Ken100464 UE Diary

[MrsD]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

templates are down while things are being rejigged

so try to chill out a bit, really Apex are wee pussies

when did you stop paying, have you stopped paying?

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Mrs D

He will look it over next few days.

However we are starting to feel we need to get something off as the tone is changing for sure. This is now letter 3 none of which we have replied to

The ten days which nicely includes 2 weekends, ends mothering sunday so they sure know how to play mind games.

What about a letter saying you have not received the CCA yet - debt UE until that arrives, etc, etc? Might that get you a few more days?

Just a thought.

[Deepie]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

I'll see if anyone has a copy of missing prescribed terms....that's what I would send....

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Yes stopped in the autumn. CCA outstanding.

Reply including the CCA came two weeks before the Marlin assignment.

Looks good to my inexperienced eyes and has piles of T & C's.

Tend to agree Apex were pussies. However there is a marked upswing in activity from them on forums. Seems the marriage with Cabot is giving them a fresh pair of legs.

Trying to keep OH chilled but is starting to worry her.

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Do they mean me & I2D thanks for the idea's.

Both of these would give the time I am sure.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

I'll see if anyone has a copy of missing prescribed terms....that's what I would send....

Dear Sirs

Account No/Reference No: XXXXXXXX

On XX/XX/XXXX I wrote requesting that you supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for the above numbered account. In response to this request I was supplied a document, a copy of which is attached, that did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974), primarily as it does not contain all the necessary prescribed terms. The document that you are obliged to send me is a true copy of the executed agreement that contains the prescribed terms, all other required terms and statutory notices and was signed by both your company and myself as defined in s.61(1) of the CCA(1974) and subsequent Statutory Instruments. If the executed agreement contained any reference to any other document, you are also obliged to send me a copy of that document. In addition a full statement of this account should have been sent to me detailing all debits and credits to the account.

The documents I received appear to be missing these required prescribed terms. The prescribed terms, as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974, are not at all visible and therefore the documents provided do not constitute a ‘true copy’. As you are no doubt aware, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI/1557) states:

2: Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms

(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the [background medium upon which the information is displayed].

What you sent does not comply with current CCA legislation because without such agreement, I am unable to adjudge my position effectively. For this to occur, I would require a "true copy" of the actual agreement that apparently exists and I therefore appeal to you to fulfil my request. I am willing to pay any reasonable charge that you feel is necessary, in order to provide a copy of the “actual” credit agreement. In considering my request, I ask that you take a common sense approach and do not hold to the line that you have provided all that is expected of you nor the recent test case in Manchester, namely, and to be known as: Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) (23 December 2009). The recent McGuffick and Carey cases confirmed that a lender should submit upon request a valid true copy of the original CCA and also went on to suggest that both the creditor and debtors name and address are clearly displayed - the Judge dealt with this point at paragraph 60 of his judgement when he said this:

"As a matter of common sense It is difficult to see how a copy of a document can omit the names of the parties. It might he thought that the address of the debtor, however, was immaterial, at least to the debtor, who can be assumed to know what it was at the time, if different from his present address. However, as noted above any application of the concept of materiality must not override the requirements of section 78 and the Copies Regulations properly understood. In my view it is clear that the name and address must be provided"

Whilst I appreciate and understand the provision of the recent Carey v HSBC {and others} case that stipulates a reconstituted agreement can be provided, I'd like to also point out that 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.

I do not think it is a lot to ask for you to simply go and fetch the original agreement, photocopy it and pop it in an envelope to me. The only reason that I can presume avoidance of such a simple process is if you never actually had a copy of the original agreement in which case may I remind you that OFT Guidance clearly states that lenders would be acting unfairly, and potentially in breach of their consumer credit licenses, if they misled borrowers by:

• hiding or disguising the fact that there was never a proper signed agreement in the first place
• providing only a copy of the current terms and conditions, not the original ones

Similarly, in line with recent OFT Guidance surrounding Unenforceability, I presume you're 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

In order to be able to adjudge my position effectively I would require a "true copy" of the actual agreement that apparently exists. I also require that you clarify your position on this point as failure to do so, even by omission or lack of a response, will be regarded as an attempt to deliberately misrepresent or conceal the legal position regarding this matter to which an appropriate complaint will be made to the OFT. I do, after all, make my request in good faith and I feel it is a nonsense approach to hold to the idea that you won’t provide this document because you simply don’t have to. I feel that would take advantage of your position and such an approach from your business not be in the best interests of a healthy business/client relationship. In light of the above, I consider this account to be unenforceable until such time you properly comply with my original s.78 request and send a photocopy of the original purported document, if it exists. If it does not, then you must confirm this to me in line with your licensing guidance, as detailed above.

As this account is clearly unenforceable, I expect you to write back and confirm that no further action will be taken and that the account is now closed and no further correspondence will take place; irrespective, unless you do supply a photocopy of the original agreement I will not correspond with you again and any threats will be averred and unlawful and vexatious with a counter-claim forthcoming.

Yours faithfully,

Sign Digitally

[Deepie]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

I'll see if anyone has a copy of missing prescribed terms....that's what I would send....

Thanks Niddy.......


Dear Sirs
Account No/Reference No: XXXXXXXX
On XX/XX/XXXX I wrote requesting that you supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for the above numbered account. In response to this request I was supplied a document, a copy of which is attached, that did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974), primarily as it does not contain all the necessary prescribed terms. The document that you are obliged to send me is a true copy of the executed agreement that contains the prescribed terms, all other required terms and statutory notices and was signed by both your company and myself as defined in s.61(1) of the CCA(1974) and subsequent Statutory Instruments. If the executed agreement contained any reference to any other document, you are also obliged to send me a copy of that document. In addition a full statement of this account should have been sent to me detailing all debits and credits to the account.

The documents I received appear to be missing these required prescribed terms. The prescribed terms, as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974, are not at all visible and therefore the documents provided do not constitute a ‘true copy’. As you are no doubt aware, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI/1557) states:

2: Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms
(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the [background medium upon which the information is displayed].

What you sent does not comply with current CCA legislation because without such agreement, I am unable to adjudge my position effectively. For this to occur, I would require a "true copy" of the actual agreement that apparently exists and I therefore appeal to you to fulfil my request. I am willing to pay any reasonable charge that you feel is necessary, in order to provide a copy of the “actual” credit agreement. In considering my request, I ask that you take a common sense approach and do not hold to the line that you have provided all that is expected of you nor the recent test case in Manchester, namely, and to be known as: Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) (23 December 2009). The recent McGuffick and Carey cases confirmed that a lender should submit upon request a valid true copy of the original CCA and also went on to suggest that both the creditor and debtors name and address are clearly displayed - the Judge dealt with this point at paragraph 60 of his judgement when he said this:

"As a matter of common sense It is difficult to see how a copy of a document can omit the names of the parties. It might he thought that the address of the debtor, however, was immaterial, at least to the debtor, who can be assumed to know what it was at the time, if different from his present address. However, as noted above any application of the concept of materiality must not override the requirements of section 78 and the Copies Regulations properly understood. In my view it is clear that the name and address must be provided"

Whilst I appreciate and understand the provision of the recent Carey v HSBC {and others} case that stipulates a reconstituted agreement can be provided, I'd like to also point out that 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.

I do not think it is a lot to ask for you to simply go and fetch the original agreement, photocopy it and pop it in an envelope to me. The only reason that I can presume avoidance of such a simple process is if you never actually had a copy of the original agreement in which case may I remind you that OFT Guidance clearly states that lenders would be acting unfairly, and potentially in breach of their consumer credit licenses, if they misled borrowers by:
hiding or disguising the fact that there was never a proper signed agreement in the first place
providing only a copy of the current terms and conditions, not the original ones

Similarly, in line with recent OFT Guidance surrounding Unenforceability, I presume you're 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

In order to be able to adjudge my position effectively I would require a "true copy" of the actual agreement that apparently exists. I also require that you clarify your position on this point as failure to do so, even by omission or lack of a response, will be regarded as an attempt to deliberately misrepresent or conceal the legal position regarding this matter to which an appropriate complaint will be made to the OFT. I do, after all, make my request in good faith and I feel it is a nonsense approach to hold to the idea that you won’t provide this document because you simply don’t have to. I feel that would take advantage of your position and such an approach from your business not be in the best interests of a healthy business/client relationship. In light of the above, I consider this account to be unenforceable until such time you properly comply with my original s.78 request and send a photocopy of the original purported document, if it exists. If it does not, then you must confirm this to me in line with your licensing guidance, as detailed above.

As this account is clearly unenforceable, I expect you to write back and confirm that no further action will be taken and that the account is now closed and no further correspondence will take place; irrespective, unless you do supply a photocopy of the original agreement I will not correspond with you again and any threats will be averred and unlawful and vexatious with a counter-claim forthcoming.
Yours faithfully,

Sign Digitally

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Egg, remember we lost High Court with that - their agreements are generally sound. I will not give any opinion on Egg agreements because we (the consumer) LOST at High Court so unless there is a glaringly obvious error, I am sorry but you must make your own opinion on the facts.

High Court wins hands down, always

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Thanks Niddy.......

I posted it too cos I knew you'd lose the formatting

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Sadly this is

I am hoping for the Marlin assignment Canada Square are not so forthcoming

Will get the missing PT letter off.

Thanks for Niddy for looking at this even though up to his eyeballs in techy stuff.

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

• Type of account (credit card/loan)GE Money/Santander
  Credit Card but could have once been a storecard There are two account numbers for this account. Seemed to change 2003/2004
• Date commenced (ideally before Apr 2007)
  2002 we think
• Approx balance
  £700
• Date last paid (approximate date you last made a FULL payment)
• Spring 2009

• Are you on arrangement or not paying
• Arrangement £10
• Status (default/in arrears/up-to-date)
• Hmmmmmmm red 6's all the way. However we know OC defaulted us in Spring 2009. ICO has this one
• Default spring 2009 after ICO them.
• Account owner (who is writing to you, a DCA or the lender)
• CL Finance

CCa emailed to Niddy
Cant quite believe this lot as they must have a death wish or someit.
Letter sent to us admitting AP's were wrong as we have a default recorded by the OC. Even kindly gave us £50 in compensation.

Just done our CRA check as part of seeing they are all behaving.

Guess what these muppets have done. Not defaulted the account and left on the AP markers.

Oh dear I have a default from the OC. I have a default on one of the CRA's when it was with the OC. I have a letter from the DCA admitting it was defaulted and therefore they will correct all three CRA's to show it is defaulted.

I have £50 compensation from the DCA admitting they are muppets.

What shall I do????? Write to them pointing out the error of their ways? Or shall I complain to FOS and get them charged the case fee of £500.

Difficult one this. On one side I could be decent or on the other I could inflict real pain seeing as my account is worth £700.

Is there anyway we could start a poll? See what AAD members think I should do?
PS I have 2 years before it really makes any difference if on AP or default so have all the time in the world on this one.

Any advice??????

8/3/2013 Update. FOS now involved. Muppets seem to be saying they have changed the AP's. Funny that as we have upon asking from FOS just sent copies of all three CRA's showing that they hadnt changed them at all. That along with their own letter admitting they were muppets and the account was defaulted from October.

Think a smacked bum is coming here.

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Type of account (credit card/loan) Egg
Credit Card
Date commenced (ideally before Apr 2007)
2001 however there was an account number change Apr 2007. OH cant remember anything about this. SAR has shown nothing up but also didnt reveal any CCA's
Approx balance
£2300

Date last paid (approximate date you last made a FULL payment)
2009

Are you on arrangement or not paying
Arrangement £20 pcm

Status (default/in arrears/up-to-date)
Default 2009
Account owner (who is writing to you, a DCA or the lender)
APEX

7/12/2012 Letter from Apex. They are in receipt of our CCA request (1st and second letters sent to get account in dispute)
Egg are not responding to their requests for CCA but they will continue to try.
In the meantime they invite us to carry on paying.

18/2/2013 CCA and documents posted to Niddy in secure section.
28/2/2013 Apex writing requesting payment proposals within next 7 days.
Not sure if this is EN or UE yet
5/3/2013. Another threat giving us 10 days to pay up or they will set the hell hounds onto us. This time the word litigation has crept in. It is only pre litigation so not a LBA. However the tone of letter is a definite rachet up of the pressure.
We have not replied as yet but feel we perhaps need to get something to them.
7/3/2013 Sadly this is
I am hoping for the Marlin assignment Canada Square are not so forthcoming
Missing PT sent.
8/3/2013 Another look at this has revealed something that could make this Am hoping so.

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

• Type of account (credit card/loan)GE Money/Santander
  Credit Card but could have once been a storecard There are two account numbers for this account. Seemed to change 2003/2004
• Date commenced (ideally before Apr 2007)
  2002 we think
• Approx balance
  £700
• Date last paid (approximate date you last made a FULL payment)
• Spring 2009

• Are you on arrangement or not paying
• Arrangement £10
• Status (default/in arrears/up-to-date)
• Hmmmmmmm red 6's all the way. However we know OC defaulted us in Spring 2009. ICO has this one
• Default spring 2009 after ICO them.
• Account owner (who is writing to you, a DCA or the lender)
• CL Finance

CCa emailed to Niddy
Cant quite believe this lot as they must have a death wish or someit.
Letter sent to us admitting AP's were wrong as we have a default recorded by the OC. Even kindly gave us £50 in compensation.

Just done our CRA check as part of seeing they are all behaving.

Guess what these muppets have done. Not defaulted the account and left on the AP markers.

Oh dear I have a default from the OC. I have a default on one of the CRA's when it was with the OC. I have a letter from the DCA admitting it was defaulted and therefore they will correct all three CRA's to show it is defaulted.

I have £50 compensation from the DCA admitting they are muppets.

What shall I do????? Write to them pointing out the error of their ways? Or shall I complain to FOS and get them charged the case fee of £500.

Difficult one this. On one side I could be decent or on the other I could inflict real pain seeing as my account is worth £700.

Is there anyway we could start a poll? See what AAD members think I should do?
PS I have 2 years before it really makes any difference if on AP or default so have all the time in the world on this one.

Any advice??????

8/3/2013 Update. FOS now involved. Muppets seem to be saying they have changed the AP's. Funny that as we have upon asking from FOS just sent copies of all three CRA's showing that they hadnt changed them at all. That along with their own letter admitting they were muppets and the account was defaulted from October.

Think a smacked bum is coming here.

12/3/2013 £100 in the bank get in there you beauty plus promise to default. Thanks very much please dont default us again as quite like this getting money off you m'larky. See you again in 3 months when we will want £200

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Type of account (credit card/loan) Egg
Credit Card
Date commenced (ideally before Apr 2007)
2001 however there was an account number change Apr 2007. OH cant remember anything about this. SAR has shown nothing up but also didnt reveal any CCA's
Approx balance
£2300

Date last paid (approximate date you last made a FULL payment)
2009

Are you on arrangement or not paying
Arrangement £20 pcm

Status (default/in arrears/up-to-date)
Default 2009
Account owner (who is writing to you, a DCA or the lender)
APEX

7/12/2012 Letter from Apex. They are in receipt of our CCA request (1st and second letters sent to get account in dispute)
Egg are not responding to their requests for CCA but they will continue to try.
In the meantime they invite us to carry on paying.

18/2/2013 CCA and documents posted to Niddy in secure section.
28/2/2013 Apex writing requesting payment proposals within next 7 days.
Not sure if this is EN or UE yet
5/3/2013. Another threat giving us 10 days to pay up or they will set the hell hounds onto us. This time the word litigation has crept in. It is only pre litigation so not a LBA. However the tone of letter is a definite rachet up of the pressure.
We have not replied as yet but feel we perhaps need to get something to them.
7/3/2013 Sadly this is
I am hoping for the Marlin assignment Canada Square are not so forthcoming
Missing PT sent.

8/3/2013 Another look at this has revealed something that could make this Am hoping so.

16/3/2013 Two letters this week. First one they were disappointed with us but obviously despite track and trace showing missing PT letter arrived 4 days before they have still not thought maybe time to pull this account out of the threat o gram machine.

Two days later they are now looking into our complaint and will revert shortly to us. O.H happy bunny again. Thanks Niddy.

[ken100464]

Re: Ken100464 UE Diary

Type of account (credit card/loan) Egg
Credit Card
Date commenced (ideally before Apr 2007)
2001 however there was an account number change Apr 2007. OH cant remember anything about this. SAR has shown nothing up but also didnt reveal any CCA's
Approx balance
£2300

Date last paid (approximate date you last made a FULL payment)
2009

Are you on arrangement or not paying
Arrangement £20 pcm

Status (default/in arrears/up-to-date)
Default 2009
Account owner (who is writing to you, a DCA or the lender)
APEX

7/12/2012 Letter from Apex. They are in receipt of our CCA request (1st and second letters sent to get account in dispute)
Egg are not responding to their requests for CCA but they will continue to try.
In the meantime they invite us to carry on paying.

18/2/2013 CCA and documents posted to Niddy in secure section.
28/2/2013 Apex writing requesting payment proposals within next 7 days.
Not sure if this is EN or UE yet
5/3/2013. Another threat giving us 10 days to pay up or they will set the hell hounds onto us. This time the word litigation has crept in. It is only pre litigation so not a LBA. However the tone of letter is a definite rachet up of the pressure.
We have not replied as yet but feel we perhaps need to get something to them.
7/3/2013 Sadly this is
I am hoping for the Marlin assignment Canada Square are not so forthcoming
Missing PT sent.

8/3/2013 Another look at this has revealed something that could make this Am hoping so.

16/3/2013 Two letters this week. First one they were disappointed with us but obviously despite track and trace showing missing PT letter arrived 4 days before they have still not thought maybe time to pull this account out of the threat o gram machine.

Two days later they are now looking into our complaint and will revert shortly to us. O.H happy bunny again. Thanks Niddy.

23/3/2013 Rambling letter from the DCA. I can condense this into alot less.
Basically they aint sure of their position, they are unsure of Canada Square's paperwork, they will go back and ask again for more, they think we owe them even though they admit the paperwork could be naff and as of this moment is UE which they admit, and they will put a halt on all collection activity.
All in all they have been pretty honest god forbid.
So the account is at this moment admitted UE by the DCA.

They do ask for our repayment proposals.

Think our repayment proposals are irrelevant. Think their paperwork issues require their attention first. Ignore