though, they sent me exactly this agreement in response to my first letters and I thought that it was compliant (although only got the one) - what makes it not so ????

Thanks
:cool:

never-in-doubt

chinawhite wrote: »

- what makes it not so ????

Thanks
:cool:

show me the credit limit? The part on page 1 that refers the CCA to a separate document.... :eek:

Find them and it is enforceable - without, it is not lol

chinawhite_2

Hi NID

sorry Im being a bit thick here and I probably havnt read through all the threads properly but I thought I had read that the absence of a credit limit didn't make it unenforcable ?? I thought that to say they will decide credit limit from time to time was deemed as enforcable (you must be sick of answering these questions !!!!!!!!!!!!!) - it's all very confusing to a beginner !! and I'm getting bog eyed from trying to read it all and take it all in -

Have just started studying for the next part of my degree aswell so I am really overloaded with info about all sorts of things at the moment - sorry

Thanks again