Unenforceability & Template Letters III

never-in-doubt

Locke wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I'm going to be after a CCA from them when I get a new bank account opened so I'll have to keep an eye on them, I'll have to keep an eye out for any updates from Jo to see what they said in their reply.

Don't worry, this is an isolated case mate. Only 2 others i've seen, but post them up when you get em and i'll confirm for you. However Jo not been here for over a month, I emailed her yesterday but she may be busy......

Bleddry

Do you mean the CCA, because that's too small to read, and certainly would lose even more definition once photo'd and uploaded (even if i knew how to do that!).
The letter itself just states that they feel they've responded to the relevant issues and supplied the necessaries in line with the CCA 1974, they site the McGuffick v RBS case again, and end by stating they feel we are not likely to come to an agreement regarding liability for repayment and therefore confirm that their letter denotes final response to the issues raised, referring me to the FO now. They sent T&C, but I don't believe these are the correct ones, as it doesn't mention anything about using personal CC for business use - something I definitely remember in the original. Plus they didn't send any statements showing transactions, despite my requesting this info. There are numerous other things that they have not bothered to resolve - a mysterious payment they said I made, although never showed on my account.... etc.,
I guess I really wanted to know if you had any experience of the FO, and why the bank would refer me if they felt that they were in the right - why not just continue to pursue me or take it to court? Does this mean they are fed up with me and hope that I will die before this process comes to any conclusion?
In your experience what outcomes are usual/possible?
(By the way, do you look anything like your cheesy smilers?
I kind of imagine you a bit Simon Templar like, with that very shiney halo!!)

never-in-doubt

Bleddry wrote: »

Do you mean the CCA, because that's too small to read, and certainly would lose even more definition once photo'd and uploaded (even if i knew how to do that!).

Yep - that's what I meant, without sight of it i'd never be able to confirm unenforceability so would not like to suggest your next move, i.e. I could say sit tight - it then turns out to be enforceable and you're then liable for the debt. See what I mean?

However based on what you've said so far - lets assume it is.

Bleddry wrote: »

The letter itself just states that they feel they've responded to the relevant issues and supplied the necessaries in line with the CCA 1974, they site the McGuffick v RBS case again, and end by stating they feel we are not likely to come to an agreement regarding liability for repayment and therefore confirm that their letter denotes final response to the issues raised, referring me to the FO now.

This is normal - they always (and have to) refer you to the FOS after their final response, i.e. at stalemate they have to refer you. Without referral you cannot complain to the FOS.

Bleddry wrote: »

They sent T&C, but I don't believe these are the correct ones, as it doesn't mention anything about using personal CC for business use - something I definitely remember in the original.

Ok, so another thing to check here is when did you take the card out? If it was 5+ years ago then chances are the terms would show £20 + late payment charge etc - but recently they will show £12 or abouts....

But going on what you've said, lets assume they are different....

Bleddry wrote: »

Plus they didn't send any statements showing transactions, despite my requesting this info.

That does not affect unenforceability, its a simple breach of the s.78 request only.

Bleddry wrote: »

There are numerous other things that they have not bothered to resolve - a mysterious payment they said I made, although never showed on my account.... etc.,

As above, that is an internal thing and has no bearing on the enforceability of the agreement.

Bleddry wrote: »

I guess I really wanted to know if you had any experience of the FO,

Yes - lots! How much time have you got and what do you want to know lol? :rotfl: :rotfl:

Bleddry wrote: »

and why the bank would refer me if they felt that they were in the right - why not just continue to pursue me or take it to court?

No - the lenders always refer people to the FOS at stalemate - see above. They won't take you to court if it is unenforceable - maybe you're right, they know it is so will just leave it in 'limbo' so to speak....?

Bleddry wrote: »

Does this mean they are fed up with me and hope that I will die before this process comes to any conclusion?

Brilliant :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

But erm, no! Unfortunately it means they disagree with you and so are following process. They have no option but to refer you.

Bleddry wrote: »

In your experience what outcomes are usual/possible?

In what respect exactly? You have need to go to the FOS - none whatsoever! Right now, assuming we go on what you've said so far then you'd respond with your own Final Response - this one here: Debtors Final Response - CCA Received

Bleddry wrote: »

(By the way, do you look anything like your cheesy smilers?

Cheeky beggar! lol - no I do not! Some of the ladies have commented but not like you think - one even called me :drool::drool: until I realised she had a white stick :rotfl:

Bleddry wrote: »

I kind of imagine you a bit Simon Templar like, with that very shiney halo!!)

hahaha - really? :D:D

Hope the above helps..... :beer:

Bleddry

Step by step, just how I like it - you know you're dealing with a woman right?!

...and actually, on second thoughts, you're no Saint - you're a GOD!!!!

I'll let you know how I get on... but maybe you'll have to wait 'til we meet again in the next world!
ps. who do you think you look like?

Bleddry

I'm just a simple, country gal - it's the 'simple' part that gets me into so much trouble!!
Think I'll leave you to my wild imagination tonight, as I don't do Facebook!
Sweet dreams NID!

never-in-doubt

Bleddry wrote: »

I'm just a simple, country gal - it's the 'simple' part that gets me into so much trouble!!
Think I'll leave you to my wild imagination tonight, as I don't do Facebook!
Sweet dreams NID!

lol - here you go, just a sneaky look! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

http://www.circlex-gaming.com/pics/sexy-man-boobs.jpg

Don't let anyone know ok? :eek:

Sweet dreams - i'm working all night! I'll still be here when you get up (lucky!)

scarednshakin

Hi Niddy

Never realised you were such a hunk lol :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Don't work too hard

never-in-doubt

scarednshakin wrote: »

Hi Niddy

Never realised you were such a hunk lol :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Don't work too hard

hehe - funny! :rotfl::rotfl:

captainhaggis

NID, I've heard nothing from my creditors for a while, but I've just had a couple of letters in from Debt Clear Recoveries and Collections (or similar) about an MBNA debt I have. It's the MBNA debt that started as a Mastercard but was 'morphed' into an Amex without a new agreement being signed.

I've told them the debt is UE but they seem to have ignored me.

thechippy

Hey NID, how am you?........:beer:
Gr8 to see you are still helping people.

A bit of info....

A lot of the lenders are now quoting Mc Guffick Vs RBOS in reply to a s78 request.
As you may know, this is because, it was deemed in that case that it is acceptable for a creditor to supply a reconstructed agreement.
However, it was also made plain that for a creditor to have an agreement enforced, they must STILL show the original signed COMPLIANT agreement in court.

We all know why they often don't send the original as requested - they can't find it, or don't have it...:D

Anyway, in that case the debtor was the CLAIMANT, much more difficult. It's easier to defend, as you can then place the claimant to strict proof. Basically, don't take them to court, let them take you..;)

Another thing to be aware of is the fact that some oc's and dca's WILL commence litigation knowing full well they cannot provide a compliant agreement.

They chance thier arm, knowing that most people do not know how to defend the claim and often fall at the first hurdle. It's quite difficult to defend these things as LIP.
Even if you defend their particulars of claim in the incorrect fashion, your defense will be struck out = claimant wins.....:mad: They take a gamble at winning by default....

Anyway dude, take care........:D:beer: