MattyA UE Diary

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Update 10-10-10 (cowboy time I believe!)

2 letters received,1 from COOP & the other from Natwest -(previously deemed UE).
Both saying the same thing further to my letter claiming their alleged breach of the CCA for not supplying a truse copy etc,they have investigated my complaint and believe that they have complied with the rules & regs etc and that this is their final correspondence on the matter - the debt is due and they will continue to pursue.
Coop state final response,Natwest say that they wont enter into any further correspondence on this matter.
(The COOP enclosed a signed copy of the original application form.)

Do I need to send them debtors final response template or just sit tight for now?

Thanks in advance.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Send me what the coop sent you. I'll reply later once I seen the email. As for natpest, no need to see anything they sent.

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Send me what the coop sent you. I'll reply later once I seen the email. As for natpest, no need to see anything they sent.

Cheers re Ntpest
Sent the Coop letter to you as requested.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Hi matey

Ok, regards to co-op respond with this:

• Dear Sirs,
  
  Account No: XXXXXXXX
  
  On XX/XX/XXXX I wrote requesting that you supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for the above numbered account. In response to this request I was supplied a document, a copy of which is attached, which did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974), primarily as you sent an application form, which for the avoidance of doubt does not comply with current CCA legislation.
  
  I would like a photocopy of the actual agreement. I appreciate and understand the provision of the recent Carey v HSBC {and others} case that stipluates a reconstituted agreement can be provided; yes it can however 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.
  
  I do not think it is a lot to ask for you to simply go and fetch the original agreement, photocopy it and pop it in an envelope to me. The only reason that I can presume avoidance of such a simple process is if you never actually had a copy of the original agreement in which case may I remind you that OFT Guidance clearly states 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[/\*]
  
  
  In order to be able to adjudge my position effectively I would require a "true copy" of the actual agreement that apparently exists and I therefore appeal to you to fulfil my request. I am willing to pay any reasonable charge that you feel is necessary, in order to provide a copy of the “actual” credit agreement. In considering my request, I ask that you take a common sense approach and do not hold to the line that you have provided all that is expected of you nor the recent test case in Manchester, namely, and to be known as: Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) (23 December 2009). The recent McGuffick and Carey cases confirmed that a lender should submit upon request a valid true copy of the original CCA.
  
  I make my request in good faith and I feel it is a nonsense approach to hold to the idea that you won’t provide this document because you simply don’t have to. I feel that would take advantage of your position and such an approach from your business not be in the best interests of a healthy business/client relationship. In light of the above, I consider this account to be unenforceable until such time you properly comply with my original s.78 request and send a photocopy of the original purported document, if it exists. If it does not, then you must confirm this to me in line with your licensing guidance, as detailed above.
  
  For clarification, the document you sent, purporting to be a credit agreement, does not contain all of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974, plus you did send an application form. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. Suffice to say, all of the required terms are not present in this document. Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states:
  
  [size=5]
  • 127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).
  
  This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.
  
  Regards to your points, that you classify as your investigation, i'd like to respond as follows:
  
  • 1. Sending me an application form with no prescribed terms does NOT satisfy s.78 CCA1974, as we both know
    
    2. You state that you are aware that the terms which contained the prescribed terms were sent to me some 15 years ago when the account was opened - can you remember me then, from back then or are you referring to some other secret law that you've decided to make up as you go along? My point here is that without a lawful agreement containing the prescribed terms, in the prescribed format (the four corners) then you can send what you like because under s.127(3) and s.65(1) you cannot formally pursue this debt
    
    3. The fact I have benefitted the account and used the credit limit matters not, if the agreement is unenforceable then the fact I spent funds is irrelevant in its entirety
    
    4. I don't care whether you consider the account to be in dispute (there is no law so legally in dispute would not be an option i'm afraid) - as explained above, without sight of an orginal agreement encompassing my signature on the same page as the prescribed terms this account is and remains unenforceable in line with s.127 CCA1974.
  
  
  As this account is clearly unenforceable, I expect you to write back and confirm that no further action will be taken and that the account is now closed and no further correspondence will take place; irrespective, unless you do supply a copy of the original agreement I will not correspond with you again and any threats will be averred and unlawful and vexatious with a counter-claim forthcoming.
  
  Yours faithfully
  
  
  Sign digitally[/\*]

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Blimy - that was quick!
Cheers boss. y

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Blimy - that was quick!
Cheers boss. y

Done to order matey

Added a bit at the bottom that dispels their claims..... ;30

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Hiya, yea ring him and have a go at him - it may be best! Start, by saying this call is being recorded because you're doing a documentary about your life and also mention that if he wants to come he formally accepts your invite to appear in your production that is aimed at the shoddy tactics of DCA's and their appointed representatives...

Me thinks he may have second thoughts about ever calling at your home....

Just put the phone down from Albion - God that was hard work.
The girl didnt know of a Matt Ball so couldnt put me through.
Explained that I was taking part in a documentary and that the phone call was being recorded etc etc...straight over her head.
Laboured the point a bit,insisting that she must as he is collections manager or is he just made up.
Put me on hold & then told me that he is one of their directors but couldnt put me through to him as she didnt know where he is based.
All the time she kept going back to the script that my account is in arrears - why?
I told her it was in dispute - read the letters(many of them) which will tell you why.
She said that she couldnt as they dont keep letters on file.....just notes on the screen.
I also told her that the latest letter again threatend a visit to my home.
She said that this is because my account is in arrears and the person will visit me to make contact with me and get me to ring them.
I said why - I have written to them on numerous occassions stating that the account is in dispute and that I will only correspond in writing.
She said they dont correspond in writing....to which I said but I am getting a letter a day from you.
I did ask her if Mr Ball could read.
It went round and round me telling her that they had no right to visit me at home & she telling me that they did....
The call finally ran out of steam at which point I reminded her that I had recorded the conversation,at which she got rather stroppy & told me I was breaking the law in doing so.
I reminded her that I advised her of this at the begining of the call - she denied it then put me on hold again.
When she came back she told me that there was nothing further she could 'physically' do today and that my account would be placed on hold for 10 days - then the calls & letters will start again.

No doubt I will get a visit anytime soon.

Sorry for rambling on iot just goes to prove though,if anything,that they ignore everything that is sent to them and or said to them.

I didnt handle it very well me thinks ;Spank

Ahh well - still at work at the moment I will see what the postman has brought for me today.

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Sent the Coop letter off today BTW - lets see what that brings.

[MrsD]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

och Matty not worth your blood pressure, they are all just bampots and obviously work from robot scripts, they are just trained to spit out the script and God help you if you ask a sensible question that's not covered. They probably pay washers and logically you get what you pay for...........

Don't beat yourself up, it sounds as if you did get to her, they don't get paid to take risks, so she'll be kacking herself worrying about appearing on some C4 expose.........

relax you're doing a great job with all of this, don't let them get to you

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

och Matty not worth your blood pressure, they are all just bampots and obviously work from robot scripts, they are just trained to spit out the script and God help you if you ask a sensible question that's not covered. They probably pay washers and logically you get what you pay for...........

Don't beat yourself up, it sounds as if you did get to her, they don't get paid to take risks, so she'll be kacking herself worrying about appearing on some C4 expose.........

relax you're doing a great job with all of this, don't let them get to you

Thanks for the nice words...its appreciated.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Matty - sorry mate, I told you to ring so you could see just what would happen - now we've established that they talk shyte - just leave it at that! Hopefully they will get the letters etc soon enough and we'll sort them with proper guidelines as opposed to silly civil ones such as trespass.....

Well done, even though you lost steam - it's only human to do so cos they are scum fookers that are trained in the art of being obstinate and ignorant!

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Cheers boss - Im gutted though for losing - dont like it!
I wont be ringing them again as there really is no point.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

You never lost, that's the thing mate - there was never a chance you'd have won, it was to show you that no matter what you'll never win against these muppets. Now you've seen first hand what it is like, to be fair tell your wife next time they call that she has kicked you out and that they MUST now update their records to reflect this.....

Idiots!

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Cheers - I am tempted to get the Mrs to try and get them to disclose why they want me...then I can report them,as I did with Mint/resolvecall,which worked a treat

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MattyA UE Diary

Cheers - I am tempted to get the Mrs to try and get them to disclose why they want me...then I can report them,as I did with Mint/resolvecall,which worked a treat

;LOL ;LOL ;LOL

Funny, they probably will spit it all out, muppets couldn't spell data protection let alone understand the provisions of it 1