Tweet
Some brief history.....
Stopped paying this account about 2 years ago after CCA'ing them.
The agreement looks like a c&p, which seems normal with msdw agreements of the 2004 / 2005 era.
It went through the normal chain of in house and external dca's who always passed it on when they received the account in dispute letter.
All went quiet when I sent Barclays a cputr letter where rightly or wrongly, I asked if they held a compliant and unadulterated agreement.
They wrote back neither confirming or denying the same, just saying they had fulfilled their obligations.
All quiet for months and now sold to Lowell.
One thing that confirmed my thoughts of a c&p is a copy of the same agreement that a cagger posted up on cag.
On the reverse, it shows the key financial data (pt's) with some more writing underneath. Now when I compared this to mine, there was a noticeable difference in the size of the gap from where the key financial data ends to where the next piece of writing starts? - I can see no other reason for this other than a poor c&p.
Also, it's my belief that the rear of these agreements were only ever ad's. The key financial date was never there. The rear of these were c&p'd and the extra data added in.
Anyway, with Lowell's now on the case, I'll send a copy of the agreement to Nids to cast his expert eye over before replying to Lowell's.
In the meantime, I'm going to try and find a copy of that agreement that shows the difference on the rear.
Stopped paying this account about 2 years ago after CCA'ing them.
The agreement looks like a c&p, which seems normal with msdw agreements of the 2004 / 2005 era.
It went through the normal chain of in house and external dca's who always passed it on when they received the account in dispute letter.
All went quiet when I sent Barclays a cputr letter where rightly or wrongly, I asked if they held a compliant and unadulterated agreement.
They wrote back neither confirming or denying the same, just saying they had fulfilled their obligations.
All quiet for months and now sold to Lowell.
One thing that confirmed my thoughts of a c&p is a copy of the same agreement that a cagger posted up on cag.
On the reverse, it shows the key financial data (pt's) with some more writing underneath. Now when I compared this to mine, there was a noticeable difference in the size of the gap from where the key financial data ends to where the next piece of writing starts? - I can see no other reason for this other than a poor c&p.
Also, it's my belief that the rear of these agreements were only ever ad's. The key financial date was never there. The rear of these were c&p'd and the extra data added in.
Anyway, with Lowell's now on the case, I'll send a copy of the agreement to Nids to cast his expert eye over before replying to Lowell's.
In the meantime, I'm going to try and find a copy of that agreement that shows the difference on the rear.
Comment