SXGuy's UE Diary

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Thanks I2D, ill get that sent out Monday.

Do you know of any case law whereby a defendant, or claimant has argued this point? would be good to chuck a high court judges opinion in the mix, im guessing its never been tested in court?

I know they are in default regardless but would be interesting.

If they produce the agreement in court it would satisfy the requirements of the request I think.

However it would not have satisfied the requirements of the CPR.

[PriorityOne]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

If you're that worried, re-submit the request with a "signature" in block capitals or, simply initial it..... Play the game, 'coz that's all it is.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

If they produce the agreement in court it would satisfy the requirements of the request I think.

However it would not have satisfied the requirements of the CPR.

Correct, they can remedy at court, so my argument that they didnt satsify s78 would fail at that point.

That being said, the chance of them litigating before passing over to a DCA is slim, so im not too worried about that for now.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

If you're that worried, re-submit the request with a "signature" in block capitals or, simply initial it..... Play the game, 'coz that's all it is.

Im gonna decide tomorrow which im gonna do, im torn between playing the no sig game or just getting them to send the CCA so i know where i stand with it. ooh its a toughy lol

[PriorityOne]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Im gonna decide tomorrow which im gonna do, im torn between playing the no sig game or just getting them to send the CCA so i know where i stand with it. ooh its a toughy lol

I didn't mean play their game; I mean play yours. If all you need to do is provide some kind of squiggle to make them send out what they have, then my advice would be to just get on and do it. This is about getting hold of information that you need.... not allowing them to frustrate that process by p*ssing about.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Yeah your right!

[nightwatch]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I like to piss them about,
but i get what you mean P1

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

ickle update (yeah you liked how i used the word ickle, admit it)

Tr-it-on said they may pass it to an external agent to call round (doubt it)

But will send the leave my doorstep alone letter tomorrow.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

2 Updates

Capital one have written, the DCA is no longer acting on their behalf to recover the outstanding debt.

Doesnt say whos taken it over, all i know is its been handed back, so plus side thats a result, no doubt will get a NOA at some point in the futher from the next monkies.

Natwest Black.

Have returned the PO AGAIN!!!!!!

I sent them the CCA Request, included a REAL signature over the top of the ADD antitamper strip, the cover letter said, please find enclosed original request which now includes my signature.

They have returned the request because......failed to supply a signature.

FFS im dealing with a bunch of F'ing idiots here, thats it now, they have had numerous chances, what do you reckon i should send? a template or a specially worded one?

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

2 Updates

Capital one have written, the DCA is no longer acting on their behalf to recover the outstanding debt.

Doesnt say whos taken it over, all i know is its been handed back, so plus side thats a result, no doubt will get a NOA at some point in the futher from the next monkies.

Natwest Black.

Have returned the PO AGAIN!!!!!!

I sent them the CCA Request, included a REAL signature over the top of the ADD antitamper strip, the cover letter said, please find enclosed original request which now includes my signature.

They have returned the request because......failed to supply a signature.

FFS im dealing with a bunch of F'ing idiots here, thats it now, they have had numerous chances, what do you reckon i should send? a template or a specially worded one?

Did you ever send this ? ---> Refusal to Issue CCA without Signature

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Yeah I2D i did, and they opend up a compliants procedure, and then got a letter going on about DPA rules etc etc, so i thought sod it, need to know where i stand, so sent the CCA again in reply to that letter, and included a real sig over the top of the anti tamper strip.

Then i got the same refusal back today, saying they need a sig, when there clearly is one on the request.

Either someone isnt actually reading these letters, they want to lift the sig, or just a total lack of competence.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Quoted the convo

update again

Natwest have responded to my letter regarding signature as proof in order to obtain the CCA.

They have spoken to their section 78 team to confirm why they require my signature.

Under section 7 subsection 3 of DPA 1998 it advises where a data controller -
Reasonably requires further information in order to statisfy himself as to the identity of the person making the request, and has informed him of that requirement.

the data controller is not obliged to comply with the request unless he is supplied with that further information

I understand your comments in relation to our willingness to supply you with statements and correspondence however we have satisfied ourselves that they are being sent you uoi, as you provided us with your address and signature at the time of your application.

(So they can send statements as they have proof its me, but cant send the CCA as they have no proof its me?!?!)

Then they say, as you advised in your letter, the agreement is still enforceable until proven otherwise (i said UNenforceable!!)
as we are not refusing to comply with your request but we require further proof.

Under DPA they require the signature to compare this to the "application" as proof of identity.

They returned the £1 PO

So, i could resend the CCA Request, and use the tamper proof strip, or i could challenge it, but i doubt the OFT will side with me on this one or would they?

I had forgotten about this have a look here---> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...&postcount=300

I didn't mean play their game; I mean play yours. If all you need to do is provide some kind of squiggle to make them send out what they have, then my advice would be to just get on and do it. This is about getting hold of information that you need.... not allowing them to frustrate that process by p*ssing about.

Yeah your right!

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

After calming down, i have thought about it, i could send the request one more time, with no other cover letters, that way, they have no choice but to actually look for the signature.

If they send it back after that, ill complain to the ICO and FOS.

What you think?

[nightwatch]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Yeah I2D i did, and they opend up a compliants procedure, and then got a letter going on about DPA rules etc etc, so i thought sod it, need to know where i stand, so sent the CCA again in reply to that letter, and included a real sig over the top of the anti tamper strip.

Then i got the same refusal back today, saying they need a sig, when there clearly is one on the request.

Either someone isnt actually reading these letters, they want to lift the sig, or just a total lack of competence.

the last point is spot on
I sent a sold in dispute to Triton over the lombard account and pointed out that they had refused to comply with my CCA request, triton said they would contact Lombard (pass to next desk)
lombard sent me a copy of the sold in dispute letter with the template letter saying they couldn't deal with my request as it wasn't signed but they did keep the original request and the fee this time !!

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Did you ever send this ? ---> Refusal to Issue CCA without Signature

Yeah I2D i did, and they opend up a compliants procedure, and then got a letter going on about DPA rules etc etc, so i thought sod it, need to know where i stand, so sent the CCA again in reply to that letter, and included a real sig over the top of the anti tamper strip.

Then i got the same refusal back today, saying they need a sig, when there clearly is one on the request.

Either someone isnt actually reading these letters, they want to lift the sig, or just a total lack of competence.

I would have left it at that............