liandconsmum's UE Diary

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

Thanks for updates - although I don't believe he is making the right decision with the MBNA account, based on several factors that I will list for you, to take back to him in the hope he sees some of his flaws......

1. Why pay an UE debt, especially for 2 years which will add £240 to things yet you'll find they've charged more than you pay in, so why not just pay me £240 and be done with it?
2. Paying affects statute barred
3. Paying passes the ace card back from you to the lender - big mistake
4. It shows them they can take the piss, when you try and make an offer they will refuse as you'll have already proven by then that you "don't have the balls to play the hand"... (no offence, its meant in a manner of speaking kinda way)...
5. They will not accept an offer in 2yrs after you pay steady payments, why would they? I'd rather have a tenner a month for infinity than a reduced sum...
6. Why has he made this decision?
7. Do not compare two differing accounts, regardless that they are with the same lender - it doesn't work like that

That's my views, however you know best - but you should speak to him again and mention my points above. best of luck

[MrsD]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

whatever decisions you and OH make, you are making them from a non panicing, leisurely thought process, so that is an infinitely better place to be than where most people are with debt (who haven't found AAD), so good luck and I hope it all goes well.

[liandconsmum]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

As these accounts are all in DH's name only, and DH's mental health has taken a downturn, after speaking to him at length this morning, he's made a few decisions on how he wants to handle the accounts. To some extent, they are good decisions, and obviously "his accounts - he has to say what goes" so here's the new plan.

Additions - ignore. It's not only UE, they have no CCA at all and have admitted it in writing.

Tesco - ignore and fight if necessary. It's UE. Even the fraudulent made up CCA with bad info is UE. So he's not willing to let that one go unchallenged.

Virgin/Exp Cred CMC - continue paying £10 per month per their agreement towards the balance and scrape together enough for a F&F by summer 2012.

MBNA Santander/Exp Cred CMC - technically UE, but DH wants to take them up on their offer to pay £10 per month towards the balance and scrape together enough for a F&F by January 2013, using the UE to negotiate a low payoff amount.

Halifax - again technically UE, plus they have sent us two different terms and conditions. DH is willing to fight this as well.

Santander credit card - after sending us daily mail for 45 days, including 15 DNs with different amounts, plus sending us paperwork that states it is paid in full with zero balance, I'd say we're through dealing with them. DH agrees.

He is still making decisions regarding the Paypal Santander that he has gotten court paperwork on, although he has acknowledged service online. We'll have to discuss this more today so he can make a decision quickly.

The one big change is the MBNA account, but I can see his logic. He is completely stressed over the court stuff at this point, and has decided that while he is willing to fight the others, he feels more comfortable on that one paying a low payment and then using the UE to negotiate further when he is feeling strong enough to take them on in future.

[liandconsmum]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse things.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

Virgin PPI - lovely woman at surgery has copied a few pages of DH's medical records for us that show most of the information needed to provide evidence for pre-existing conditions. So all I need to do is simply put together a letter tying it all up and spelling it all out clearly, and then attaching copies (keeping copies for ourselves as well of course) as evidence. Hopefully that should sort it.

Excellent result - I wouldn't type them out, I'd copy and send as is - let them decipher the content!

Halifax - Received a letter from Iqor today. Halifax's bouncing ball of DCAs has bounced back to Iqor now. I'll dig out the standard letter we always send (although I'm considering simply a very short letter basically stating "As you have been advised previously, this account is in dispute. Please return it to the original creditor." And leaving it at that. I see no point in printing off long letters that they're already received. The Halifax account is UE.

I'd ignore it personally, not worthy of a response.

MBNA Santander - Letter from Experto Credite/Credit Management Consultants. Another offer to settle at 50%, which we couldn't afford anyway. But this account is UE as well. Mulling over precisely how to respond, but considering sending the same letter as above (see Halifax). Although I believe Exp Cred have actually purchased the debt from MBNA Sant, whereas Iqor is simply acting for Halifax.

Ignore it!

Paypal Santander - Still not sure how to respond on this. I've been advised that there is an issue with the DNs and also with the lack of complete terms and conditions with the CCA, however, that it is not enough for it to be set aside in court. I am considering going the defence route noting these two issues, if nothing just to force them to put it right. And then see where it goes from there. I assume that if the court orders a ridiculously high repayment amount, that we can appeal that? I have a few more days leeway before responding, however, it just seems so confusing and nervewracking. Not to mention it's DH's account, and while I can give him the information, it's ultimately his decision which way to go. And he's dealing with depression, so not coping well with it (they've upped his meds, but takes weeks to take effect).

Have you spoken to Paul yet? Please keep other related stuff away from here and stick to the specific threads as it confuses things when you post about the PPI reclaim and ccj claim when there are other threads for these.

Thanks

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

Received an interesting letter from MBNA Virgin today regarding our PPI reimbursement request (due to mis-selling as didn't cover pre-existing conditions, which DH had and which they didn't tell us about). They have stated that they need us to send proof of his pre-existing conditions that cover the date of the policy for them to "consider" before they make a decision.. ????

I understand their thinking, but it aggravates me that a- if we knew we needed proof, we would have put aside specific paperwork, and b- why should we have to send confidential information to them re medical problems when they should have told us about it regardless?!? And when they say they will use the information to "consider" it further... ridiculous!! Are they going to say "oh well, this is unlikely to cause him time off work so it wouldn't affect it" ?!?

This would be from approximately 10 years ago... I honestly don't even know if we HAVE the paperwork now. And we live in a different area now, so would have to possibly get a letter from GP (and pay for it as it would need to be researched a bit as this happened in Devon). Not to mention that they told us months ago that it would be completed, and they are STILL dragging this out....

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

(also posted this on my PPI thread)

This may be best placed on the PPi thread (which I notice you did) - I'd complain to the FOS as that is not an acceptable request, unless you have an old DLA letter or something like that lying about....?

best of luck.

[liandconsmum]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

Virgin PPI - lovely woman at surgery has copied a few pages of DH's medical records for us that show most of the information needed to provide evidence for pre-existing conditions. So all I need to do is simply put together a letter tying it all up and spelling it all out clearly, and then attaching copies (keeping copies for ourselves as well of course) as evidence. Hopefully that should sort it.

Halifax - Received a letter from Iqor today. Halifax's bouncing ball of DCAs has bounced back to Iqor now. I'll dig out the standard letter we always send (although I'm considering simply a very short letter basically stating "As you have been advised previously, this account is in dispute. Please return it to the original creditor." And leaving it at that. I see no point in printing off long letters that they're already received. The Halifax account is UE.

MBNA Santander - Letter from Experto Credite/Credit Management Consultants. Another offer to settle at 50%, which we couldn't afford anyway. But this account is UE as well. Mulling over precisely how to respond, but considering sending the same letter as above (see Halifax). Although I believe Exp Cred have actually purchased the debt from MBNA Sant, whereas Iqor is simply acting for Halifax.

Paypal Santander - Still not sure how to respond on this. I've been advised that there is an issue with the DNs and also with the lack of complete terms and conditions with the CCA, however, that it is not enough for it to be set aside in court. I am considering going the defence route noting these two issues, if nothing just to force them to put it right. And then see where it goes from there. I assume that if the court orders a ridiculously high repayment amount, that we can appeal that? I have a few more days leeway before responding, however, it just seems so confusing and nervewracking. Not to mention it's DH's account, and while I can give him the information, it's ultimately his decision which way to go. And he's dealing with depression, so not coping well with it (they've upped his meds, but takes weeks to take effect).

Anyway, that's where we are right now.

[liandconsmum]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

Received an interesting letter from MBNA Virgin today regarding our PPI reimbursement request (due to mis-selling as didn't cover pre-existing conditions, which DH had and which they didn't tell us about). They have stated that they need us to send proof of his pre-existing conditions that cover the date of the policy for them to "consider" before they make a decision.. ????

I understand their thinking, but it aggravates me that a- if we knew we needed proof, we would have put aside specific paperwork, and b- why should we have to send confidential information to them re medical problems when they should have told us about it regardless?!? And when they say they will use the information to "consider" it further... ridiculous!! Are they going to say "oh well, this is unlikely to cause him time off work so it wouldn't affect it" ?!?

This would be from approximately 10 years ago... I honestly don't even know if we HAVE the paperwork now. And we live in a different area now, so would have to possibly get a letter from GP (and pay for it as it would need to be researched a bit as this happened in Devon). Not to mention that they told us months ago that it would be completed, and they are STILL dragging this out....

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

(also posted this on my PPI thread)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

Just a brief update for the Tesco account, via solicitors to DCA - letter from solicitors saying we may advise our client to commence Court action against you as a result of your failure to settle this account. blah blah blah... the solicitors have (funny enough) the same address as the DCA. LOL

Account is not only UE, but to top it off, this is the account that demanded for 10 months that we send a signature before they would send the CCA requested. (I strongly suspect they have lost the original papers, as when I called to speak to them a couple years ago regarding the PPI, they couldn't find the original paperwork, but ASSURED me it wouldn't have been mis-sold. yeesh) Then, after 10 months, suddenly (even though we didn't send them a signature), they managed to produce a CCA - which was not only fraudulent, as it had incorrect information on it, but was UE as well.

So I suppose since they insisted they HAD to have a signature and then suddenly sent it without one, they can choose which route they want to be presented in - either they were being obstructive when they were demanding a signature or they were lying when they said they needed one. More likely both.

I am flabbergasted at their cheek, I really am.

Yep so for the moment send this back: Final Response - Unenforceability (CCA Received)

[liandconsmum]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

Just a brief update for the Tesco account, via solicitors to DCA - letter from solicitors saying we may advise our client to commence Court action against you as a result of your failure to settle this account. blah blah blah... the solicitors have (funny enough) the same address as the DCA. LOL

Account is not only UE, but to top it off, this is the account that demanded for 10 months that we send a signature before they would send the CCA requested. (I strongly suspect they have lost the original papers, as when I called to speak to them a couple years ago regarding the PPI, they couldn't find the original paperwork, but ASSURED me it wouldn't have been mis-sold. yeesh) Then, after 10 months, suddenly (even though we didn't send them a signature), they managed to produce a CCA - which was not only fraudulent, as it had incorrect information on it, but was UE as well.

So I suppose since they insisted they HAD to have a signature and then suddenly sent it without one, they can choose which route they want to be presented in - either they were being obstructive when they were demanding a signature or they were lying when they said they needed one. More likely both.

I am flabbergasted at their cheek, I really am.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

In the end, I decided to go non-subtle with Halifax/Wescot. I simply sent them a photocopy of the letter I sent them in April, highlighted the area about "no door step collections" (the entire paragraph) and then wrote across the top of the letter "Copy of previous letter. Please note information re door step collections." And posted it.

And now we wait to see if it was clear enough for them.....

Well done, clever move

[liandconsmum]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

In the end, I decided to go non-subtle with Halifax/Wescot. I simply sent them a photocopy of the letter I sent them in April, highlighted the area about "no door step collections" (the entire paragraph) and then wrote across the top of the letter "Copy of previous letter. Please note information re door step collections." And posted it.

And now we wait to see if it was clear enough for them.....

[liandconsmum]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

Paypal Santander - we've gotten a letter from the solicitors associated with the DCA re this account today. It says "notice of pending legal action" and states "we have been instructed to prepare court papers for issue against you for non-payment of the above debt."

As I am trying to sort out the query regarding the default notices, do I put together a letter stating that we are currently reviewing the file and will re-contact them in a few weeks? I will go make DH figure out the blasted scanner so I can get those statements emailed to Paul today as well. I'm tired of kicking the scanner to make it work. For some reason, Santander has sent a statement to us as well regarding this account - on Santander headings, which is completely different from the usual Paypal headings. Not sure why the change, or why the sudden statement at the same time as the letter from solicitors. ?

Re; Halifax
Wescot have now sent us a "doorstep collection notice". It states "as we know of no genuine reason why you have failed to repay the outstanding balance, instructions will now be provided to our agent to make an appointment with you to visit your home address." Which will be interesting, as they don't have our phone number. They can't come to the house without contacting us first, I didn't think. So I guess any appointments would either be in the post, or they would show up on our doorstep and try to blag it and be threatening. Again . Will have to send them the doorstep collection letter....off to find it... grrrrrrrrr The letter I sent them in April specifically told them and had the "no doorstep collection" bits in it... the whole paragraph of it. I am going to send them a copy of the letter, highlight that paragraph, and then put a very short letter in with it, basically saying "Please see attached copy of letter previously sent in April to your business, particularly the outlined portion regarding door step collection. Kindly make note of it." Subtle enough, you think? And on a side note, they know very well why we have failed to pay the balance - because it's UE!

[liandconsmum]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

I was going to send Halifax the "threat of legal action - cca in dispute" letter, but I will ignore as per Niddy. I see the point, really. As I advised the same solicitors in April 2011 that the account was in dispute (and they in turn sent it back to the DCA), then I would think that if the account came to them a mere few months later, it would be their responsibility to verify that the dispute had been resolved before taking any further action. To do anything else would be irresponsible and reflect poorly in court, would it not?

So.... they are being ignored for now. Saves on postage, so I'm not about to argue with that.

Edited to add: argh... new Halifax nonsense on next post.....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: liandconsmum's UE Diary

I think that's you now up to date - if not let me know what I have missed and I will respond later!