SaltnVinegar v MKDP

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

I would never tell a creditor what they've got wrong in a CCA response. Thank goodness they failed to put it right after you told them

Well they certainly can't argue that they weren't informed now! The last time I brought it to their attention the returning letter referred me back to their 'Final Response', which did nothing to address any of the points of my complaint, but instead told me to contact Barclaycard and report a case of identify fraud, which is nowhere close to what my complaint was about (if they had bothered to read it).

Thinking more on this now, I won't resend the CCA request, just incase they do put it right, and as they have issued their 'Final Response', and are sticking with that, suits me perfectly. I will though send the MPT letter which is sufficiently vague, and also gives them more opportunity to take some rope.

[PlanB]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

I usually complain, but keep it vague.

I sometimes pose rhetorical questions such as "how can you reconstitute a credit agreement which never existed in the first place?". I'm not actually saying there wasn't one but I'm planting that doubt in their mind.

Barclaycard have a dedicated email address for debt purchasers to contact them for agreements if the debtor queries the recon. That's when they start to dig deeper. I was thinking of spamming that email address

Plan B x

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

I totally agree with that. I usually complain, but keep it vague. On the one occasion I didn't, regarding a Halifax CC that was being aggressively pursued by Capquest, I drip fed them various points of contention to keep them at bay as it was approaching SB. Unfortunately someone decided to make it their life's work to find the original agreement, which they supplied, together with a request for my bank details so I could be given £150 in compensation for the rest of the complaints.
I never replied to that-I figured £3K going SB was worth more than £150 - and it quietly slid past the SB date last December. Phew!

[PlanB]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

they also have the wrong address on all the statements they have sent. I have pointed this out to them now in 3 letters and they have failed to put it right

I would never tell a creditor what they've got wrong in a CCA response.

I'd just keep telling them they've not complied with the request in general terms using our templates (MPT or illegible etc) and that's that. Let them find out the hard way in court.

Thank goodness they failed to put it right after you told them

Plan B x

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

They put the wrong address on the second recon so how could it have been a "true" copy

Exactly the position they are in with me - they also have the wrong address on all the statements they have sent. I have pointed this out to them now in 3 letters and they have failed to put it right, I don't feel inclined to give them any more opportunities or help on that matter, as if they did issue a court claim I would be pointing out that I gave them plenty of opportunity!

[PlanB]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

How did it cause them problems Plan B? Assume that they had trouble asserting they had provided a true copy

They put the wrong address on the second recon so how could it have been a "true" copy

They got it right first time.

The court relies on the most recent CCA response so we didn't disclose the first one and neither did they.

Plan B x

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

You could do that, or you could send them a new CCA request since it's over a year from the last one. You may get back different documents this time. I did with my second request and it did them damage in court.

How did it cause them problems Plan B? Assume that they had trouble asserting they had provided a true copy and casted doubt on validity of prescribed terms under s61?

When is this debt due to go SB? If it's in the near future you may want to spread out your letter writing to pass the time.

Its another 18 months unfortunately so more than enough time for them to issue a claim. Another CCA request isn't a bad idea.

Best
SnV

[PlanB]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

the MPT letter is printed out and all set to go off in the post recorded delivery tomorrow

You could do that, or you could send them a new CCA request since it's over a year from the last one. You may get back different documents this time. I did with my second request and it did them damage in court.

When is this debt due to go SB? If it's in the near future you may want to spread out your letter writing to pass the time.

If you send a new CCA request they will have to reply to it. When you get that reply you can send them the MPT letter and so on.

It's up to you really.

Plan B x

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

Ok well the MPT letter is printed out and all set to go off in the post recorded delivery tomorrow

[Spud]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

I'm thinking of firing off the vanilla MPT letter, even though they have told me they have issued a 'final response' just to keep the paper trail going.

Best

SnV

This is all sounding very very familiar, too familiar.....

I don't see how sending the MPT letter with a paragraph linking back to your previous letters would do any harm, Indeed It would be my trail of thought that it shows that you have kept dialogue up and brought to their attention yet again that they have not got their ducks in a row, A point that you will no doubt hammer home should this ever come to court.

[SA Gold]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

Glad to see you are well prepared for any tricks they may try on you SnV

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

Hi PlanB

Yes I should have been clearer. The complaint letters were a combination of the Missing Prescribed Terms letter and the LBA response (as things had gone to Keynes and were giving me 14 days or else threats).

What they have sent is this:

1) A copy of an agreement with T&C's which relate to an address I have never lived at
2) An account statement, but no transaction on how the balance was accrued

So my thoughts are that they may fail under s78 as they have not sent me a true copy (though perhaps wrong address may be argued de minimus, but they have not provided evidence on how the account was accrued), and they are more likely fail s61. But yes I will send to Niddy later today to review as looking at the dates of the T&C's I'm not sure that they are the correct ones for when the agreement was created (another fault).

But you're right, there are no direct threats yet, but I'm conscious that this lot don't seem to have a lot of common sense (which helps), and are happy to fire off claims willy nilly (which doesn't help!).

I'm thinking of firing off the vanilla MPT letter, even though they have told me they have issued a 'final response' just to keep the paper trail going.

Best

SnV

I can see you've sent a handful of "Complaint" letters but I don't see any of the usual templates such as Missing Prescribed Terms or Illegible following your CCA response on 11th June last year.

You say the CCA they sent is a recon. That's highly likely but the question is whether it is a satisfactory recon which could be enough to pass the s.78 test (albeit fail s.61). Have you sent it to Niddy to check, if not then I think you should. If it's Barclaycard I'm pretty sure what it'll look like.

It's over a year since you sent that CCA request so be on standby to send another if the letters get threatening but not yet. All they are saying is they may escalate things to another department within the Compello Group which may do bad things to you, but there's no direct threat which I can see.

It's unusual to get a letter from the Trace Department but I suppose you did raise the issue of your address in your special complaint letter so they say they've double checked it with a CRA file.

Plan B x

[PlanB]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

I can see you've sent a handful of "Complaint" letters but I don't see any of the usual templates such as Missing Prescribed Terms or Illegible following your CCA response on 11th June last year.

You say the CCA they sent is a recon. That's highly likely but the question is whether it is a satisfactory recon which could be enough to pass the s.78 test (albeit fail s.61). Have you sent it to Niddy to check, if not then I think you should. If it's Barclaycard I'm pretty sure what it'll look like.

It's over a year since you sent that CCA request so be on standby to send another if the letters get threatening but not yet. All they are saying is they may escalate things to another department within the Compello Group which may do bad things to you, but there's no direct threat which I can see.

It's unusual to get a letter from the Trace Department but I suppose you did raise the issue of your address in your special complaint letter so they say they've double checked it with a CRA file.

Plan B x

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

This is the last letter I sent to them:

FORMAL COMPLAINT
Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/2015, however I was disappointed to note that your letter, as in all your previous correspondence, has yet to address any of the points in the MULTIPLE letters sent to you via recorded delivery.

As can be seen from my letters the above alleged account is firmly disputed, yet you have instead tried to fob me off to the original creditor, have failed to carry out the legal provisions required of you and instead state that you re-commence a conduct that can only be considered harassment.

I remind you yet again of the contents of the Financial Conduct Authority Consumer Credit sourcebook (FCA CONC), in particular the following sections:

7.5.3A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid.

7.14.1 A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent takes in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds.

7.14.3 Where a customer disputes a debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds, the firm must investigate the dispute and provide details of the debt to the customer in a timely manner.

7.14.4 Where there is a dispute as to the identity of the borrower or hirer or as to the amount of the debt, it is for the firm (and not the customer) to establish, as the case may be, that the customer is the correct person in relation to the debt or that the amount is the correct amount owed under the agreement.

Instead of adhering to the above you have referred me back to your client. As per 7.14.4 may I remind you that it for the firm (i.e. YOU) to establish that the customer is the correct person in relation to the debt, or that the amount is the correct amount owed under the agreement.

To date, your firm has failed to do this.

With respect to the above sections of FCA CONC:

· Your firm have done nothing to provide a clear justification, or provide evidence why the claims I put to you in my letters are not valid but instead continue to make demands for payment with threats of legal action if no payment is made

· Your firm has not investigated the matters of the dispute, not provided the requested details of the alleged debt in a timely manner, but instead have tried to fob me off to the original creditor

· Your firm have done nothing to establish that I am the correct person in relation to the above alleged account

In consideration of your above conduct I will now be making the Financial Conduct Authority aware of your firms breaches of the Consumer Credit sourcebook and providing recent correspondence as evidence of such.

In the event that you have mislaid my previous correspondence let me point out to you yet again the issues that need to be resolved, and YOU as the firm, need to disprove:

· That the copy statements do not show any information as to how the balance you claim has been accrued, but instead the period of statements you have sent just show a balance and accrued interest and charges

· That the copy statements relate to a Mr xxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, London, xxxxxxx.

· That the cover letter provided to you by Barclaycard dated xx/xx/2014, with regard to a request under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act also related to a Mr xxxxxxxxx, London, xxxxxxx

· That the credit agreement provided to you by Barclaycard was also with a Mr xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, London, xxxxxxxxx

Please note that I have never lived at the address of xxxxxxxxxxx London, xxxxx, a fact that can be proved by electoral register information and consequently this account, and my liability for it is firmly disputed.

I would also respectfully remind you to make note of the following as you do not appear to have even taken this into consideration:

You should be aware that a request made under s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires you to send a true copy of the executed agreement that contains the prescribed terms, all other required terms and statutory notices and that was signed by both your company (or your client) and myself as defined in S.61(1) of the CCA(1974) and subsequent statutory instruments.

A true copy should contain, amongst other things, the prescribed terms and containing my name and address amongst the other relevant prescribed terms Consequently, if your assertion is that you have provided a true copy, then you are pursuing me for an account I am not liable for on the simple basis that no agreement has been made with me.


I should also remind you yet again of your obligations under the Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct (“PD-PAC”).

My previous letters have already identified your previous failures under PD-PAC, and your above conduct with regard to the breaches of FCA CONC also place you in further failure of the aforementioned requirements.

Your actions, and refusal to address the matters at hand are now considered vexatious. The matters that need to be resolved by YOU are extremely clear and I expect you to either carry out either the statutory legal requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, or you close this account.

Your intransigence, and the all previous correspondence informing you of the issues which you have failed to address will be brought to the attention of the court should litigation be brought by you.

You are also again advised that any litigation on the basis of your current position will result in an immediate application to the Court requesting the matter stayed with costs against you on the indemnity basis.

I refer you to Para 4.6 of the Practice Direction which explains the consequences of non compliance with the Pre action protocol.

As previously advised, I strongly suggest that you refer this account back to your client, or alternatively the account us closed unless any further correspondence from you addresses the valid dispute and matters raised.

Yours faithfully

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: SaltnVinegar v MKDP

Recieved this letter over the weekend. It doesn't give me a timeframe to respond, and states their 'pre-legal' department. I dislike how they are misrepresenting the fact that even if they obtained judgement, they neglect to state the fact that they would then have to apply to the court again to get a CO or AoE: