CCAs for credit obtained after 2007.

fermi

Brogden wrote: »

I think a penny is starting to drop here....they buy cheap in a rush at the best price knowing some of what they buy will be completely loss making. Due dilligence would be time consuming and costly so they don't bother.........is that about it.......?

Precisely.

It's a truly scummy industry/sector.

Brogden

As we know I am having a CCA campaign on my remaining debts and yesterday received the second response. This is from Arrow Global who own a cc debt which was assigned from a Spanish company.......

'We thank you for your letter dated XXXX received XXXX and acknowledge your request for documentation pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

We do not accept that we are the creditor as envisaged by the above statute. However, we are willing to assist in obtaining that which has been requested.......'


I do not necessarily think this will be of assistance to me but I have scanned the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the definition of creditor is as follows:-

"creditor" means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor;

As the rights and duties under the agreement HAVE been assigned to Arrow Global, how on earth can they not accept they are the creditor 'envisaged' by the act........?

Any comments are welcome and any opinions as to whether AG's text is purely a platitude in order that they do not look so foolish for not having in their possession what I have legal entilement to? OK.......they say they are obtaining it for me but.........???????????

Thanks all.

fermi

Lies and bullsheet from Arrow.

There is a case that confirms that they are the 'creditor'.

https://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/jones-v-link-financail-limited/

Brogden

Thanks Ferni.

I believe Arrow Global to be a sizeable organisation and of course, FCA regulated. I do not accept they are 'thick.' As such a standard letter wording, no doubt drafted by a senior person and not a 'one off mistake' containing a flagrant lie is not at all acceptable. I will remember this when I go to the next stage with them.

Cheers !!

sourcrates

Brogden wrote: »

Thanks Ferni.

I believe Arrow Global to be a sizeable organisation and of course, FCA regulated. I do not accept they are 'thick.' As such a standard letter wording, no doubt drafted by a senior person and not a 'one off mistake' containing a flagrant lie is not at all acceptable. I will remember this when I go to the next stage with them.

Cheers !!

I have often thought to myself, do they employ complete numptys at these companies ?
Or do they really believe none of us can use Google, as some of the claptrap they come out with is just bizarre.

Brogden

Although this may be a 'nicey-nicey' world of political correctness we should all be on our guard at all times.

Debt purchasers / DCA's are just one element. We are discussing them here because they try to have some of us 'over a barrell.'

In a world where the corporate image / good websites / quality letter paper / logos are absolutely everything, there is a danger that we can be led to believe everything we are told. We should not forget that in the high-quality corporate presentation there sometimes exists pure trash !!

Brogden

Well I posted about Arrow Global earlier in the thread. I have now received a response from BoS following submission of my CCA request.

Whilst these guys were bankrupt in 2008, they would appear to have got their act in order on the matter of CCA's.

This is a reconstitued agreement and whilst it contains my name an address typed at the top, my signature is not present but it was my understanding that this is 'OK' from their standpoint.

I have read through the agreement and it's all exactly what I would have expected. Also it mentions regulation by the FSA and not the FCA! That is the only thing I would have jumped on if they had got that wrong - our noble regulator was the FSA at the time !

I am quietly tittering at the tone of the covering letter and its gleeful smugness !

'By providing you with the documents attached to this letter, we have satisfied our obligation to provide a copy of the executed agreement under Section 78. As such the agreement is fully enforcable and we shall continue to treat it as such. We will not be entering into any further correspondence with you regarding the requirements relating to the provision of copy agreement.'

Blunt to the point of rudeness :rotfl:!!

Unlike some guys I am not totally 'gung-ho' on this CCA thing. Before going on this little venture I wondered what I would do with what I found.

I would be very interested if any person more knowledgable than myself can suggest anything which I should be looking for in the paperwork I have received......or any omissions I could spot.

I will say now.....whatever happens on any of my CCA requests, I will not just be walking away. However......IF an arrogant smug predator such as this has been dishonest or incompetent in any matter at all then I will use that to my advantage as I terminate my relationship with them. I am sure anybody reading this can understand where I am comng from .

Thanks and all assistance gratefully received and highly valued!!

[Deleted User]

Brogden, thanks for that excellent post:T. I always enjoy what you write on whichever thread I spot you on, but this one struck even more of a chord than usual.

I'm watching people's experiences with CCAs with great interest as I decide whether to go down that route myself. Being a total wimp:o I'm terrified of rocking any boats when my DMP is running smoothly and my predators have all gone very quiet;)

Like you, it's the puzzlement of what to look for in any documentation I might receive and what to do with any information that seems 'wrong' that is stopping me doing anything at all. Procrastination is a mega character flaw of mine:o

Good Luck in getting some good advice from other posters and in whatever you do next:beer:. I'll be following with interest while I dither about deciding whether to dip my toe in;)

fermi

The original terms and variations must genuinely be the ones associated with the account, but don't have to be taken from an actual original copy of your agreement as long as they are correct for your account.

The legal point of s 77-9 request as it was intended in law is to give you information on the terms of you account and current state, not as a means to check every technicality.

As per Carey, also....

"The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made;"

So saying it is missing this or missing that or this/that is wrong, does not mean the CCA request has not been satisfied, as long as what has been given were actually the original terms and how they have been varied over time.

As you say, does not have to be signed.

Brogden

Thanks again Ferni.

I get the gist and the general meaning .

With the response I received from Arrow Global (earlier in this thread) I see they are telling me a lie which is very worth my knowing and may (may not) assist me to some degree although I will await receipt of the CCA before tackling them further on this.......it may not arrive, of course .

With this latest BoS response....well......this is just my gut feeling which I use all the time and is reliable......this CCA is OK.......I believe it is the genuine article. I am not for a second being 'frightened off' by their stroppy wording and I would absolutely love to drive a tank in there.......BUT........my gut tells me this is correct and in order from their standpoint.

I am taking no further action on this one and will shortly address them on the subject of a reduced final settlement without further reference to this matter. At least I know I have attacked them in every way I could have (they paid me £100 compo the other day too for inadequate credit file reporting :T)

Thanks again.