sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

Sainsbury Credit Card -

There are no terms attached and certainly no prescribed ones, send this back to CapQuest --> CCA Query - Missing Prescribed Terms - allaboutDEBT UK

IF -

There are terms granted, however the issue is that they link to other terms which clearly are not there. Look at the agreement page, scanned as page 5, and you'll see it mentions accepting and reading terms D6.1, D8, D10 etc - but these terms are nowhere to be seen. As above, send this for now --> CCA Query - Missing Prescribed Terms - allaboutDEBT UK

Capital 1 (mum) -

Capital 1 (dad) -

Both the accounts above are fully enforceable IMO as they both link to and show the necessary PT's. No harm in blagging them though, see what Cap1 do about it. If you wish to do that, just send the same missing PT's template as above for the other accounts.

Barclays -

The fools confirmed this themselves on 30th April

You can safely ignore this, they won't be able to do much about it as a result of the following wording in their letter:

[sulphur2001]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

The problem with Barclays is how they have gone about it all.

The original CCA was sent to Barclays who initially said to go to Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley said to go to the DCA. The DCA are pointing back towards Barclays. So if Barclays cannot provide the Ts and Cs, do we basically require similar letters from both MS and the DCA?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

The problem with Barclays is how they have gone about it all.

The original CCA was sent to Barclays who initially said to go to Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley said to go to the DCA. The DCA are pointing back towards Barclays. So if Barclays cannot provide the Ts and Cs, do we basically require similar letters from both MS and the DCA?

I noticed that but it doesn't matter they cannot find the agreement so they are snookered. Leave it well alone and just stop paying them - they can't do anything

[sulphur2001]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

Stop paying altogether? Surely the DCA will go nuts? Should they inform them that they no longer intend to pay?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

yep - so what if they go nuts, what can they do? It won't go SB if you keep paying will it

[sulphur2001]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

Ah I see.

Just to clarify, as the original lenders were Goldfish, I take it the onus to provide the agreement lies with Barclays alone? As it doesn't exist, end of story? So applying for CCAs from the DCA or Morgan Stanley is rather just a waste of a stamp?

If so, champagne time?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

well yea, they don't have it so why ask anyone else? You have requested s.78 - they failed to comply. End of.

[sulphur2001]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

Awesome.

Cheers Niddy!

I'll add the responses as I get them and clean up the original post!

[sulphur2001]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

OK slight spanner in the works.

My Mom just isn't happy cancelling the DD and having done with them. In a way, i can understand her concern. Given my Dad's health and she scared of stirring the Hornet's nest - the DCA concerned has more than just the Barclays debt - she's worried about things getting heavy and she doesn't have it in her to fight tooth and nail.

So, I was thinking, what if I full-and-final'd this one account right now? As in use the barclays letter as supporting evidence and offer a token to close this account down and have that done?

The amount outstanding here is £2550; so if I offered an F&F of £250, adding in a photocopy of the Barclays letters... good idea? I know the idea is to get all the debtors together with the sum of money on offer and split it equally, however this would be a special case?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

Why would you make a F&F offer based on an UE agreement? You wouldn't, they know this and would likely refuse that offer.

In fairness, UE won't be in their interests if they wish to pay, they'd probably be better sticking to some formal DMP or the like. If something is UE then we'd not suggest paying - the ultimate aim is to get past 6 years and reach SB.

Some thinking needed

[sulphur2001]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

I think it's more that if they just don't pay, the other accounts that the DCA has will get a little more bothersome. Which I understand to a point. My thoughts are if I could turn this one into a "we could just easily stop paying, so take the settlement" type thing.

[MrsD]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

Sulphur

Before you make any decisions you need to read around the diaries.

The whole point of UE is to stop paying to get to SB

I think your Mum is still thinking in terms of "nice banks"

[sulphur2001]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

Hahaha, yes, I think I am too....

[Miss Muddled]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

Hi sulphur, please put your trust in Niddy and AAD, just take the time to read other UE diaries and you will see exactly what can be achieved.

[ScabHunter]

Re: sulphur2001 Parents UE diary

There certainly needs to be a lot of thought given to strategy and tactics before any choices are made here. A lot of what has been written doesn't make a lot of sense.

To clear up the first point, as to why 6th April 2007 is important, that was the date on which subsections 3 to 5 of section 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 were repealed. However, they were not repealed retrospectively, so every agreement taken out before then is still governed by the old laws.

As for this being put to rest before “Xmas”, that is what they said about the Second World War. Indeed, that was over before Christmas, a Christmas which happened six years later. That is almost certainly what is going to happen here. Don't expect the result to be in before 2019 at the earliest. If they don't stop paying immediately, it will take longer.

Unenforceability is not a strategy which can be half-followed. You either follow it 100% or you follow it 0%. If you make even a £1 token payment at any stage, you are resetting the limitation clock for another six years, and are therefore not following unenforceability.

The biggest problem here is the mental condition of the participants. I don't have any family, and I've never had any wives or girlfriends either. That makes life a lot easier for me, because I've only ever had my own wars to fight. It must be extremely difficult to know what somebody needs to be doing to better their situation, but to have them continually refuse to do it through mental illusion. As has been said already, there is no bigger illusion than a belief that banks can be “nice”

What needs to be done here is simple enough. Trying to get that message through to those who need to hear it will definitely not be simple.

The idea that a DCA will get “heavy” if payments are stopped is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, it gives them a power over your mind which they simply do not have. You are fighting an illusion of something with power, instead of what really exists. Also, DCAs follow the same principle which legitimate businesses follow, in that they market more often to those who have already become paying customers. If you are selling widgets, are you more likely to get a response from cold leads, or from those who have bought widgets in the past? If you are a DCA selling people on the idea of donating money, are you more likely to get a donation from someone who is arguing and fighting their corner, or an increased donation from someone who has already capitulated and shown themselves to be amenable to the idea of donating?

Reading the other UE diaries would definitely be a good idea, as these are real world live examples of how this situation can be handled.

SH