Debt Diary 2020

[Roger]

PlanB
I hadn't forgotten Intrum's FSA status. They inherited a pleasant legal habit of Using Bankruptcy legislation against Consumer Debts! That's us poor Debtors!

As for the POOR Multinational DCA groups (and who knows how incestous their shareholders and backers are! with the Multinational Banks and suppliers of credit)
Few realise the power exerted by the creation and withdrawal of Money. The ability to force soveriegn nations to change their economic policies.

Printing and Postage? Well it cuts both ways doesn't it because the same arguments apply to the poor Consumer being denied key information (because Not printed or posted) and default CCJ's

The DCA's know their markets and the risks with the Bad Debts they queue up to BUY at pennies in the pound! My sympathies are with their victims not the executioners!

[PlanB]

Niddy says it’s enforceable at a glance but that may change as time goes on.. I’ll update the main post

Even if the credit agreement is enforceable that doesn't mean all the other statutory duties have been complied with. From what I've read there's a question mark over the Default Notice isn't there?

I can't see this update on your main post but from memory it is now owned by Intrum who are not authorised by the FCA so shouldn't issue legal proceedings, although that doesn't mean they won't give it a go.

This is explained here >

On 24 April 2019 I was successful in a consumer credit claim appeal. The Claimant debt purchaser admitted they were not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority but said they could rely on the S.55 FSMA 2000 exemption because they had a valid servicing agreement in place with an affiliated 3rd party who was authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority.

It was accepted by both parties on the facts of the case that there was a valid servicing agreement in place. The issue was could the Claimant debt purchaser rely on the S.55 Exemption to issue proceedings in the county court.

The Circuit Judge held as a general principle of law that the Claimant debt purchaser was not able to rely on the FCA authorisation of an affiliated 3rd party (and the exemption under s.55 FSMA) for the purpose of bringing a claim. The agreement was unenforceable, and the order of the court below was set aside, and the Claim dismissed

Di

[Warwick65]

I have read elsewhere that working from home has meant no one to print and stuff your cca request into an envelope . My work switched to online payslips because there was no one to print or post them.

Not all home workers have access to secure networks and big organisations are increasingly keeping everything on their own networks for security.

[Roger]

The SAR goes to Original Lender NOT INTRUM!
The SAR should show the correspondence with INTRUM and explain the delay! As well as other key dates and information!
This will fill in the missing details!

CCA doesn't have anything about Pandemics!!!! Its a Snail MAIL Legislation

[adam92]

The CCA Request plus £1 is a statuary consumer right! But this delay of a year does raise the question of why it has taken so long!

But I wouldn't jump to any immediate conclusions here. The AAD way actually is do nothing and be prepared to blag on receipt of CCA's.
Do nothing and wait and see what there next action is!

But sending a SAR is probably a sensible course of action right now.

I suppose Covid may have paid a part in a delay.

Am I not poking the bear in sending a SAR to Intrum?

[Roger]

Niddy says it’s enforceable at a glance but that may change as time goes on..

I’ll update the main post just to keep up to date and see what happens

The CCA Request plus £1 is a statuary consumer right! But this delay of a year does raise the question of why it has taken so long!

But I wouldn't jump to any immediate conclusions here. The AAD way actually is do nothing and be prepared to blag on receipt of CCA's.
Do nothing and wait and see what there next action is!

But sending a SAR is probably a sensible course of action right now.

[adam92]

Niddy says it’s enforceable at a glance but that may change as time goes on..

I’ll update the main post just to keep up to date and see what happens

[The Tech Clerk]

I've received a year later a CCA request back for the Aqua Card which I'll send to Niddy and see what the deal is. Quite surprised as its over 13 years old so a bit disappointing

send copy CCA to webmaster@all-about-debt.co.uk no redacting it send as complete refer to this thread

[Warwick65]

I've received a year later a CCA request back for the Aqua Card which I'll send to Niddy and see what the deal is. Quite surprised as its over 13 years old so a bit disappointing

I know we hope they have lost these things but hey ho. In any case there may well be other things that make it UE even if the CCA is enforceable. An example would be a bad Default Notice .


As for the previous post - I know the ICO changed guidance but it used to say a default should be applied when in an arrangement as it was otherwise unfair. Niddy will know more than me but I am sure it is unfair to wait so long. I guess the problem is, if that tenner a month was enough to meet minimum repayments they might argue you had not actually defaulted.

[adam92]

I've received a year later a CCA request back for the Aqua Card which I'll send to Niddy and see what the deal is. Quite surprised as its over 13 years old so a bit disappointing

[adam92]

Not sure NCO are following the law here. So you stopped paying in 2016 but went onto an arrangement which you continued to July 2020.

Then in May 21 they've added a default? No. That's nonsense. That's wholly a breach of the principles of reciprocation; they've had ample time to default you. I'm sure the actual s.87/88 notices will be invalid too which may help you later too.

Your biggest error was going on an arrangement without first defaulting. But is the entry what's showing on your credit file the only ever entry for this product or did the creditor ever report it / what about throughout the AP?

It can be argued but it could be futile - maybe hope they issue a claim then use the bad DN against them, I dunno. It's not worth spending weeks arguing over but it's still naughty how they've behaved.

Hi Niddy apologies I didnt stop in 2016, I was on a payment plan then,

So I didn't stop paying until July 2020 to the DCA who bought the debt.

From Mar 2016 - I had a payment plan with Vanquis for a tenner a month, they sold it in 2019 to Arrow/NCO, and I continued sending the money to Vanquis, and only stopped last summer when i sent the CCA off if that makes sense?

So Vanquis removed the file in 2019 from my file - it was always reported as payments made but under an arrangement.
Arrow now report it on my file, so it shows no history until May 2021 and it shows as defaulted.

Dec 2015 - Over limit paid £1.00-
Jan 2016 - Missed payment of £130
Feb 2016 - Over limit continued.
Mar 2016 - ATP Set up
Mar 2019 - Removed from CRA files
July 2019 - Account Sold to Arrows (managed by NCO Europe) not on any files.
July 2020 - CCA Request Sent to NCO Europe stopped making payments from this point onwards.
Aug 2020 - Confirmation of request sent to me
Feb 2021 - Notice of Default/Termination? (Di notes this isn't a compliant notice)
Apr 2021 - Monthly Account Statement showing arrears
May 2021 - Letter confirming termination of agreement
May 2021 - Default applied

[Never-In-Doubt]

Not sure NCO are following the law here. So you stopped paying in 2016 but went onto an arrangement which you continued to July 2020.

Then in May 21 they've added a default? No. That's nonsense. That's wholly a breach of the principles of reciprocation; they've had ample time to default you. I'm sure the actual s.87/88 notices will be invalid too which may help you later too.

Your biggest error was going on an arrangement without first defaulting. But is the entry what's showing on your credit file the only ever entry for this product or did the creditor ever report it / what about throughout the AP?

It can be argued but it could be futile - maybe hope they issue a claim then use the bad DN against them, I dunno. It's not worth spending weeks arguing over but it's still naughty how they've behaved.

[adam92]

Did they write to you saying they could not comply with your CCA request because they could not match you up with an account (or something similar). Am I also correct in thinking this is a career development loan that was underwritten by the Government? I ask because it might make a difference as to how you handle it.

Hi Warwick, just wanted to question your response to my update later on. (It is a CDL) and the addresses have been updated now do I just leave this?

[adam92]

Make Notes in your paper files!
Read and Learn to sit on your hands!
You wrote!
"..AG have slapped a default on my file and begun reporting. The address is incorrect mind, even more frustrating considering they contact me at the right address. .."

THAT difference IS important! They didn't pluck these addresses out of the ether did they! It means something wrong in their records!
DON'T correct them because this could become very important at some later Date!

Thanks Roger. I'll keep a note of that and not correct anyone. Just frustrated that its there for another 6 years but well its done now.

In the meantime for those reading

I've had another Statement from AG (whom despite 'terminating' the agreement keep sending a credit card style statement out..

And Lowell have sent 6 letters this month for the Capital 1 Debt.

[Roger]

Make Notes in your paper files!
Read and Learn to sit on your hands!
You wrote!
"..AG have slapped a default on my file and begun reporting. The address is incorrect mind, even more frustrating considering they contact me at the right address. .."

THAT difference IS important! They didn't pluck these addresses out of the ether did they! It means something wrong in their records!
DON'T correct them because this could become very important at some later Date!