Capital One card debt (CCA)

[lexis200]

Hello AA

 

It's so nice to see you here, I've missed your posts in the last little while:)

 

You're right I know, and I've already said to my OH that if it gets to the stage where it looks like court is imminent I will be begging, borrowing, and selling my kids to pay for a sol. In fact I may sell my kids now just in preparation...

 

Working on a letter for BC so with any luck I'll be able to send it off on Monday. Once I know a letter's in the post I'll not worry so much. Silly I know, but even that small thing eases my mind - at least until I get a reply anyway:rolleyes:

 

Lexis xx

[lexis200]

Spokey Dokey chaps. Letter to BC below. I have no idea whether it's the right sort of thing or not, and I've tried to keep it unemotional. There are underlines and emphasis' on various bits, but for some reason the new design doesn't like to keep my bits in:confused:

 

What do we think?

 

Dear Mr Carter

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated x, received by me on the x, regarding Capital One bank. Please find below a synopsis of my dealings so far with Capital One which will explain the current situation. I have kept all correspondence and can provide letters and documents as proof of any point I have made below.

 

In x 2008 I made a request to Capital One under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) for a true copy of my credit agreement. I was sent a blank (ie unsigned) set of current terms and conditions which in no way fulfils the requirements of the CCA. I duly complained and on x November received a letter stating that a blank copy of current terms and conditions complied with the CCA, and that this blank document clearly showed I had a 'valid and enforceable agreement'. I'm sure you will be well aware this is untrue and also is an extremely misleading statement from Capital One as clearly a blank, unsigned agreement relating to terms which were in place several years after my account was opened can in no way be deemed enforceable.

 

As Capital One were clearly set to ignore my valid and legal request under the CCA, I issued them with a Subject Access Request (SAR) on the x December 2008. On the x January 2009 I received a small amount of data in response to my request, which did not include any copy of any agreement, despite this being clearly set out in my request. On the x January I wrote to Capital One stating that the documents I had requested had not been included and many other items had also been left out. On the x March 2009 I received a second pack of data which did include a signature page with my signature on it, but no date anywhere on the document from either me or Capital One, written, stamped, printed or otherwise.

 

This signature page had a set of terms on it's reverse, but I had then, and still have now serious issues with this document. I do not believe that the signature page and the terms page are in any way linked. There are several reasons for this which I will not be disclosing to you as I feel it is unnecessary.

 

On the x March 2009 I wrote to Capital One outlining my concerns and asking them to 'confirm in writing that the double sided document you have sent is indeed a copy of both original sides of the original executed Agreement.' On the x May I received a response from Capital One which ignored my question, but which did state that they had sent a 'copy of your original agreement'. I should state I did not dispute that they had sent me a copy of an application form, but I did strongly dispute that the application they sent was in any way linked to the terms that they had sent, and which they had implied were one and the same.

 

On the x June I sent another letter querying the document sent, and also asking for an explanation of their very misleading comments both with regard to the application and with regard to their statement regarding a generic unsigned current set of terms and conditions being an enforceable agreement. I asked 'Is the Credit Agreement you have sent me a copy of both original sides of the original document I signed? I require a yes or no answer to this question....it would appear that the two pages sent within my SAR that supposedly comprise my original agreement seem to be two completely different documents....

I’m sure you understand the gravity of this, so I will re-iterate, I require a yes or no answer to the question, and I will require sight of the document if you claim it is two sides of the same original document signed by me.'

 

On the x July I received a Final Response to this which still ignored my question and merely went on to state again that they had complied with the Act.

 

Oddly in October I received yet another copy of the unrelated pages as a response to my SAR which is still not complete. This was not what was required and the SAR remains outstanding.

 

Due to personal issues I did not write again until January this year. In yet another formal complaint, I again asked my question regarding the documents and wrote 'As I have stated before, this is a very simple yes or no answer and I can not understand why you are being so obstructive in giving a simple answer to a simple question.' In every letter I had offered to go, at my expense, to Capital One's offices. This offer was not once acknowledged, let alone taken up by them. My account had by this time been passed to Fredricksons, despite Capital One not having answered the very simple question I asked on no less than 3 separate occasions.

 

On the x January 2010 Fredricksons again wrote, this time apparently with a letter before action. I responded to this in order to tell them that I was currently in dispute with Capital One and until they answered my questions I would not be dealing with Fredricksons.

 

In February I received yet another letter informing me that Capital One had sent me everything required of them by Section 78 of the CCA. Once again, I was not disputing this, I am disputing the contents of what they sent and asserting that the pages of the documents sent are not linked and that the application form is therefore not enforceable. In addition, I am of the belief that Capital One are deliberately and repeatedly mis-interpreting my actual question and then providing me a stock answer which completely avoids what I have asked. My question is, as you can see, a simple one and one that can be answered with a yes or no. It is a hugely important and reasonable query, yet Capital One have refused to answer most importantly this, but also other questions, over the past 18 months.

 

In another letter from Capital One dated 13th March, they actually state 'we will not be entering into any further correspondence regarding the provision of copy agreements' (my emphasis). This sentence alone proves they are systematically ignoring my actual question. I have not once complained about the provision of the document in the last 18 months, my complaint has been, and is still now, regarding the validity of the documents that they have provided.

 

I have now had, on the x July a letter from Fredricksons regarding my 'recent' communication, followed by another letter from them on the x July and then your letter on the x August. Before the x July they have not attempted to write to me since February this year.

 

Please be aware if you decide to proceed with court action I will have no compunction in demanding through any and all legal routes, an answer to the question that Capital One have refused to acknowledge over the past 18 months. I'm sure you will agree it is highly dubious that they have so far refused to reply to my completely reasonable request for information regarding a document that I do not believe is legally correct.

 

I should point out that I have kept up goodwill payments (previously agreed to by Capital One) throughout this ongoing issue. This is more than reasonable behaviour on my part given that I do not believe they have a legal right to claim the balance of the account.

 

Finally, my income (as Capital One are fully aware), is made up almost entirely of benefits – namely Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit. You will be under no illusions that should you proceed with court action, and should a judge inexplicably ignore the apparently unlinked signature and terms pages, and the highly unprofessional, obstructive and unreasonable behaviour displayed by Capital One, the amount I would be required to pay would likely be reduced from the payments I am currently making. I do not own a property or a car, I am a stay-at-home mother and I do not have any savings.

 

As it stands my payments are currently based on me calling my benefit money 'disposable income' and using that 'disposable income' to make pro-rata payments. Benefit payments are not disposable income, they are the minimum the Government gives in order to live month to month. This means every month I pay more than I can actually afford in order to keep payments up. I could, according to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 pay nothing at all, but I have chosen to be reasonable. If this issue goes to court, this Act will cover me and Capital One will not be able to get a penny from me. I have quoted the relevant section below for your information although I'm sure you are already aware of it.

 

Social Security Administration Act 1992 Section 187:*—*187.—(1) Subject to the provision of this Act, every assignment of or charge on–*

(a) benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act; [3(aa) a jobseeker’s allowance;]*

(b) any income-related benefit; or*

© child benefit,*

and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void;*

 

I trust this answers your request to put my reasons for disputing this matter, and my defence to their claims, fully.

 

If there are any questions you have please contact me by letter, but be aware if court action commences I will strongly defend against Capital One's empty claim.

 

I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Lexis:)

[citizenB]

We write with regard to this outstanding debt.

 

Payment must be made in full within the next fourteen days failing which we will recommend to our client that proceedings be issue without further notice.

 

Should proceedings be issued, additional charges will be added to the existing balance as shown below.

 

If you dispute liability for this debt please state your reasons in writing and supply us with documents in support of your defence to any claim.

 

Before the account is referred to us to litigate you still have an opportunity to contact Fredrickson with your payment proposals. In order to avoid further action you should telephone them immediately on xxx.

 

Once you advise them there is a dispute, it is for them to investigate this matter. Not for you to offer up what would be the better part of your defence should he advise his client (whoever they may be) to litigate.

 

 

 

This is a serious matter and you may wish to seek independent legal advice.

 

I can see where you are going with this, hoping perhaps it will be stopped in its tracks. However, it is my understanding that you do not have to do his work for him. You have already advised Capone and Frederickson of the dispute. Once advised of this, BC should have put this on hold whilst he investigated properly. Not start sending out Letters before Action.

 

You still dont know whether Capone are still the legitimate owner of this account do you ?

[lexis200]

Hi CB, thanks for popping in.

 

Well Freds quote Cap1 as their client, and evidently BC is saying he's starting this on behalf of them too. I don't have any correspondence from them saying it's been sold, it all points to it simply being managed by Freds, so I'd actually be happy to say it's still owned by Cap1. Does that make a difference to what I need to be doing then?

 

Also, I've not corresponded with BC before, so I think it's highly unlikely he'll have been informed of the issues (particularly given that Cap1 are adamant that there aren't any!) that go hand in hand with this account. That's not defending this in any way of course - it's so poor that sols are happy to put their name to threats like these when they have no idea of the background of the situation.

 

 

Anyway, that's how things currently are - Cap1 are I believe the owners, and BC has gone off sending out threats with no information as to whether or not the account is chase-able or not.

[citizenB]

Lexis, I would just send your letter as is.. let BC sort it out

[lexis200]

Well it would certainly keep him busy for a while reading through it:D

[lexis200]

Well I've not heard a dickie bird from BC, but Freds have backed off straight away and sent the account back to Cap1, and Cap1 have written to me.

 

They say they've written in response to my letter to them as a courtesy seeing as they'd already sent a final response. What they've obviously neglected to notice is that I didn't actually write to them - I sent them a copy of the letter to BC with a covering note saying that they didn't need to respond, but if they did that was fine.

 

It did give one little bonus though as I now have it in black and white that they are saying the document they've sent me is absolutely two sides of the same document. Now I need to get them to explain why there are no links between the two sheets, why there are no fold marks on the back but there are (very clear ones) on the front, and why there is no date from me on it (this is an odd thing as I always made sure I filled in stuff like this correctly, and I really can't see me missing the date).

 

They also stated that Freds had also been unable to secure a payment from me. I've been paying direct to cap1 for over 2 years now:rolleyes:

 

I can't help feeling if they really thought they were right that I'd have been in court long ago, or that they'd have just told Freds to carry on etc.

[citizenB]

Capital One - Courtesy ! Same sentence, doesnt work for me:lol:

[lexis200]

Ok, so I've been having a think about this, and I've decided my next step is either

 

a) get them to agree to me seeing the original

or

b) get them to write confirming they've lied their little socks off.

 

Now watch me as I get blood from this stone as that pig flies overhead....

 

I am wondering though, is there any reason, other than them just not wanting to, that they could legitimately refuse me seeing the original if I'm offering to pay my costs and go at a time that suits them?

 

They can hardly say it's not feasible for them to get the agreement out of storage as they've done it several times now to photocopy it, once in the space of a week...

 

I'm just trying to work out if them refusing time and again is something that I could bring up with Trading Standards?

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Lexis,

 

I'm just ploughing my way through all the threads I missed over the school holidays!

 

I think you are on Sunflower's thread, but maybe not? (Brain needs to get working at full speed again!)

 

If you are you will remember that they will absolutely not allow anyone to see these agreements. They are clearly flawed.

 

They sold me (or so they said) to Lowells last year and Lowells sent threats of immediate action. I reported both of them to the FOS and after a few follow up letters from Lowells which were easily dealt with Lowells sent me back to Capital One and I haven't heard a thing since. I hate saying that as every time I do some other pond feeder turns up.

 

Half the time these companies say you have been 'sold' to someone else, when in fact what they actually have is an arrangement to send out letters on the other company's letterheading (like your Wescot and Nelson Guest situation).

 

DDxx

[flooz]

Subbing too Lexis.

 

Don't know if you've received what CAP1 purport to be a copy of the original signed agreement (2 sides). I have received something as a result of my SAR, but the terms of the reverse do not tally with a copy of the 'original' terms and conditions that they sent me under my CCA request.

 

I'm not sure of the relevance of this, but I'm now going hunting for the 'think that's enforceable, then take me to Court letter' I saw mentioned previously on your thread. I have prepared a letter (on my thread) but I'm now going to think again.

 

Fingers crossed for you.

[citizenB]

Ok, so I've been having a think about this, and I've decided my next step is either

 

a) get them to agree to me seeing the original

or

b) get them to write confirming they've lied their little socks off.

 

Now watch me as I get blood from this stone as that pig flies overhead....

 

I am wondering though, is there any reason, other than them just not wanting to, that they could legitimately refuse me seeing the original if I'm offering to pay my costs and go at a time that suits them?

 

They can hardly say it's not feasible for them to get the agreement out of storage as they've done it several times now to photocopy it, once in the space of a week...

 

I'm just trying to work out if them refusing time and again is something that I could bring up with Trading Standards?

 

Hi Lexis,

 

I'm just ploughing my way through all the threads I missed over the school holidays!

 

I think you are on Sunflower's thread, but maybe not? (Brain needs to get working at full speed again!)

 

If you are you will remember that they will absolutely not allow anyone to see these agreements. They are clearly flawed.

 

They sold me (or so they said) to Lowells last year and Lowells sent threats of immediate action. I reported both of them to the FOS and after a few follow up letters from Lowells which were easily dealt with Lowells sent me back to Capital One and I haven't heard a thing since. I hate saying that as every time I do some other pond feeder turns up.

 

Half the time these companies say you have been 'sold' to someone else, when in fact what they actually have is an arrangement to send out letters on the other company's letterheading (like your Wescot and Nelson Guest situation).

 

DDxx

 

Rather interesting that they didnt actually sell the account to Lowells, DD.. it would appear they have bought quite a lot of default and sadly for them.. in dispute.. accounts from Capone