mkb v Citi

[Enron]

OK, i've done a little searching, and surprise surprise Midas Legal Services are in fact part of Moorcroft.

 

So what we have here is a DCA attempting more scare tactics in order to get people to pay up. They are not a firm of solicitors, no solicitors are registerred with them. And whats more if the alleged debt has not been assigned to them they should not be litigating against you, it would be the creditor (i.e. owner) that would have to instruct that.

 

In any event they should not be threatening litigation or attempting to collect on a disputed account, where there is the perfect defence that they have not completed a s78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 request. If the 12+2 days have passed and they haven't discharged their duties by sending a copy of the executed agreement, they cannot enforce the agreement either with or without a court order as confirmed to me by the Office Of Fair Trading:

 

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/telso/1-8.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/telso/1-8.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/telso/Image3.jpg

 

Returning to Midas Legal Services this is an interesting read:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/110997-midas-legal-services.html

 

I would suggest writing to them, requesting clarification as to whether they are a firm of solicitors (which they are not), and whether the documentation has been issued by a solicitor (which is unlikely). If the above is anything to go by, the person issuing documents is not a solicitor but a DCA employee. If they misrepresent themselves as solicitors i'm sure the solicitors regulatory authority would have something to say about it.

 

As it stands they are being somewhat disingenuious in representing themselves, I would suggest sending a complaint to the OFT as it would appear that they are breaking debt collection guideance:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf

 

(s78(6) is in force until they complete the request which would mean action cannot be legally taken until they do)

 

2 b. falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when it legally cannot, for example, referring to bankruptcy or sequestration proceedings when the balance is too low to qualify for such proceedings or claiming a right of entry when no court order to this effect has been granted

 

(Moorcroft are misrepresenting themselves, by contacting you under another name)

 

2.2 c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work for, what their role is, what the purpose of the contact is

 

(If you have sent a letter stating that the account/alleged debt is in dispute)

 

2.6 h. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

[mkb]

Cheers Enron

 

Have just sent complaint off to OFT & Moorcroft!

[Enron]

Normal DCA scare tactics.

 

Had AIC (Allied International Credit) phone me on one occasion stating that they were solicitors and attempting to put the frightners on, already having read about them I knew they were a DCA..... so took fun in toying with them a little, so at the start the woman says they're solicitors, and later she referenced them as being a DCA - at which point a few choice words were said and the phone went down.

 

Needless to say if they operate outside of the guidelines which is often for a DCA, and they are informed that a complaint is going into the OFT they back off.

[mkb]

Hahaha - i've also just emailed moorcroft to tell them that I have complained to the OFT

 

Do I feel guilty? Do I heck as like!

 

[Enron]

Certainly don't feel guilty, if any Bank or DCA is operating outside of the law, regulations or guidelines it should be lodged as a complaint in an effort to stop them repeating the behaviour.

 

That said many choose to ignore these complaints and persist to commit the same infringements, at which point if you have continued problems it maybe time to get Trading Standards involved if you have a valid dispute.

[mkb]

Email from OFT:

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act)

 

Complaint Against: Moorcroft Debt Recovery Limited, Midas Legal Services Limited & Citifinancial Europe Plc t/a Citi Cards

 

Licence No: 141050, 502775 and 079310

 

Thank you for your email received on xx September 2009.

 

I am very sorry to hear about the difficulties you have been experiencing with the above mentioned traders, however the OFT has no authority to become involved in disputes between consumers and traders and so we cannot offer you any direct help with the complaint or advise you directly in this matter. Our role is to protect the collective interests of consumers.

 

The above mentioned Act established a licensing system to protect the interests of consumers in the credit area. If a business wishes to undertake the collection of debts that arise from consumer credit agreements then the Act states that they are required to hold a consumer credit licence; this is issued by the OFT. The above traders hold consumer credit licences. Under the Act, the OFT has a duty to consider the fitness of all traders who hold consumer credit licences.

 

In considering fitness we take into account whether a business has engaged in improper business practices. Where we receive complaints about the business practices of licensees, we investigate them and where appropriate we take enforcement action; that action depends on the evidence and circumstances. Action the OFT can take includes revoking, refusing or suspending a licence; or placing conduct requirements on the licence of the company or business in question (failure to comply with a conduct requirement can result in a financial penalty being levied).

 

The OFT has issued guidance to consumer credit licence holders engaged in the debt collection industry. The guidance is intended to ensure that debt collectors treat debtors fairly. Non-compliance with this guidance will call into question the fitness of licence holders and applicants. You can view our guidance at: www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/cca/debt-collection

 

I have noted the details of your complaint, and we will consider this alongside any other complaints we have received with a view to any licensing action we may decide to take. If we do take any licensing action against these traders, it is likely that we would need to disclose your identity to these traders along with details of your complaint. I should therefore be grateful if you could sign the enclosed consent form and return it to me. Unfortunately, we cannot disclose any details about any action we may take, due to restrictions on the OFT relating to disclosure of information (Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002).

 

We note that your email raises concern in regard to credit agreement.

 

As you may know, s63 of the Act covers how and when lenders must provide consumers with a first (and where appropriate second) copy of a regulated agreement. It is clearly in the lender's best interests to retain details of the original agreement and any subsequent variations or changes made to it, particularly as consumers can request a subsequent 'true' copy of most types of agreement under ss77 and 78 of the CCA (and on payment of the appropriate fee). There are rules about what is likely to constitute a 'true copy' under these sections of the Act. Further, if a consumer does make a valid request for a copy of their agreement under these provisions and the lender does not comply with the request the agreement may not be enforceable in the Courts, subject to any other mitigating factors.

 

Should you require specialist advice or assistance on the circumstances of your complaint (including in relation to the above provisions about copy requirements), you may wish to contact your local Citizens' Advice Bureau or seek advice direct from a legal adviser.

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) can help with most complaints about consumer-credit products and services if the consumer has failed to satisfactorily resolve the matter directly with the financial institution itself. FOS can be contacted at: The Financial Ombudsman Service, South Quay Plaza, 183 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9SR; telephone number, 0845 080 1800, or www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/> .

 

Thank you again for writing to us and bringing this matter to our attention.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Olushola Egbowon

 

Enquiries and Reporting Centre

 

Office of Fair Trading

[Enron]

Pretty much a standard reply from the OFT, but those numbers add up.

 

Certainly if Moorcroft continue to hassle you, lodge another complaint with the OFT and inform Moorcroft - if they are sensible they'll back off.

[mkb]

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5372/moorcroftaug13.jpg

 

 

Got another identical letter with the date being the only change.

 

Still no CCA from Citi or Moorcroft.

 

I'm inclined to simply ignore but any advise on my next move?

[Enron]

Essentially Moorcroft are threat monkeys, who will do and say anything to get they're pound of flesh and commission off of this alleged debt.

 

It's very, very unlikely it would happen but if it did go to court they'd have to produce the executed agreement - and also you could explain that you with held payment as is your right under the legislation whilst the creditor had not completed your s78(1) CCA request.

 

And i've spotted that they list Mastercard & Visa as a payment method, which is against OFT Debt Collection Guidelines. That said I am beginning to wonder if the regulator gives a stuff about the public and the actions of those that operate in the industry which they regulate.

[mkb]

Thanks hun. Will just carry on ignoring then

[mkb]

A4 envelope dropped thru letterbox today with return address to Egg

 

Not having an Egg account, I opened it with some interest to find the letter below!

 

The envelope contains 2 sets of T & C's allegedly since neither stipulate a charge for breaching the monthly payments which I'm damned sure there would be if they wish to charge the £12 late payments fees, which were of course about £30 when this agreement was made!!

 

I however did not get the agreement just the letter below & 2 sets of their version of the T & C's

 

 

I still get the odd Moorcroft letter which is still being studiously ignored but not sure what to do now. The latest was a "have 30% reduction off your bill if you pay us" letter received yesterday

 

Any advice would be most welcome

 

Edited February 19, 2010 by mkb

[Enron]

Interesting, essentially they've sent you a couple of copies of their Terms & Conditions - which no doubt are headed with agreement.

 

Do any of the dates on them match the period that you signed?

 

That said s78(1) CCA specifically states "executed agreement", the legalese for executed being signed.

 

Now we know under the regulations that they can remove the signature, signature box and signature date, if your being generous they can retype the document to supply it to you (but you have to ask why they'd do that?), aside from that the copy of the "executed agreement" should match the original exactly.

 

I know that the OFT and some courts have excepted reconstituted agreements, however in this instance they would still need a copy of your original signature to the agreement, and there is always a problem in that a reconstituted agreement will always be formed to favour the creditor - you can guarantee essentially it will be legally compliant, whereas the original may not have been.

 

PM me with a copy of what you've received and i'll take a look.

 

If these are finally coming through i'll be interested to see what they come up with in my case - as I already have half of the original executed agreement.

 

I know in my instance that there Data controller was trying to persuade me that a copy of 2007 Terms & Conditions were the "executed agreement" that was taken out in the 90s with another company - so knew it was complete hog wash from the start.

[Enron]

OK, its as I expected..... they're playing games in not providing a copy of the "executed agreement" but just the T&C, which they label the agreement. The two things are not the same.

 

I'll PM you.

 

Also interesting to note that there is no return address.

 

(plus we have guests (no doubt Amanda) so best to keep tactics via PM only)

Edited February 19, 2010 by Enron

[WelshMam2009]

The envelope contains 2 sets of T & C's allegedly since neither stipulate a charge for breaching the monthly payments which I'm damned sure there would be if they wish to charge the £12 late payments fees, which were of course about £30 when this agreement was made!!

 

I however did not get the agreement just the letter below & 2 sets of their version of the T & C's

 

Can't believe they're still playing these silly games...you'd think OFT would have sorted them out by now!!

[the_shadow]

Received exactly the same today, I've already sent a letter today to them anyway reminding them I have their first legally binding s78 response despite them claiming it was a mix up

 

Notice their pet DCA's have completed a search on my credit record today too.

 

I think mkb, they must be short of money, had the same return to Egg marked envelope too, obviously the price of stationary has gone up

 

S.

[Enron]

Has the DCA been assigned the account????

 

If not they shouldn't be looking in your credit file as they have no legal right to do so, contact me.