Pip's UE Diary

[swanfan]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

I wonder what you and others might think about sending that one first as there is no mention of the OC (MBNA) and it's a completely different a/c number. .

DCAs will often give an account they're chasing their own reference number.

[Pip]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

I'd send this--> Our Templates | Unenforceability Templates | Account Sold whilst in Dispute

Thanks Swanfan -- Woo! Multi-quote! (I've forgotten how to use it ..!)
I had another look at the templates and found this:
---> Our Templates | Harassment & Intimidation Templates | You know nothing of the Debt / Prove It

I wonder what you and others might think about sending that one first as there is no mention of the OC (MBNA) and it's a completely different a/c number. I know this might all be immaterial, but I wonder if it's worth giving them the runaround to begin with as MBNA have only very recently sold it (and not sent a NoA)? Or is that all a bit too cheeky and upstarty? I would like the parasite debt purchasers to Prove It though ..! If OCs offered debtors directly the same price that they sell these things to DCAs for ...

[swanfan]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

This has arrived this weekend; the first one of their letters worth responding to:

MAR Letter from Arden "Credit Managment": I am very concerned that you have not taken steps to address balance referred to in previous letter // Failure to come to an acceptable arrangement could result in sending someone to your address to discuss matter in person, passing account to solicitors to obtain judgment and enforcement action in line with your circumstances (e.g. charging orders/attachment of earnings). These have potential for increasing your current balance as charges for someone to speak to you in person would be added to your amount owed. CCJs will impact credit rating etc. This is an extremely urgent matter and one you should not ignore. To avoid any potential additional charges or negative impact to credit file, contact us ...

There is no mention of who the OC is/was for this account (MBNA). Wondering which letter should go out in response to this (I'll put a doorstep threat letter in as well) ... something along the lines of "Who the hell are you" might be appropriate (or not!) .
Thanks!

Thanks swanfan!
Any suggestions re. Arden's (post 174)? It's my first dealing with a DCA that's bought the account -- or should I say "their client" is not the OC but some outfit that bought one of MBNA's many accounts they've recently offloaded ...

I'd send this--> Our Templates | Unenforceability Templates | Account Sold whilst in Dispute

[Pip]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Just wait to see what they do next.

Thanks swanfan!
Any suggestions re. Arden's (post 174)? It's my first dealing with a DCA that's bought the account -- or should I say "their client" is not the OC but some outfit that bought one of MBNA's many accounts they've recently offloaded ...

[swanfan]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Wondering what this actually means (just a DCA muppeting around or something more serious), and what sort of response (if any) is appropriate?

Just wait to see what they do next.

[Pip]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Pip's account no. 6
RBS Mint
Start date: March 2000
Balance as of Dec 2011: approx. £5,000
Last "full" payment (i.e. within their stipulated minimum): Sep 2010 (approx).
Last DMP payment via CCCS: Dec 2011
Default notice issued Nov 2010.
Status: Last payment in Dec 2011 (smaller amount in Dec 2011 than the regular DMP payment had been up to that month)

2012
JAN CCA Request sent to RBS
JAN CCA received -- emailed Niddy --Niddy says (post #92)
JAN Sent Missing Prescribed Terms letter
FEB Received letter from RBS: We have met our obligations under s78(1). We see no reason to enter into further correspondence about alleged CCA breaches. We do not consider this account to be in dispute. Contact CAB or similar if you continue to doubt the veracity of what we have told you about our having complied with our obligations under s78(1).

This lot have been quite quiet, until I received this:

MAR Letter from RBS: (and a terse one at that): THIS IS A FINAL DEMAND FOR PAYMENT // We currently require £xxxxxx.xx from you. If we do not receive payment within the next 14 days, the account will be sent to a debt collection agent. Even at this late stage, this can be prevented and we are still willing to discuss a payment programme.

Wondering what this actually means (just a DCA muppeting around or something more serious), and what sort of response (if any) is appropriate?

[Pip]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Pip's account no. 7
Sainsbury's
Start date: June 2004
Balance as of Dec 2011: approx. £7,000
Last "full" payment (i.e. within their stipulated minimum): Sep 2010 (approx).
Last DMP payment via CCCS: Dec 2011
Default notice issued Feb 2011.
Status: Last payment in Dec 2011 (smaller amount in Dec 2011 than the regular DMP payment had been up to that month)

2012
JAN CCA request sent to Sainsbury's Bank (Royal Mail delivery conf. printed)
JAN CCA received-- emailed Niddy -- Niddy says
JAN Sent Missing Prescribed Terms letter to Sainsbury's
FEB Letter from Blair, Oliver & Scott Payment not received // Failure to give attention to this will result in further action
FEB Letter from Sainsbury's We have complied with s.78 // I disagree that the application is unreadable // Agreement is and will remain enforceable // Full balance is due and in arrears
MAR Letter from Blair, Oliver & Scott Payment in arrears // Must pay immediately // Failure will result in your plan being cancelled and further action to recover debt. This may include door-to-door recovery agent to call at your address; court action to seek a judgment -- if successful we could seek an order allowing us to collect money direct from your employer or if you are a homeowner applying to court for a charging order on your property. Call today // payment can be made by CREDIT CARD
MAR Sent Threat-o-Gram Letter Before Action

Another one:

MAR Letter from Blair, Oliver & Scott DO NOT IGNORE // Urgently trying to contact you // you do not appear to have responded to our requests for payment or provided acceptable repayment proposals // Call "helpline" below to speak to our agents // We urge you to sort this issue out immediately to prevent us taking further action. This may include doorstep collectors/court action/charging order.

Threat-o-Gram before action letter has crossed in the post so I'll await their response to that!

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm

[Pip]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Pip's account no. 4
MBNA
2012
JAN CCA Request sent to MBNA
JAN CCA received -- emailed Niddy -- Niddy says half and half
JAN Sent Missing Prescribed Terms letter to MBNA
JAN Letter received from MBNA saying "Balance sold to Britannica Recoveries S.á.r.l. Mortlake"; with letter in same envelope from "Moorgate Loan Servicing". The wording says "it's been purchased", but there is no Notice of Assignment ...
FEB Letter from MBNA: Documents provided do comply with CCA requirements // As such, there is no need to seek an enforcement order in order to exercise our rights.
FEB Letter from Moorgate Loan Servicing: (referring to "Loan Account Number" -- it wasn't a loan). Not received payment on your a/c. Your a/c will now be transferred to our appointed agents, Arden Credit Management who will contact you to discuss repayment of the outstanding balance. (There is no reference in this letter to the original MBNA account whatsoever)
FEB Letter from Arden "Credit Managment": We have been instructed by Moorgate Loan Servicing to recover an amount outstanding to them. We have assumed responsibility for working with you to repay this amount; therefore all communication should be with us. Please call on receipt of this letter to discuss repayment. Easiest way to pay is debit or CREDIT CARD.

This has arrived this weekend; the first one of their letters worth responding to:

MAR Letter from Arden "Credit Managment": I am very concerned that you have not taken steps to address balance referred to in previous letter // Failure to come to an acceptable arrangement could result in sending someone to your address to discuss matter in person, passing account to solicitors to obtain judgment and enforcement action in line with your circumstances (e.g. charging orders/attachment of earnings). These have potential for increasing your current balance as charges for someone to speak to you in person would be added to your amount owed. CCJs will impact credit rating etc. This is an extremely urgent matter and one you should not ignore. To avoid any potential additional charges or negative impact to credit file, contact us ...

There is no mention of who the OC is/was for this account (MBNA). Wondering which letter should go out in response to this (I'll put a doorstep threat letter in as well) ... something along the lines of "Who the hell are you" might be appropriate (or not!) .
Thanks!

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

[FONT="Segoe UI"]Gosh Cloggy!
Could/should I really use that or would it be a bit too lippy?

I could 'translate' it into Welshish, if you'd prefer.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Yes it does look like a typo it should read "didn't satisfy". I'm sure pip figured that one out he must be quite good at proof reading

'Dear curs' is probably not the best salutation either

It's a soft 'c'.

Or should it be "Dear curs or madmen"?

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

is that a typo at the top

Yes, it was.

I need a better profo reeder.

[Mehim]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Hi Folks,

is that a typo at the top

"Those documents did satisfy my request as the terms prescribed by law (the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983) were missing."

Slap me if I wrong.

[Pip]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Gosh Cloggy!
Could/should I really use that or would it be a bit too lippy? It's all accurate however! Maybe I could use it once they send something else after their seven days (or was it twenty-eight days? -- they keep confusing themselves!). I've a feeling such a letter might see Fredsons off however in search of easier prey ..!

Or:

Dear Curs,

Thank you for your letter of nn March, in which you state that your client, Capital One, supplied some documents that they aver satisfied my request under s. 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Those documents did satisfy my request as the terms prescribed by law (the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983) were missing. Did your clients not inform you of that fact, or that they've presented you with a hopelessly unenforceable debt which, by section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, remains unenforceable until they do satisfy my request under section 78(1)?

It is most interesting that you refer to Capital One as your clients, especially as your letter of nn February threatened litigation unless the sum demanded was paid in full within seven days. As you do not own this alleged debt, you plainly could not commence litigation despite your threats. Moreover, your letter suggested that payment could be made by credit card, which would have increased my borrowing elsewhere. Both of those statements blatantly contravene both the current and the previous Debt Collection Guidelines issued by the Office of Fair Trading, to whom I will submit copies of your letters so they may review how fit you are to hold a Consumer Credit Licence.

Yours Faithfully,

Clever Clogs

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

just ignore............

Or:

Dear Curs,

Thank you for your letter of nn March, in which you state that your client, Capital One, supplied some documents that they aver satisfied my request under s. 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Those documents did not begin to satisfy my request as the terms prescribed by law (the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983) were missing. Did your clients not inform you of that fact, or that they've presented you with a hopelessly unenforceable debt which, by section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, remains unenforceable until they do satisfy my request under section 78(1)?

It is most interesting that you refer to Capital One as your clients, especially as your letter of nn February threatened litigation unless the sum demanded was paid in full within seven days. As you do not own this alleged debt, you plainly could not commence litigation despite your threats. Moreover, your letter suggested that payment could be made by credit card, which would have increased my borrowing elsewhere. Both of those statements blatantly contravene both the current and the previous Debt Collection Guidelines issued by the Office of Fair Trading, to whom I will submit copies of your letters so they may review how fit you are to hold a Consumer Credit Licence.

Yours Faithfully,

Clever Clogs