Tweet
Re: So it begins
Try copy from here......
Originally posted by thatnamestaken
View Post
Threat-o-Gram Letter Before Action
Dear Sirs
Account No/Reference No: XXXXXXXX
I write with reference to the above numbered account and note, with regret, that you have chosen not to deal with this matter despite my previous communication endeavouring to assist you in coming to a satisfactory arrangement to close this account; without the need for legal action. Do you need me to point out that this account is formally in dispute with [DCA NAME HERE] and has been since they, and [ORIGINAL CREDITOR NAME HERE] (Original Creditor) failed to acknowledge my Consumer Credit Agreement (CCA) Request, in line with s.77-s.79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974). As you are no doubt aware, your continual harassment not only breaches the Consumer Credit Act (1974), but also the Data Protection Act (1998), the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations (2008) and the Office Of Fair Trading's Debt Collection Guidelines. Being that the Original Creditor is now in default of my CCA Request and OFT Debt Collection Guidelines, I consider this account to be in serious dispute, especially due to the fact that whilst my CCA Request remains in default (outstanding), enforcement action is not permitted in line with s.127(3) of the CCA1974.
The recent McGuffick and Carey cases confirmed that a lender should submit upon request a valid true copy of the original CCA. In MBNA v McCullagh; the Judge ruled;
"The terms and conditions are plainly not a copy of those on the original agreement. There may only be one difference identified (it is difficult to tell from the illegible copy of the original) but that is enough. The obligation is to provide "a copy of the executed agreement". This plainly cannot be a copy of the original agreement. It is not open to the claimant to say that the difference is 'de minimis'. They have to provide a copy of the original (reconstituted or otherwise)"
There are also several other recent cases that alleviate the Carey Judgment such as Hayes v HFC, at Blackpool county court in July 2010. She successfully overturned a charging order on her home. Judge Bell agreed that the reconstituted agreement was not accurate. Then you have the case of Kotecha v Phoenix in which Phoenix attempted to recover a debt owed on a HFC bank credit card. The appeal judges agreed the bank had not been able to supply an accurate copy of the original agreement. In Murphy v Cabot the recorder, Nigel Clayton, found the copy of the agreement was illegible. Similarly, in Paterson v Cabot Judge Russell decided the copy of that agreement was illegible, the terms and conditions were not the ones originally supplied. In both the Cabot cases they lost as they had clearly failed to produce a properly reconstituted document.
Need I remind you of the law? In particular the remit of s.127 and s.65 of the CCA1974. Section 127(1) of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA 1974) is subject to the restrictions imposed by sections 127(3) & (4). Those subsections set out the circumstances in which the court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) of the Act. Put simply, a court cannot make a judgement on an unenforceable debt without the original agreement, or at least a genuine "true copy"; ergo we're back at square one - all I ask is for you to provide me a copy of the original agreement instead of fobbing me off with excuses all the time. You will soon find out that all judges will listen to my argument when I quote the relevant acts of the CCA to them, also pointing out the recent McGuffick and Carey cases which confirmed that a lender should submit upon request a valid true copy of the original CCA. Yes, you are allowed to report the account "conduct" to the Credit Reference Agencies, but you may not enforce this agreement until you fully comply with the provisions set out within the Act, taking into account the recent Judgments and the history and case notes within said judgments. I appreciate and understand the provision of the recent Carey v HSBC {and others} case that stipulates a reconstituted agreement can be provided; however I am disputing the actual existence of such an original which means the Carey case is irrelevant as without one the account would still be deemed unenforceable. Carey only went to prove that if you could not provide an original, for whatever reason, but had proof on your systems/records that certain conditions were in place at that time then a recon could be submitted only in-so-far as to satisfy your s.78 request. If you do not have an original then a recon cannot be produced. Similarly, in line with the most recent OFT Guidance surrounding unenforceability (October 2010), you should be aware that you, as a creditor / debt collection agency the OFT has stipulated the following;
Sections 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 outline the information creditors must provide to debtors under fixed-term, running account & Hire Agreements. Under these sections a debtor can pay £1 to get:
If this information is not provided within 12 working days the debt becomes unenforceable. This means a creditor cannot:
Consequently, any legal action you pursue will not only be fully and vigorously defended, it will also be averred as both unlawful and vexatious. As such I respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the original creditor for immediate resolution prior to my seeking legal advice against you; due to the fact you cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities as the account was already in dispute at the time you became involved.
If you decide to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.
I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished. I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter and look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours faithfully
Account No/Reference No: XXXXXXXX
I write with reference to the above numbered account and note, with regret, that you have chosen not to deal with this matter despite my previous communication endeavouring to assist you in coming to a satisfactory arrangement to close this account; without the need for legal action. Do you need me to point out that this account is formally in dispute with [DCA NAME HERE] and has been since they, and [ORIGINAL CREDITOR NAME HERE] (Original Creditor) failed to acknowledge my Consumer Credit Agreement (CCA) Request, in line with s.77-s.79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974). As you are no doubt aware, your continual harassment not only breaches the Consumer Credit Act (1974), but also the Data Protection Act (1998), the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations (2008) and the Office Of Fair Trading's Debt Collection Guidelines. Being that the Original Creditor is now in default of my CCA Request and OFT Debt Collection Guidelines, I consider this account to be in serious dispute, especially due to the fact that whilst my CCA Request remains in default (outstanding), enforcement action is not permitted in line with s.127(3) of the CCA1974.
The recent McGuffick and Carey cases confirmed that a lender should submit upon request a valid true copy of the original CCA. In MBNA v McCullagh; the Judge ruled;
"The terms and conditions are plainly not a copy of those on the original agreement. There may only be one difference identified (it is difficult to tell from the illegible copy of the original) but that is enough. The obligation is to provide "a copy of the executed agreement". This plainly cannot be a copy of the original agreement. It is not open to the claimant to say that the difference is 'de minimis'. They have to provide a copy of the original (reconstituted or otherwise)"
There are also several other recent cases that alleviate the Carey Judgment such as Hayes v HFC, at Blackpool county court in July 2010. She successfully overturned a charging order on her home. Judge Bell agreed that the reconstituted agreement was not accurate. Then you have the case of Kotecha v Phoenix in which Phoenix attempted to recover a debt owed on a HFC bank credit card. The appeal judges agreed the bank had not been able to supply an accurate copy of the original agreement. In Murphy v Cabot the recorder, Nigel Clayton, found the copy of the agreement was illegible. Similarly, in Paterson v Cabot Judge Russell decided the copy of that agreement was illegible, the terms and conditions were not the ones originally supplied. In both the Cabot cases they lost as they had clearly failed to produce a properly reconstituted document.
Need I remind you of the law? In particular the remit of s.127 and s.65 of the CCA1974. Section 127(1) of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA 1974) is subject to the restrictions imposed by sections 127(3) & (4). Those subsections set out the circumstances in which the court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) of the Act. Put simply, a court cannot make a judgement on an unenforceable debt without the original agreement, or at least a genuine "true copy"; ergo we're back at square one - all I ask is for you to provide me a copy of the original agreement instead of fobbing me off with excuses all the time. You will soon find out that all judges will listen to my argument when I quote the relevant acts of the CCA to them, also pointing out the recent McGuffick and Carey cases which confirmed that a lender should submit upon request a valid true copy of the original CCA. Yes, you are allowed to report the account "conduct" to the Credit Reference Agencies, but you may not enforce this agreement until you fully comply with the provisions set out within the Act, taking into account the recent Judgments and the history and case notes within said judgments. I appreciate and understand the provision of the recent Carey v HSBC {and others} case that stipulates a reconstituted agreement can be provided; however I am disputing the actual existence of such an original which means the Carey case is irrelevant as without one the account would still be deemed unenforceable. Carey only went to prove that if you could not provide an original, for whatever reason, but had proof on your systems/records that certain conditions were in place at that time then a recon could be submitted only in-so-far as to satisfy your s.78 request. If you do not have an original then a recon cannot be produced. Similarly, in line with the most recent OFT Guidance surrounding unenforceability (October 2010), you should be aware that you, as a creditor / debt collection agency the OFT has stipulated the following;
Sections 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 outline the information creditors must provide to debtors under fixed-term, running account & Hire Agreements. Under these sections a debtor can pay £1 to get:
- a copy of their agreement
- copies of some of the other documents mentioned in their agreement
- a statement of account
If this information is not provided within 12 working days the debt becomes unenforceable. This means a creditor cannot:
- make the debtor pay the debt before they're supposed to
- get a court judgment against the debtor
Consequently, any legal action you pursue will not only be fully and vigorously defended, it will also be averred as both unlawful and vexatious. As such I respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the original creditor for immediate resolution prior to my seeking legal advice against you; due to the fact you cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities as the account was already in dispute at the time you became involved.
If you decide to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.
I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished. I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter and look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours faithfully
NatWest/RBS Mint - (Un)Helpful banking 
!!!
Comment