CCA request to Rockwell

nottoolate

that letter is way way out of date :eek:

most of the parts under Therefore this account has become unenforceable at law don't apply any more

nottoolate

king100 wrote: »

Of course it is in dispute in legal terms they have no valid CCA.

nonsense.

there is no dispute over whether the money is owed

they have admitted that it cannot be enforced via the courts so even that legal fact isn't in disputed

thechippy

nottoolate wrote: »

that letter is way way out of date :eek:

most of the parts under Therefore this account has become unenforceable at law don't apply any more

Load of rubbish

thechippy

nottoolate wrote: »

nonsense.

there is no dispute over whether the money is owed

they have admitted that it cannot be enforced via the courts so even that legal fact isn't in disputed

The account is in dispute as they have failed to comply with the cca request.

nottoolate

thechippy wrote: »

Load of rubbish

not in the slightest.

the letter says that the debt is in dispute according to oft guidelines - that is not true

says that they must remove all data - again not true

says that they may not demand payment - not true

says that they may not pass the account to someone else - not true

says that nothing can be registered with a credit reference agency - not true if a default already exists

nottoolate

thechippy wrote: »

The account is in dispute as they have failed to comply with the cca request.

failure to supply a cca is not a dispute in itself

certainly not so far as the meaning of dispute in the oft guidelines. which is the only thing that would mean that they could not seek to collect on a disputed account

thechippy

The oft guidelines were only that anyway - guidelines.

Not supplying a cca is a clear dispute. They are unable to provide the documentation upon which they rely to collect. Without it, they are unable to prove interest rates etc and terms to which both parties "agreed".

nottoolate

like it or not it's not a matter that in itself can stop a creditor trying to collect

the oft have said very clearly that

a creditor can

- ask debtors to pay what they owe
- send a default notice
- pass information on to a credit reference agency
- pass information on to a debt collector
- sell the debt to someone else
- take the case to court

if there is genuinely other grounds to dispute the debt then that is another matter

but not supplying a cca does not automatically make it disputed

thechippy

nottoolate wrote: »

like it or not it's not a matter that in itself can stop a creditor trying to collect

the oft have said very clearly that

a creditor can

- ask debtors to pay what they owe
- send a default notice
- pass information on to a credit reference agency
- pass information on to a debt collector
- sell the debt to someone else
- take the case to court

if there is genuinely other grounds to dispute the debt then that is another matter

but not supplying a cca does not automatically make it disputed

Nothing automatically places it in dispute as such, but the debtor can deem it to be in dispute if the lender has failed to supply the cca. It either party has an issue, then it's in dispute.

Therefore, not supplying a cca can be deemed a dispute by the debtor for the reasons I outlined earlier.

nottoolate

thechippy wrote: »

The oft guidelines were only that anyway - guidelines.

guidelines yes - but the oft can impose requirements on creditors who break them and even revoke a credit license eventually

they are the guidelines that say a creditor should not pursue a disputed debt

simply not supplying a cca is not a valid dispute in itself for that to apply

in fact the oft are clarifying what qualifies as a dispute in their new draft guidelines. failure to supply a cca is certainly not in there.

Annex A

VALID GROUNDS FOR DISPUTING A DEBT

Paragraphs 3.2g, 3.6n, 3.8k, 3.8m, 3.12f, 3.19a (box), 3.19h of the Debt collection guidance

A.1

The OFT would consider valid grounds for disputing a debt arising when:

• the individual being pursued for the debt is not the debtor in question (or the guarantor of the debt in question) or
• the debt does not exist or
• the debt is statute barred or
• the amount of the debt being pursued is incorrect.