SXGuy's UE Diary

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

hahaha thanks guys.

Yes you can say i told you so, i dont mind!!

Sending missing PT's today.

[greymatter]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Great stuff

[Bricktop]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Result !

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Hey guys.

Received letter today from GPB solicitors Re Lloyds and iQor.

Previously sent both these idiots letter before action when they threatend legal action.

Today received another threat, legal action pending, make full payment within 10 days or "may" be instructed to issue court procedings.

Already sent letter before action, so should i send it again, refer them to my previous letter or send something else?

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Hey guys.

Received letter today from GPB solicitors Re Lloyds and iQor.

Previously sent both these idiots letter before action when they threatend legal action.

Today received another threat, legal action pending, make full payment within 10 days or "may" be instructed to issue court procedings.

Already sent letter before action, so should i send it again, refer them to my previous letter or send something else?

That's what I would do...........

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Will do, thanks I2D

[Slickfm]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Hey guys.

Received letter today from GPB solicitors Re Lloyds and iQor.

Previously sent both these idiots letter before action when they threatend legal action.

Today received another threat, legal action pending, make full payment within 10 days or "may" be instructed to issue court procedings.

Already sent letter before action, so should i send it again, refer them to my previous letter or send something else?

Hi SXGuy, is your letter the same as the one I recently posted on my UE diary?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Hi SXGuy, is your letter the same as the one I recently posted on my UE diary?

I received your letter around 2 weeks ago, i sent them a copy of the letter before action, that i had sent to iQor at the same time.

both gpb and iQor ignored it, and i received a second letter from gpb which was similar to yours and my last letter, except it doesnt saying anything about not entering into corespondance, it just says may be instructed to commence legal action and is titled PENDING LEGAL ACTION.

So no doubt you will get this letter in a week or so.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Hey guys, update time again.

DLC re MBNA have replied to the threat of charging order letter.

As a reminder, this was 1 day prior to receiving the UE CCA which states a paragrah in the prescribed terms that doesnt exist in the T's and C's.

I sent the missing prescribed terms letter after that, to which im still waiting on a reply for.

But i thought id post the main content of the letter, cos i have no clue what they are refering to.

Abit of blah blah, and some points regarding the account does not relate to a fixed term agreement, the prescribed terms are not required to be on the face of the agreement, therefore please see the reverse.
Does comply with CCA 1974.
They are happy to rely on the documents previously provided in any future proceedings.

Then theres this bit

"Any amendments made to the Consumer Credit Act after the agreement was signed would have no legal bearing on its enforceability, consequently as the amendment made to the 1974 act regarding prescribed terms was not introduced until 2006, this section of the act would not apply to your agreement.

We will now consider the account further, which will include an assessment by our litigation department, in the meantime, we would encourage you to telephone us to discuss repayment."

Was also a bit about enforceabilty does not preclude you from making payment and should not be used as a tool to withold payment....yeah we know this already.

The bit im confused about, is the first paragraph, what amendments do they refer to?

And judging by their last statement, they are probably intend to try for litigation at some point, even if i did offer a repayment (which i wont be) So why bother lol.

Im guessing i should sit tight and wait for a reply to the missing PT's i sent as this is probably a response to the threat of charging order i sent them judging by the dates they refer to in the letter.

If anyone has some insight in to what amdendments they are refering to, id be happy to know.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Just Googled this but it says 2005 ?

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...r3Kp8qOamFxJZg

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Thanks, dont think thats it though.

They mention specifically CCA2006 and Prescribed Terms.

The thing that is puzzling me is i thought the majority was redacted parts of the 1974 act, not amendments or additions.

It could be, that they are refering to the PT's being on the same page, but it was in reply to the threat of charging orders letter, which i dont think mentions anything about the PT's

That being said, they may just be stating some comment to try and cover whatever they think ill reply with lol.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Thanks, dont think thats it though.

They mention specifically CCA2006 and Prescribed Terms.

The thing that is puzzling me is i thought the majority was redacted parts of the 1974 act, not amendments or additions.

It could be, that they are refering to the PT's being on the same page, but it was in reply to the threat of charging orders letter, which i dont think mentions anything about the PT's

That being said, they may just be stating some comment to try and cover whatever they think ill reply with lol.

Your probably right, I think the 2006 act was responsible for removing the unenforceability thing, prescribed terms are laid down in regulations I think.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I spose its however you chose to read it

"Any amendments made to the Consumer Credit Act after the agreement was signed would have no legal bearing on its enforceability, consequently as the amendment made to the 1974 act regarding prescribed terms was not introduced until 2006, this section of the act would not apply to your agreement."

It reads as though they are either saying, the point im relying on doesnt apply as its an amendment added to the CCA2006.

Or

The amendment added to the CCA2006 doesnt apply to my agreement, as it falls under 1974.

But why they would want to throw me a bone is questionable.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Which prescribed term is missing?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

The perscribed terms say.

Sections 1 to 12, are paragraphs 8 to 9, of your terms and conditions.

Then in one of the sections, forget which without looking, maybe 10, about payment holidays, it says, "with the exception of paragraph 9 (4).

When you look through the alleged original T's and C's, it says paragraphs 8 and 9 can be found on your agreement.

And the alleged Current T's and C's, under paragraph 9, only go up to (3).

Niddy confirmed its UE for this reason.

I dont think they are specifically mentioning this, as, as you know, the missing prescribed terms template doesnt state exactly whats wrong with it, only gives them a clue that somethings not right.

But like i say, they first say, in reply to your letter dated 23rd October, i trust you received our letter dated 24th....

well i sent a response to their threat of CO and CCJ on the 23rd, and missing PT's on the 24th, after i received the CCA on the 24th from them. They make no mention of the letter i sent on 24th, just the one dated 23rd

EDIT: if it helps, ill scan the letter and post it up monday.