Would you accept?

GeorgeUK

The letter does not require a signature - it's not ine of the requirements of the legislation.

I don't know if this is standard procedure for Nationwide, but i've heard of this happening when banks are responding to a SAR. I would take along a copy of the ID, but if you sign anything to prove your signature, make sure you take it away with you.

never-in-doubt

ricky_balboa wrote: »

I have had a new letter from nationwide, which says that they are unable to send the CCA to my address as the request letter hasnt been signed.

But, they have sent a copy to my local branch of Nationwide and i can collect it with a form of ID, where the staff will release it after verifying me.

Is this standard procedure, anyone see a problem with this?

thanks in advance, for any replies.

Hi

Do not go into the branch - no way! No legal requirement for you to sign.... Send this back to them: Demand of your Signature

ricky_balboa

I have now received what i believe (from reading other threads/posts) the next standard letter from nationwide.

You have failed to pay the amount of £****.** under the agreement(s) dated 18/8/2005. You were told in our previous letter that if you failed to respond or we were unable to reach an acceptable agreement, legal action would be started without further warning. A claim has today been sent to the court for recovery of the amount owed.

You have now been charged court fees of £108.00. If the action continues further fees will be charged as follows:

£100.00 court fees
£54.00 land registry fees
£110.00 Agent fees
£264.00 Total

These fees will be added to the amount you owe along with the interest that applies to your account, and will be recovered by the Nationwide during this action.

If you wish to pay the current sum of £****.** please contact:

Unsecured Debt Recovery
Lending Control
Kings Park Road
Northampton
telephone 0845 600 70 72

You will shortly receive nationwides claim from the court with information detailing the action you should take with regards to responding. If you do not take any action, a county court judgement will be entered against you. The judgement for the amount owed will be registered against you and this could affect your ability to obtain future credit.

Lindsey Baxter
legal advisor
Lending control legal services


To clear up where i am right now with things:-

I pay a regular amount to Nationwide through CCCS, and have done for the last 3/4 months.This amount is less than Nationwide would like, hence the action by them.

I had made an offer of £1500.00 to settle the account which was turned down.They did want me to pay £1700.00.

It was after this that i then found out about asking for my CCA.

I requested the CCA, but had a letter back saying that they couldnt send it to me as the request had no signature on it.

I then sent a letter saying they didnt require a signature, but they sent a letter saying they still did, and also stated that they had sent a copy to my local branch for me to collect if i took in some I.D.

When i spoke to CCCS about this account, they said that even if i received a CCA which was unlawful i would still have to continue paying Nationwide through them.
This bit i dont understand?

What would you suggest please is my next best move?
Is it the letter CCA reminder to be sent next?
If so, what about the fact that CCCS want me to continue paying them?

Many many thanks for all your help, its giving me some confidence when Nationwide are trying to break it.

Ricky

never-in-doubt

Ricky, this is in hand - hold fire and don't panic....

I've PM'd 10past6 to come help..... just hold fire for an hour.

10past6

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I've PM'd 10past6 to come help..... just hold fire for an hour.

You've NOTHING to worry about at this stage, wait until you receive the court papers then either PM me or Nids, DON'T, DON'T, DONT, involve CCCS when you receive the court papers, in fact, only use CCCS for paying your creditors, nothing more, take a look here

never-in-doubt

10past6 wrote: »

You've NOTHING to worry about at this stage, wait until you receive the court papers then either PM me or Nids, DON'T, DON'T, DONT, involve CCCS when you receive the court papers, in fact, only use CCCS for paying your creditors, nothing more, take a look here

Cheers matey - as my PM went to the OP, don't worry - even though it seems daunting they don't have much of a leg to stand on.... put it this way, until the CCA is delivered no beggar is issuing any CCJ's regards to this account and even then, I want to see what their so called CCA consists of......

RAS

I think a SAR would be a good idea at this point.

never-in-doubt

RAS wrote: »

I think a SAR would be a good idea at this point.

Why? Achieves nothing (remember i'm anti SAR)....

The CCA remains O/S thus no formal action can be taken - end of. Let them try court, whilst this s.78 remains outstanding the judge has to kick it out of court

A SAR gives them 40 days and that is 40 days he doesn't have.... I know 10past6 will agree with you, but for me not once has a SAR been of any help to anyone unless you're looking to reclaim charges in some capacity.

Right now the underlying fact is the OP's protection under s.127(3).

RAS

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Why? Achieves nothing (remember i'm anti SAR)....

Because if they do have a valid CCA (agree that given the date of this one, it is not likely but I have seen valid ones fron the late 90's), there is even less chance they have valid default letter:D.

never-in-doubt

RAS wrote: »

Because if they do have a valid CCA (agree that given the date of this one, it is not likely but I have seen valid ones fron the late 90's), there is even less chance they have valid default letter:D.

I never knew it was defaulted mate? Hang on let me catch up (sorry just got a PM from OP mentioning CCA - never seen the default comments) in which case yea, a SAR *may* be useful......

Its just me, I feel they are a waste of a tenner and cos they are not governed (i.e. the ICO are useless and have no enforcement powers) i'd rather stick to an empowered agency such as FOS and keep within the parameters of the CCA - just my opinion.... But then it's also cos I understand the CCA inside out and would beat them with that and the associated laws within it.

Not disagreeing as such, but I do see your logic (as always)