Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

[thechippy]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

Update,

They've done as expected and quoted Carey chapter and verse.
They've ignored that I pointed out the original agreement does not exist and what they sent me does not pertain to the original.

Their letter states that unless I come to an agreement, the creditor has instructed them to issue proceedings. Therefore, I'm taking this as a lba.

Next move guy's?

Thanks as always...

[thechippy]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

Cheers all,

I'll probably hear from them this week and let you know their "considered" reply.........

[ATW]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

it looks like they cant go back far enough to satisfy the s78 request. They need to send you a copy of the agreement as at the date of execution rather than from a random date.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

I'll nudge andrew in the morning for you. Sit tight.

[thechippy]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

Cheers buddy,

Basically, I told them that what they sent was tantamount to bog roll. I also reiterated the fact that they already know full well a copy of the original executed doc is not available.

[ScabHunter]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

Any reconstitution needs to be a 'true copy' of the original. So, if they've sent you something featuring a brand name from a card which you never owned, it cannot be a true copy.

Even the incredibly lax laws we have to suffer under don't just allow them to stick pages from the Dandy and Beano together and make out that they are an “agreement.”

SH

[thechippy]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

anyone?

[thechippy]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

Sent a letter today - thanks.
I basically used the template where a creditor refuses to accept unenforceability, with a few tweaks including Andrews sentence as above.

Out of curiosity though...and sorry if this has been done to death.......

They will probably come back stating Carey and that they have in fact fulfilled my sec78 request and it's enforceable blah blah.
Now, as what they have sent obviously does not bear any resemblance to the original agreement, does that mean they have in fact not complied?

Just finding it all interesting that's all. I think this was originally in fact an Associates card, then bought by Citi (who sent a card) but once it went to Opus, no card was received, so I've not in fact ever held an Opus card.
If they continue to quote Carey and "infer" legal action, shall I just throw Carey sec108 and 234 back at them?

[thechippy]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

Thanks Andrew,

It's SB in about 18 months.
Shall I do the reply very brief, as above - or would one of the templates be more suitable?

I just checked my files and what they sent today is an exact copy of what Cabot sent me around 18 months ago.
Whether it means anything or not, I can't see where "Progressive Credit" come into it? The header letter is from Opus which states the agreement is with progressive and the "agreement" they sent says progressive as well and not Opus? - odd.

Thanks as usual.

[ATW]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

tell em that what they have sent you are not the T&Cs as at the date that the agreement was entered into and that the s78 request is therefore still outstanding and that as a result the agreement is unenforceable so they should get lost and leave you alone.

when is it statute bared?

[thechippy]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

Hi all,

Hope you are well.
It continues............

Just had a letter from Weightmans. Basically, they have enclosed a copy of the Opus T&C's and are saying it's a true copy of my agreement.
It starts as saying "This is a credit card agreement regulated by etc" Parties to the agreement are Progressive Credit and chippy.
It then follows on with credit limits / apr's etc and the terms. I suppose this is attempting to be a recon rather than just the terms?

There are no signature boxes etc.

Now, the original agreement was with Citi, not Opus - they just bought the accounts from Citi. As you know, I already sent Marlins / Weightmans the letter from Citi stating they do not have my original agreement.

The letter states the usual, that I have 7 days to give payment proposals, or their client (Marlin), who've been instructed by Cabot, will consider issuing proceedings.

Next move?

Thanks in advance as usual.

[thechippy]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

Update.

Thanks guy's - the letter worked.
The matter has been referred back to Marlins........

I await the next move.......

[thechippy]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

Thanks all,

Just drafted it and will try to post tomorrow.
I have included a copy of the letter from the OC stating they can't find the agreement, and as such the account is unenforceable, along with Marlins response to that letter stating they are asking the OC again, as they "do not hold all of my information on file".

Will keep you informed.

Thanks as usual guy's and gal's..........

[PlanB]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

It just says that as no payment agreement has been sorted, that their client now has several options on how to proceed, one of them being to start court proceedings, although it does not state they will.
It says they would prefer to negotiate rather than start proceedings. I suppose it could be "loosely" deemed a LBA?

They want me to return their I&E form within 7 days, but that's already in the bin..
It does kinda seem that they and Marlin are not communicating, especially as they say no valid dispute has been raised....

That doesn't sound like a LBA to me, or at least not a compliant one.

They're not saying you haven't got a dispute, they're saying you haven't got a valid dispute; but that's not their decision, that's a decision for the judge to make further down the line (only if things get that far).

Send them the letter Andrew suggested pronto. There's not a template letter for this so you'll have to write it for yourself but the content is made clear in his post.

You could send em a copy of the letter where it was admitted that the agreement can't be found and that the account is therefore unenforceable and point out that because of that they can't win at trial and you don't feel inclined to make a voluntary payment to them. Ask them whether they acknowledge that under such circumstances there is certainly a valid dispute regarding enforceability.

[thechippy]

Re: Citicard / Opus / Cabot Vs The Chippy

It just says that as no payment agreement has been sorted, that their client now has several options on how to proceed, one of them being to start court proceedings, although it does not state they will.
It says they would prefer to negotiate rather than start proceedings. I suppose it could be "loosely" deemed a LBA?

They want me to return their I&E form within 7 days, but that's already in the bin..
It does kinda seem that they and Marlin are not communicating, especially as they say no valid dispute has been raised....