The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

Quick Quid:

• Type of account - Payday Loan
  
  
• Date commenced - Late 2009/Early 2010 (not sure exactly)
  
  
• Approx balance - Approx £750
  
  
• Date last full payment - Unknown
  
  
• Are you on arrangement or not paying - Not paying
  
  
• Status - Default recorded with CRA's but no DN received.
  
  
• Account owner - BCWGroup
  

Key:
Blue - Communication Sent
Red - Communication Received

...............(cut down due to length of correspondence trail!)...........
25/4/2014 - Email from QQ - Account sold to BCW/Gothia Group
16/5/2014 - NoA from bcwgroup
20/5/2014 - Email from Gothia with an 'online offer'
23/5/2014 - Email from Gothia with an 'online offer'
27/5/2014 - Email from Gothia with an 'online offer'
29/5/2014 - Email from Gothia with an 'online offer'
11/6/2014 - Letter from BCW Group
16/6/2014 - Email from Gothia advising they have sent me a letter and I have already missed some great offer
18/8/2014 - Letter from Red Castle Recoveries with payment plan offer
18/9/2014 - Letter from BCWgroup/Red Castle threatening notice of intended visit

Wow! is all I'll say. I've had some funny doorstep threat letters over the years but this one is great! So for those starting on their UE journey's and wondering how these letters can potentially breach guidelines then look at the classic below.

So the title states 'Notice of Impending Visit' in big letters. This is obviously intended to frighten a debtor into thinking 'the boys' are going to be sent round. So what do FCA/OFT guidelines have to say about this?

FCA CONC Section 7.9.12

A firm must ensure that a person visiting a customer on its behalf:

1) Clearly explains to the customer the purpose and intended outcome of the proposed visit (paragraph 3.12 of the OFT debt collection guidance)

2) Give the customer adequate notice of the date and likely time (at a reasonable time of day) of the visit (paragraph 3.13g of the OFT debt collection guidance)


FCA CONC Section 7.9.14

7) Visit or threaten to visit a customer without the customers prior agreement when a debt is deadlocked or reasonably queried or disputed


So this letter fails not only to state the purpose of the threatened 'Impending Visit' but also fails to give adequate notice of the date and likely time of the visit. The account is also firmly disputed so they fall foul of section 7.9.14.

If BCWgroup then try to claim they were unaware of the dispute then they fail under numerous articles in FCA CONC Section 7.13

So in short - got them by the short and curlies!

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

Barclaycard:

• Type of account - Credit Card
  
  
• Date commenced - Unknown
  
  
• Approx balance - £2500 (allegedly)
  
  
• Date last full payment - Unknown
  
  
• Are you on arrangement or not paying - Neither
  
  
• Status - No CRA record, do not recognize alleged debt
  
  
• Account owner - MKKR

Key:
Blue - Communication Sent
Red - Communication Received

10/4/2014 - Text received from MKKR
11/4/2014 - Introduction letter received from MKKR
11/4/2014 - Prove it letter sent
16/5/2014 - Letter from MKKR with supposed account statements (which arrived after letter dated 25/5!)
22/4/2014 - Letter received from MKKR - we want to offer a payment plan blah blah
25/5/2014 - Letter from MKKR that they are unable to comply with my request - liaising with client
3/6/2014 14:15 - Phone call from MKKR
4/6/2014 - CCA request sent
3/6/2014 - Letter from MKDP - unable to resolve my query
11/6/2014 - Letter from MKDP - Reconstituted credit agreement sent
16/7/2014 14:29 - Phone call from Compello
16/7/2014 - 17:52 - Phone call from Compello
23/7/2014 - Final Notice letter from Compello saying that account will be passed to their 'pre-legal' department for review
23/7/2014 - Sent a 'special' letter disputing debt
11/8/2014 09:50 - Phone call on mobile from MKRR (new number)
11/8/2014 - Letter from MKRR stating that due to non payment account will be passed to Keynes Collections for litigation consideration
12/8/2014 - Formal Complaint sent to MKRR
15/8/2014 - Letter from Keynes Collections threatening litigation
15/8/2014 - Formal Complaint sent to Keynes Collections
1/9/2014 - Letter from Keynes Collections currently unable to resolve my query, need to investigate, may need to contact OC etc

So response from MKRR today that they are unable to resolve my query, need to investigate, and may need to contact the original creditor. Look forward to seeing what rats they can pull out the hole with that one..

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

Already been down the same route, next letter will be from MKDP. Then will go full circle once again.

Thanks, we'll see where this goes. Keynes are known for issuing claims like confetti but the dispute here is a little more clear cut, as they cannot even demonstrate they can provide a true copy of the agreement. That doesn't mean they won't chance their arm however......

[Enforcer]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

Already been down the same route, next letter will be from MKDP. Then will go full circle once again.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

Barclaycard:

• Type of account - Credit Card
  
  
• Date commenced - Unknown
  
  
• Approx balance - £2500 (allegedly)
  
  
• Date last full payment - Unknown
  
  
• Are you on arrangement or not paying - Neither
  
  
• Status - No CRA record, do not recognize alleged debt
  
  
• Account owner - MKKR

Key:
Blue - Communication Sent
Red - Communication Received

10/4/2014 - Text received from MKKR
11/4/2014 - Introduction letter received from MKKR
11/4/2014 - Prove it letter sent
16/5/2014 - Letter from MKKR with supposed account statements (which arrived after letter dated 25/5!)
22/4/2014 - Letter received from MKKR - we want to offer a payment plan blah blah
25/5/2014 - Letter from MKKR that they are unable to comply with my request - liaising with client
3/6/2014 14:15 - Phone call from MKKR
4/6/2014 - CCA request sent
3/6/2014 - Letter from MKDP - unable to resolve my query
11/6/2014 - Letter from MKDP - Reconstituted credit agreement sent
16/7/2014 14:29 - Phone call from Compello
16/7/2014 - 17:52 - Phone call from Compello
23/7/2014 - Final Notice letter from Compello saying that account will be passed to their 'pre-legal' department for review
23/7/2014 - Sent a 'special' letter disputing debt
11/8/2014 09:50 - Phone call on mobile from MKRR (new number)
11/8/2014 - Letter from MKRR stating that due to non payment account will be passed to Keynes Collections for litigation consideration
12/8/2014 - Formal Complaint sent to MKRR
15/8/2014 - Letter from Keynes Collections threatening litigation
15/8/2014 - Formal Complaint sent to Keynes Collections

Quick update on this, despite MKRR giving me '7 days' before escalating things to Keynes Collections, received a letter from Keynes Collections them which was dated only 6 days from the last MKRR letter. So letter gone to Keynes as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam

FORMAL COMPLAINT
Thank you for your letter dated 12/8/2014, received 15/8/14.

Firstly I suggest you take note as copy of this correspondence is being sent to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) due to your aforementioned letter stating that I “have failed to respond to previous correspondence”.

This statement is factually untrue, and with respect, is an outrageous lie. I contacted MKDP LLP on receipt of their very first letter, and they have, in fact, received letters (all sent via recorded delivery) dated the following:

• 11^th April 2014
• 3^rd June 2014
• 22^nd July 2014
• 11^th August 2014

In particular MKDP LLP have failed to address any of the points in the letter sent to them dated 22/7/2014. In the event that my letter of the 22/7/2014 has been misplaced I enclose a further copy for your attention.

As can be seen from my letter of 22/7/2014 the above alleged account is firmly disputed, yet MKDP LLP have failed to even acknowledge my letter, have ignored the matters put to them and instead continued on a conduct that can only be considered harassment.

You should be fully aware of the contents of the Financial Conduct Authority Consumer Credit sourcebook (FCA CONC), in particular the following sections:

7.5.3 A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid.

7.14.1 A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent takes in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds.

7.14.3 Where a customer disputes a debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds, the firm must investigate the dispute and provide details of the debt to the customer in a timely manner.

7.14.4 Where there is a dispute as to the identity of the borrower or hirer or as to the amount of the debt, it is for the firm (and not the customer) to establish, as the case may be, that the customer is the correct person in relation to the debt or that the amount is the correct amount owed under the agreement.

With respect to the above sections of FCA CONC:

• Your firm have done nothing to provide a clear justification, or provide evidence why the claims I put to you in my letter of 22/7/2014 are not valid but instead continue to make demands for payment with threats of legal action if no payment is made

• Your firm has not suspended debt recovery steps on what is obviously an account with a valid dispute

• Your firm has not investigated the matters of the dispute, not provided the requested details of the alleged debt in a timely manner (refer to my letter dated 22/7/2014)

• Your firm have done nothing to establish that I am the correct person in relation to the above alleged account as per one of the items of dispute in my letter dated 22/7/2014

In consideration of your above conduct I will also be making the Financial Conduct Authority aware of your firms breaches of the Consumer Credit sourcebook and providing recent correspondence as evidence of such.

The above account is plainly disputed, with sufficient evidence (provided by MKDP LLP themselves in response to previous correspondence!) that the agreement that has been sent relates to a different individual.

I should also draw your attention to the letter sent by MKDP LLP dated 6/8/2014 received 11/8/2014, which states a response should be received within 7 days before escalation to yourselves (Keynes Collections).

As your letter is dated 12/8/2014 (i.e. 6 days after the date of the letter from MKDP LLP), and considering the delivery date expected due to the postage used, this seriously prejudices me due to a lack of reasonable period of time to reply.

As your letter of 12/8/2014 makes threats of litigation, I should also remind you of your obligations under the Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct (“PD-PAC”) as your letter fails spectacularly to comply with the requirements of PD-PAC.

Should you be in any doubt as to your position with regard to PD-PAC my letter dated 22/7/2014 has already identified your firms previous failures under PD-PAC, and your above conduct with regard to the breaches of FCA CONC also place you in further failure of the aforementioned requirements.

I refer you to Para 4.6 of the Practice Direction which explains the consequences of non compliance with the Pre action protocol.

Should you issue a claim as stated in your letter in the next 14 days (I assume that this is from 12/8/14), then I place you on notice of the following:

1. On receipt of a claim I will make an emergency application to the court under the CPR Pre Action Protocol

1. I will seek an order of the Court staying the Claim to allow for compliance with the Protocol

1. On securing such an order, I will seek an indemnity award of costs against your firm on the basis that the issuing of a claim under these circumstances is premature, contrary to the ethos of the CPR, contrary to the overriding objective and disproportionate under the circumstances.

The level of costs I will be seeking will be likely to exceed the amount claimed as I will not be just be claiming costs at the litigant in person rate but at the actual amount of loses I sustain in making such an application. You have been warned.

As previously advised, I strongly suggest that you refer this account back to your client, or alternatively the account us closed unless any further correspondence from you addresses the valid dispute and matters raised in my letter dated 22/7/2014.

I reserve the right to refer to the contents of this letter and the present a copy of the same to the Court.

[PlanB]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

Nice one SnV

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

a nice succinct one liner, this mob are too good at ignoring what they don't know how to deal with

Thanks Mrs D - Not quite a one liner though in response, if I'm going to pay the cost of a stamp I like to get my moneys worth ........


Dear Sir/Madam

FORMAL COMPLAINT

Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/2014, however I was disappointed to note that your letter failed to address any of the points in the letter sent to you via recorded delivery dated xx/xx/2014. In the event that my letter of the xx/xx/2014 has been misplaced I enclose a further copy for your attention.

As can be seen from my letter of xx/xx/2014 the above alleged account is firmly disputed, yet you have failed to even acknowledge my letter, and have ignored the matters put to you and continued instead on a conduct that can only be considered harassment.

You should be fully aware of the contents of the Financial Conduct Authority Consumer Credit sourcebook (FCA CONC), in particular the following sections:

7.5.3 A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid.

7.14.1 A firm must suspend any steps it takes or its agent takes in the recovery of a debt from a customer where the customer disputes the debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds.

7.14.3 Where a customer disputes a debt on valid grounds or what may be valid grounds, the firm must investigate the dispute and provide details of the debt to the customer in a timely manner.

7.14.4 Where there is a dispute as to the identity of the borrower or hirer or as to the amount of the debt, it is for the firm (and not the customer) to establish, as the case may be, that the customer is the correct person in relation to the debt or that the amount is the correct amount owed under the agreement.

With respect to the above sections of FCA CONC:

• Your firm have done nothing to provide a clear justification, or provide evidence why the claims I put to you in my letter of xx/xx/2014 are not valid but instead continue to make demands for payment with threats of legal action if no payment is made

• Your firm has not suspended debt recovery steps on what is obviously an account with a valid dispute

• Your firm has not investigated the matters of the dispute, not provided the requested details of the alleged debt in a timely manner (refer to my letter dated 22/7/2014)

• Your firm have done nothing to establish that I am the correct person in relation to the above alleged account as per one of the items of dispute in my letter dated 22/7/2014

In consideration of your above conduct I will also be making the Financial Conduct Authority aware of your firms breaches of the Consumer Credit sourcebook and providing recent correspondence as evidence of such.

As your recent letter of xx/xx/2014 continued to make threats of litigation, I should also remind you yet again of your obligations under the Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct (“PD-PAC”).

My letter dated xx/xx/2014 has already identified your previous failures under PD-PAC, and your above conduct with regard to the breaches of FCA CONC also place you in further failure of the aforementioned requirements. You are advised that any litigation on the basis of your current position will result in an immediate application to the Court requesting the matter stayed with costs against you on the indemnity basis.

I refer you to Para 4.6 of the Practice Direction which explains the consequences of non compliance with the Pre action protocol.

As previously advised, I strongly suggest that you refer this account back to your client, or alternatively the account us closed unless any further correspondence from you addresses the valid dispute and matters raised in my letter dated xx/xx/2014.

[MrsD]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

a nice succinct one liner, this mob are too good at ignoring what they don't know how to deal with

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

Barclaycard:

• Type of account - Credit Card
  
  
• Date commenced - Unknown
  
  
• Approx balance - £2500 (allegedly)
  
  
• Date last full payment - Unknown
  
  
• Are you on arrangement or not paying - Neither
  
  
• Status - No CRA record, do not recognize alleged debt
  
  
• Account owner - MKKR

Key:
Blue - Communication Sent
Red - Communication Received

10/4/2014 - Text received from MKKR
11/4/2014 - Introduction letter received from MKKR
11/4/2014 - Prove it letter sent
16/5/2014 - Letter from MKKR with supposed account statements (which arrived after letter dated 25/5!)
22/4/2014 - Letter received from MKKR - we want to offer a payment plan blah blah
25/5/2014 - Letter from MKKR that they are unable to comply with my request - liaising with client
3/6/2014 14:15 - Phone call from MKKR
4/6/2014 - CCA request sent
3/6/2014 - Letter from MKDP - unable to resolve my query
11/6/2014 - Letter from MKDP - Reconstituted credit agreement sent
16/7/2014 14:29 - Phone call from Compello
16/7/2014 - 17:52 - Phone call from Compello
23/7/2014 - Final Notice letter from Compello saying that account will be passed to their 'pre-legal' department for review
23/7/2014 - Sent a 'special' letter disputing debt
11/8/2014 09:50 - Phone call on mobile from MKRR (new number)
11/8/2014 - Letter from MKRR stating that due to non payment account will be passed to Keynes Collections for litigation consideration

Well looks like MKRR have completely ignored my last letter. Standard template letter received today stating that as no payment has been made, or payment arrangement made, they will pass the account to Keynes Collections. I also had a phone call on my mobile from a new number for them (though still an 0333 number so ignored it).

Think I will refer them back to my earlier letter and point out their lack of response to a genuinely disputed debt.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

Let's see it.....

LOL I'll wait for their response and then show you what I sent. There was a combination of facts particular to how they've cocked up my CCA request and the LBA response from our templates section as I received a legal threat today.

[Enforcer]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

They will now pass this on to Keynes who will threaten legal action. Then pass it back and the whole cycle starts again.

[Deepie]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

Let's see it.....

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

Barclaycard:

• Type of account - Credit Card
  
  
• Date commenced - Unknown
  
  
• Approx balance - £2500 (allegedly)
  
  
• Date last full payment - Unknown
  
  
• Are you on arrangement or not paying - Neither
  
  
• Status - No CRA record, do not recognize alleged debt
  
  
• Account owner - MKKR

Key:
Blue - Communication Sent
Red - Communication Received

10/4/2014 - Text received from MKKR
11/4/2014 - Introduction letter received from MKKR
11/4/2014 - Prove it letter sent
16/5/2014 - Letter from MKKR with supposed account statements (which arrived after letter dated 25/5!)
22/4/2014 - Letter received from MKKR - we want to offer a payment plan blah blah
25/5/2014 - Letter from MKKR that they are unable to comply with my request - liaising with client
3/6/2014 14:15 - Phone call from MKKR
4/6/2014 - CCA request sent
3/6/2014 - Letter from MKDP - unable to resolve my query
11/6/2014 - Letter from MKDP - Reconstituted credit agreement sent
16/7/2014 14:29 - Phone call from Compello
16/7/2014 - 17:52 - Phone call from Compello
23/7/2014 - Final Notice letter from Compello saying that account will be passed to their 'pre-legal' department for review
23/7/2014 - Sent a 'special' letter disputing debt

Received a 'Final Notice' from MKRR today saying that they have passed my account to their 'pre-legal' department for review. Well lets see how they chew when they get my response.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

Barclaycard:

• Type of account - Credit Card
  
  
• Date commenced - Unknown
  
  
• Approx balance - £2500 (allegedly)
  
  
• Date last full payment - Unknown
  
  
• Are you on arrangement or not paying - Neither
  
  
• Status - No CRA record, do not recognize alleged debt
  
  
• Account owner - MKKR

Key:
Blue - Communication Sent
Red - Communication Received

10/4/2014 - Text received from MKKR
11/4/2014 - Introduction letter received from MKKR
11/4/2014 - Prove it letter sent
16/5/2014 - Letter from MKKR with supposed account statements (which arrived after letter dated 25/5!)
22/4/2014 - Letter received from MKKR - we want to offer a payment plan blah blah
25/5/2014 - Letter from MKKR that they are unable to comply with my request - liaising with client
3/6/2014 14:15 - Phone call from MKKR
4/6/2014 - CCA request sent
3/6/2014 - Letter from MKDP - unable to resolve my query
11/6/2014 - Letter from MKDP - Reconstituted credit agreement sent
16/7/2014 14:29 - Phone call from Compello
16/7/2014 - 17:52 - Phone call from Compello

CCA request response from MKRR now emailed to Niddy. Fingers crossed their error is fatal

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: The SaltnVinegar UE Diary

And MKRR will get a nasty letter back from you too since they are bang out of order with this latest development

Thanks Plan B - yes I'm looking forward to putting together the next response. I suspect they may still try to pursue the matter, but makes it very difficult for them to say with 100% certainty (or even 70%) that any future reconstructed agreement could be accurate