1st Credit - Citi Card debt - 6 questions!

[1mper1um]

It sounds like they've sent you a reconstituted agreement in response to your request; which they can do..... but it's not enforceable in court.

 

Many, many thanks for your reply. I figured as much. However, due to the threats made by them I am a bit cautious in replying to them int he manner suggested if it only "sounds" like they've sent a reconstituted agreement. Am i reading you wrong - as it sounds like you're not too sure. I can guarantee there is no signature whatsoever.

 

Thx in advance.

[SteveH2508]

Do not feel that you need to reply to every threat-o-gram they send. They have a semi-trained monkey pressing letter 1; letter 2 etc.. and any reply you send to these missives is basically ignored.

 

Some on CAG may disagree, but my philosophy is to send 1 letter outlining your position and then sit back and wait for them to do something. If they take you to court then it is a whole different ball game. If they have the documentation then you negotiate but - until then - hold your ground.

[1mper1um]

So do you agree with Priority One that they haven't provided the documentation they are claiming to?

and if they haven't then aren't they being deceptive by claiming to have sent the "true copy" that I requested? Surely that is illegal in some way?

[PriorityOne]

So do you agree with Priority One that they haven't provided the documentation they are claiming to?

and if they haven't then aren't they being deceptive by claiming to have sent the "true copy" that I requested? Surely that is illegal in some way?

 

They can send a reconsitituted copy in response to a CCA request.... but would need the original as part of any court proceedings. Some issue legal proceedings anyway; hoping that it'll go undefended and they'll win a CCJ by default. The object of sending a letter is to find out what they've got. If you don't want to find out what they've got, it's entirely your call but requesting confirmation under CPUTR tends to make them go away... or, muffle some nonsense to get around the issue... and then go away.

 

[1mper1um]

They can send a reconsitituted copy in response to a CCA request.... but would need the original as part of any court proceedings. Some issue legal proceedings anyway; hoping that it'll go undefended and they'll win a CCJ by default. The object of sending a letter is to find out what they've got. If you don't want to find out what they've got, it's entirely your call but requesting confirmation under CPUTR tends to make them go away... or, muffle some nonsense to get around the issue... and then go away.

Oh I have no problem in responding, I just didn't want to say I recognise no debt and they immediately take me to court. If by sending your recommended letter they will show their hand (the original paperwork or go away then I'll definitely do it.

 

If they don't have the original yet try to issue court proceedings anyway & win a CCJ, what are their chances? I know you said CPUTR tends to make them go away but you also said they may hope to "win a CCJ" so I am a bit confused as to whether they have any bite or not. If they are powerless without the original, and are just making noises then fair enough, 'll fight fire with fire. But if they have a chance of slapping me with a CCJ and a trip to court even if they don't have the paperwork then that is a whole new ball game and one that makes me nervous. So I need to know what I am up against here, assuming they have no such original paperwork.

 

I had my default registered 3 years ago and I only 3 more to go before my credit history is clean. But if they can slap a 6 year CCJ on me even though they have no signature paperwork from me then that is a more uncomfortable scenario for me.

 

Again, many thanks for your help. Apologies if I seem dense!

[PriorityOne]

Ok.... whether they try for a CCJ by default or not has nothing to do with you sending a letter. If they're that way inclined, they'll take a shot. In my experience however, the more you challenge them before that particular seed is planted in their heads, the less likely it is that you'll end up in court. Lying under CPUTR 2008 can carry very serious consequences and they will NOT want that brought up in court; if they tell you they do have an original Agreement and it turns out they don't, for example. Or vice versa. All you are doing at this stage is trying to ascertain what docs. they actually have. You're not saying that you don't intend to pay, or that you won't offer an F&F... or anything.

 

If they do decide to go for court, then you should get prior notification anyway. If you don't, then it's an abuse of process. If you get one of these sols. letters, come back on here and let us know what it says.... but because you're questioning the position under CPUTR, they have to be very careful how they proceed from now on.

 

One of my own creditors passed an account to their internal DCA. I requested confirmation under CPUTR and they side-stepped the issue and passed it on to sols. regardless. I then sent a letter to the sols. but copied the OC and DCA into it, just to make sure that no-one could side-step the issue again. The sols. wrote back and told me to refer to their client because they weren't dealing with it anymore, the account was then passed to an external DCA who were sent the same letter.... and they've since written back to confirm that their client is unable to locate an Agreement and they're not dealing with it either. I've not heard a peep since.

 

If you notice that a fresh default has been added for the same account by a different DCA, you can have it removed under The Data Protection Act.... 'coz they're not meant to do that either.

 

Edited February 13, 2011 by PriorityOne

[1mper1um]

Okay, good to know that by sending a letter to verify what they have got means they won't instantly CCJ me! And if they don't have the paperwork then they can get lost and no CCJ, correct?

 

Just to pick up on your last sentence about defaults, I have two points. First, I have 2 defaults for the same debt - one from Citi cards and one from the DCA. I was told only one default can be registered for the same debt and that as the debt is now owned by the DCA it is their responsibility to ensure one is removed - but 3 years on and both are still there despite multiple requests to the DCA to sort out. What more can I do here?

 

Secondly, as I was investigating SAR and CPUTR I found the following link where a guy was in the same situation as me (CC debt sold to a DCA, CCA request letter sent but they only responded with a generic agreement and no signature). The advised letter of response in post #12 mentioned at the end how no default can be registered until proof of debt has been made. Does this mean I shouldn't have had any defaults registered too?

 

Thx

[PriorityOne]

Okay, good to know that by sending a letter to verify what they have got means they won't instantly CCJ me! And if they don't have the paperwork then they can get lost and no CCJ, correct? You need to re-read what I said.... If a creditor/DCA is that way inclined, they may decide to go for a CCJ whatever you do.... Most do realilse they're onto a loser though and drop it, providing consumers put up a pre-court challenge, so to speak.

 

Just to pick up on your last sentence about defaults, I have two points. First, I have 2 defaults for the same debt - one from Citi cards and one from the DCA. I was told only one default can be registered for the same debt and that as the debt is now owned by the DCA it is their responsibility to ensure one is removed - but 3 years on and both are still there despite multiple requests to the DCA to sort out. What more can I do here?

 

I have a letter somewhere which I'll dig up for you. Defaults are not really my area but I managed to stop a fresh one from being registered by sending this letter. It's in a file somewhere, so it may take a while to find... lol...

 

Secondly, as I was investigating SAR and CPUTR I found the following link where a guy was in the same situation as me (CC debt sold to a DCA, CCA request letter sent but they only responded with a generic agreement and no signature). The advised letter of response in post #12 mentioned at the end how no default can be registered until proof of debt has been made. Does this mean I shouldn't have had any defaults registered too?

 

Thx

 

A default shouldn't have been registered but there's no guarantee that this will happen and people on here have had problems getting them removed. Defaults can be a b*gger if you're trying to re-build your credit rating.... how many are you currently worried about and, how long have they got to run before they drop off?

 

If you default on payments or make token payments, a creditor will default you..... but defaulting the same account twice? That's a no, no....

 

[PriorityOne]

Ok.... here is the letter sent to a creditor approx. 3 years ago after realising they were about to enter a 2nd default. I've brought it up to date somewhat by referencing CPUTR.... and giving them 14 days to respond.

 

Edit to suit (where necessary) and send by rec. delivery to whoever has entered the 2nd default.

 

FORMAL COMPLAINT

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

NOTICE TO CORRECT DATA UNDER DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

 

I not that you registered a default on xx/xx/xx against account number xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx. Subsequently, you then issued a second default notice on xx/xx/xx.

 

Default is defined by the credit reference agencies as the termination of an account for cause. It is not possible to default an account twice, since by definition the account has already been closed. Attempting to register a default more than x years after already registering one is against the guidelines isued by the Information Commissioner and regarded as an unfair practice under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008.

 

Please take this as notice to correct data under The Data Protection Act 1998.

 

I would be grateful for your confirmation in due course that a second default has not in fact been entered on my credit file and if it has, that you have now removed it (CPUTR, 2008). Failure to respond positively within the next 14 days however, will see reports being filed with the relevant authorities without any further notice.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

[1mper1um]

I sent the letter off as advised about the non signature Ts & Cs they sent, as well as one asking them to remove one of the defaults, and this is their reply. Where do I stand now? Thx.

 

"Further to your undated letter received on the 7th March 2011 in relation to the true copy agreement which was sent to you recently, I would point out that the Court is not prevented from enforcing this agreement despite us not being able to produce a signed copy of your original credit agreement, as section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act (1974) specifically states: “the court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(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).”

 

The office of Fair trading provided clarification on sections 77, 78 & 79 of the Consumer Credit Act (1974) during October 2010, entitled ‘the duty to give information to debtors and the consequences of non compliance on the enforceability of the agreement”.

 

Within the above mentioned guidance, the office of Fair Trading provided the following clarification:

 

“Often consumers and their advisors assume that if a signed copy is not provided by the creditor or owner, this necessarily means that the agreement cannot be enforced: either on the basis that section 77(1), 78(1) & 79(1) (as the case may be) has not been complied with, or in reliance on section 127(3) (in the case of agreements to which the subsection still applies) . This overlooks the fact that there is no obligation on an information request to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature. It also overlooks the fact that section 127(3) does not apply merely because a signed document is not available at the court hearing; the section requires that a document containing the prescribed terms ‘was’ signed by the debtor or hirer. The creditor or owner may be able to provide evidence that its practice was always to require a signature to its agreements and that its agreements always complied with section 61(1)(a) of the Act and the debtor or hirer may be unable to satisfy the court that he or she did not sign an agreement.”

 

We can confirm to you that we are in receipt of evidence from CitiFinancial , which confirms it was their practice to obtain the signature of the Customer to their agreements and that their agreements complied with the requirements of section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

Accordingly, we believe we have an enforceable claim against you and look forward to hearing from you within 10 days of the date of this letter with your proposals for settling the debt failing which we will have no alternative than to consider our options."

 

Sounds serious to me - but still sounds like scare tactics, such as they will “consider their options” rather than definitely state they will apply for a CCJ, but scary nonetheless.

 

Below is their letter regarding the removal of one of the defaults. Basically, the amounts differ and look like two separate debts but the reference number they quote is the 16 digit credit card number with Citi with “00” placed in front of it to produce an 18 digit reference number. I can confirm there is no second account and when I contacted Citi back in the day about these defaults they confirmed they have nothing to do with it anymore and that the DCA must sort it out. Which means if 1st Credit don’t amend then I am stuck with two defaults!

 

“I understand your complaint is that you have informed us on several occasions that there are two defaults registered on your credit file for the same debt. Your credit file shows one entry registered in the name of Citifinancial and the other in our company’s name.

 

I have looked at the copy of the credit report which we received in July 2009 and note that although there are two entries, the defaulted amounts and default dates differ. The entry registered in the name of Citifinancial is in the amount of £1156 with a default date of the 9th November 2008 and our entry is in the amount of £1483 with a default date of 28th September 2008. It would therefore appear to me that the entries are two different debts.

 

I have asked our Client Services Department to contact Citifinancial as a matter of urgency to confirm that they have no entry registered in their name under the account reference 004508XXXXXXXXXX38".

Now, as I said, I don’t think they’ll have one beginning “00” but the remaining 16 dogits are the credit card number in question.

 

Thx in advance for your help and guidance.

.

Edited March 11, 2011 by 1mper1um

[PriorityOne]

Ok....

 

The first letter is twisting the facts. They can send a reconstruction in response to a s78 request but need an original to enforce through the courts. The scenario they're hinting at is when a consumer acts as Claimant and brings action against the creditor/DCA as Defendant, which is not the case... and they probably know it. Do not reply to this for now; just file it away.

 

The second letter is an attempt to appease you but they are still checking to see if the 2 entries are for different accounts, which implies that they know they could have stuffed up here. If they are for the same account, then one will need to be removed. If they are not, then what are they defaulting you for?....., since you won't have had an account under their ref. number for them to default.... lol! Don't reply to this one either but check your crdit files in due course to see if it's been corrected.

 

[1mper1um]

Thanks for that. You say do nothing for now but they have given me 10 days.

 

Also, though I agree that they are bluffing somewhat, the excerpts they provided did seem to back them up, especially in relation to not needing a signature. If the quotes are correct then how are they twisting things? My instincts tell me you are right but those quotes rae scary.

[PriorityOne]

Thanks for that. You say do nothing for now but they have given me 10 days.

 

Also, though I agree that they are bluffing somewhat, the excerpts they provided did seem to back them up, especially in relation to not needing a signature. If the quotes are correct then how are they twisting things? My instincts tell me you are right but those quotes rae scary.

 

In reality, if they want to take you to court then they will BUT.... they'll be chancing it. They are twisting things in the sense that a s78 response does not require a signature because the orginal doesn't need to be sent in response to that request. They'll need the original to enforce in court though. The 10 days stuff is pretty standard blah and plain nonsense.

 

[1mper1um]

Without sounding stupid here, I am failing to understand how they need the original when all the blurb they quoted was to say how they don't need the signature and how debtors and their advisors are wrong in believing a signed copy is required at the court hearing: "It also overlooks the fact that section 127(3) does not apply merely because a signed document is not available at the court hearing....................and the debtor or hirer may be unable to satisfy the court that he or she did not sign an agreement.”

 

As for the 10 days, where do I stand? You say it's nonsense but also that they could take me to court if they wanted. Can they do so after just 10 days? As for court itself, if they need the signature, and they don't have it, what leg do they have to stand on? This is probably all pretty basic but it's new to me and I don't know whether I'm coming or going - hence my questions. Sorry if I seem dense.

 

[PriorityOne]

Without sounding stupid here, I am failing to understand how they need the original when all the blurb they quoted was to say how they don't need the signature and how debtors and their advisors are wrong in believing a signed copy is required at the court hearing: "It also overlooks the fact that section 127(3) does not apply merely because a signed document is not available at the court hearing....................and the debtor or hirer may be unable to satisfy the court that he or she did not sign an agreement.”

 

As for the 10 days, where do I stand? You say it's nonsense but also that they could take me to court if they wanted. Can they do so after just 10 days? As for court itself, if they need the signature, and they don't have it, what leg do they have to stand on? This is probably all pretty basic but it's new to me and I don't know whether I'm coming or going - hence my questions. Sorry if I seem dense.

 

 

 

No.... you are not dense at all....

 

In reality, no-one can predict what a creditor/DCA will or won't do. We can have a feeling about what they'll do based on past experience or upon other threads on these boards but nobody can give you a definitive answer about whether or not you'll end up in court.

 

The letter you've had is twisting things to suit their purpose. CCA (1974) law is quite clear in what is needed for enforcement through the courts but because of recent cases where Claimants have been consumers and have brought action and lost..... these cases are being thrown about as examples about what's needed and what isn't. The letter you've had is basing its argument on the "balance of probabilities" theory in the face of a weak Defence. If this was an Agreement under CCA 2006, then it might hold some weight but not under CCA 1974..... providing you have a watertight Defence in court.

 

You are fairly new to these forums and as such, my best advice to you is to read up as much as you can and learn from other people's experiences..... and no, they cannot take you to court in 10 days.

 

[1mper1um]

Thx for that. In terms of a weak/strong defence, I don't know where I stand. The card was issued before 2006, circa 2003 as far as I can recall.

 

If it ever gets to the point where they want to take me to court, will that become clear - thus giving time to avoid that?

 

I'll read up as much as I can. In the meantime, when they write: “Often consumers and their advisors assume that if a signed copy is not provided by the creditor or owner, this necessarily means that the agreement cannot be enforced" this looks to me like it's referring to consumers trying to escape paying rather than consumers as claimant. Am I correct? if so, then is this snippet referring to 2006 CCA?

 

Out of curiosity, when would a consumer (ie: somneone like me) ever want to claim against a credit card company? is it in refeence to payment protection insurance or charges?

 

Thx

[PriorityOne]

Thx for that. In terms of a weak/strong defence, I don't know where I stand. The card was issued before 2006, circa 2003 as far as I can recall.

 

If it ever gets to the point where they want to take me to court, will that become clear - thus giving time to avoid that? You should have an idea of where they're going with this; i.e. court, long before it happens. Not all cases end up in court though, so don't assume that yours will just because you've had a threatogram.

 

I'll read up as much as I can. In the meantime, when they write: “Often consumers and their advisors assume that if a signed copy is not provided by the creditor or owner, this necessarily means that the agreement cannot be enforced" this looks to me like it's referring to consumers trying to escape paying rather than consumers as claimant. Am I correct? if so, then is this snippet referring to 2006 CCA? It's actually very misleading advice from the OFT.... but when you consider how unhelpful the OFT are most of the time, that's not really surprising. CCA 2006 does not have the benefit of sec. 127 (3), which clearly states what's needed for enforcement through the courts.

 

Out of curiosity, when would a consumer (ie: somneone like me) ever want to claim against a credit card company? is it in refeence to payment protection insurance or charges?

 

Thx

 

Some people have gone through Claims Management Companies to try and get accounts ruled unenforceable (as Claimants), which was why CCA 2006 was introduced (IMO).... to try and put a stop to it. People have also issued claims for PPI and/or charges.

 

[babybear39]

Subscribing...

[1mper1um]

Hi guys,

 

Update time.

 

 

I ignored their purposeful misrepresentation of the law and 10 day warning and sure enough, nothing happened. Then I got a letter from another company (with the exact same address as 1st Credit and in the exact same font so it's obviously the same set up). They said the debt had been passed to them, that they are don't know why I've not responded to 1st Credit (though this thread shows I have) and that they'd love to talk to me. I ignored that too.

 

Then I got a "one time only" offer where I could settle for 50% off if I set an agreement by the end of the month, 35% off if by the end of next month, and 10% off if the month after that. Desperation tactics galore so I gleefully binned that one too.

 

Today I got a letter from another agency, with the same address as 1st Credit and with their address details in the same font (ie: same company, different name). This company is called Connaught Collections and they are saying the debt has been been passed to them, that they are unaware of any reason payment has been withheld, and that they want the payment in 7 days, that their client can take legal proceedings and add to my costs blah blah blah. I am not at all concerned about this letter. The DCA has been going round in circles for 3 years and I'm happy for them to do so for the remaining 3 years.

 

My question is do I have to reply to them? I just cannot be arsed replying if I don't have to and I certainly don't want to have to go back to the template letters, pull up the CCA request, amend it, print it and post it off again. Can I ignore this letter (as they should have the previous request I sent to 1st Credit) or just reply back "1st Credit should pass all my correspondence to you. Get the info from them."

 

Thx in advance

Edited May 26, 2011 by 1mper1um

[babybear39]

Just tell CONnaught to BG as the alleged account is still in despute

[cymruambyth]

I would send either one of these

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?426-A-letter-when-the-account-has-been-passed-to-another-debt-collection-agency

or

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?425-Letter-to-solicitors-threatening-legal-action-in-default-of-agreement-request

 

Some members advocate ignoring companies but this way you have a paper trail for your actions.

 

Have you requested 1stC's complaints procedure?

[Happyhippy1959]

The offer of a substantial discount is really going in your favour. It looks like they know they have not got all the correct paperwork for appointment at court. Sit tight. Send the letters recommended and let them come after you.... Good luck you are learning fast...

[cymruambyth]

Hi bb fancy seeing you on a 1st C thread:wink:

[babybear39]

Hi bb fancy seeing you on a 1st C thread:wink:

 

Someone needs to keep them in line Cymru

[1mper1um]

I would send either one of these

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?426-A-letter-when-the-account-has-been-passed-to-another-debt-collection-agency

or

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?425-Letter-to-solicitors-threatening-legal-action-in-default-of-agreement-request

 

Hi guys,

 

Some more news but first a brief recap:

 

I asked 1st Credit to send me a copy of my signed agreement. They sent reconstituted Ts & Cs. None had my signature on and were not a true copy (though they insisted they have the law on their side).

 

I replied on your advice pointing out they were being dishonest and stated CCA and other laws. They then passed to their sub company Connaught who started off by offering me a major discount and then their solicitor got involved and that's when I followed the last piece of advice quoted above and sent off the two letters stating that the account is in dispute and collection must cease.

 

Connaught replied yesterday, acknowledging receipt (and making a deal out of the fact my name was printed and not signed) but ignoring that it stated repeat collection activity is a serious breach of conduct and punishable, and simply included a copy of the same reconstituted Ts & Cs. Their parting words:

 

As a true copy of the agreement and statement of account has been provided to you, we consider we have fulfilled our requirements to provide you with documentation under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the default no longer continues. We are fully aware of the OFT guidelines and do not consider we are in breach of these. Please contact us within 14 days...."

 

So what now? I feel I don't need to do anything as I've already replied to the reconstituted Ts & Cs when 1st Credit supplied them.

 

Furthermore, Connaught have angered me because in their letter they say they've looked at my account, seen my request for a true copy of the agreement and that it was sent out by 1st Credit . If they truly did look in my account then they'd see I shot down that attempt to bluff me with reconstituted forms.

 

I actually feel angry to the point where I want to reply back with aggression and biting sarcasm, pointing out that unless they have a signed copy to **** off. Is this advisable?

 

I'm not worried - I'm happy for them to waste the remaining 3 years they have - I just want to know best course of action.

 

 

As usual, thanks in advance.

Edited August 14, 2011 by 1mper1um