SXGuy's UE Diary

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I've just deleated the ref No............

Good thinking!

[ken100464]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

LOL yes it does, how strange. Why we would have the same ref is puzzling!

Just goes to show how impersonal they see it all. We are not individuals. We are just numbers on a spreadsheet.

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I've just deleated the ref No............

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Yeah, my Triton letter was also dated the 26th which arrived today.

Does yours have the ref no XXXXXX along the bottom ?

LOL yes it does, how strange. Why we would have the same ref is puzzling!

[Bricktop]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Yeah, my Triton letter was also dated the 26th which arrived today.

Does yours have the ref no XXXXXX along the bottom ?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Good to know. Wouldnt worry about AIC, had them before, they are easy to get rid.

[nightwatch]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

ok so the saga regarding triton and natwest continues.

Received a letter today from trition.

They have instructed natwest to commence legal action.

I have sent triton the threat to commence litigation letter, and natwest the same, as well as including again the original CCA Request and £1 PO.

Both sent recorded 1st class.

Triton's letter was dated 26th and it arrived today, they continue to ring, so fingers crossed its just a threat. But ill find out no doubt.

I'v had a letter from Lombard dated 26thnov they have passed mine to AIC this is after Green co said they may start court proceedings

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

ok so the saga regarding triton and natwest continues.

Received a letter today from trition.

They have instructed natwest to commence legal action.

I have sent triton the threat to commence litigation letter, and natwest the same, as well as including again the original CCA Request and £1 PO.

Both sent recorded 1st class.

Triton's letter was dated 26th and it arrived today, they continue to ring, so fingers crossed its just a threat. But ill find out no doubt.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Will do, thanks for your help.

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I hear you I2D, but id prefer to let them know what i think.

Previously, i would have been stuck in endless letters arguing DPA etc, but this time, they cant argue that one as there was clearly a real sig on the request.

what about sending Final Response - UE (No CCA Received)?

That being said, Since all this fiasco, Triton have taken over the payment of the account, so i could bypass this bollox and send the account sold whilst in dispute direct to them, what do you think?

Well if it were me now .....I would wait until Triton contact you again then send-----> Account Sold whilst in Dispute

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I hear you I2D, but id prefer to let them know what i think.

Previously, i would have been stuck in endless letters arguing DPA etc, but this time, they cant argue that one as there was clearly a real sig on the request.

what about sending Final Response - UE (No CCA Received)?

That being said, Since all this fiasco, Triton have taken over the payment of the account, so i could bypass this bollox and send the account sold whilst in dispute direct to them, what do you think?

[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............

[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 !!

[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?

[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!