BillyTommo's UE Diary

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

I have today received a 'formal notice of assignment' regarding my MBNA account. It was deemed , then What next?

As Garlok says, wait n see what they say etc

[billytommo]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

Natwest Visa CC 30
Commenced approx 2002
Balance £3,500.00
Last Paid November 2011

---> Send CCA Request!

07-12-2011: Sent CCA request
17-12-2011: Received 'sig required' letter from NW
20-12-2011: Sent 'No sig required' letter to NW

18-01-2012: Received CCA Request response - emailed Niddy to have a look at

[billytommo]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

Right, I've got three NW accounts; one from 2002-ish and two, taken out at the same time around 1994-ish. I CCA'd them all separately and they returned all three together with a 'Sig Required' covering letter. I stuffed it all back in one envelope and sent them back with a 'Sig Not Required' template letter. I then received a response to the newer card which Niddy is having a look at. On one of the older ones I have received a 'cannot locate agreement - still required to pay' - that letter is nice and safe The other older one they have again returned it as 'sig required'. I suspect that some has not read the info properly and thought that the original letter that I returned to them with a covering letter was the first time I'd sent it. I'm going to resend it (again) with the 'Sig not Required' template.

Billy

[billytommo]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

As Garlok says, wait n see what they say etc

I have today received a letter from MKDP LLP regarding the account that they 'have bought the interest in'. Please contact . Do I reply with anything?

[mk_chatham]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

I have today received a letter from MKDP LLP regarding the account that they 'have bought the interest in'. Please contact . Do I reply with anything?

Hi Billy

As they have now written to you I would suggest its time to send "Account sold in dispute" - sent signed for.

Good luck

MK

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

07-12-2011: Sent CCA request
17-12-2011: Received 'sig required' letter from NW
20-12-2011: Sent 'No sig required' letter to NW

18-01-2012: Received CCA Request response - emailed Niddy to have a look at

this is kinda unenforceable only in so much that they've sent 4 sets of terms and none are actually those that are relevant to the inception of the account thus it is temporarily

I would respond as follows: ---> Our Templates | Unenforceability Templates | CCA Query - Missing Prescribed Terms

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

Hi Billy

As they have now written to you I would suggest its time to send "Account sold in dispute" - sent signed for.

Good luck

MK

I agree, i'd send that.

[billytommo]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

I agree, i'd send that.

Cheers Niddy (&MK)

Will get that off tomorrow ...

[billytommo]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

this is kinda unenforceable only in so much that they've sent 4 sets of terms and none are actually those that are relevant to the inception of the account thus it is temporarily

I would respond as follows: ---> Our Templates | Unenforceability Templates | CCA Query - Missing Prescribed Terms

Does this mean until they produce the 'real' set of terms, which surely they're unlikely to do or they would have already sent them?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

Does this mean until they produce the 'real' set of terms, which surely they're unlikely to do or they would have already sent them?

Its a tough one, they have sent them kind of - but it does not comply with your s.78 request as the terms are not the same ones as the application form, but they are there via recon however I am querying the 3 separate sets they sent, i.e. why do this? As a result if they cannot determine the correct terms, then they cannot know which were relevant at account inception thus yes, easy to remedy but easy to blag for the time being as well - which is really all you're doing cos this can be made enforceable really easily, by them sending one set of terms and declaring these to be the ones from inception.

Make sense?

[billytommo]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

Unfortunately, yes it does make sense Couldn't it be argued that, as they've sent three different sets in the first place, none of which are relevant, that they are bull-shitting? I'm sure I know the answer, just clutching at straws really !!!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

Unfortunately, yes it does make sense Couldn't it be argued that, as they've sent three different sets in the first place, none of which are relevant, that they are bull-shitting? I'm sure I know the answer, just clutching at straws really !!!

You are clutching, whilst they have failed s.78 right now, they can easily fix it by sending one set of terms with that agreement. Now the thing is if they get snotty and threaten court, I would be suggesting you come to an agreement (payment plan) based on the fact at court if you tried using that argument, they would simply fix it by confirming which terms were in fact the correct ones as at account inception.

Basically, blag it for now and keep us updated with all mail received from them....

[billytommo]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

My AMEX account:

31/12/2011 Received IMPORTANT NOTICE from Power2Contact urging me to contact them - ignored
04/01/2012 Received response to my CCA request

Emailed Niddy letters to have a look at

Niddy deemed account Advised to blag it for now

18/01/2012: Received Default Notice - it looks like it served correctly, i.e. under section 87(1).... The only thing I have noticed is that it doesn't give a specific date to be remedied by - just "....fourteen calendar days from the date of service of this Notice of Default."

[Numpty Monkey]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary

Nowt wrong with a bit of blagging
I still am

[billytommo]

Re: BillyTommo's UE Diary