clueless24 UE Diary

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

All you need to do is to edit the two bold parts and replace the text with the name of the creditor, not Moorcroft but the actual company you have the account with.....

[clueless24]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

All you need to do is to edit the two bold parts and replace the text with the name of the creditor, not Moorcroft but the actual company you have the account with.....

I told you I was easily confused, I have e-mailed you my edited letter but on the top of the instructions it said to delete references to s 77.78 if it was a card. Which in this case it is. I have probably got it wrong again SORRY

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

I told you I was easily confused, I have e-mailed you my edited letter but on the top of the instructions it said to delete references to s 77.78 if it was a card. Which in this case it is. I have probably got it wrong again SORRY

This is a s.77 according to them. I don't check my own letters i'm afraid, time is too valuable to do such luxuries. The odd mistake doesn't matter too much, but unfortunately you have to edit all templates (as they are generalised of course) so its best to learn from the ground up

It doesn't matter if you leave it to read s.77-s.79 (its all the same)...

[clueless24]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

Hiya

No need to apologise - that's not what i'm looking for, it was the assertive confidence that was lacking - now you've posted this, I am happy that the agreement they sent is in fact a copy which does not relate to the goods in question ergo this is 100% unenforceable and I am more than happy to call them liars to their faces - its the bloody wrong sort of credit agreement for a start!

You should be responding to the CCA received (ie send to Moorcroft), with the following: ---> Debtors Final Response - CCA Received

You stated the account was opened in 1994, is this accurate or was it a typo?

Definately 1994 and confirmed, as on page 1 of the CCA covering letter

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

hang on - brb

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

Right - my apologies, I have just noticed the bloody obvious! They confirm you opened the account on 24 July 94 yet the agreement they attach was signed in 2005 - 11 years later!

This account is 1,000,000,000,000,000

You must cease all repayments to this and instead of any previous advice, respond with the following letter (to SDG direct)

Dear Sirs,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

Having recently requested a copy of the alleged original Credit Agreement (CCA), in line with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (s.77-s.79), I was dismayed to receive what can only be described as a fraudulent document. My reason(s) for this claim are set out below:

1. The original agreement was allegedly taken out on 24 July 1994 and would have fallen under s.78 (CCA1974) as a 'revolving Credit Agreement' however the agreement you sent to me is dated 15 January 2005 which was 11 years later than the date you allege original inception; it also suggests the facility was a s.77 Agreement (i.e. a 'Fixed Sum' amount) which this account clearly was not.

The OFT advises 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

As is clear, sending me a document that clearly was not in place at the time of the alleged agreement was sent to me, I think we can both agree that this does indeed directly breach OFT Guidance.

So, as you have failed to comply with my lawful request for a true, signed copy of the agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it, failed to send a full statement of the account and failed to provide any of the documentation requested but instead sent a forgery, any legal action you pursue will be averred as both unlawful & vexatious. Furthermore I shall counter-claim that any such action constitutes unlawful harassment and pursue legal action for the attempted fraud. You may also consider this letter as a statutory notice under s.10 of the Data Protection Act (1998) to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies.

Any attempted argument regarding case law such as McGuffick v RBS or Carey v HSBC will be dismissed as those particular cases have no bearing on the legal reporting methods that a lender has with the Credit Reference Agency, namely adding derogatory data whilst an account is in dispute - this account clearly is disputed. The recent McGuffick and Carey cases confirmed that a lender should submit upon request a valid true copy of the original CCA. Yes, you are allowed to report the account "conduct" to the Credit Reference Agency's, but you may not enforce this agreement until you fully comply with the provisions set out within the Act, taking into account the recent Judgments and the history and case notes within said judgments. As a result of everything put together in this letter, I do feel it would be in your best interests to consider this matter closed and write off the balance as a business loss. The last thing you need right now is bad publicity and a legal loss, by presenting a forged document that we both know does not and will never satisfy clear guidelines set out in s.127(3) CCA(1974). 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.

Should you refuse to comply, you must within 30 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data and your reasoning as to why you issued a forged document under the pretence it was a copy of the original. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’; You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends. I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit unless you contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint. I therefore request a copy of your official complaints procedure which you are obliged to supply.

In light of the above, I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter and look forward to hearing from you, in writing within 30 days.

Yours faithfully


Sign digitally

[LooLoo]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

O that is so good! I think you may have made Clueless's weekend now!!

She can def relax with a nice glass of vino.

xxxxxx

[clueless24]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

Right - my apologies, I have just noticed the bloody obvious! They confirm you opened the account on 24 July 94 yet the agreement they attach was signed in 2005 - 11 years later!

This account is 1,000,000,000,000,000

You must cease all repayments to this and instead of any previous advice, respond with the following letter (to SDG direct)

You are truly an amazing person thank you so much, Letter typed up and will go first thing tomorrow 1st class Thank you thank you thank you x

[Deepie]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

You are truly an amazing person thank you so much, Letter typed up and will go first thing tomorrow 1st class Thank you thank you thank you x

Don't forget letter to be sent recorded to be singed for
good luck

[clueless24]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

Egg Banking

Credit card
Approx 2000
Bal £10,861.91
Last paid 24-2-10
Arrangement £1 token
Status Default
Acc Owner Egg DLC writing acting on behalf of Egg

3-2-11 CCA request sent
4-2-11 Delivered
9-2-11 Recieved letter from DLC returned chq and advised write direct to EGG
11-2-11 CCA request sent direct to Egg
14-2-11 Delivered
21-2-11 Recieved letter from DLC dated 18-2-11 Notice of debt recovery
24-2-11 Recieved CCA have e-mail Niddy
24-2-11 Recieved letter from Aplins Solicitors have been instructed by DLC on behalf of EGG to recover bal, giving me 7 days to make full payment or agreement to pay, or legal proceedings may be commenced without further notice + fixed costs and fees.
25-2-11 NIDDY SAYS UNENFORCABLE WHOO HOO!!!!
Have sent Threat O Gram and Original CCA letters to both DLC & Aplins
12-3-11 Have recieved response from Hillesden Securities in response to my letter as above sent to Aplins and DLC. Noting my correspondence but that the issues raised are regarding the documentation supplied by Egg, due to the above my correspondence needs to be sent directly to thier clients Egg for them to address my concerns.

A little confused on this on, sent my threat o gram letter and no original CCA as above to Aplins and DLC copying each into the other as Niddy advised and Hillesdens respond telling me I need to send correspondence to Egg. Is this one I ignore? Can someone advise please. Thank you.

[MrsD]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

It wouldn't hurt to send a letter to Egg telling them why it is deemed UE. I would send the no original CCA letter to Egg, looks like, as usual, the left hand has no idea what the right is doing.!

[clueless24]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

Hiya, see your last update below - which will answer your own question! I've highlighted in Blue so the relevant point stands out!

You need to send it to DLC as they are appointed by Egg to get the money, the reason they need to get that template is to make them aware that if they continue to instruct Aplins, then they'll be in breach (Egg won't be, as Egg have not instructed Aplins, DLC did).

make sense? basically, you have to let DLC know what is going on, regardless that Egg sent the agreement - you respond to the DCA that is chasing you!

Thank you to evenlessdopey for your reply, the reason I am confused is because of the above, I now know that Hillesden is part of DLC. Niddy say's this is UE as they produced a recon copy. If Hillesdens are saying I have to go back to Egg for documentation does this mean that they will stop collection activity? Is it a case of when in doubt do nothing? I expected to go round in circles but I'm getting dizzy

[MrsD]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

sometimes when they say they will stop and send it to the original creditor, sometimes they just do it. that's the deal on UE, you do spend a lot of time going around in a circle, some of mine are on their 3/4th DCA, and we've had the same pantomine with them all. As far as I am aware, if the DCA is dealing, then they have to deal, palming you off is not on the agenda.
do you want to give it a week and see what happens?

[clueless24]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

Thank you for the info, I think I will leave it and see what happens. I am new and learning on the job I do get myself in to a bit of a panic sometimes I am trying to read as much information as I can so I know what to expect, it certainly helps knowing you guys are here to help. Everyone has been so patient with me, thank God for AAD. x

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: clueless24 UE Diary

You don't need to do anything, as dopey says you "could" send a copy to Egg but no need, each is as responsible for the other so because the left doesn't know the right, leave them to dwell - they'll soon be touch!