Lloyds sold disputed debt to Capquest, advice needed.

happy_bunny_2

Before April 2007, they must have the original signed agreement to enforce it. As per section 127 (3).

Removed on the CCA amendment after then to allow reconstituted ones. But it has to be a proper reconstituted one, they can't just make something up.

kidsnocash

fermi, that is the same account. I am getting frustrated that Lloyds have just been ignoring the CCA request and passing it on to various DCAs who start calling and threatening action against me, each time I have told the DCAs the situation and it have been passed back to Lloyds. But this time it looks like Lloyds have gone a different way by selling it on.

Lloyds did supply a CCA but it was for a closed account with a different number.

So should I wait until CRAPquest write again or preempt this by writing the same letter that I have sent to other DCAs?

matttye

Thanks.

I've just read this thread and it looks like the April 2007 thing I was referring to is just that it is a lot easier to argue that agreements made before this date are unenforceable.

holly_hobby

Pre 2007 CCAs, tend to have been improperly executed breaching the regulatory requirements of S60(1) of the CCA74 - ie typically not all prescribed terms are included within the 4 corners of the agreement (which can run to several pages) - and thats the basis of any unenforceablitly claim.

Post this date (and as a result of a court case) Creditors sought to ensure that CCAs issued from this point were watertight (although you do still see a howler or 2 even post the 2007 clean up ).

Hope this helps

Holly

fermi

Useful post (amongst others) from Paul (pt2537 from CAG/legalbeagels/AAD etc)

http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/a-point-of-interest-that-arose-today/

Also the OFT guidance on s77/8 requests which is very much required reading.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT1272.pdf

happy_bunny_2

They can send you a reconstituted one for a pre 2007 one to satisfy the CCA request. But, still need signed original, not a copy, to enforce in court.

Rule of thumb from experience, if they have the original, they photo copy it. If they don't, they send a reconstituted one and claim its the same terms when usually its not even close. They don't usually have the original.

Once you get a response, even signed copy, it can then be checked for prescribed terms etc.

holly_hobby

happy_bunny wrote: »

They can send you a reconstituted one for a pre 2007 one to satisfy the CCA request. But, still need signed original, not a copy, to enforce in court.

Thats not correct - a true copy can be presented and relied upon by the creditor as evidence, it would be up to the debtor to prove the "true" copy wasn't a true copy at all.

Referring to your ealier post, S127(3) was repealed under 2006 CCA, but not retrospectively for pre 2007 accts - which I think you said, but I just wanted to confirm x

IMHO and if stalling until becoming SBd isn't possible (when given the risk of failing at court), the best route in situs as this, would be to keep the matter out of court, and come to a reduced repayment or F&F arrangement (if affordability was the basis of seeking the CCA in order to examine if it was correctly executed).

If court is the route, then I wouldn't advise anyone to go as LIP - unless they are super organised, know the subject and regs, and have a pretty strong character - employing a suitable legal rep would be my advice.

Hope this helps

Holly x

PS - if you read the links by Femi, it also discusses the above

kidsnocash

Hi,

Thanks to everyone for all of the replies, its a lot to digest so will be doing a bit more reading today. I am still a bit unsure as to what to do next. Should I request a CCA from CRAPquest or send them the same dispute letter as I have for the other DCAs?

Thanks.

matttye

kidsnocash wrote: »

Hi,

Thanks to everyone for all of the replies, its a lot to digest so will be doing a bit more reading today. I am still a bit unsure as to what to do next. Should I request a CCA from CRAPquest or send them the same dispute letter as I have for the other DCAs?

Thanks.

I think pointing out that the debt was in dispute with lloyds and they have so far failed to provide a CCA upon request, so the debt should never have been sold, will suffice.

fermi

matttye wrote: »

I think pointing out that the debt was in dispute with lloyds and they have so far failed to provide a CCA upon request, so the debt should never have been sold, will suffice.

Problem with that is:

- Under OFT guidance lack of a CCA on it's own is not classed as a "dispute" as such. It has to be something more like whether the debt is actually owed, the amount is correct etc.
- Even when there is a valid dispute, there is nothing to prevent the debt being sold on. That is a forum myth that persist becasue it has been wrongly put into 100's of old templates and repeated over and over.
- However, if a disputed debt is sold it would be very bad practice for the seller not to pass on full details of it to the buyer, and the OFT have made that clear to the banks etc.

- While I would not consider it as acknowledgement, disputing the CCA with CQ without also in some form disputing that fact of or denying the whole debt could be taken by some less favourable judges as tacit acknowledgement.

It is always hard to say what is the best courts in cases like this. Sometimes it seems like damned if you do or damned if you don't. Which is why I thought waiting for their next move before biting might be a less worse option? Just my opinion though. The OP has to make up their mind as only they have the full circumstances upon which to judge.