Frightened about my future - part 2.

beanielou

Savings thought you would get much the same hols as the kids?

Right Im really off this time.
Night hun x

savingwannabe

I get 12 weeks hols a year!!!!

di3004

I am late again........:o

Hubby worked afternoons today, when after watching Eastenders, as it was on for an hour this evening, I spent some time on the phone talking to mum, a bit of company for her really, by the time I had my shower, hubby came home and then had to sort out his tea..........time flies.:j

fireflycatcher

di3004 wrote: »

I am late again........:o

Hubby worked afternoons today, when after watching Eastenders, as it was on for an hour this evening, I spent some time on the phone talking to mum, a bit of company for her really, by the time I had my shower, hubby came home and then had to sort out his tea..........time flies.:j

I'm still trying to haul my 7yo to bed:eek:

di3004

AmandaAyrshire wrote: »

I'm still trying to haul my 7yo to bed:eek:

I wish you luck then........:eek:, I know how you feel, your tired yourself but unable to settle until they settle down, which can take all night........and most of the morning.

Fingers crossed honey.;)

di3004

oops a daisy.........

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jPAGcIdEOYA6Z9-Yhf4hgiSdeCQw

UKPA) – 8 hours ago

Lloyds Banking Group has announced further moves to slash costs that will affect around 1,850 workers and threaten hundreds more jobs across the UK.

The part-nationalised bank is to close an insurance office in Nottingham and cut back office support roles for the retail bank.
Lloyds said it hoped to limit the number of full-time permanent job losses to 650.

But it also revealed plans to close a 265-strong network of Halifax-branded counters based within firms such as solicitors and estate agencies - expected to hit a further swathe of jobs, although not people directly employed by Lloyds.

The jobs blow brings the toll so far to around 17,000 since the start of 2009.
It comes as Lloyds looks to save £2 billion in costs year on year following the rescue takeover of Halifax Bank of Scotland.
The job losses will largely hit insurance and administration staff based in Nottingham and Chester.
Trade union Unite said the news marked the start of another "long summer of worry" for Lloyds employees.
Cath Speight, Unite national officer, added: "The scale of these cuts is extreme."
"This taxpayer-owned financial institution needs to focus on retaining the hard-working staff who have ensured the highest levels of service to its customers over the past 18 difficult months, not dumping them on the scrap heap."

pixiechick_2

Just got in from the quiz - not a lucky night, I'm afraid

Seems like Lloyds TSB are dumping on their staff as well as their customers - or at least the 'ordinary' staff. I bet none of the 'bankers' lose their jobs.

pixiechick_2

di3004 wrote: »

"This taxpayer-owned financial institution needs to focus on retaining the hard-working staff who have ensured the highest levels of service to its customers over the past 18 difficult months, not dumping them on the scrap heap."

Hmmmm!!! Not sure about the "highest levels of service to its customers" bit

never-in-doubt

Morning Ann,

Finally got my head round it all - You need to be responding as per below.....

That should sort them out, but you never know! I won't post the extracts of their letter cos I do think it is easily identifiable, even with your personal details omitted - best that people presume the content that Amex used, from my response below:

Dear Sirs,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

I write with reference to previous correspondence, and in particular to the above numbered account which, for ease and clarity, I hereby deem unenforceable in line with s.127(3) CCA(1974) - this letter should be considered my final response on the matter.

In my original letter, dated XX/XX/XXXX, I requested a copy of the credit agreement to which I was sent an application form and some random terms, not linked in any way to the actual agreement that you purport exisits. You then wrote back to me on 23 June 2010 with varying points, all of which seems to have been issued as guidance to you - factually outdated and actually incorrect as I shall now point out;

You start by mentioning that "I believe you are unable to enforce the agreement" - that is incorrect, I do not believe that you cannot enforce the agreement, I know that you cannot. For the final time, I shall remind you of the provisions of the CCA1974, namely:

"s.127(1) of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA 1974) is subject to the restrictions imposed by sections 127(3) & (4). Those subsections set out the circumstances in which the court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) of the Act".

This simply means that a judge, if you decide to pursue formal action, will not be able to enforce this agreement because it is improperly executed in line with s.127(1). May I respectfully suggest you read up on the CCA and the recent judgments in the McGuffick v RBS and Carey v HSBC cases, then you'll find out why the documents you sent me are not executed in the prescribed form.

You then go on to state that The agreement which was set out in the format of an application form was signed by me and contained the prescribed terms as set out in Schedule 6 CCA1974. I think you may be getting confused because the Prescribed Terms are actually set out in s.60 of the CCA1974 but are contained in Schedule 6(c2) of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553). For the record, the Prescribed Terms were not linked to nor embedded within the purported executed document and therefore the agreement is in fact unenforceable.

You then proceed to try and tell me that the fact you sent monthly statements and the fact I used the "card" from August 1999 demonstrates my continued acceptance of the Terms, and my willingness to be bound by them. Can you tell me where, in what pocket of law exactly, this is proven to be the case? There is no case law in history that suggests this claim is factual. Need I remind you of OFT guidance on debt collection that cleary spells out that it is wrong to mislead a debtor as to the facts when attempting collection activity?

You then state that you have been advised that the agreement could only be unenforceable if it was not signed or did not contain the Prescribed terms. This advice is also incorrect. In fact, you may be pleased to know that in line with Regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983, no signature is actually required at all, in order to satisfy a s.78 request. However you then go on to say that the terms were on the reverse of the agreement, I put this to task as it is clear from the documents I have been sent that the form entitled "Conditions" was not the actual reverse of the Application Form and therefore the Prescribed terms were actually not intact at the time you tried to execute the agreement, ergo it remains unenforceable.

You then go on to try and explain to me about the finer points of Schedule 6 regards to the provision of enforceability. namely, you claim that the prescribed terms were respectively set out in the agreement - they were not as explained in the above paragraph, it was also an application form, not a regulated agreement in compliance with CCA1974.

You then state that "Amex is entitled to take reasonable action to recover amounts due", I agree you are indeed (in line with the recent McGuffick v RBS case) so please feel free to ring me, write to me and threaten me all you want - it will not change anything, without an actual executed agreement you cannot take any formal action.

I think, from the above it is clear that not only has Amex been misguided with the advice given, but also may be treading into unchartered water by making such outrageous claims. I strongly suggest that you do the right thing and accept that this account is unenforceable and close your file. Chasing me to repay an unenforceable debt serves to prove nothing other than brawn and arrogance against the consumer, I for one will not tolerate it and invite you to take this matter to court, if you feel so strongly that you're right. If not, then I do expect you to take the common sense approach and close your file, walk away and confirm this account is indeed unenforceable, as proven to you throughout this letter.

This is my final response, no signed agreement exists, that encompasses the prescribed terms and until you can furnish me with such a document, my stance remains.

Yours faithfully

Sign digitally

never-in-doubt

Ann

To confirm, in case you missed it, the Amex account is 100% unenforceable by the way - well done :T :T :T