Spud's UE Diary

[ken100464]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Think the 7 day issue is muddying the water tbh.

Think if there is no reply from you by that date they will initiate. If you havnt replied Amex wont have told them anything. So they will proceed even if the case is a load of poo. Because they have been told to and have no other information to tell them that its not as easy as they think it will be.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Brachers? Who?

Sorry, who are these clowns? Never heard of them issuing N1's before.

Banks/DCA's get worse it seems - just use any old Tom dick or Harry.

I'd send Paul's letter above off and stop being clever with dates. Forget dates, post the letter mate

[PlanB]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

i received a letter from Brachers with a fixed date of 3rd July to make full payment otherwise their unstructions are to issue legal proceedings against me

It is not headed as a LBA but research shows that Brachers dont seem to issue a titled LBA and try to issue litigation by stealth and suprise by disguising a LBA as a normal DCA introduction letter that essentially contains MOST of the pre action protocol

. . . . . I try not to ask where I can but because I could not arrive at a definative answer I thought I would ask the question.

You can never ask too many questions but you can ask too few. Nothing wrong in double-checking you've understood the position

A LBA doesn't have to be headed LBA in fact it's now known as a 'Letter Before Claim' in most cases. But if it's given a deadline for payment with a date and the time (usually 4 pm) then it means business.

If it was me I would drop everything and get that letter deepie suggested (in post # 171) in the post today so it arrives on Monday and makes its way onto the relevant solicitor's desk before 4 pm on Wednesday

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Brachers? Who?

Sorry, who are these clowns? Never heard of them issuing N1's before.

Banks/DCA's get worse it seems - just use any old Tom dick or Harry.

I'd send Paul's letter above off and stop being clever with dates. Forget dates, post the letter mate

Dont worry - The letter (Pauls letter) is on its way to them ( Or will be this afternoon when finished!) - There is no dispute there. I am under no illusion that proactive management is the key here.

I have also just printed off a full SAR for AMEX which will be going this afternoon.

I was just researching the pre action protocol and happened to stumble on the date thing and thought I would explore the details.

Like I say its not a biggie but all too often the devil is in the detail and there could have been something in it that down the line could work in my favour. The date thing does not effect the letter that they are receiving - Just for my personal research really

There is not much about Brachers on the net but they have issued claims before and I am suspicious of the "New DCA letter" that almost complies and has an internal code reference of "LBA"

The little research that is out there seems to point to the fact that this is a Brachers "trademark trick"

Im not massively worried but getting my "house in order" as it were

[PlanB]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Brachers? Who?

Sorry, who are these clowns? Never heard of them issuing N1's before.

I think these clowns are based in Maidstone and they seem pretty clued up on Pre-Action Protocol. They charge a modest £15 to send out a LBA and will check for home ownership at the same time according to their website:

http://www.brachers.co.uk/services/d...ion-protocols/

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

I think these clowns are based in Maidstone and they seem pretty clued up on Pre-Action Protocol. They charge a modest £15 to send out a LBA and will check for home ownership at the same time according to their website:

http://www.brachers.co.uk/services/d...ion-protocols/

I would agree with all of that.

They seem "real deal" hence my previous posts

Thankyou to all - Just getting the points down in the letter properly before hitting the print button

[SXGuy]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Ive had letters before with codes like LBA at the bottom, its a reference for them so they know which letters they have sent out.

Ive had some which are like 001, 002, 003 like they send them out in a particular order.

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Ive had letters before with codes like LBA at the bottom, its a reference for them so they know which letters they have sent out.

Ive had some which are like 001, 002, 003 like they send them out in a particular order.

This is just the same - Its their internal template letter code

The code for this one is clearly a LBA even though it is not "headed" or "Titled" as such

But given that and the pay by XXXX Time and date suggests it means business and must be treated as such

Appreciate it

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

I think these clowns are based in Maidstone and they seem pretty clued up on Pre-Action Protocol. They charge a modest £15 to send out a LBA and will check for home ownership at the same time according to their website:

http://www.brachers.co.uk/services/d...ion-protocols/

Interesting, but could it be a letterhead for rent jobby...?

Anyway, hopefully when they see sight of Paul's little template they'll think again

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

This is just the same - Its their internal template letter code

The code for this one is clearly a LBA even though it is not "headed" or "Titled" as such

But given that and the pay by XXXX Time and date suggests it means business and must be treated as such

Appreciate it

It doesn't need to be headed - it only needs to explain the actual reasons for them wanting to pursue a claim. Examples of non compliance are;

4.4

The court may decide that there has been a failure of compliance by a party because, for example, that party has –

(1) not provided sufficient information to enable the other party to understand the issues;
(2) not acted within a time limit set out in a relevant pre-action protocol, or, where no specific time limit applies, within a reasonable period;
(3) unreasonably refused to consider ADR (paragraph 8 in Part III of this Practice Direction and the pre-action protocols all contain similar provisions about ADR); or
(4) without good reason, not disclosed documents requested to be disclosed.

It's the bold points that they need to have really followed here.

--> PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT - Civil Procedure Rules

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Interesting, but could it be a letterhead for rent jobby...?

Anyway, hopefully when they see sight of Paul's little template they'll think again

These could well be letters for rent. same as HL legal ect Thanks Niddy - I understand a little more about them not needed to be titled ect

I have just received my post for today

Got a response from Brachers regarding my "Sold in dispute/UE/Telephone threats letter. They certainly dont hang around!

I basically set out that this is UE as AMEX have not complied with my CCA request as per the Sold in dispute template and complained that they were threatening telephone contact when I have a letter from AMEX who paid me compensation for telephone harassment and stated that external contacts will only make contact by letter ect Asked them to justify why they were going against their clients wishes ect

Apparently they are "sorry" that I feel the need to complain ( Wasnt really a formal complaint but they are treating it as such) and in line with their clients protocol they have passed the complaint to AMEX internal investigations.

Now I suppose technically until AMEX respond - The account should not really be "progressed" but I notice Brachers did not confirm that they would be holding action ect

I will still be sending "Pauls" template letter regardless - Off to the post office shortly

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Hold fire on sending Paul's letter - ie edit it and incorporate the letter received today into it as well mate so its bang up to date. Just say "in relation to your previous two letters dated X & Y"....

Cover all bases

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Niddy

OK will do

What are your thoughts regarding reminding them that they should be holding action whilst this is being investigated?

Is there any foundation in that?

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Sorry to ask a Basic question but my brain is a bit frazzled at the moment and I cannot seem to think straight ( Got terminal man flu)

In relation to a credit card taken out around 2003

If a CCA'd a creditor and they provided a copy of an application form that was missing the pescribed terms - (Literally a copy of a 30 second sign here app form) which Niddy has not suprisingly classed as UE

And a copy of Credit card terms that were virtually illedgeable and quite possibly didnt relate to the card in question

So they have supplied something but not something that is enforcable

Would that still be classed as being in default or would they have deemed to have complied with the Sec 77-79 request? I have a feeling that as they have sent something, Then they have complied and this is not officially in default ( Preventing enforcement action) but I keep second guessing myself

I know that not replying puts the account in default but I guess my question is Does sending something back even though it is clearly UE then remove them from being in default?

I know that Sec 127 then kicks in as what they have sent is missing the pescribed terms but I am trying to establish whether they are still oficially in default....ie - Prevented from taking enforcement action

Does that make sense? I've read it 3 times !!!

[SXGuy]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Why are you stressing over this? if they havent supplied any prescribed terms and the T's and C's they did supply are illegible then just chill!

Listen, DCA's and Banks will often tell you they have complied and satisfied their obligations, they lie.

If you are worried, you have plenty to defend yourself in my opinion.