Lloyds 1978 cc

[nightwatch]

I'll start at the begining, coz it's a long story

Hubby took out tis card in the dark ages of 1978, he cannot remember signing anything, and we think it was linked to his TSB account.

we defaulted on the account 2002
and received a letter saying they had CLOSED the accountand a default was issued but I can't find it

2003
Letter from Lloyds,26th may, our reduced payment arangement was at an end
new payment proposal sent back and agreed to for 12 months

1st aug,letter to say they were disapointed that we had not kept to our committment and they would issue a default if we did'nt pay arrears
we have paid and we can proove it letter sent

8th aug, letter received, thank you for contacting them and 'YOUR ACCOUNT IS NOW CLOSED.

Default dated,27th aug received,th jan asking for arrears of £138.0,to be paid by 10th sep, ignored

22nd sept,letter from SCM, stating that dispite several reminders and a default, our account remains out of order, and asking for payment of the full outstanding balance.or cout action MAY be taken
letter sent, we don't owe it we are making payments,

24th oct;letter from MHA, lloyds have instructed them to collect the arrears of £296.00, if we don't send immidiate payment, SCM may start legal proceedings
letter sent, we have been contacted by SCM, go away.

2004
Default dated14th jan received, for arrears of £296.0, payment to be made by 28th jan

28th jan, letter from LLoyds Demanding full outstanding balance
letter sent we are paying you what we can afford, and you agreed to it.

24th Mar, letter from Lloyds, thanking us for keeping to our arangement, and it has now come to an end.
In future our statements will ask for a minimum monthly amount,
letter sent, you can ask for what you like but we can't pay it, new prorata offer sent. agreed to.

2005 new payments kept to
2006/7 only received statements no letters
2008, this is received
will continue later need a brew ♥

[nightwatch]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

to continue...
all was well in fairytale land,apart from the odd letter to say they were reducing our credit limit on a closed account

April 2010 letter to say arrangement has come to an end
letter sent back with new prorata offer

May 2010
statement received asking for a payment of £120,
£13 payment and intrest of £89.
letter sent with copy of original letter offering prorata payment

June.letter saying account is on way to to Consumer Dept Recovery team.and they will accept the payment offered. If payments not upto date arrangement canceled
june statement asking for missed payments

July formal notice of missed paymentsfor June & July
july statement asking for missed payments
Aug statement asking for missed payments

Default notice received dated 17th Aug,asking for payment of arrears by 6th sept

letter from SCM dated 17th Sept, asking for the full balance,cards retuned ect.or else Court proceedings may be instigated
letter to scumm with copy of Loyds letter accepting my offer,and asking Lloyds to contact me as I am still awaiting a letter from them

sept statement asking for missed payments
CCA requested,
received Curent T&C with this address on ,not where we lived when account opened
and this

[garlok]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

I have asked Paul for clarification as you know on the other thread. However without having the original document they can make no statement as to its enforceability on the lines they have in the letter. As far as I know the 1974 Act came into force during September 1977 but am open to contradiction. This means that the protections of s127 would apply.

They have been very careful to state thaty they only have to supply you with etc. I think that to enforce in a court they will have to find that original document. They stae they are still looking for it and I think I would consider making a demand under the CPUTR2008 regs as to whether they had it or not. They cannot prevaricate on this. It is an offence to lie because the Enterprise Act to which it is closely linked uses those words like indictment implying at the very least criminal. They have played the retrospective regulations card here and what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

Plus the bits of the Lisbon Treaty that our Government were forced to sign up to (and not escape under protocol appendices 27 and 28) and abide by, as a European citizen you have a fundamental right not to be disadvantaged by retrospective law, in fact you can never be made a victim of retrospective law. This clearly is one of those matters which makes English Law a complete ASS. Either the agreement is regulated by the Law of the day or it is not. In which case they will have to come clean.

Just my view so far from my studies on it which I hasten to add are NOT conclusive hence my request.

regards
Garlok

[nightwatch]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

back again

October 2010 statement asking for missed payments

Nov notice of none payment of arrears
24th nov. letter rec sying they are willing to accept the payments offered for 6 months this was in april

2011
letter sent to Lloyds saying I would like clarification of the DN issued as they closed the account in 2002, and i was not in arrears, as i had made payments, and they had not made contact wich me for 10 months
also wanted to know how they could mark CRA files with AP when they had registered a default on it in 2002,
Received this back

[nightwatch]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

hi garlok
in the letter i sent early this year I asked at the end of it for them to state one way or anothet under CPUTR2008 about the CCA, sa you can see she says she has requested a copy and will forward it
and she hadn;t tried to contact me as no unexplained number came up on my truecall

[garlok]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

I would therefore send a final demand giving them 7 days for a formal declaration under CPUTR quoting that original letter and prepare a complaint to the OFT. You cannot unfortunately take any sanctions yourself, only the regulators. Remember you are not asking for a copy of it just a clear declaration that they actually have it. If they don't then bye bye would be my reaction. If they do subsequently produce in a court, if they have said no then they will have shot themselves in the foot. They would be clearly admitting a serious offence.

regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

They don't even need to comply with s.78 anyway as the account is pre-1985

read from here - Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008 - Page 2 - allaboutFORUMS

[garlok]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

That is the fundamental problem mate. They (the creditors in general) are claiming that the agreement is regulated by an Act which came into force in September 1977. However we now have these retrospective regulations which ar now saying that they do not need to comply with s78 shall we say with regard to copy documentation. Therefore as I have said there is a limbo situation here. Either the agreements are regulated and fall under the control of the CCA1974 or they don't. It has always been drummed into me that you cannot cherry pick the bits of law that suit you and in any the regulations as such are not retrospective ( see Paul's comments) and are not on the Statute Book. So having decided they are regulated by CCA1974 and all protection has been lost to the consumer as regards copy documentation, how does the enforcement issue stand? Are we now saying that all agreements before May 1985 are enforceable in keeping with all agreements post April 2007?

That being the case the principles laid down in Common Law must therefore apply or the old Money Lending act regulations have to come into play?

Can you see what I am trying to say here. There is this grey murky area that no one anywhere wants to discuss or clear up in a definitive way. There are as I have said more serious principles at stake as this is a serious disadvantage to the consumer who cannot be made a victim of retrospective law. Fundamental rpinciple surely?

regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

Can you see what I am trying to say here. There is this grey murky area that no one anywhere wants to discuss or clear up in a definitive way. There are as I have said more serious principles at stake as this is a serious disadvantage to the consumer who cannot be made a victim of retrospective law. Fundamental rpinciple surely?

regards
Garlok

I follow what you're saying mate, but retrospective law would mean anything after the date it became law (or brought into effect) so as a lender can *shirk* their duties in line with the link I posted of Rizzles, this is more to do with providing a copy or original document - so in essence all the lender needs to do to satisfy s.78 or whatever is send terms - that does not excuse any declaration under CPUTR etc does it? I wouldn't think so, however as you say maybe Paul is best to clarify this one but my gut feeling would be that to satisfy s.78 they can send some current terms but that does not mean they can enforce the actual agreement in court....

remember enforcement and satisfactory completion of a CCA Request are two separate issues - all I am saying is lets forget the s,78 front and move toward CPUTR. They would still be covered under the normal s.127 rules, as this is not dependant upon s.78 being satisfied (is it?)..?

Jesus you like to pick the hard ones don't you mate

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

Having re-read this, it is clear they will not be able to enforce this in court so why not just stop the payments, demand clarity under CPUTR and then ignore them, await them taking action - at which point they would fail as they'd need the document to rely on in court and with something so old they'd struggle to provide satisfactory prescribed terms, plus the odds of them sending you a copy of the agreement back then would have been slim... as for a signed form, well we all know that means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but I really don't see what Lloyds think they can achieve here - they do not have the agreement, so lets get some local terms and then SAR them and get a mis-match of data such as their quoted APR - loads of ways to catch them out and make them make a mistake - if we really want to push it....

[garlok]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

No not trying to be difficult, but thanks anyway. Its niggled at me for a longtime and nightwatch came up with a specific case which is so very close to our own in many ways.

I have always thought that s127 would take precedence when it came to enforcement but for anyone just starting out as a lyperson this can be daunting, the Act says one thing but the regulations say another. You know my position on the "Carey" thing about s78 for information purposes only and have always treatd enforcement as a diferent matter to information requests. Hence perhaps put simply its just a bit more of a gamble with these pre 1985 agreements.

As we have said CPUTR should clear this up and my opinion for nightwatch is that they are trying fudge the issue with smoke and mirrors. I.E it is likely that they don't have anything substantial.

regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

[QUOTE=garlok;120943]As we have said CPUTR should clear this up and my opinion for nightwatch is that they are trying fudge the issue with smoke and mirrors. I.E it is likely that they don't have anything substantial.QUOTE] Yep totally agree mate - using your recent template here: ---> New Templates - CPUTR

[nightwatch]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

Will send new CPUTR letter tomoz. Will also SAR them. and update when anything received

many thanks to you all, for your input
Have a good evening
NW

[nightwatch]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

Latest up date;
no reply from Lloyds to my CPUTR letter
no acknowledgement of the SAR
both sent recorded and both delivered

we wait???

[oscar]

Re: Lloyds 1978 cc

CPUTR they not obliged to respond to (i think)

SAR they have a good few days before deadline passes.and then they will probably be late given their work volumes