Hi user2006, your Virgin card is run by MBNA therefore you send all communication to MBNA. If you need any specific help, you should start you own thread where you'll get more help and your questions won't get drowned in this general-ranting-thread! ;-) Good luck FBR

well i stand by what i say, charity (should) begins at home but unfortunately here it dosn't which is why outsiders take advantage of our generosity which leaves genuine british tax payers, oap's, nurses, teachers etc etc short sorry for being patriotic but we should look after our own before we look after others !

Mmmm, yep, you do have a point. It`s not up to the borrower to have to work out the payments etc. They should be simple to read, in laymans terms, for people like me to understand :grin:

Hi and welcome to CAG, for some reason I can't read the images but here is a letter based on the above you can send: Dear Sirs, Account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 This account is in Dispute . On xx/xx/2007 I wrote to xxxxxxxxx requesting that xxxxxxx supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for this account. In response to this request I was supplied a mere application form which did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. Suffice to say none of the terms are present in the document Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states 127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced. In addition should you continue to pursue me for this debt you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I have enclosed an excerpt from page 5 of the guidance which states 2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: h. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment I require you to produce a compliant copy of my credit agreement to confirm I am liable to you or any organisation, which you represent for this alleged debt, if you cannot do so I require written clarification that this is the case. Should you ignore this request I will report you to the Office of Fair Trading to consider your suitability to hold a credit licence in addition to a complaint to Trading Standards, as you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 Since the agreement is unenforceable and the default notice is non compliant, it would be in everyone’s interest to consider the matter closed and for your client to write the debt off. I suggest you give serious consideration to this as any attempt of litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages I respectfully request a response to this letter in 14 days I trust this out lines the situation Idax

Sanpez You Dont Sign Anything Print Your Name Photo Shop Thats All I Am Going To Say For Obviouse Reasons Taken From Personel Experience

Send Your Sar To Welcome Financial Services Ltd Compliance Ruddington Fields Biz Park Ruddington Nottingham Ng11 6nz

No priority debt everything up to date it's just credit cards overdraft ect would never have been able to pay it back so changed bank offered £20 a month due to only husband working they said no wanted £60 so have now defaulted me but was being charged around £45 everymonth due to being overdrawn

Hi Seq, unless you have previously signified your agreement in writing, then this in an unlawful deduction from wages. Proposed main text of letter to employer, insert this into sample letter no.9 on this link: http://www.lra.org.uk/microsoft_word_-_document_-_sample_lettters_discipline_and_grievance_9-2008.pdf In my pay packet for the week ending [insert date] I discovered that my employer, NAME, had made deductions from my wages for that week in the aggregate sum of [£ ...]. I was informed that these deductions were to reimburse NAME for an alleged parking fine during that week. These deductions were unauthorised, and made in contravention of the ERA 1996, s 13 as I had not previously signified in writing my agreement or consent to any such deductions being made Good luck che

sorry must concentrate more

Last word from me on this issue, but it sounds as though you're referring to this story, and since you've raised it it needs to be challenged. The council in this case made a momentous cock-up by housing them in accommodation that was grossly and needlessly expensive. This massively profited a private landlord to whom the rent is paid directly at no benefit to the family whatsoever. The council overpaid for the house as it is not particularly mansion-like as the outside photo shows, yet the family now cannot afford to heat it on the money they actually receive as heating is not covered by housing benefit. Of course the tabloids, rather than focussing on the council's incompetence, turned it into racially motivated abuse of an innocent Asian family, which you have picked up on by labelling them 'terrorists' and saying they abuse our soldiers as though all foreign people somehow count as a single legal entity. The focus in the story on consumer electronics is irrelevant as mobile phones etc. are relatively cheap items compared to the general costs of living, yet they have still been paid for on credit cards which shows the family could not afford them on the money they get. As the story points out, they cannot afford a holiday, which they are somehow also blamed for, even though it was very likely the newspaper who raised the issue. A classic example of why the tabloids are the only toilet paper that leaves more **** on you than to start with.

The £225 is nothing to do with s18 - the House of Lords case that shakespeare62 linked is qute clear - a fee like this must be in the TCC not the amount of credit. Otherwise, the prescribed term (amount of credit) is mis-stated and the agreement is unenforceable. No need to invoke s18.

If you intend to dispute the claim, you must appear in court (or be represented) on the hearing date to state your position - you don't actually state a defence on the copy summons. To dispute the claim, you would simply complete box 3 at section B on page 5 of the copy summons. You must return page 5 to the court on or before the return date shown on the first page of the copy summons. If you do not, the court may grant the order sought by the pursuer, together with any interest and expenses claimed. If you intend to counterclaim you should send the court a written note of any counterclaim you propose to state at the hearing. You may do this at any time before the return date. If you do so, you should also send a copy of it to the pursuer at the same time. If you defend the claim, you may make a written or oral incidental application to the court for the pursuer to supply any information/documents that they may have that is required for you to defend/disprove their claim. They would have to show how they have come to calculate the amount they state as owing anyway and you would be able to show the sheriff your contract and how the figure should have been calculated. Guideance notes on the small claims process in Scotland are here

Hi willtheywontthey.. If the default notice was sent on a friday or saturday then two working days are required to provide "service" of the said document so monday + tuesday are out.. then the 14 days start to count. So if it was sent Fri/sat, service is deemed on Wednesday 18th and then 14 days from that gives rectify date as tuesday 31st March. They can still issue another default notice up until they terminate the agreement so dont let them know tho:D The date issue only becomes important if they take you to court for the full balance, the fact they havent given you time to rectify should mean they can only claim the amount mentioned on the default notice which is the arrears amount. They lose all rights to the outstanding balance prior to the arrears notice. Relevant section in law about service below. Hope this helps, PmW

If the DN was dated the 14th and only gave you until 28th to remedy then that is invalid. You are to be given 14 days + a postage allowance of either 2 days 1st class or 4 days 2nd class (did you keep the envelope). Apart from which, the 14th March, as you rightly say, was a Saturday. Weekends are discounted for postage so it couldnt possibly have been posted until the Monday, 16th. Effective delivery date 18th - 1st class, 20th - 2nd class. Reducing the amount of time allowed even further. HTH

MMM, it would seem to me that you have sent many letters requesting information, or at the very least a response to the letters you have sent. IMHO, I would be going on the offensive, sending either of the following letters. First one was prepared for Lexis 200 by X20. I think I have seen a kind of mishmash of one his letters you have already sent. You will find the letter X20 wrote in the following link. Read it carefully and amend where necessary. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1800199.html Alternatively a short, sharp letter as follows: "I am surprised you have been asked to administer this account as it is in dispute with XXXX and has been since XX XXXX XXXX they have failed to provide information that would allow me to assess whether or not I do have any liability to them. It would appear that we are now in a deadlock. Therefore, I commend the genuine attempt to resolve a dispute by putting your case before a Judge. I accept that this matter has now reached an impasse with both parties apparently having equally strong views about the merits or otherwise of the case. I welcome the opportunity to let the courts decide and look forward to receipt of the papers with great interest. I will also expect a properly executed Regulated Credit Card Agreement that contains all of the Prescribed Terms within the four corners of it, attached to the claim form. Yours faithfully" HTH,

In the context of a side-skirmish on behalf of Mrs VS, I have run into an argument based on a regulation 7 of the Copy Docs Regs regarding the provision of current Ts and Cs rather than both original and current Ts and Cs. This came up on another thread too and I promised to post some wording I was concocting and to post it here to give it a wider audience (or wider exposure for critics ). Here is the wording, in the hope it might be useful and/or provoke discussion: Contrary to assertions made by X in a letter dated X, X has still failed to comply with its obligations under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act. It is indeed correct that a set of documents was sent to me under cover of a letter dated X from X. However, X did not thereby comply with its obligations under section 78 of the 1974 Act. Regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) requires the provision of a true copy of an agreement. Although this need not be an exact copy and certain information may be omitted from a true copy, it must still be a true copy rather than a conjectured reconstruction and the information that may be omitted is strictly specified. However, it is not the case that information need only be provided in relation to an agreement as varied or that only the most recent version of the terms and conditions applicable to an agreement need be provided. Seeking to rely on regulation 7 in supporting that position is to overlooks both the distinctions between the wording regulation 7 on one hand and regulations 8 and 9 on the other. Although regulations 8 and 9 use the word "comprise", regulation 7 uses the word "include". It provides that copies provided in accordance with any section other than section 85 shall include either an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation or an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied. X would only have been entitled to provide a statement of the current terms of the agreement in lieu of a true copy of the executed agreement in the very limited circumstances in which regulation 9 applies (ie to agreements entered into prior to 1985). Neither regulation 8 nor 9 applies in this instance, so the information provided must include the current terms and conditions and not merely comprise the current terms and conditions. Accordingly, X was (and is still) obliged to provide a true copy of the terms and conditions referred to in the application form in their original form, in addition to the current terms and conditions that have been provided. I would be obliged if these could now be provided without further delay or prevarication. In the meantime, the effect of section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that X is precluded from taking any enforcement action whatsoever in relation to the account.

You can't receive Income Based JSA and Income Support at the same time. If you have been out of work for seven months then you really should have been asked to widen your jobsearch past your normal type of work. I can understand it is frustrating but there have to be basic rules about what people can and can't do while in receipt of benefits. If everything was looked at case by case then it would be an administrative nightmare and cost a fortune. Good luck if you go to China. You will definitely have to sign off as Zamzara has said and then make a rapid reclaim when you come back.

you're in good hands (and very lucky I might add) if andyorch is going to give you advice.

Opps sorry Smarterchick - unfair question. Just read your other thread and realise you've been working hard for sometime uncovering the Abbey rot too! Really mean it - great work! In answer to the "equitable assignment" argument that the lenders put forward, what they are really doing is exploiting the registration gap, i.e. the gap between the date on which the parties sign the contract and the date on which the LR is informed of the change of ownership. For us law abiding citizens, when we buy a property, we complete our purchase/sale on X date, and our conveyancer solicitor will send the paper work to the LR - and then on Y date the sale will be registered at the LR. So it is inevitable that there will be a time difference between the date of sale and the date on which the LR will be updated. But what these lenders are doing is exploiting this naturally occuring gap by completing the sale on X date - and then contracting that they will NOT TO TELL THE LR! It is the contracting to intentionally NOT tell the LR that makes it a criminal offence under s.123. Legal title passess on the contract completion date. However, s.27(1) states: it does not operate at law until the relevant registration requirements are met. Note that this clause does not say "it will operate in equity" - it says it will not operate at law. But the lawyers who write the prospectus have interpreted the words "will not operate at law" to mean that it must operate in equity if it does not operate at law. Wrong - if parliament had wanted those words to mean that a transfer would by deemed an equitable transfer until such time that the transfer is registered at the LR then parliament would have expressly said that! It did not. It said that the (legal) transfer would not OPERATE AT LAW until the relevant registration requirements are met. This does not mean that the transfer would be deemed to be an equitable assignment it is the smoke and mirrors legal confusions that the lawyers play and have successfully caused confusion because it is a deeply technical legal issue. The point is that s.27(3) and (4) mandates that a transfer of legal title MUST be registered. s.123 states that it is a criminal offence to intentionally conceal and surpress information from the LR. Thus, transfer of legal title is effected on the date of completion of the contracts - that information should be supplied to the LR - but the contract of sale states that the seller and the SPV will conceal the sale/assignment/transfer from the LR (and the borrower). Note the section you linked in your post above also states Pending completion of the transfer, the right of the mortgages trustee to exercise the powers of the legal owner of the mortgages has been secured by an irrevocable power of attorney granted by the seller in favour of the mortgages trustee, Funding and the security trustee. The words "pending completion of the transfer" means during the time in which they should be, but are not registered at the LR. i.e. the completion of registration at the LR of their legal title - the registration gap - and in the case of the SPVs, their criminal exploitation of the registration gap. And note also, that the SPV have acquired the IRREVOCABLE Power of Attorney so that they (the SPV) exercises ALL the legal entitlements without having to put their name on the LR. It is a nonsense that the lawyers suggest the SPV are merely beneficiaries of an equitable assignment when in fact that SPV is exercising ALL the legal powers and the lender that is registered as the owner of your mortgage has NO LEGAL POWERS. As the prospectus state - the lender registered at the Land Registry is merely the legal title HOLDER - i.e. NO LEGAL POWERS, just the HOLDER in order to keep the SPV concealed. All done in secrecy as they don't expect the borrowers to read the Prospectus so ordinarily you wouldn't know. This is a deeply technical legal issue - but the point is - THE SPV IS THE LEGAL OWNER!

Hi Sunflower, I think it is your original credit limit that counts - and £1,500 isn't on the table, so you are in luck:)

If this is going to OFCOM, the regs to quote are here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/131250-dca-creditor-harassment-telephone.html I'd change "... a campaign of systematic contact with accompanied by threats." to " ... a campaign of systematic and repeated phone calls including threats."

:(Sorry , bones01 - missed your post ..... Is that a reply to Martin 3030's letter , or haven't they got that yet ? They are just being dowright obstructive about this bones 01 - but they've still got to produce within the 40 days from your conversation.(If they admit to the conversation ...........) Also , if they are the company which has your Credit Card account , they have to produce that info as well , no matter where it is lodged in their consortium. The Data Controller is responsible for digging this out and producing it - I think they're playing for more time and another 40days --- don't let them get away with it .... If you haven't had a reply yet to Martins letter , wait and see what that says or, alternatively , post the PPI query in the PPI forum - you'll probably get a more detailed answer from there .... they are very good....

None at all other than your name and address.

Send the SAR to Natwest (send a £10 postal order): It's not the Deed of Assignment that you need to see, it is a Notice of Assignment. You should receive this as part of the SAR. As for the new DCA - you could send them the prove it letter - make them do the work to show they are legally entitled to collect this debt.

You can write to their head office, 12 Drumsheugh Gardens Edinburgh (cant remember their postcode) You will be asked to pay the minimum charge for all the details, the only charges imposed by the sheriff officers are that carried out in a form of arrestment or attachment. As this is a local athority debt Scott & Co cannot add on intrest or anything like that. Pay paying by DD they will not increase your DD without notice, remember you are covered by the direct debit guarentee...