Moorcroft Debt Recovery - communications

Marvintheparanoidandroid

Fermi,

re your advice yesterday, I have printed the letter re CCA request. Should I sign it? I've heard people on here warning against signing anything that is going to a debt collection agency!

fermi

Nope. Don't sign it. Just print your name.

They may whine that they can't comply unless you do. But assuming that they or the creditor has been in touch with you at your current address, then they don't need proof of who you are via signature or otherwise.

If they try to say that they do, then there is a reply here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=11636349&postcount=6

FTW

Marvintheparanoidandroid wrote: »

Fermi,

re your advice yesterday, I have printed the letter re CCA request. Should I sign it? I've heard people on here warning against signing anything that is going to a debt collection agency!

Definitely don't sign it. The warning is justified.

Marvintheparanoidandroid

Many thanks to both

Marvintheparanoidandroid

Marvintheparanoidandroid wrote: »

I would have to check but pretty sure it would be before April 2007. Sorry for my ignorance, but what is CCA?

Thanks for the advice re Moorcroft, you're right it was HSBC (First Direct) so I may write to them or DG.

I have found my original loan docs and they date from July 2007, after the law change.

Is it still worth the CCA request or is there another tactic I could try?

fermi

Still worth asking perhaps? Especially if you might be going bankrupt anyway?

If they can't produce at least a reconstituted agreement, then it would still block legal action succeeding.

It just that as the agreement is post April 2007, if they find one and it's missing say a signature, APR etc, then that doesn't necessarily render it unenforceable by the court.

Marvintheparanoidandroid

fermi wrote: »

Still worth asking perhaps? Especially if you might be going bankrupt anyway?

If they can't produce at least a reconstituted agreement, then it would still block legal action succeeding.

It just that as the agreement is post April 2007, if they find one and it's missing say a signature, APR etc, then that doesn't necessarily render it unenforceable by the court.

Yes I see what you mean, I will send the request and let you know what happens!

Any problem sending a cheque with my signature on? Surely they would be in big trouble if they tried to copy a signature from a cheque?

P.S. Excellent story on bbc site today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12622318

fermi

For an agreement of that date I would say a signature on a cheque is less important. If you were being paranoid then perhaps send a postal order instead?

Yep. I saw that news article earlier.

Marvintheparanoidandroid

Morning all,

so I have my reply from Moorcroft and would appreciate anyone's advice on what I should do next! Please bear in mind that my loan started in July 2007, 3 months after the ruling on CCA - which is annoying! Their letter in exact words:

We refer to previous correspondence and confirm that at this time our client is currently unable to prove a signed copy of the agreement relating to this account.

Please be aware however that the courts have recently held that the inability of a creditor to produce a copy of an agreement does not mean that the debt does not exist and will be written off. In the case of McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (2009) EWHC2386 Mr Justice Flaux ruled: "Although the Consumer Credit Act may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist."

Our client confirms that they there remains an obligation to honour the original agreement and that information will continue to be supplied to the credit reference agencies. The purpose of reporting information to a credit reference agency is to promote sensible and informed decision making with regard to financial lending and the courts have held that the demanding of payment, issuing of default notices and instructing a third party to demand or seek payment does not amount to enforcement. Our client's position therefore remains that the balance of your account remains due and payable and your credit file will continue to reflect that this account is in default and will only be marked as satisfied once repayment has occurred.

We can confirm that we have placed your account on hold for 14 days and request that you make contact with our call centre on the above telephone number. We would be happy to discuss the position with you and can confirm on a without prejudice basis that it would be our aim to reach a possible discounted agreement based upon your financial circumstances and to discuss a repayment proposal that you can afford and maintain.

Sorry that was a bit long! The tone of the letter marks a definate softening of their tone, but I'm still not sure where I stand. Should I offer a small repayment, or just tell them to make me bankrupt?

Thanks, Rob.

snowyz81

I would stand your ground and demand to see sight of it first.

Moorcroft are quiet a bad company, i have a few friends that work there and one that left as she was sick of being made to demand people for money on the phone (including a little old lady who was crying). If you do ring them they will be very forceful, just so you know.