SXGuy's UE Diary

[Paul.]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

update

Rockwell re M&S have took 4 months but have sent agreement, terms and conditions from account inception and statement of account (no current terms)

Same stuff as M&S sent nearly a year ago, so wont need to show Niddy.

Their cover letter states some stuff regarding section 60 and 61, namely not needing a credit limit as its not a loan.

They say that although the agreement omits the creditors signature it may be because its a copy and was scanned prior to a signature being added, hmm.

They want a payment proposal including an I & E within 14 days, so ill wait a week and send off missing prescribed terms, see what happens.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

oh and i forgot to say, they also said, that as i had used the credit card they consider it acknowledgement of debt LOL

I forget which court ruling it was but i remember that one being rejected as an argument?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

update

Rockwell re M&S have took 4 months but have sent agreement, terms and conditions from account inception and statement of account (no current terms)

Same stuff as M&S sent nearly a year ago, so wont need to show Niddy.

Their cover letter states some stuff regarding section 60 and 61, namely not needing a credit limit as its not a loan.

They say that although the agreement omits the creditors signature it may be because its a copy and was scanned prior to a signature being added, hmm.

They want a payment proposal including an I & E within 14 days, so ill wait a week and send off missing prescribed terms, see what happens.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

ok, so Lowells pretty much sent a letter the next day lol

Treated my account sold in dispute as a CCA Request, so will be sending the agreement in due course.

This ones enforceable, been blagging a while now, so looks like ill be sending missing prescribed terms once i get another copy lol

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Just a little update, Lowells re Cap one.

Are asking the OC for info regarding dispute and will contact in due course.

usuall drivel.

Will update when i get their next bit of bog roll.

[ScabHunter]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

little update, Green & Co re Mint

Have closed their file and returned back to OC.

Was what i was expecting tbh as everyone elses have gone this way also.

So i shall wait for the next DCA numpty to jump on it and take it from there.

Yes, they are a predictable shower, aren't they?

Excellent result SXGuy, and your knowledge of how the so-called “industry” works has obviously served you well.



Now, who next?

SH

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

little update, Green & Co re Mint

Have closed their file and returned back to OC.

Was what i was expecting tbh as everyone elses have gone this way also.

So i shall wait for the next DCA numpty to jump on it and take it from there.

[MrsD]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I'd send a one liner asking them to address the points they've ignored.................

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

hey guys, 2 updates.

first is Capital One, they have sold the debt to Lowells, and they also enclosed Lowells letter saying they have bought the debt, so will send account sold in dispute.

second update is DLC, alpins stocken forwarded my CPR letter to them after i received their letter of claim. Their letter is quite long and to be honest, a lot of bollox.

Just to recap, i received a letter of claim from Alpins on behalf of DLC, and i informed them that the CCA i received was not a true copy as the prescribed terms make reference to sections ommited from the recon terms and conditions.

i asked for a true copy of the terms and condtions, the default notice they intend to rely on, as well as statemens of payments made during the default period.

I also added a bit about CPR Protocol practise direction, so they clearly understand this is a pre action letter which they must respond to.

This is their reply.

"We have previously addressed your concerns regarding the agreement and have enclosed a copy of our letter dated 7th november 2012.

To clarify the documents enclosed within our letter dated 24th october is sufficiant to comply with the requirements under the CCA 1974"

Ok so that may be true, but they are threatening court action, and a incomplete recon terms are not sufficiant to obtain judgement, so while they maintain they complied with the request, they have failed to understand that as they sent me a letter before action, i requested a true copy, otherwise without it, how can i base a defence?

"you have requested statements in relation to the above account however the requirement under cca1974 does not extend to provide monthly statements copies previously sent by OC"

Again, they are threatening to issue proceedings, so i have a right to request them do i not? I added in my letter that i believe MBNA added unfair charges, so again i cant make a valid defence without it

"We have made a request to the original lender for a copy of your default notice"

Some other bollox about default notice not being a registered notice on CRA's i know this already.

So, im confused now, was the threat of court, just a threat given their response to my request? or are they just plainly stupid?

Yes a recon can be sent to satisfy CCA Request, but in court they would have to answer why the recon ommits terms refered to in the agreement, as clearly they are not a true copy of the original. They have ignored this fact and just mention they complied with the request, so its left me wondering whether they know they cant get a CCJ and dont want to admit it, and have now backed down?

[Pixie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

It probably is SXGuy as Greens are Triton's pet solicitors and usually easily seen off.

[Pixie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Probably is SXGuy as Greens are Triton's pet solicitors and usually easily seen off.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Hey guys, just a little update.

Mum today received letter from Green & Co re Mint.

Not been round today, will see the letter Monday, but im guessing its the usual threat of litigation thats sent after triton send the pending legal action threats, so will double check Monday, and send Threat of Litigation off if all is well.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Yes often wonder what would have happened if they had used the word may terminate.

But then that would not be so intimidating, hoisted by their own petard.

They use the word MAY in the Paragraph before that statement i.e:-

IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN THE FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW "MAY" BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU.

In bold of course.

States Before The Date Shown = reduces the time period to remedy?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Excellent, glad the AAD Anti-Tamper strip helped

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

If you've not had a DN then thats good for you (in a way) as it makes a mockery of trying to collect a debt!

Well, got another statement today, this time from Natwest gold.

Min monthly payment over 1k, if paid by 7th jan, interest will be 0.0% on next months payment LOL

These numpties, have sent no statements since my mother stopped paying £1 token payments, then all of a sudden, they decide to start sending them again.

Again no DN with this, but their in house muppets triton sent threats of court action before natwest confirmed the account was UE, then heard nothing from them since.

Im guessing NW Black wil follow the same process.

Well, arguing DPA, demanding a signature, then this, are all signs they have no clue what they are doing.

Annoyed that they could DN and terminate 3 years down the line and leave my mother with a rubbish CRA 3 years after others have dropped off, but she says she dont care, everything she wants will be paid in cash from now on, no credit, so that being said, who should worry.

It does make me wonder, that their insistance for a signature was an attempt to create a recon, and AAD anti tamper strip, put a stop to that, so they had no choice but to give up lol