Transformer999-V-Vanquis

[transformer999]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

Thanks TC no court case at the mo

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

Great!! I received another letter yesterday from Lowells.

Getting a bit fed up now with what to respond. Maybe I should send a CCA Request now....see what happens?

Strange = Lowells have been reported as aggressive lately yet they are passing a collection letter to another? makes you wonder if they are bluffing as have no court case at this stage?

[transformer999]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

Great!! I received another letter yesterday from Lowells.

Getting a bit fed up now with what to respond. Maybe I should send a CCA Request now....see what happens?

[transformer999]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

Thanks again planB...I have dug up the agreement although I am not sure if it was 5 pages with the digital tick on the last one....but this is all I have.

I wandered whether I should be making another request for one?

[ScabHunter]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

I still think the most important fact here is that PPI was added without the knowledge or consent of the account holder. So whatever else happens it won't be enforceable.

That latest letter just looks like a pathetic equitable assignment. The equitable assignee will have no legal right to take action, and if Clownell wanted to sue why are they assigning the alleged debt elsewhere?

I think they know they would need a totally biased bank-friendly judge to have any chance of getting a judgment in this case, and it is a small amount of money to take a huge risk over.

Just my opinion and I may be wrong, but I don't see any danger here.

SH

[PlanB]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

Thanks planB...I took this account out online and sign a digital tick.....so no need for a signature needed I believe on these types of agreements.

I guess no harm can be done if I make another request and see what response I get...and yes good thing it is below £750...

So you've already sent a s.78 request I can't find that post on this thread but there was talk of sending a SAR If it was an online application and you ticked the "signature" box can you say what year that was because it may make a difference.

Sorry if I'm being stupid but I can't find the info I'm looking for in your thread

[transformer999]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

Thanks planB...I took this account out online and sign a digital tick.....so no need for a signature needed I believe on these types of agreements.

I guess no harm can be done if I make another request and see what response I get...and yes good thing it is below £750...

[PlanB]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

I noticed that the letter received today is addressed to my home address....where I moved out of my home last year and had to live with my sister I was until today receiving letters from Lowells there....but today it is addressed to my home address.

Looks like they have been looking through my credit file.....I did not tell them that I moved back home.....but they knew that I was living here previously.

I haven't had time to read back though your thread but have you already sent a s.78 request and was the account deemed UE as a result of the response you got back I ask because you may be taking a risk relying only on a faulty DN if the account is in all other respects.

You've said you fear a county court summons but sadly Lowells' favourite collection tool is a SD. If they've sent the latest letter to your home address even though you've not given them that address before then they have been tracing you hopefully through a CRA and not Land Registry

I'm not being alarmist, I'm just someone who cannot ignore any letter which drops on my mat. Replying doesn't necessarily have to compromise your SB position but since this is a relatively small debt they won't be able to go for BR because it's below the £750 limit

See what others say

[transformer999]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

I noticed that the letter received today is addressed to my home address....where I moved out of my home last year and had to live with my sister I was until today receiving letters from Lowells there....but today it is addressed to my home address.

Looks like they have been looking through my credit file.....I did not tell them that I moved back home.....but they knew that I was living here previously.

[transformer999]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

Looks like I spoke too soon...received another letter this morning from Lowells saying that they have passed my debt to "Debt Managers"?

I swear the last letter before this was from Hamptons? no discount on this I see........

[transformer999]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

Thanks planB...very useful and great response I must say.......

[PlanB]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

I know all the advice in the past has been to file & ignore letters from the DCA's and maybe now we should not be doing this and be better to make an offer of repayment if for nothing else but to stop any claim being issued?

You can always make an offer of repayment after proceedings have been issued to prevent the case going to court Either a one-off reduced payment or agreed monthly installments written up as a settlement in a Tomlin order (or Consent order if they insist).

That way there is no court hearing, no CCJ and therefore no CO and nothing recorded on your CRA file other than "settled" The Default will drop off your file after six years whether you pay it or not as FP has already said.

[transformer999]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

Thanks ScabHunter...wow you have given me some very good points to think about there and yes I must say I agree with you.

Its just I want to be prepared if anything like this did happen...lord knows I have enough going on at the moment ...PPI was added which I did not want....and the DN is faulty....plus Vanquis refused several offers of payments from me....so guess I will just wait and see what happens with this.

Thank you so much for popping in xx

[ScabHunter]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

The new charging order rules are obviously not in the favour of anyone borrowing money and potentially finding themselves in a debt situation, but the creditor still has hoops to jump through before this even becomes a factor. The new rules do not alter the probabilities for the outcome of a case.

I see from the initial post that PPI was added to the account without your consent. This will affect the legitimacy of the default, and you say that the default notice is defective in any case. There is no hard copy of the agreement, so where is the agreement which needs to be signed for you to consent to PPI?

I see Clownell and their various “disguises” have been making offers of discounts at regular intervals, which is a near-certain sign that they are not confident of winning a potential court battle. As the new charging order laws do not affect the probability of the outcome, this will still be the case.

I would definitely not be making any offers to pay anything on this. I would be prepared to defend the case if that became necessary.

SH

[transformer999]

Re: Transformer999-V-Vanquis

I've been thinking that since the new rules about charging orders and ccj's have come in since 1 October 12 does that now mean that I should be expecting Lowells, Red or Vanquis to be issuing a claim against me soon...I know that my DN is faulty and since these new rules may not matter if Vanquis decide to issue me one last letter LBA and then issue proceedings.?

I know all the advice in the past has been to file & ignore letters from the DCA's and maybe now we should not be doing this and be better to make an offer of repayment if for nothing else but to stop any claim being issued?

Any thoughts from people on this please?