NP sorted

Sorry I don't see why you are protesting over my post. This is how I see it, I'm just a Joe Public and not a professional so this is simply my opinion (DISCLAIMER) :~( The "rules" or civil law is about to change and I cannot see why this doesn't have relevance. Creditors could always just go for a CCJ, fine before now, for someone like my partner and I it would in fact be beneficial in a way, allowing me to get a proper re-payment judgement proportionate to our genuine circumstance at the time of judgement. Point in case is that if we had been paying more than we could afford and the return line was "more more" or "all now now" we felt somewhat confident that a County Court Judge would see that the debt had been pushed into such litigation even when a true 'Statement of Affairs' and an offer of a temporary 'Debt Management Plan' had been properly made, debtors' fees would be less likely to be awarded and, thus, be a negative return route for debtors taking such action on those who's circumstances (temporarily) should not warrant such actions. Now, however, if you are a home owner there will, soon, be a route by which a debt as low as £1000 could mean a CCJ will also have the added threat of your debtor/s being able to apply for a charging order and/or a sell order (they would need a forthwith judgement or you to default on a repayment judgement I hope and suppose?) on even the UK average house price, say 140K even conservatively? . THIS IS HIGHLY DISPROPORTIONATE For example here am I with a combined unsecured personal debt of less than £4000 now really, truly, worried that if we don't find a way to pay up as quickly as possible this could escalate to a charging order (not that I beleive they would have a chance of getting a 'forthwith' judgement but still, just one default on any CCJ repayment could, technically, lead to me either A) having an unpayable debt locked into the value of my property (converted to a secured debt) and accumulating 8% p/a as long as I choose to stay in my property; or B) an application by the creditor for a sell order forcing myself, my partner, my 5 week old son out of the roof over our heads seeing being sold at auction for alot less than it's already delapidated price! So this thread is of relevance as the social impact and financial impacts are considerable to say the very least. We are lucky, we may be able to do a 0% credit card shuffle for the next 3 years... but this change in already passed legislation, when enacted, will put many peoples unsecured debts at risk of suddenly being secured and held against the rooves over families heads! Act now sign the petition!!

I'll try to put this as briefly but succinctly as possible but I really can't see why I am in this situation given the series of events... We have just had our first child, my partner is on Statutory Maternity Pay and I get just my NI Stamp from JSA. We're applying / waiting for everything else at the moment. Firstly a short background, I had setup a Coop' Current, Pathfinder savings account, and a Visa credit card some five years back. During this process they asked if I was a homeowner so I know they have known that I owned my home since then. On becoming a Student I also had offered, and took on, a Student account with £2000 overdraft which after paying off a load of escalating charges on both the Current and Savings account which I closed, all that remained was the Visa and Student Overdraft which brings me to the current situation. My Student overdraft lasted all four years of my course, no complaints from bank and no payments going in and it stood at £1700 on graduation. Then it was converted to a Current account and interest started to be applied; It was supposed to be interest free for one year after graduation. I rang them and asked what had happened and they said the course was 3 years, mine was 4 years, and that I would send them proof in the form of my support letters from LEA, which they told me would sort the matter out. Upon leaving University I have been unemployed since.. Architecture nice timing eh:rolleyes: My next letter was to tell me that my "request" for an interest free overdraft had been rejected due to point 1) of the terms and conditions "the debtor will make regular payments into account... or similar" and further that since it had been taken over the limit by £20 odd, I was in breach, the overdraft had been removed making the amount in full payable immediately. I quickly brought the amount back under by covering the interest payments monthly (five or so now times I beleive) but negotiations were non-existent even offering me seven year long consolodation loans fully knowing I was unemployed and unwilling to put these proposals to me in writing:eek: Every time the amount in full had to be paid, no installments nothing... So having been paying (£21 interest plus £9) £30 a month it is now in the hands of a Coop subsiduary "Pheonix Credit Services Limited". I received the letter asking for my Statement of Affairs, or at least there equivalent and I thought 'well fine, now finally I have the opportunity to proove we couldn't really afford the payments we were making.. Going through all the calculations with Pheonix, I soon proved we had no money beyound our level to subsist, yet the fact i was a home owner soon elevated the tone to "we might apply for a charging order":mad: Now I know they have to get a CCJ first but we have been paying them money and they still want it all, I am going to make an offer (which we can't afford but hey) just to try and avoid litigation but I strongly feel that this is going to be ignored just as the payments we have made... My greatest fear at the moment is that this is the future when the law becomes fully implemented over charging orders for creditors to see it, and in my case it feels exactly like, a corridoor to run down as quickly as possible, to get CCj, get charging order, get sell order, no leaneance at all given:eek: My only hope is that the County Courts will still look unfavourably on people who have given a SOA and a formal offer of what they can truly, honestly, afford to repay and follow the correct letters etc; but I really feel that the new threat is if you're a homeowner your up for grabs for a new fast track aggressive approach to even the smallest of debts, which previously, you would never have beleived you could lose the roof over your head over, less were informed of that possibility. The complete lack so far by the coop to consider our circumstances leads me to suspect there subsiduary Ltd company Pheonix is just a guise to dodge potential PR damage and express train small debts toward secured debts plus nice expensive fees(if awarded)... The only hope is that the County Courts will begrudge them this track, but would you or your families risk it? Suddenly a potential CCJ has anew big unfair sting in it's potential tail! So what is left for us just to cough up or put our family homes at risk? Dangerous times ahead.... Oh I got a petition to sign so should you all too:cool:

Hi all, I have just graduated this year and during my four year course I held a Student Overdraft and a Credit Card account with the Cooperative. About five to six months after my graduation they have started ringing me saying that I owe them the outstanding sum of the overdraft (£1700) because my student account had been converted to a current account, further the year of interst free overdraft after graduation, and indeed the overdraft facility had all been removed because, " Ihad not made payments to the account and the account had defaulted because of the £20 of interest charges they had applied (since it was now a standard current account not a student account) had breached the terms and conditions of my student account thus all was owed immediately! Since which I have had the usual bombardment of calls; the first of interest was to try and pursuade me into consolidating my credit card and ex-student overdraft into a lump through their chosen loan (shark) Freedom Finance, which I point blank refused; the second, about a week later, was an offer of an "Internal Loan" which I was told after I said "OK put it to me in writing" was only available in verbal agreement on the phone and that "no written offer could be made", well you can imagine my response to agreement to a seven year loan which would have attracted £1500 of interest on a £3900 debt moreso I had told them I was currently unemployed but was told that was not a problem....hmmmmm! I have come to a complete head because they are trying to force the debts combined even though I have met the minimum payments off my credit card and payed off any monthly interest on the overdraft, which of course they finacially benefit from, yet they are still hassling me; I have kept up the best payments I can in the hope that it will (if push comes to proverbial shove) make for a decent statement of case or defense or such if iot ever comes to a county court situation (which I reckon not for the sum involved but hey it's all changed somewhat. It has come to a haed this evening when a rep' rung me and asked me for payment, I have coughed up an amount to cover the interest but that's all I can afford (it's not reducing the debt any and I still have to endure the telephone harrassment!) They have sent me a breakdown of you and your partner's income and I have refused to fill it out for now because my partner is six months pregnant and will, after six weeks of initial merternity leave, be on 10% of her salary; so to fill the form out now and make a repayment agreement will not be a true reflection of our mid-term situation, at best. I am reckoning just like final judgement in a county court I am best waiting until we are on a low income before negotiations with my creditors or even when our situation changes (don't get me wrong if I get a decent job I'll get shot of the debt asap) they will hold us to such assessment indefinately? Well sorry for a long post but I'm sure many know how difficult it can be to get all the detail across so any help most appreciated.. TIA

Oh this doesn't surprise me any after the last few weeks. We too paid our VM bill and they, after 10 working days to clear the payment, and acknowledging that the payment had 'gone missing' sent a default notice today. I rang them and after clarifying that they had agreed to launch a `lost payment search' and that the default notice would be retracted; to which I was told thay couldn't do anything for 30 days, I decided enough was enough and asked to cancel my services. Interestingly enough after attempts to persuade me otherwise I was presented with a £150 pound charge, £10 per month per service for the remainder of a 12 month contract. I of course asked on what contract this was based since I had only signed one contract over 3 years ago with NTL. Apparently reducing my services to minimum TV BB and Phone meant that I was to be held to another 12 months, they say they sent a contract by post, which I never received and certainly have never therefore signed. The fella actually told me that he had no record of a contract available to him but that was what the computer system would apply in charges and that was that. I asked him to put me through to someone who could resolve the legal issue of having no contract upon which to enforce these charges and he told me There's no one I can put you through to who would know about that, we use third party collections agencies, you'll have to take it up with their solicitors as we don't have any. An astonished pause... ...at the stupidity of such a statement and that VM apparently have no one in their company who understands basic contractual law..... So there's the answer no one in VM knows squat about anything legal, nor probably cares, the computer system rules above common sense. In short I was told to talk to the debt collectors hand:eek:

Almost exactly what happened to me after claiming charges back from both Co-Op and Halifax both refused to renew my cards, not directly but through never actually doing it or asking for payments promising to review my `situation` to date both accounts are at £0 and neither will give me facilities even after crediting the Halifax with over a thousand pounds; if that is not retaliatory punitive action I don't know what is. Most frustrating is that they can simply get away with it as they're under no obligation to give you facilities, now I have an account with my local Derbyshire building society at least my money is with a local small business and not feeding international corporates. Unfortunately in my experience there was nothing I could do when they took the uncooperative line with me. I just had to open another account.

Un*^%$&^£ingbelievable ... so now they are sending telegrams aswell as SMS and computerised voice mails? What next? A robotic collection agent arrives at your door? Hmm perhaps we should pre-emptively start buying tazers... actually they could have some effective use on ..... no stop let's there huh:rolleyes:

and thus they suffer no penalty for not complying within the stated time frames... and lets face it what institution, escpecially one who directly works with Government funds, have you heard of losing their credit license? I mean no offense to you pesonally but currently I see no penalty to an institution who doesn't comply with requests because if they come up with the goods when they decide to take `you` to court and comply with disclosure requirements in such litigation then that's still legal So for the layman like myself it reads that they can get away with ignoring statute stated time frames for responses to requests because all that matters is that they can produce the necessaties when they take one to the courts? And that empowers such over a consumer in the same way that `best practicable means' defenses often favour companies over complainants through `not adversely affecting economic interests'!

even after 12+2 WD's and 30 days it seems to me if they wish to pursue court action then they can still produce a valid Credit Agreement and without any penalty as long as they comply with disclosure in the course of litigation.... This is what both annoys me and I don't understand fully; what's the point of the 12+2 WD's and 30 calender days in CCA74 if they can still raise litigation and enforce the debt by presenting an original agreement to a court even if they have defaulted in their duties as specified in CCA74??? This is what I want clarified.. btw they are now over the 12+2 WD's from my tracked receipt through Roayal Mail and the ICO's 20 days guidelines, now its the 30 calender days counting down... but I fear they can still sit complaicent if they can produce it in court (even if they send you a copy days before they have still complied with disclosure?) and so there is no real penalty for them?

Are now the penny drops as to why they were constantly trying to get me to `upgrade' my savings account to a `privilege' account so they could charge a monthly fee for a worthless interest rate.... that's just typical of the *%£$%&ers

They didn't close any of my accounts instead they just put stops on all my cards etc, effectively closing them down then continued to say we will review the situation when you pay us £xxx etc etc. To this day the stops remain and I am convinced no amount of repayments etc are going to remove them. I claimed my charges back from the Halifax and they did the same effectively failing to renew my card even after I credited the account with over a £1000!! No law against them will change the fact that they can just remove your facilities, in my case they didn't even inform me I only found out when the ATM's reported unauthorised transaction.... my cards were all worthless over night. So it's not just the Co-Op using punitive tactics after claiming, though it smacks the hardest being that they image themselves as being `Ethical' Yeah right ethical in how they spend their profits not in how theu make them...

and suddenly it stops.... hmmm me wonders if they are eyeballing this board. Well now I will pay if it stops for more than a few days, I simply refuse to be bullied by harrassment!

That's why I'm mad because theyve already got a letter with that in:-) Which they are apparently looking into:mad:

Since Monday this week I have received over 35 telephone calls from an automated system between my landline and mobile with a computer voice telling me to pay a minimum payment which is 10 days overdue. I have had to delete 16 blank voice mails from my mobile and had about 6 or more sms messages! I have already sent a detailed letter of complaint complaining about amoungst other things telephone harrassment, this was following a verbal complaint which was never acted upon. I received a stock reply letter telling me my complaint was being looked at. This level of telephone harrassment is designed to upset a household cause stress and arguments and I want to know how they can get away with this even after formal complaint. I am taking this to my local office of fair trading on Monday as it is completely unbelievable. I don't see that because a person is no longer calling you it is not harrassment and something must be done to stop the banks getting away with what amounts to an offense. Just wondering if I am the only one getting this type of message systenm harrassment from the co-op?

//

In fact let me some poetic license here, I feel a relevant music thread might lift some souls amoungst the hard grind of dealing with civil law? Seems it's always been this way so now it's our turn eh?

amazing when you start digging how much still smacks as relevant even 20+ years:

Some musical light relief from a great band .. seemed apt somehow:D

No I didn't take it that way at all. I am between minds on whether the losses of deferments is deliberate to generate government revenue or just another measure of their complete incompetence to tie things together in administrating accounts. In my case they just never bothered sending me my statements, deferments (as they did with my other loans) even though they had my contact details. As I say my loans were deferered barre this one they have now dragged up. Yes the deferment process resets the limitation period, but that is what we agreed to and isn't entirely (I suppose) unreasonable if it was administered correctly. As you correctly say when the onus is on the consumer to keep asking for forms that don't get sent and then get lost when returned producing default notices, and arears to be paid with potential charges then that is highly unreasonable.

Possibly a prudent idea but the SLC trying to claim in court that because you have contacted them over the debt by writing or by telephone in order to discuss the matter constitutes an admission of debt would surely be ridiculous by any normal business practises? If that is what they are intimating then that's as ridiculous as trying to use the charges for CAR and S.A.R. as payments to credit your account with as also ridiculous as you have implicitly sent them for a service. I cannot beleive those tactics would be seen a fair or proper by any judge surely! Has anyone actually been in court with SLC defending against an enforcement of an old debt yet? I mean with reasonable reasons why they feel they shouldn't pay now now now, lost deferments, misadministration etc.

If I am perfectly honest what is stressing me the most is that they are supporting me (thus far) on my final 4th year of an Architectural Design degree. So they are paying me installments on the one hand and demending an almost equal sum back with the other. This is a tough degree and the 4th year the toughest, it's the completely demanding approach when they have full knowledge of my income since it is from them, and have had my contact details for at least the last 4 years whilst they've been supporting me. To chuck this at me in the last and most critical year of study is just against all that they put forward about being a consiencious company supporting students. WHEN WILL PEOPLE GET THE DAMN MESSAGE WE PAY FOR OUR EDUCATION AND A HIGH PRICE AT THAT. We are consumers now and didactic institutions businesses with customer care departments!! Rant ends, sorry feel better now:mad:

Part 1 - Overriding Objectives confused over this content but 1.4- 2- (e) encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution (GL) procedure if the court considers that appropriate and facilitating the use of such procedure; Seems the most applicable to SLC since they seem utterly non-leniant in there approach to recovering the debts even when they are aware that one's circumstances would mean it impossibl;e without a CCJ I am trying to make some sense of: Part 6 - Service of Documents but this is going to take some time to digest. The CCA74 is a statute law I am pretty sure so if old style loans are subject to it then surely that would have to be considered in a defense based upon it whether that be that no credit agreement copy was forthcoming in the specified timeframe 12+2 working days (or perhaps the 30 calender days after, I'm not fully sure which applies yet) or whether you claim it statute limited since no payments or deferments have been made in over 6 years? I suppose what I am trying to assess is how the CCA timeframes for sending a true, executed copy of the original credit agreement apply. After I have received the information from my S.A.R. then I will be able to write to them proposing that it is subject to the statute limitation as I will have a record of what payments and deferments have been applied and when, though I know there not to have been any in the last 6 years. It's for me just a matter of course; request credit agreement, request account transactions and records by S.A.R. then propose the debt statute limited after I have the records I need to prove that. I am beginning to beleive that the heavy handed telephone approach is to get you to agree to make payments however small so that the limitation period resets as the phone call I had yeaterday was along the lines of ' need you to agree to make payments on this debt', when I iterated that I had made written requests that needed to be dealt with first she didn't seem to know what I was talking about until I told her that they had been recieved by track and trace:rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong; I understand that the claimant has to disclose a true (legible) copy of an original Credit Agreement, signed and executed: Yet I am still confused over such that is the time frame, as prescibed in CCA74, with which they can still present an original Credit Agreement and thus still mantain an enforcement upon such a debt? By what you have said, even if they ignore the statute timeframes to comply with a CCA request there is no diffrerence if they comply or not ( within the given time frames in CCA74 ) and can forward their claim to a court to enforce the debt in court? Again I am just trying to interpret what I read but not being an exprerienced legal mind I can only guess or speculate on how such a defense would be received in a civil court? TIA

Here's the most scary thing, If the data was encypted there wouldn't be the worries that there seems to be. It would take years for a supercomputer to break a 128 or 256 strength encyption based on prime numbers. So how does a 23 year old Junior Administrational Operative have access to either a) administartive rights to the said database probably SQL or Oracle b) the cypher to decrypt the files, c) the knowledge to perform an export without technical assistance d) the ability within such an organisation to act without any senior authority input. They're the questions that need looking at before blaming a scapegoat! Also it now appears that the ICO can audit without the `permission` of the department involved (ok I would have thought this was the case anyway otherwise what's the point of a watchdog?) Let's ask them to audit the SLC :-P

Thanks for the prompt and detailed replies rory32. I certainly didn't mean to imply that mods and senior members don't know the law, just that non-legal people like myself and other student users can only speculate on the finical points of what we read and not interpret from experience. Since most defenses are casuistic we ultimately rely heavily on clarificatioon from senior members to confirm we have the right end of the proverbial stick before deciding on defensive actions. It can be very difficult when one is trying to speed learn quite tricky civil law and statute acts etc, whilst studying for a degree or struggling with low incomes etc escpecially when the letters, charges, and phone calls start coming thick and fast. I shall look closely at the CCA74 s127 as I would like to know what the time frames mean, you mention disclosure, but I suppose I am trying to decide when disclosure can still be made , If that means a court sends you a copy of the claim and associated documents then I don't see there is any penalty to a claimant if they ignore the timeframes. Urrrgggg my head is full, I am trying to get a response together to their 'can you be more specific' letter when I feel I have been implicitly clear. Also the quicker I tell them that the less it shows I have just let the matter go by and have provided clarification promptly.