lookingforward's UE Diary

[Susie]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

Interesting that MBNA people are starting to answer back as I received a similar letter yesterday. Hope you can get them to see sense though.

[lookingforward]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

Interesting that MBNA people are starting to answer back as I received a similar letter yesterday. Hope you can get them to see sense though.

So do I :-)

Could have done without this on the day my little girl becomes a teenager :-(

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

This is re MBNA loan/1st credit which is UE.
Today I have recd the following:-

Letter from Connaught as follows: They refer to my letter 17.2.11 (Threat by Lender/D.C.A - To commence litigation ) stating that I may consider the debt to be in dispute but they do not.

1st credit discharged all statutory obligations pursuant to your sect 77 CCA (1974) request prior to the a/c being referred to them. We shall produce evidence in court to support our assertion should legal proceedings prove necessary.

In the circumstances we would suggest you seek urgent legal advice on this issue as you appear to be misinformed as to what constitutes an unenforceable credit agreement.

You have to date been provided with a copy of your loan agreement, a copy of a/c statements and a statement of a/c and your debt therefore is due and payable.

We are not using “bullying tactics” to recover this o/s debt as you have suggested. We are seeking the repayment of an o/s debt which is due and payable, which you appear to be seeking to avoid paying on the basis of some non-existant technicality.

As stated above the agreement is enforceable and should you fail to provide us with a reasonable offer of repayment within 7 days, you may leave us with no other option than to seek to enforce it.


Over to you for advice please Niddy

send me a copy please - it is bollocks, but want to check for myself that they have said exactly what you quote before I do a reply to them for you !

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

So do I :-)

Could have done without this on the day my little girl becomes a teenager :-(

Not so little anymore then eh! The next 4 years will get worse, much worse better (cos they answer back more and more)!

You'll be fine, we'll sort these fools out - doesn't look good really, for another of MBNA's clients to be hassling and using bullying terms does it? Not after this: ---> K HARRISON v LINK FINANCIAL [2010]

Or this report today: ---> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12622318

Bet they won't be as cocky when you remind them of this and offer them to court will they?

[lookingforward]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

send me a copy please - it is bollocks, but want to check for myself that they have said exactly what you quote before I do a reply to them for you !

Hi Niddy,

Copy emailed to you.

Thanks

[lookingforward]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

Not so little anymore then eh! The next 4 years will get worse, much worse better (cos they answer back more and more)!

You'll be fine, we'll sort these fools out - doesn't look good really, for another of MBNA's clients to be hassling and using bullying terms does it? Not after this: ---> K HARRISON v LINK FINANCIAL [2010]

Or this report today: ---> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12622318

Bet they won't be as cocky when you remind them of this and offer them to court will they?

She's been a teenager for about 2 years now LOL.

I saw that re MBNA what excellent news, albeit I don't really want my day in court if I can help it ;-)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

She's been a teenager for about 2 years now LOL.

I saw that re MBNA what excellent news, albeit I don't really want my day in court if I can help it ;-)

Haha - well you said "the day my little girl became a teen"

Anyway, we'll try and not let it get that far - but leave with me and i'll sort a response in due course.

[lookingforward]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

Haha - well you said "the day my little girl became a teen"

Anyway, we'll try and not let it get that far - but leave with me and i'll sort a response in due course.

She did actually become a teenager yesterday, but has been acting like one for 2 years anyway lol.

I'll await your response, thanks as always :-)

Where have the smileys gone, can't see them anywhere ?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

Where have the smileys gone, can't see them anywhere ?

User Guide - Missing Smileys / No wysiwyg Editor?

[lookingforward]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

User Guide - Missing Smileys / No wysiwyg Editor?

Cheers Niddy

[lookingforward]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

Re BOS :- Whom have prev said they wouldn't seek to enforce through the courts as they couldn't find the docs, Moorcroft got involved with threats as usual so you advised as below.






OK according to Royal Mail my letter sent on the 5th Jan is STILL in the network for delivery lol

Today the following from Moorcroft which arrived in an envelope with no stamp, franking, or anything-

25.2.11 Letter from Moorcroft giving last opportunity to prevent more serious action being taken is to pay £50 p/m. Unless payment rec’d by 27.2.11 they may recommend court proceedings to be commenced against me by external solicitors without further notice, affect credit rating etc.

Do I ignore assuming they have actually rec'd my prev letter ?

Hi Niddy,

On your advice re sent the letter to Moorcroft SD which refered them to the enclosed letter from BOS stating they wouldn't seek to enforce through the courts.

Letter rec'd today from Moorcroft with the following great news:

5.3.11 Letter from moorcroft confirming their client is currently unable to prove a signed copy of the agreement relating to this a/c. Please be aware however that the courts have recently held that the inability of a creditor to produce a copy of the agreement does not mean that the debt does not exist and will be written off. They quote McGuffick V RBS “although the CCA may render the agreement UE, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist”

Our client confirms there remains an obligation to honour the original agreement and that information will continue to be supplied to the CRA’s the purpose of this is blah blah… the courts have held that demanding of payment, issuing of default notices and instructing a 3rd party to demand or seek payment does not amount to enforcement. Our clients position therefore remains that the bal of you’re a/c remains due and payable and your credit file will continue to reflect that this a/c is in default etc etc.

We can confirm that we have placed you’re a/c on hold for 14 days and request that you make contact with us to discuss the position and can confirm on a without prejudice basis that it would be our aim to reach a possible discounted agreement based upon your financial circumstances and to discuss a repayment proposal that you can afford and maintain.



Result

[lookingforward]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

Originally Posted by fedupwiththeworry
Hi everyone, hope you are all well, been quiet around here recently thank goodness. Today however a letter from NCO Europe.

Story so far:

RBS Mint C/C

20.11.10 letter from Westminster Solicitors acting on behalf of RMA threatening legal action.

23.11.10 Threat O Gram letter before action letter to RMA

23.11.10 Threat by lender/dca to commence litigation letter to westminsters


Todays letter from NCO (RMA) states they are in receipt of my letter and the content is duly noted.
As a 3rd party representitive, they can confirm there has been no purchase of the account and therefore they are not in a position to supply a copy of my credit agreement. There is no record in their system notes of any prev requests being rec'd.
To obtain a copy of my credit agreement send a written request along with £1.00 to RBS at the foll address etc etc

In order to ensure full satisfaction in this matter they can advise that the a/c has been placed into a holding status, meaning no further communication written or telephone based will be made until there is satisfaction reached. However should you wish to speak directly we provide a direct contact who will seek to resolve any o/s concerns in this matter (as if ;;L )

We trust the issues have been addressed etc etc.

So that's them fended off then and I asume I ignore




Advice appreciated as always.

Hi Niddy, this was ignored on your advice and I heard no more until today, when guess who write to me. Bloody Moorcroft who I am beginning to hate with a passion lol.

Anyway abbreviated contents are as follows -

Letter from Moorcroft stating they have been instructed to collect the overdue debt. It is a legal req to send a notice of intended litigation before legal proceedings are issued. They believe this letter fulfils this requirement even if it is not actually read by you. To prevent their recommending to their client that solicitors commence legal proceedings it is essential that I settle this debt without delay. Payment within 7 days or contact made with this office with payment offer etc etc. They draw to my attention if judgement is made for repayment in full and remains unpaid a range of court enforcement options are available and may be considered. They are happy to discuss payment options etc etc.

Advice appreciated as always.

Threat O gram letter before action was sent to them in response to this on your advice and letter rec'd today from Moorcroft states:

5.3.11 Letter from moorcroft confirming their client is currently unable to prove a signed copy of the agreement relating to this a/c. Please be aware however that the courts have recently held that the inability of a creditor to produce a copy of the agreement does not mean that the debt does not exist and will be written off. They quote McGuffick V RBS “although the CCA may render the agreement UE, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist”

Our client confirms there remains an obligation to honour the original agreement and that information will continue to be supplied to the CRA’s the purpose of this is blah blah… the courts have held that demanding of payment, issuing of default notices and instructing a 3rd party to demand or seek payment does not amount to enforcement. Our clients position therefore remains that the bal of you’re a/c remains due and payable and your credit file will continue to reflect that this a/c is in default etc etc.

We can confirm that we have placed you’re a/c on hold for 14 days and request that you make contact with us to discuss the position and can confirm on a without prejudice basis that it would be our aim to reach a possible discounted agreement based upon your financial circumstances and to discuss a repayment proposal that you can afford and maintain.

When I saw 2 letters from them today (the other is re BOS) my heart sank, but I soon cheered up when I read the contents

[Oct Revolution]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

Great news fedupwiththeworry,

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

Hi Niddy,

On your advice re sent the letter to Moorcroft SD which refered them to the enclosed letter from BOS stating they wouldn't seek to enforce through the courts.

Letter rec'd today from Moorcroft with the following great news:

5.3.11 Letter from moorcroft confirming their client is currently unable to prove a signed copy of the agreement relating to this a/c. Please be aware however that the courts have recently held that the inability of a creditor to produce a copy of the agreement does not mean that the debt does not exist and will be written off. They quote McGuffick V RBS “although the CCA may render the agreement UE, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist”

Our client confirms there remains an obligation to honour the original agreement and that information will continue to be supplied to the CRA’s the purpose of this is blah blah… the courts have held that demanding of payment, issuing of default notices and instructing a 3rd party to demand or seek payment does not amount to enforcement. Our clients position therefore remains that the bal of you’re a/c remains due and payable and your credit file will continue to reflect that this a/c is in default etc etc.

We can confirm that we have placed you’re a/c on hold for 14 days and request that you make contact with us to discuss the position and can confirm on a without prejudice basis that it would be our aim to reach a possible discounted agreement based upon your financial circumstances and to discuss a repayment proposal that you can afford and maintain.

Result

Send this back to Moorcroft (brand new and up-to-date using current case law):---> Enough is Enough Template (when the DCA keeps threatening legal action but they've not complied with s.78)

Well done on this - result that even they confirm it!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: fedupwiththeworry's UE Diary

Threat O gram letter before action was sent to them in response to this on your advice and letter rec'd today from Moorcroft states:

5.3.11 Letter from moorcroft confirming their client is currently unable to prove a signed copy of the agreement relating to this a/c. Please be aware however that the courts have recently held that the inability of a creditor to produce a copy of the agreement does not mean that the debt does not exist and will be written off. They quote McGuffick V RBS “although the CCA may render the agreement UE, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist”

Our client confirms there remains an obligation to honour the original agreement and that information will continue to be supplied to the CRA’s the purpose of this is blah blah… the courts have held that demanding of payment, issuing of default notices and instructing a 3rd party to demand or seek payment does not amount to enforcement. Our clients position therefore remains that the bal of you’re a/c remains due and payable and your credit file will continue to reflect that this a/c is in default etc etc.

We can confirm that we have placed you’re a/c on hold for 14 days and request that you make contact with us to discuss the position and can confirm on a without prejudice basis that it would be our aim to reach a possible discounted agreement based upon your financial circumstances and to discuss a repayment proposal that you can afford and maintain.

When I saw 2 letters from them today (the other is re BOS) my heart sank, but I soon cheered up when I read the contents

Unlike above, this time you need to send this: ---> Debtors Final Response - CCA Received