Starting out

[ScabHunter]

Re: Starting out

It could be that they genuinely know that this is enforceable, and that they would be prepared to go to court with it, but it is too early to know this for sure. This type of letter is often sent by DCAs who are bluffing themselves about an unenforceable agreement, or who simply don't know the difference.

I admit this one doesn't look too good, especially if you are a homeowner with something for them to go after, but there is something which is a positive sign, to me at least. This is the insistence that they have issued a 'final response'. Final responses are only issued to formal complaints, so this is entirely inappropriate. It is usually used as a tactic to force people into paying when there is no reason.

If it was me, I'd send a Missing Prescribed Terms letter, just to see what happens. If they come back with a Letter Before Action you will need to think again, but that is not necessarily what will happen.

SH

PS - I2D and Mrs D too quick for me again - but at least it shows we are all thinking on the same lines.

[Sosad]

Re: Starting out

Thank you Scabhunter
I'm glad that everyone is in agreement about this (very reassuring ) I didn't have a clue what to send next .Do I send the letter to capquest or cap 1 ?
Thank you
Sosad xx

[Deepie]

Re: Starting out

Hi In 2 Deep ,
I sent this letter to them back in June could I send it again, or would I send it to capquest??
Thank you
Sosad xx


Thanks Mrs D. X

Thank you Scabhunter
I'm glad that everyone is in agreement about this (very reassuring ) I didn't have a clue what to send next .Do I send the letter to capquest or cap 1 ?
Thank you
Sosad xx

Send it to crapquest

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Starting out

Send it to crapquest

Send to: Ms A. SIMMS, Quality & Assurance Officer, at Capquest!

[Sosad]

Re: Starting out

Hi and happy Easter to all,

I posted missing prescribed terms to capquest they replied stating that the documentation they provided is accurate and legally enforceable ,what is my next best step on this account ,it is enforceable do I start making arrangements to pay?
Any suggestions are very welcome
Thank you
Sosad xx

[ScabHunter]

Re: Starting out

Hi and happy Easter to all,

I posted missing prescribed terms to capquest they replied stating that the documentation they provided is accurate and legally enforceable ,what is my next best step on this account ,it is enforceable do I start making arrangements to pay?
Any suggestions are very welcome
Thank you
Sosad xx

Did the letter say anything else? Did it threaten anything?

SH

[Pixie]

Re: Starting out

How much is the debt for SoSad?

It is possible to blag them (I've been blagging some for 2-3 years )

If they're not actually threatening anything I wouldn't roll over yet.

[ScabHunter]

Re: Starting out

How much is the debt for SoSad? It is possible to blag them (I've been blagging some for 2-3 years hh)

Sos Ad is blagging it - that is why we need to know whether this is a proper letter of claim, or just the usual template which gets sent out whether the paperwork is enforceable or not.

If it is the latter, the course does not need to be altered.

SH

[Sosad]

Re: Starting out

Hi
Thank you for your replies the letter doesn't say anything threatening the final paragraph states

" it is our understanding the financial ombudsman service cannot investigate any dispute in relation to the enforceability of credit agreements.We are satisfied the documentation supplied to you is accurate and enforceable ,therefore your account shall remain within our collections department".

What do you think I should do .?
thanks as always
Sosad xx

[ScabHunter]

Re: Starting out

Hi
Thank you for your replies the letter doesn't say anything threatening the final paragraph states

" it is our understanding the financial ombudsman service cannot investigate any dispute in relation to the enforceability of credit agreements.We are satisfied the documentation supplied to you is accurate and enforceable ,therefore your account shall remain within our collections department".

What do you think I should do .?
thanks as always
Sosad xx

It is just a bog standard template, the same as would be sent to anyone whether their papers were enforceable or not. As there is no threat, other than it "remaining where it is already", I would just ignore this, absorb time, and wait for the next threat. When that came, I would probably just send something like this -

"Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your letter dated xxth xxxx 2013 [date of the threat], and note its contents. In response, I refer you to my letter of xxth xxxx 2013 [date of the MPT letter] and inform you that my position remains unchanged.

Yours Faithfully"

That puts it back into stalemate and absorbs more time.

Obviously, you need to read their letter and not just send that response whatever they write, but if what comes next is a standard threat, that is what I would send.

SH

[Sosad]

Re: Starting out

Thank you Scabhunter
I will just ignore and wait for them to send another letter (I'm sure they will !!) I always read the letters then come on here to inquire how I should respond ,your knowledge and support is reassuring and most helpful can't thank everyone enough
Thank you
Sosad xx

[Enforcer]

Re: Starting out

Hi
Thank you for your replies the letter doesn't say anything threatening the final paragraph states

" it is our understanding the financial ombudsman service cannot investigate any dispute in relation to the enforceability of credit agreements.We are satisfied the documentation supplied to you is accurate and enforceable ,therefore your account shall remain within our collections department".

What do you think I should do .?
thanks as always
Sosad xx

Who mentioned the FOS? You or them? Of course they are correct, the FOS does not have a remit regarding the enforceability of agreements. But, why have they included this in their letter?

[ScabHunter]

Re: Starting out

Who mentioned the FOS? You or them?

They will have mentioned it, as these DCAs often do.

As the FOS won't consider issues of enforceability, the DCAs think that by calling their letter a “final response”, they can persuade people to think that they have reached a dead end and that there is no alternative but to give in and start paying.

Of course, “final responses” and the FOS are only applicable to formal complaints, and as no formal complaints have been initiated in this case, the response is entirely inappropriate.

One more reason why it should be ignored.

SH

[Enforcer]

Re: Starting out

Looking back at this, The Capital One account was from 2002. Yep, they may well send you a perfect reconstitution.
Send.
Subject access request to Crap 1. They will send a copy of your application form, nice big felt tip pen initials only on behalf of creditor. Prescribed terms are probably in outer space, because they will not be on your "application" then read it carefully, you will realise that it is a "prospective" regulated agreement.
Game over!
I know, got one from 2002.

[ScabHunter]

Re: Starting out

Looking back at this, The Capital One account was from 2002. Yep, they may well send you a perfect reconstitution.
Send.
Subject access request to Crap 1. They will send a copy of your application form, nice big felt tip pen initials only on behalf of creditor. Prescribed terms are probably in outer space, because they will not be on your "application" then read it carefully, you will realise that it is a "prospective" regulated agreement.
Game over!
I know, got one from 2002.

Yes, that is an excellent suggestion. I must admit I was wondering how a Crap One agreement could come back as enforceable when Crap One simply didn't do enforceable agreements. A “reconstitution” NOT of the original would explain it.

I would go along with this suggestion, and get the SAR sent off now, because they have 40 days in which to reply. The sooner you get the information, the sooner you could use it to rebuff any threats should Crapquest start to get heavy.

Although the Waksman judgment allowed for reconstitutions, they must still be a 'true copy' of the original. Not something which they put together for their own convenience, which bears no resemblance to the original.

SH