Do They Mean Me? Diary

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Being an impatient sod, while I am waiting for Niddy to have a look at my CCA, I have studied it a bit more myself:

It is a reconstructed agreement and the first page clearly shows: 'Credit Limit: £4,500'.

I have just unearthed some old statements, including the very first one (dated 20/10/1998). which clearly shows, in the ' Your Total Credit Limit' box, £2750.

My initial reaction was to jump about and shout a bit BUT, having calmed down somewhat, I now wonder if this is such an important point.

I will postpone the shouting/jumping until I have received some wiser opinions from you knowledgeable people here.

Thanks

EDIT:

Also note that the supplied T&Cs show an APR of 21.9% but the statement shows 21.3%.

[ScabHunter]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

It is a reconstructed agreement and the first page clearly shows: 'Credit Limit: £4,500'.

I have just unearthed some old statements, including the very first one (dated 20/10/1998). which clearly shows, in the ' Your Total Credit Limit' box, £2750.

Also note that the supplied T&Cs show an APR of 21.9% but the statement shows 21.3%.

Well done for finding those anomalies, as they could come in useful in the future.

The important consideration is never to make the enemy aware of any defect which is redeemable, so make sure that any letters which are sent only refer to non-compliance without saying why. The templates we have here do that job admirably.

The other important consideration is to make sure you retain all evidence, but that is stating the obvious.

SH

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Hiya

Ok, well there is no actual agreement with anything you sent me - sure, they sent terms but that means nothing.

Similarly, they have presented the recon terms quite incorrectly as they are using a different name and address to that of the original, which is fine for the sake of providing a recon but the fact here is there is no agreement, terms are fine - but so what! We need to see the agreement, hence I would be sending this back...

--> Our Templates | Unenforceability Templates | CCA Query - Terms & Conditions Received

This currently sits as

The minor errors between the recon and original are allowed, within reason (assuming your partner was known by both names and addresses). As for the credit limit, this would need to be correct - of course though, we know they're creating a recon based from system records so the fact is they can actually add the current limit if they wanted.

I'm sure you'll not have too much bother with this -

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

p.s. sorry for the delay in responding

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Hiya

Ok, well there is no actual agreement with anything you sent me - sure, they sent terms but that means nothing.

Similarly, they have presented the recon terms quite incorrectly as they are using a different name and address to that of the original, which is fine for the sake of providing a recon but the fact here is there is no agreement, terms are fine - but so what! We need to see the agreement, hence I would be sending this back...

--> Our Templates | Unenforceability Templates | CCA Query - Terms & Conditions Received

This currently sits as

The minor errors between the recon and original are allowed, within reason (assuming your partner was known by both names and addresses). As for the credit limit, this would need to be correct - of course though, we know they're creating a recon based from system records so the fact is they can actually add the current limit if they wanted.

I'm sure you'll not have too much bother with this -

Hi Niddy and thanks for that - no need to apologise for the delay, I appreciate the time and effort you put into this site.

Both names and addresses applied to my friend and are correct.

I already know (from NatWest's letters re a PPI claim) that they don't hold records for this account for 1998/99. This agreement certainly looks like something cobbled together to fob me off.

Have you come across other NatWest card 'agreements' like this one? It is looks cleverly done so that her name and address appear to be printed on the same 'copied' paper as the T&Cs.

I have previously offered a F&F on this of 25%, which they refused but they came back with their offer of 80%.

Ideally, I would like to get a low F&F to clear the thing - for the peace of mind. I wouldn't want an agreement suddenly being found or a change in court rulings that might make it enforceable sometime in the future.

I have a SAR long overdue, so perhaps I should wait to see what that produces first - what do you think?

Thanks again.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Regards F&F you'd best waiting till a DCA owns it as the bank rarely accept such offers.

This recon is normal. I'd not worry too much about that to be honest. See what the SAR brings but wasted tenner in essence cos they can enforce using a recon so nothing to be gained really.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Obviously cessation of all payments is necessary in order to get the bank to sell it, for an offer to then be made.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Just a quick update:

I haven't responded to NatWest' unenforceable CCA and haven't stopped the £22 monthly payments yet.

This is because there is still a PPI claim appeal with the FOS and, in the event it is approved, I want to ensure that the payment plan is still in place so that any PPI refund cannot be credited to the account arrears.

I believe I am right in thinking that, whilst a agreed payment plan is in force, the refund cannot be used to credit the account.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Type of account: Credit Card
Date commenced:1998
Approx balance: £5100
Date last paid: Ongoing
Are you on arrangement: Paying £22 pm by arrangement.
Status: Default (2006)
Account owner: NatWest

I am helping a friend in dealing with this and other debts. Her creditors are all now dealing directly with me.
Earlier this year I made a F&F offer on her behalf of £1300 which was refused but NatWest said they would accept £4100 (80%) in F&F.
She made a CCA request in October which generated a reconstructed agreement.
A PPI reclaim on this has been refused and is now with the FOS.
My hope is that I can get NatWest to accept a reasonable (as in low) F&F on this.

21-05-2012 F&F offer letter sent offering £1300.
29-05-2012 Refusal of F&F offer, but they will accept £4148.66.
27-09-2012 s.78 Consumer Credit Agreement request letter sent.
02-10-12. PPI claim sent.
02-10-12. SAR sent.
13-10-12 Letter dated 08-10-12 confirming PPI claim received
13-11-12 PPI claim refused
30-11-12 PPI claim referred to FOS
23-10-12 Letter sent as follow-up to not receiving the CCA
30-10-12 Reconstituted CCA arrived (letter dated 17-10-12)
14-01-13 (Received 22-01-03) Letter saying payment arrangement is due for review.

Niddy says the CCA is as it lacks prescribed terms.
She is still paying £22 per month whilst the PPI appeal is with the FOS. They estimate 12 months to make a decision. The monthly payments are being made in an effort to ensure any PPI reclaim is not credited to the account (opinions on this thinking welcome).

I could do with some advice on the following, please:

1. Am I right in thinking that any PPI payout could/would be credited to the account? If so, would continuing with the payment plan stop this from happening?

2. The Default Notice is dated December 2006. Regular reduced payments have been made since early 2007. Could NatWest still go to court to 'attempt' a judgement in view of the time that has elapsed since the DN?

3. Is their any gain in sending a CPUTR letter asking if they hold the original CCA agreement?

Just trying to get all my ducks lined up.
Thanks.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Type of account: Credit Card
Date commenced:2002
Approx balance: £1400
Date last paid: 2006
Are you on arrangement: Paying £8 pm by arrangement.
Status: Default (2006)
Account owner: Tesco Bank (now RBS)

Again, this is for the same friend as my other posts.

21-05-12 Sent F&F offer of £350.
11-06-12 Received letter refusing £350 in F&F.
27-09-12 Sent CCA request. 02-10-12. SAR sent to RBS
17-10-12 Copy of microfiche 'agreement' received.

It is obvious that they have sent a copy of the card application rather than an agreement - copy going to good old Niddy but I am pretty sure what he will say.
The SAR info is arriving in dribs and drabs but nothing from Tesco yet.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Hiya

Will look at emails later in the meantime, why are you SARing these? All you need to do is CCA them, doing SAR is only ever any good if they want to claim PPI or something but you don't do this if you're trying for UE (CCA Request)...

Any reason for the SAR? If any possible refund would wipe the debt then sure, go for it - otherwise never reclaim at this stage. It also helps should they try and enforce, gives you some leeway

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Hiya

Will look at emails later in the meantime, why are you SARing these? All you need to do is CCA them, doing SAR is only ever any good if they want to claim PPI or something but you don't do this if you're trying for UE (CCA Request)...

Any reason for the SAR? If any possible refund would wipe the debt then sure, go for it - otherwise never reclaim at this stage. It also helps should they try and enforce, gives you some leeway

Hi Niddy and thanks for that.

The reason for the SAR is because I am dealing with a total of five RBS debts (inc this Tesco one) and the SAR was mainly to do with two overdrafts. Up to now it has been £10 well spent because it has established that one overdraft for £1900 is Statute Barred. Any other good that comes from it is a bonus.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

Fair do's - ok keep us updated.....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

p.s. well done on the SB - result

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Do They Mean Me? Diary

p.s. well done on the SB - result

Thanks mate.
The best one came before I found you here. Personal loan for £13,500 - unenforceable due to a 'misfiled' agreement. Good on yer NatWest, keep up the: