Re: Miss-Treated's UE Diary
OK, here is a letter. I would send it to Greenies by first class recorded mail tomorrow. Let me know if you want it amending.
"Dear Sirs
Re your letter dated xxth June 2013.
Thank you for your letter, the contents of which I have noted. Since your letter clearly refers to the threat of litigation, I am treating it as a formal letter of claim, albeit an entirely defective one. I refer you to the Civil Procedure Rules Pre-Action Protocol practice direction, in particular Annex A and Annex B. You will note your letter fails spectacularly to comply with either of the aforesaid Annexes.
Since you are a firm of solicitors, I cannot excuse such failures, and place you on notice that any litigation on the back of this letter will result in an immediate application to the Court requesting the matter stayed, with costs against you and your client on the indemnity basis. I refer you to Para 4.6 of the Practice Direction which explains the consequences of non compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol.
Turning to the subject matter of your letter, this matter is the subject of disputes which have been raised with your clients representatives, and therefore it would be appropriate before you threaten litigation for your clients to actively deal with the issues which I have raised.
The main crux of my dispute is your clients' persistent failure to comply with the legislation under which this issue falls, namely the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The way in which they have sought to evade their obligations has left me in a position where I am unable to ascertain whether or not any liability exists to your clients, nor to quantify any liability should it exist.
Firstly, you appear to have lumped together three separate accounts into one, so as to create confusion and obfuscate the reality of each individual situation. Obviously, the circumstances surrounding the dispute on each individual alleged account is different. I will now detail these disputes in chronological order of opening.
The first part of the alleged debt for which you are claiming appears to relate to an extremely old Advantage Gold account. The paperwork which the alleged creditor is required to provide for this type of account, by the provisions of The Consumer Credit (EU Directive) Regulations 2010 and also c.39 (s.74 (A&B) (VA)) CCA(1974), has never been forthcoming. Consequently, I am entirely unsure of any possible liability, or its possible extent. I have now formally requested such paperwork once again, so I refer you back to the account holder to liaise with them to provide the required documentation.
A similar situation exists with the second component account, which appears to be a Current Account Plus of slightly more recent vintage. No compliant paperwork has been received in this case either, and it has also been requested once again. In this case, though, the overriding consideration is that the last payment or written acknowledgement of the alleged debt occurred in 2006. The consequence of this is that it is barred from action by the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980.
The third and final component appears to relate to a slightly more recent personal loan. On 24th September 2012, I forwarded a request for information pursuant to Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The response from the alleged creditor, dated 12th October 2012, was that “the original loan agreement had been 'misfiled'”, and "the loan has insufficient detail to enable us to recreate this agreement". Conformation of this was received in a further communication on 18th April 2013.
Consequently, the request remains in default to this day, and while this default endures, enforcement is prohibited. Without the required documentation, I am in no position to assess the possibility of being liable to the alleged creditor, nor, if indeed liable, to quantify any such liability.
Accordingly, and in accordance with the CPR Pre Action Protocol practice direction, I look forward to your reply setting out correctly the nature of your clients claim and answering my disputes as stated above.
Yours Faithfully,"
At the same time, I would send the two overdraft letters to Tryiton. Don't worry about the possible SB issue for two reasons. Firstly, if it is SB, nothing can then take it back to being not SB, and this letter does not acknowledge the alleged debt in any case.
SH
OK, here is a letter. I would send it to Greenies by first class recorded mail tomorrow. Let me know if you want it amending.
"Dear Sirs
Re your letter dated xxth June 2013.
Thank you for your letter, the contents of which I have noted. Since your letter clearly refers to the threat of litigation, I am treating it as a formal letter of claim, albeit an entirely defective one. I refer you to the Civil Procedure Rules Pre-Action Protocol practice direction, in particular Annex A and Annex B. You will note your letter fails spectacularly to comply with either of the aforesaid Annexes.
Since you are a firm of solicitors, I cannot excuse such failures, and place you on notice that any litigation on the back of this letter will result in an immediate application to the Court requesting the matter stayed, with costs against you and your client on the indemnity basis. I refer you to Para 4.6 of the Practice Direction which explains the consequences of non compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol.
Turning to the subject matter of your letter, this matter is the subject of disputes which have been raised with your clients representatives, and therefore it would be appropriate before you threaten litigation for your clients to actively deal with the issues which I have raised.
The main crux of my dispute is your clients' persistent failure to comply with the legislation under which this issue falls, namely the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The way in which they have sought to evade their obligations has left me in a position where I am unable to ascertain whether or not any liability exists to your clients, nor to quantify any liability should it exist.
Firstly, you appear to have lumped together three separate accounts into one, so as to create confusion and obfuscate the reality of each individual situation. Obviously, the circumstances surrounding the dispute on each individual alleged account is different. I will now detail these disputes in chronological order of opening.
The first part of the alleged debt for which you are claiming appears to relate to an extremely old Advantage Gold account. The paperwork which the alleged creditor is required to provide for this type of account, by the provisions of The Consumer Credit (EU Directive) Regulations 2010 and also c.39 (s.74 (A&B) (VA)) CCA(1974), has never been forthcoming. Consequently, I am entirely unsure of any possible liability, or its possible extent. I have now formally requested such paperwork once again, so I refer you back to the account holder to liaise with them to provide the required documentation.
A similar situation exists with the second component account, which appears to be a Current Account Plus of slightly more recent vintage. No compliant paperwork has been received in this case either, and it has also been requested once again. In this case, though, the overriding consideration is that the last payment or written acknowledgement of the alleged debt occurred in 2006. The consequence of this is that it is barred from action by the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980.
The third and final component appears to relate to a slightly more recent personal loan. On 24th September 2012, I forwarded a request for information pursuant to Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The response from the alleged creditor, dated 12th October 2012, was that “the original loan agreement had been 'misfiled'”, and "the loan has insufficient detail to enable us to recreate this agreement". Conformation of this was received in a further communication on 18th April 2013.
Consequently, the request remains in default to this day, and while this default endures, enforcement is prohibited. Without the required documentation, I am in no position to assess the possibility of being liable to the alleged creditor, nor, if indeed liable, to quantify any such liability.
Accordingly, and in accordance with the CPR Pre Action Protocol practice direction, I look forward to your reply setting out correctly the nature of your clients claim and answering my disputes as stated above.
Yours Faithfully,"
At the same time, I would send the two overdraft letters to Tryiton. Don't worry about the possible SB issue for two reasons. Firstly, if it is SB, nothing can then take it back to being not SB, and this letter does not acknowledge the alleged debt in any case.
SH
Comment