Pip's UE Diary

[Pip]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Pip, that does sound like a dodgy recon, see excerpt below from Carey vs HSBC

Thanks Flower!
It is an address I've previously lived at, but spelled wrongly. As I say, not the address I was at when the card was taken out.
Given all their Lady-Protesting-Too-Much guff in the covering letter, I'd be very surprised if it isn't found to be duff!
The letter also says something a bit odd (and it's in this ghastly font that I detest):

The balance of the account was charged off on xx/xx/xxxx [quite a few months ago] and the balance owing as of that date was £x,xxx,xxx.xx [a slightly odd amount that isn't massively far off what I was expecting, but different enough for me to want to query it and double-check*]

*for what it's worth! Probably not worth bothering checking as it's almost certain to be UE. I'm not counting my chickens just yet though!

As it is a formal response to the CCA request, i.e. an "agreement" in their eyes, I'll wait until after Niddy's return and then email it to his agreements address, just to keep everything consistent. I might have mentioned somewhere else, but it's slightly ironic that Lloyds TSB are the biggest b******s when it comes to their threatening letters (as far as OCs are concerned -- and I include all of their various in-house DCAs such as BULLSHIT Collections as original creditors)
I mean if the bloody DCA has the same address on their letters as the OC ..! Yes, anyway Lloyds and their in-house Rent-a-Gobs have been by far and away the worst to deal with in terms of the reams of letters they send, yet their agreements by all accounts are @rsewipe! All mouth and no trousers?

Still not sure what charged off means though ... not a term I've come across before!

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

CHARGE OFF Means the amount allegedly owing on your account has been removed and put on there losses book, this is so they can claim a tax exemption on the amount as a loss.

This is what I was told in court during my MBNA case. It is quite a complicated area but in laymans terms that is the gist of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_off

Regards

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

I'd rather you went and got pissed or treated yourself

Exactly how was Pip supposed to treat himself/herself?

[garlok]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Right PF. It is a"double entry" book keeping technique, the basic rules of company accounting required by the Companies Act 1986, to make sure a 2bad" debt does not appear in the annual profit and Loss account as an "asset" which all debts actually are. They can only be removed from the assets side of the accounts when the debt becomes "bad". That brings on the tax benefits so rightly quoted and an be used to offset other liabilities as well such as VAT accounts.

Its all a bit surreal to me. I have lived all my life in a situation of reality where either the hole is big enough for the bolt to through it or it isn't.

regards
Garlok

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

CHARGE OFF Means the amount allegedly owing on your account has been removed and put on there losses book, this is so they can claim a tax exemption on the amount as a loss.

If it were then to be paid off in full, would the bank then stump up that amount in tax?

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

If it were then to be paid off in full, would the bank then stump up that amount in tax?

CC I think you know the answer to that a big fat no

[Pip]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Right PF. It is a"double entry" book keeping technique, the basic rules of company accounting required by the Companies Act 1986, to make sure a 2bad" debt does not appear in the annual profit and Loss account as an "asset" which all debts actually are. They can only be removed from the assets side of the accounts when the debt becomes "bad". That brings on the tax benefits so rightly quoted and an be used to offset other liabilities as well such as VAT accounts.

Its all a bit surreal to me. I have lived all my life in a situation of reality where either the hole is big enough for the bolt to through it or it isn't.

Surreal indeed! Wonder what practical difference it makes, from our side of the "bargain" that they've somehow classed it as a "bad" debt? Yet they haven't yet sold the debt; it was still being paid towards until very recently, and I was still getting shight from in-house DCAs, (and still am).

Makes an odd exception to the surreality by which banks show debtor's borrowings as ASSETS on the banks' balance sheets! I read that a few years ago and just goes to show what a load of La-La Land claptrap the whole money/banking system is! Smoke and Mirrors! Wizard of Oz!

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

All banks use in-house DCAs in the first instance, it's a way both to make you believe (and banks live in a make believe world!) that they've passed on the account and also to distance themselves from the proceedings, something F in$titution$ LOVE to do! They like to shrug off responsibility for anything that may tarnish their 'squaky clean' image, so if a debtor was to complain about the way he was treated, the bank could say "it wasn't me, really, it was that naughty DCA, bad, bad DCA! "

They often use more than one set of in-house puppets till they get fed up and call in the mercenaries . MBNA for example have never sent letters from anyone other than themselves and in-house puppets, despite defaulting 2 years ago. They'll probably wait another 3 years before selling it to someone like Lowlife!

Or a 'recovery specialist' such as MacKenzie Hall?

[Pip]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Did you move to the address they had shortly after you took out the card? or years later?

It was more than three years later that I moved from the initial address when I took out the card. They've plucked out one of my intervening addresses to bung on the random printout they sent!

All banks use in-house DCAs in the first instance

I've had Halifax pester me via Moorshight in the first instance -- but pester in a Ken Dodd tickling-stick-kind-of-way. They haven't even sold on the debt. So why the hell would I have stopped paying OC Halifax to just fart around and negotiate with Moor|twazzocks and pay through them?

MBNA for example have never sent letters from anyone other than themselves and in-house puppets, despite defaulting 2 years ago.

It's a while since I've had direct dealings with MBNA -- once the stopped payment registers on their system they might unleash their muppets on me --------->>

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

The address on the "copy" agreement isn't my current address, but then neither is it the address where I was living when I first got the card ...

The snotty covering letter did reveal where that mysterious BX1 1XB or whatever postcode ends up -- Andover in Hampshire ... hmm. How Lloyds TSB managed to bribe Royal Mail into getting their own postcode prefix -- even the DVLA with their megatons of mail are happy with a humble Swansea postcode![/FONT]

No email with the Lloyds stuff mate - only have HBOS stuff here to go through....?

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

Hmmm, one does wonder why the application form was 'created' in 2003 but the terms for that product were dated 08/2002.

I suspect they are not the same ones, but irrespective they were not the same ones that you should have seen when you allegedly signed the agreement - that much we know.

So they've sent the actual agreement, fine, they've sent current terms, fine but they are missing the actual terms as at inception and thus this is temporarily unenforceable (easy for them to remedy)...

I would send this back to Moorcroft: ---> Our Templates | Unenforceability Templates | CCA Query - Missing Prescribed Terms

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Pip's account no. 2
Halifax
Start date: Oct 2005
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 April 2011.
Status: Last payment in Dec 2011 (smaller amount in Dec 2011 than the regular DMP payment had been up to that month)

Jan CCA received -- emailed Niddy

This is enforceable, if you check the terms and the agreement both clearly show 06/05 meaning that as all the PT's are present then this account is enforceable.

I would do nothing just yet, just ignore this for the moment and see what else comes back from other lenders....

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

So they've sent the actual agreement, fine, they've sent current terms, fine but they are missing the actual terms as at inception and thus this is temporarily unenforceable (easy for them to remedy)...

They'd first have to stop the blood flow to their brains being impeded by their anal sphincters.

[Pip]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

So they've sent the actual agreement, fine, they've sent current terms, fine but they are missing the actual terms as at inception and thus this is temporarily unenforceable (easy for them to remedy)...

I would send this back to Moorcroft: ---> Our Templates | Unenforceability Templates | CCA Query - Missing Prescribed Terms

Many thanks Niddy!

In sending this back, near the top of the Missing Prescribed Terms letter it says

In response to this request I was supplied a document, a copy of which is attached, that did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974), primarily as it does not contain all the necessary prescribed terms.

Do I just enclose a copy of the front and back of the application form, or a copy of absolutely everything that they sent in response to the CCA request?

Thanks again!

[Pip]

Re: Pip's UE Diary

Pip's account no. 3
Lloyds TSB

2012
Jan Reply to CCA request received from Lloyds TSB Holding off on emailing it to Niddy until after his return. Even to my untrained eye it looks like a lot (or not very much) codswallop, a good chunk of it sanctimonious and hectoring ...

Now emailed to Niddy(!)