Tweet
Re: Pebbles88 UE Diary
well well
westcot wrote today... Door step collection notice...
they already had this reply before it got sent to nelson guest with a door step threat s*d off included
Westcot Credit Services Ltd
PO Box 137
Hull
HU2 8HF
Dear Westcot,
I write with reference to the above numbered account and note with regret that you have taken the time to look into this matter further.
Do you need me to point out that this account is formally in dispute with National Westminster Bank, Triton Credit Services, RMA & now Westcot and has been since they all failed to acknowledge my Consumer Credit Agreement (CCA) Request, in line with s.78 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. As such, any litigation you may decide to take will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages and costs, upon having the summons set-aside, due to the dispute and your knowledge of my dispute.
I therefore suggest you go away and stop harassing me with such nonsense. If you really want to waste my time, the courts time and your clients time by pursuing this "lost cause" then please feel free - however this will be emphasised when I apply for set-aside, more so because I am telling you the law and telling you that whilst an account is in dispute no formal action can and should be taken.
I shall be citing the following reasons; to get any formal request made by you set-aside:
I also 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 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
I have made myself crystal clear, now I suggest you go and pass this account back to National Westminster Bank and stop with the bullying tactics, they will not work; also stop wasting my time. If you decide to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate formal complaints 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.
Furthermore, Should it be your intention to arrange a doorstep visit, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you.
There is an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.
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.
Please be aware I will only deal with you in writing
Yours faithfully
should i just send another door step threat letter? even though they already had one?
well well
westcot wrote today... Door step collection notice...
they already had this reply before it got sent to nelson guest with a door step threat s*d off included
14th July 2011
Westcot Credit Services Ltd
PO Box 137
Hull
HU2 8HF
Dear Westcot,
I write with reference to the above numbered account and note with regret that you have taken the time to look into this matter further.
Do you need me to point out that this account is formally in dispute with National Westminster Bank, Triton Credit Services, RMA & now Westcot and has been since they all failed to acknowledge my Consumer Credit Agreement (CCA) Request, in line with s.78 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. As such, any litigation you may decide to take will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages and costs, upon having the summons set-aside, due to the dispute and your knowledge of my dispute.
I therefore suggest you go away and stop harassing me with such nonsense. If you really want to waste my time, the courts time and your clients time by pursuing this "lost cause" then please feel free - however this will be emphasised when I apply for set-aside, more so because I am telling you the law and telling you that whilst an account is in dispute no formal action can and should be taken.
I shall be citing the following reasons; to get any formal request made by you set-aside:
- The creditor failed to comply with the rules and prejudiced the debtor in the process.
- The demand was issued in error.
- The amount stated on the statutory demand is disputed.
- 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.
I also 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 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
I have made myself crystal clear, now I suggest you go and pass this account back to National Westminster Bank and stop with the bullying tactics, they will not work; also stop wasting my time. If you decide to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate formal complaints 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.
Furthermore, Should it be your intention to arrange a doorstep visit, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you.
There is an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.
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.
Please be aware I will only deal with you in writing
Yours faithfully
should i just send another door step threat letter? even though they already had one?
Comment