SXGuy's UE Diary

[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.

[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

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?

[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.

[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

Yeah your right!

[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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

R soles aren't they.

Not so concerned about verifying the identity of the debtor when they are sending out their threatening letters are they.

[nightwatch]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

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

I sent the Niddy special to Lombard, they sent it back with the template letter saying it wasn't signed they passed it to Try-it-on, who got the your client has not complied with my request letter sent enclosing the CCA Request and the £1.00 fee.
this time they kept the CCA request and the £1 but sent back a COPY of the cover letter cos it wasn't signed
still not had the CCA

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

They did send the CCA after getting the linked letter..

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I think Niddys letter says it all.

Basically you are making a request under the Consumer Credit Act, if it was required for you to make a signed application it would say so.

If they fail to comply with the request, the sanction is clear in that they will be unable to enforce the agreement.

Niddy is quite right in saying that they cannot use one piece of legislature in order to justify none compliance with another.