SXGuy's UE Diary

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

another update.

Link re Barclaycard have sent a full set of statements for the account.

their cover letter says to contact them to discuss payment.

This completes their secton 78 request, niddy has confirmed UE as the PT's were not part of that application.

Have previously sent them missing PT's on 12th October which ive not had a reply to.

Should i wait and see what happens next, or send them a reminder regarding the missing PT's letter?

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

another update.

Link re Barclaycard have sent a full set of statements for the account.

their cover letter says to contact them to discuss payment.

This completes their secton 78 request, niddy has confirmed UE as the PT's were not part of that application.

Have previously sent them missing PT's on 12th October which ive not had a reply to.

Should i wait and see what happens next, or send them a reminder regarding the missing PT's letter?

I would send them a reminder regarding the missing PT's letter if it were me.

[MrsD]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

me too

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

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?

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

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 would send this if it were me----> Final Response - Unenforceable (No CCA Received)

See what they say to that

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

What a load of twaddle.

You could respond and accept that the point that the DPA prohibits them discussing information with a person who they are unsure is the data subject and remind them that the OFT places similar restrictions on them.

In view of this, you expect them to cease all recovery actions until they can verify they are targeting the correct person.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I would send this if it were me----> Final Response - Unenforceable (No CCA Received)

See what they say to that

I would imagine they will refer to their previous letter again though!

What a load of twaddle.

You could respond and accept that the point that the DPA prohibits them discussing information with a person who they are unsure is the data subject and remind them that the OFT places similar restrictions on them.

In view of this, you expect them to cease all recovery actions until they can verify they are targeting the correct person.

That sounds good, however i would say again they will prob refer back to this letter.

They have also stated in the cover letter if im unhappy with the findings to refer to the OFT, so im guessing its their final response?

Apprently there is some information via ICO which states a lender does not require signature as proof of identity for a SAR or CCA Request if they have made previous communication with that person.

Similary, i think the OFT have also said that, be good to find it as i can insert it in to my reply to add weight?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Just a little update regarding MBNA and DLC.

They have threatend that they may decide to litigate and will rely on the documents provided under s78.

I have spoken to Paul who has kindly taken the time to look over the agreement and give me his honest opinion.

Paul says that what they sent, does not satisfy s78 because unless i could tell him otherwise, the T's and C's are a recon that fails to show certain paragraphs mentioned within the prescribed terms.

(Niddy confirmed this for me previously)

Paul says, they can obviously still try to litigate and remedy half way through, however i am 99% sure they will not be able to, given it took them 11 months to supply "something" and they have also stated they rely on what they sent as documents that would be used in any litigation.

Im still waiting on a reply to missing PT's so i will update this thread when i receive something. But as for now, both Paul and Niddy have confirmed that they have not satisfied s78

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Update, iQor Re Lloyds have finally responded to my letters...yay!....

Apprently i havent sent £1 for a CCA Request....Boo!

Will send them a letter monday explaining it was sent to OC and provide copy of the receipt as proof.

I have receied the CCA already, niddy confirms UE, but im gonna play a long for a bit anyway lol

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

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

[SXGuy]

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.

[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.

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

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

[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

[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.