JD Williams/Reliable Collections

[csl]

Hi Everyone

About 18mths ago I asked Jdwilliams for a copy of my credit agreement which they failed to supply, i then wrote back saying that without a credit agreement i believed the account to be in dispute and would be grateful if they stopped sending me correspondence, they wrote back saying that if i went down the CCA route that it would be on my credit record for 6 years which i accepted.

I then didn't hear from them for 8 months, now in the past 3 weeks i have been bombarded with letters from their collections agency saying I'm in arrears and I need to pay up or they are likely to take court action and have bailiffs come round.

I am fully aware that they can't take court action as by there own omission they do not have a signed agreement is there anything i can do about them keep sending me letters. I'm getting them every week, sometimes twice a week.

[MrsD]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Hi csl

Do you actually have a letter saying that they don't have a properly executed CCA?

[csl]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Yes I have, they said that they didn't have a signed agreement and if I pursued the fact that as such the account was in dispute and the debt was unenforceable it would be on my credit record for 6 years

[MrsD]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

They are allowed to chase you for it I'm afraid, if they have no CCA they can't take you to court but they can chase you, default you and report the conduct of the account to the CRAs.

Have a read of the post below


allaboutFORUMS - View Single Post - Unenforceability Diaries - Read me First!

[garlok]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Hi csl,

They have clearly admitted that they do not have an enforceacble agreement therefore they are technically unable to enforce what they don't have. Unfortunately it appears to be the state of play that they will do as do all DCAs do, i.e. try to bully you into paying them. Don't is the simple answer. Do not discuss anything on the phone, no security questions no discussion, put the phome down. Log the call, time , date, who called brief couple of words as what they said and do keep this log. Every letter that comes mark with date received, and the envelope and also keep the envelope stapled preferably to the letter it contained. as ELD says, you really have to put up with it until they get fed up and the message, BUT they must comply with CCA 1974/2006 in full as regards defaults plus you can deamnd a declaration, not for the document itself but a declaration as to whether they actually hold enforceable documentation for this alleged debt under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regualtions 2008 which will also put them on the back foot for a while. It is an offence for them not to respond and they must not lie either.

In the circumstances, they cannot legitimately take you to court, if they try, the judge will love your paper trail. I will have a look through Niddy's templates, I'm pretty sure he will have one for these circumstances or one that can be adpated to suit.

regards
Garlok

[csl]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Thanks for the advice. I will keep them all together if you could find a template I'd appreciate it.

[caspar]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

I don't know if I'm misreading this. If the OP has a letter saying they can't supply an agreement to his CCA request, I don't normally advise this, but if he places it formally in dispute with them, would that not stop them being able to pursue enforcement action until the dispute is resolved. Thinking about it I think "enforcement action" may be deemed as court action rather than attempting to collect the debt?

[Deepie]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

http://www.all-about-debt.co.uk/page...n%202#temp-1-7
send the above along with the copy of the letter you've got saying they have not got the cca

[garlok]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Thanks I2D, That should suffice I would think.

However Casp, following the McGuffick debacle I think the DCAs have interpreted that to mean they can do anything they like up to and including court action as none of it is accepted as "enforcement" in the way you and I would interpret enforcement or attempted enforcement. To me that means anything as simple as a phone call or a letter.

After a recent discussion with our sols I am taking another look at the Administration of Justice Act and the Protection from Harrassment Act. Some posters on other forums have said that the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regs have superceded these. But based on the letters I have been instructed to send out in response to any nonsense from the idiots, that is not the case.

regards
Garlok

[caspar]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Yeah, As I said in my post, I thought I remembered reading that somewhere. I believe you're right sadly, but there's no harm in trying it, and if they go over the top take the Harassment line.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Casp, no need to put it in dispute. The templates we send from here leave an account disputed so unless the debtor says otherwise it is always regarded as being in dispute. But bear in mind they will take action if they wanted to, disputed or not. Banks/dca's always abuse the system but with dodgy judges and dodgier decisions (back hander mr Waksman?) what can we expect? How much was Waksman paid to be such a bell-end in Carey day reckon? I think HSBC bunged him a small fortune....

However, lets not forget the idiotic and wrong Carey judgment, Jusge Waksman started all this with the nonsense that says we should trust a banks integrity and let them create a fraudulent document using any means whatsoever. Pizza delivery/signature anyone

Sorry but this judgment still irks me. Legalised fraud and that came from a judges misinterpretation of an act that was NEVER passed to allow fraud. Sorry, utter crap.

You can see it still gets to me now.....

[garlok]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Tut Tut Niddy, I was berated very heavily in other places for the merest suggestion that the douments presented were fraudulent or forgeries. "demeaned my argument" by referring to same as such.

However, that is exactly what they are forgeries, fraudulent and nothing else. In no other area of Contract Law would a judge allow this. No docs, no case, return both parties to the status quo prior to the alleged agreement existing. A principle in law at its very foundation is that you cannot profit or gain pecuniary advantage from unlawful activity. (unless of course it is at the expense of a the little guy in the street!)

That ain't arf going to cost BC a lot of money in my case

I can but dream

regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Tut Tut Niddy, I was berated very heavily in other places for the merest suggestion that the douments presented were fraudulent or forgeries. "demeaned my argument" by referring to same as such.

However, that is exactly what they are forgeries, fraudulent and nothing else. In no other area of Contract Law would a judge allow this. No docs, no case, return both parties to the status quo prior to the alleged agreement existing. A principle in law at its very foundation is that you cannot profit or gain pecuniary advantage from unlawful activity. (unless of course it is at the expense of a the little guy in the street!)

That ain't arf going to cost BC a lot of money in my case

I can but dream

regards
Garlok

Are you on about over at LB? Doesn't surprise me - they seem to be pro-bank; surprised they weren't present at the Carey judgment cheering away when Waksman tripped back to the bench after one tipple too many!

If that conforms to slander/libel so be it - the judgment itself leaves no room for any other thoughts, other than the judge was taking bungs or he was drunk. I am sorry but where on the planet (other than the UK) can you sit there and create a document using anything you like, send it someone then use that forgery against them in court - AND WIN?

Ermmm, it drives me mad thinking about it, it really does... anyway, sorry for the rant

[pompeyfaith]

Re: JD Williams/Reliable Collections

Ermmm, it drives me mad thinking about it, it really does... anyway, sorry for the rant

Niddy you and me both, you and me both so please no need to say sorry here, I have been directly involved in MBNA/OPTIMA and there fruardulent activities how can fraudulent activities be allowed in a civilized society.

It stinks I tell yeh it stinks but I will not be saying sorry for them.

Regards

[garlok]

Re: Free's UE Diary

Hi Niddy,

I'm with you 100% on this. it erks me, it erks our sols (they were there by the way) and it defies all of the terms of reference and principles which were the foundations of these cases (all 13 of them) at the case management conferences of October 16th. Remember, MBNA actually lost one and ran away from the other two of theirs because of dodgy paperwork. Yet we got what we did from the Queen'Bench Division of the Mercantile Court Manchester. Hence my constant banging on about s234, 108 etc asking why they are any less important than any part of that judgement. No one has ever given a reasonable rational answer to it.

And yes mate both on LB and CAG in the distant past. And yes both IMVHO are pro bank and pro creditor.

regards
Garlok