Final Response re Query Unenforceable - Barclaycard/Credit Solutions

Jinx

Hi Guys

Tried to post my scanned letter, but cant seem to do it...

Anyway I am dealing with Credit Solutions re a Barclaycard debt - they havent got a CCA (sent terms & conditions) and have done most of the letters to them, the only one left to send is the final final, you dont have it so quit pestering me.

However, their last response has me concerned and I hope someone can clarify- theyve said 'This will now be our final response to matter and we would suggest that you seek further legal advice if you wish to continue this issue as you seem to have misunderstood your position under UK law'.

Also 'Please note, under recent OFT guidelines we would continue to progress and aid you in clearing your outstanding balance if your debt was proved unenforceable' Emmm !!!!!!???:eek:

So I thought I understood correctly that no CCA=unenforceable and I was all ready to send the final s*d off letter. However, I admit this has made me think twice. Advice???

By the way, for those who will say I should pay up, I have been chipping away at my own DMP as per my signature and repaid all but 3k. Credit Solutions are not cooperating or playing fair hence me playing the 'unenforceable' route.

DGJsaver

All they are saying is that although it may well be UE , they will still harass you for payment , which they are allowed to do....

Marisco

If it is unenforceable there is nothing they can do. They can hassle but they cannot take you to court or make you pay.

billypre

If they dont have a CCA then i think by law, the account is in dispute, and as such they cannot legally make demands for payment. Any such action could amount to harrassment. I would be strict here and let them know that you DO NOT owe them this money, and that you WILL NOT be paying. Then ask them to stop contacting and that any more contact will be reported to OFT for harrassment. I'm sure someone with better knowledge of the law will instruct you better but thats my understanding.

Jinx

:TThanks so much guys, glad you have the same understanding as I do..... I have been doing some reading and following the unenforcibility guidance but sometimes you just need a little reassurance...:T

DGJsaver

billypre wrote: »

If they dont have a CCA then i think by law, the account is in dispute, and as such they cannot legally make demands for payment. Any such action could amount to harrassment. I would be strict here and let them know that you DO NOT owe them this money, and that you WILL NOT be paying. Then ask them to stop contacting and that any more contact will be reported to OFT for harrassment. I'm sure someone with better knowledge of the law will instruct you better but thats my understanding.

No offenc e, but i dont think this is correct...

Recent legislation has confirmed that a creditor , can still make reasonable attempts to recoup the debt , the debt has not vanished due to no CCA , it has ONLY become UE through the courts , it still exists , hence the Creditor/DCA updating the CRA etc

billypre

From what i have learned the creditor CAN pursue the debt, but CANNOT continue contact once the debtor has refused to pay and INFORMED the creditor that they wish no further correspondence. Any further contact can then be construed as harrassment. The DCA have no proof that the debt exists as there is no CCA.

There is a thin line between pursueing a debt, and harrassment for a debt. All i am saying is that, by letting them know you will not be paying and INFORMING them of you no longer wishing to receive communications from them then if they ignore your request they are basically harrassing you into payment.

In this case the debtor HAS made a reasonable attempt and has been told by the person (Jinx) that he will not pay.

As i said, the debtor has disputed the debt and asked for a CCA. The creditor cannot supply one and so the debt remains in dispute.

Chasing for payment whilst a dispute is raised raises these arguments :

These sections are taken from the Debt Collection Guidance as laid down by the Office of Fair Trading

Physical/psychological harassment

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

h. ignoring and /or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

Deceptive and/or unfair methods


2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair.
2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:


k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or
disputed debt.

Jinx

Thank you for your input Billypre - as you say the debt does not disappear, I am aware of that. To be honest I've paid back most of the cash but they havent been assigning all my payments to my account and now adding interest etc so I have had enough of them after 6 years.

FYI I was defaulted years ago, so not worried about my credit record - I trashed it in 2004.

I'm not at all worried about the standard threatening letters, so long as I was sure that a court would not deem it enforceable without the CCA... which you lovely people have reassured me on.:T

Edited to add - I'm sending the final final sod off letter tomorrow

DGJsaver

billypre wrote: »

From what i have learned the creditor CAN pursue the debt, but CANNOT continue contact once the debtor has refused to pay and INFORMED the creditor that they wish no further correspondence. Any further contact can then be construed as harrassment. The DCA have no proof that the debt exists as there is no CCA.

There is a thin line between pursueing a debt, and harrassment for a debt. All i am saying is that, by letting them know you will not be paying and INFORMING them of you no longer wishing to receive communications from them then if they ignore your request they are basically harrassing you into payment.

In this case the debtor HAS made a reasonable attempt and has been told by the person (Jinx) that he will not pay.

As i said, the debtor has disputed the debt and asked for a CCA. The creditor cannot supply one and so the debt remains in dispute.

Chasing for payment whilst a dispute is raised raises these arguments :

These sections are taken from the Debt Collection Guidance as laid down by the Office of Fair Trading

Physical/psychological harassment

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

h. ignoring and /or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

Deceptive and/or unfair methods

2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair.
2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or
disputed debt.

You forgot to quote the bit that specifys how they regard a debt as `in dispute`

2.12f: Visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the
debt is deadlocked or disputed.

By 'deadlocked' we mean where a debtor (or debtor’s adviser) agrees there is a debt and
has offered a repayment programme which has not been agreed by the creditor or debt
collector. We are not saying that any offer must be accepted but we have seen cases
where offers are disregarded and a debtor is told that 'we are sending field agents'. Many
debtors are unlikely to understand this term and are likely to view the visit as a threat
designed to make them offer more money when they can pay no more. Some letters appear
to be designed to give this impression.
By 'disputed' we mean genuinely disputed. We are not seeking to protect 'won’t pays' but
those who are being pursued for a debt they do not owe or genuinely believe they do not
owe. Debt collectors who can show that the debt is due and that any dispute has been

looked into and the debt confirmed will not be in breach of this provision.