Mum Vs Argos/fredrickson Internatonal

[pigsic]

[pigsic]

[pt2537]

well ive just run the APR figures and they dont tie up

 

the agreement quotes 25.9% from what i can see and while i cant read the figure under total charge for credit amount,which appears to say 218.67

 

if that is correct then the amount of APR is actually 29.2%

 

the second document, is it readable as it is in front of you as its very hard to read on the screen?

[pigsic]

Hi there pt

so good to hear from you it is only a little better to read but not perfect copy but you right it does say 25.9% and £218.67

what would you advice me to do know that they have provided a cca

lisa

[N.P]

well ive just run the APR figures and they dont tie up

 

the agreement quotes 25.9% from what i can see and while i cant read the figure under total charge for credit amount,which appears to say 218.67

 

if that is correct then the amount of APR is actually 29.2%

 

the second document, is it readable as it is in front of you as its very hard to read on the screen?

 

Hi Paul and Lisa,

 

Paul, are you saying the Interest on their Agreement is actually HIGHER than they have printed on the Agreement, IE: they are ripping Lisa off?

 

Does that alone render the Agreement unenforceable? Or is laymans terms, bollocks?

 

I was just wondering, I can`t read what is on mine, it`s that bad.

 

Also, did you use that OFT DualCalc? I tried that but I didn`t have a clue how to use it? Excuse my ignorance, dimness and lack of intelligence but I`m just a simple lesser mortal, LOL

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

[pt2537]

Hi Paul and Lisa,

 

Paul, are you saying the Interest on their Agreement is actually HIGHER than they have printed on the Agreement, IE: they are ripping Lisa off?

 

Does that alone render the Agreement unenforceable? Or is laymans terms, bollocks? Well Quite possibly but cos i cant read it correctly i cant really tell for definite, i would be sending them a letter telling them to have another go because its illegible and therefore fails to comply with the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents)

Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) which states

 

 

2 Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms

(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed

agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the .

 

I was just wondering, I can`t read what is on mine, it`s that bad.

 

Also, did you use that OFT DualCalc? I tried that but I didn`t have a clue how to use it? Excuse my ignorance, dimness and lack of intelligence but I`m just a simple lesser mortal, LOL

 

its not too bad to be honest but it takes some getting used to does DualCalc

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

....

[pigsic]

Hi there everyone

Is there a letter then that i can send to fredricksons regarding this

PLEASE HELP

LIsa

[pigsic]

Would you say this is unenforceable then or not

[pigsic]

Hi there

Please could some one help me what could I send back to argos/fredricksons PLEASE HELP

LIsa

[The GodMother]

I would right to them advising they have not complied with the CCA of 1974 and that you still consider the account in dispute.

 

No need to tell them what they have done wrong as it is more fun in letting them guess what they have done wrong.

 

Chrissi

[pt2537]

I would right to them advising they have not complied with the CCA of 1974 and that you still consider the account in dispute.

 

No need to tell them what they have done wrong as it is more fun in letting them guess what they have done wrong.

 

Chrissi

 

Nah , i have to disagree on this one,

 

yes granted it is the normal practice not to tell them how to comply with the law, but on this occasion clearly they have not complied with the copy doc regulations and also there are issues over the APR

 

now they really wont give a monkeys if you say that they havent complied, however it you completely fillet their donkey for them, they will look at what youve said, and realise they have pi$$ed in the wind and that they dont have much chance

 

i will have a look to see if i have any letters on file

 

Regards

paul

[The GodMother]

ok then paul.

 

I would have just followed procedure myself if u had not sdaid anything

[pigsic]

Nah , i have to disagree on this one,

 

yes granted it is the normal practice not to tell them how to comply with the law, but on this occasion clearly they have not complied with the copy doc regulations and also there are issues over the APR

 

now they really wont give a monkeys if you say that they havent complied, however it you completely fillet their donkey for them, they will look at what youve said, and realise they have pi$$ed in the wind and that they dont have much chance

 

i will have a look to see if i have any letters on file

 

Regards

paul

Hi Paul

thank you for coming back to me on this i would grateful if you could find me a letter cos i am useless at writing letters

thanks lisa

[The GodMother]

I have a great dear idiots letter for this occassion but it may not be liked.

[Iceman54]

Now that I would like to see GM

[The GodMother]

well I am not going to post it as my letters have been known to needa bit of editing.

 

If lisa wants to see it then lisa can.

[Iceman54]

Is that "editing" or "censoring"

[The GodMother]

editing cencering who cares they are good fun to write tho never get sent as they are as i dont want to make them do there jobs now do l

[Iceman54]

Yes I can well imagine the theraputic value of writing such letters

 

I have mentally rehearsed what i would really like to say to these people many times in the past.................. I am still sorely tempted to add the odd personal note to the templates i find on here............. but have so far resisted the temptation lol

[The GodMother]

there is nothing to stop u adding it but if they were to take u to court and use your letters calling them a jumped up bunch of W****** would not look good.

 

Also it would not look good if you were to complain to the FOS and the ICO.

 

There are other little things you can put in like:-

 

The CCA of 1974 has been around long enough now for you/ your clients to have read and understood it clearly your actions/ your clients actions means they either have not read it or have not understood the CCA of 1974.

 

Which i think means you lot are a bunch of dumb idiots that need to learn to read.

[Iceman54]

At the moment I take great delight in handling their phone calls

 

Them: "Can I just take you through our security procedures"

 

Me "No"

 

Them "pardon"

 

Me "Oh are you hard of hearing...........shall I speak more slowly?"

 

Them "Errrm...... no I need to take you through security.......... can I have your date of birth"

 

Me "No"

 

Them "but I need to take you through security"

 

Me "why?"

 

Them "because I cant talk to you unless I take you through security"

 

Me "but you are talking to me"

 

Them "No No you dont understand"

 

Me "I think you will find that I do................Goodbye"

 

[N.P]

Morning all,

 

I like to start my letters with `Dear Morons`, I think we could get away with that, as the dictionary definition means stupid people anyway.

 

I have at times been tempted to put something stronger down, but I keep that for the annoying phone calls.

 

 

N.P

[The GodMother]

well the wonderful Chancellor advised everybody NOT to give out ANY personal details over the phone when the HMRC lost 2 discs full of data. Also the DPA does not contain anything that says you have to veryify YOURSELF when u RECIEVE the call only when YOU MAKE the call.

 

I have the relivant quotes around here somewhere.

[The GodMother]

Here we go what i call the Royal FU.

 

It does stump companys trust meas i have used it.

 

 

Let’s just clarify all this about the 'security questions'.

 

1. There is NO requirement in the Data Protection Act for anyone to disclose their personal data to a caller, known or not.

 

2. The Information Commissioner has issued guidance that the RECIPIENT of a call should verify the identity of the caller. Thus when YOU call your bank/credit company, they should ask you to verify yourself by say, your date of birth. That doesn't apply when THEY call you. If anything, you should verify the identity of the firm by asking something like the OFT licence number. See how many actually have one!

 

3. Regardless of the DP Act, it is monumentally STUPID to provide personal data to any Tom, Dick or Harry who calls you claiming to act for HSBC, Barclaycard or any other company. How do YOU know they say they are? It is the easiest thing for a thief to steal your identity by calling you and asking for your date of birth, post code or another piece of data. You cannot check them yet providing such data is exactly what they want you to do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the HMRC data discs went mysteriously AWOL, and the whole ID theft frenzy was at it's peak, the Chancellor and an HMRC Chief were answering questions to the media to try and calm the waters a bit. Of course, the tactic was to stress that the information available from the discs was quite limited and nobody should be unduly concerned, just a little extra cautious with their personal details. If anyone was concerned or had reason to suspect something was amiss with their bank or financial details they should check their credit report and take it up with their Bank, or the Police if necessary.

 

"But what about the real fraudsters and con artists,.... now they have 'official' confirmation of who you are and where you live,.... what's to stop them calling you up and fishing for more information from you, your family and friends, and fleshing out more personal details??" asked one reporter.

 

Without hesitation the Chancellor's was reply was to the effect that "People should be on their guard at all times with personal information, whether online or on the telephone. I can think of no particular situation whereby anyone would have a legal obligation to part with their personal details to any unidentified or unexpected caller. In fact, I would go as far as to say it would be very unwise to do so."

 

It's quite logical when you think about it. Just flatly refuse to identify yourself, or part with information of any kind. There's absolutely no negative consequences for you whatsoever

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[N.P]

Afternoon GM,

 

I do like the way your more experienced CAGGERS put things down, LOL.

 

I can see quite a few of the `callers` getting frustrated if you reeled that lot of to them. I might have to jot that one down.

 

 

N.P