Being bothered by Debt Collectors/3rd Parties /Solicitors etc ? - SEND THEM THIS!

[PriorityOne]

Thanks Pinky69 for your informative reply.

 

Unfortunately the CCA does not give the detail of CPR or the costs consequences, Why would it?

 

Since WAKSMAN, even though the law as not changed the reconstituted document was not something that the author the law anticipated. Why would he?.... The CCA was drawn up to protect the consumer; not to cloak him up for battle as a Claimant.

 

Hence I ask the question because you have advised since Waksman. See above...

 

Thus with your number of posts I appreciate you must have read and have some authority on the subject for you to be able to give advice

Yet you seem to prefer to follow the claims of those who haven't. Each to their own, I s'pose.

 

 

[jonoh1]

Hi Pinky69

 

I believe if you actually read the thread that you quote then you will understand it warns of the cost implications by going down the CPR route.

 

If you have read the recent judges comments then you may understand why that you should not be the claimant.

[Pinky69]

I couldn't care less about the cost implications - it's up to people to find that out for themselves. I am not here to spoon feed people. I give them the basic advice then it is up to them to explore further themselves, as we all had to do.

[jonoh1]

 

P.O. ref your post

 

1. agree so why advise this route without the costs implications.

 

2. agree again he would not.

 

3.see above

 

4. Disagree because if you had fully read the posts there are other implications which I feel very strongly people should be warned of.

[jonoh1]

Pinky69

 

Thank you again. Factual information yes, information that is not factual is similar to the original letter mentioned in the title of this thread.

[jonoh1]

Final post again from me if you give advice on this forum when you know that it may have cost implications especially to newbies then I leave it to your own conseince

[Pinky69]

[jonoh1]

Pinky69

 

You are starting to sound like some of the DCA`s I deal with.

[PriorityOne]

P.O. ref your post

 

1. agree so why advise this route without the costs implications.

 

2. agree again he would not.

 

3.see above

 

4. Disagree because if you had fully read the posts there are other implications which I feel very strongly people should be warned of.

 

You seem to be trying to draw comparisons between Pinky's advice and Nuke'ms... The difference being that Nuke'em's letter is ridiculous and sensationalised. If people prefer to approach their creditors by sounding like an extract from the tabloid press, that's entirely up to them.... but most people who bother to actually read around the site will find different experiences of CCA law and the CPR.

 

People normally then decide on their own way forward based upon which CPR route applies to them at that time.

 

[jonoh1]

Thank You P.O.

 

Whilst I have total respect for you.

 

I am not trying to draw comparisons.

 

I am only trying to point out that certain advice without understanding the consequences can be as bad as the letter mentioned.

 

There is not much I have not read on this subject yet even I agree I am not experienced enough to give advice.

 

Yet I do have the experience to understand good advice and the consequences and bad advice and the consequences.

 

I certainly do not think that you can agree with some of Pinky69 posts especially the lack of care to the cost implications for newbies.

 

Yet I agree each to their own.

[Pinky69]

Oh no - I am much worse than the DCAs - which is why I left them all the nearest ditch.

[jonoh1]

No did not say that Pinky just said you are starting to sound like them.

 

So what the heck why should I bother.

 

I just base an opinion on your own posts in your words.

 

Probably you are quite sound and I am certainly not knocking anyone that helps people.

 

The simple reason I asked you to confirm your advice was because I have a similar problem.

 

Stalemate at the moment, which is good.

 

Been passed around various cretin DCA`s

 

They provided a cca that had my name and address on it but none of my true details and not my signature.

 

They sent this same document again for a subject access request.

 

When I informed them of this they then sent the same document but with the details illegible.

 

I continued to complain then they sent a reconstituted document.

 

Even the reconstituted document did not comply with Waksman.

 

I told them this and then they sent the original document with the details obliterated. They included a reconstituted document and stated they had now done this because the microfiche copy was obliterated. lol.

 

Even this attempt does not comply with Waksman.

 

No prescribed terms contained in the signature document.

 

I asked for statements for the life of the account.

 

They stated these are no longer available because if the account is more than six years old they do not need to supply them. lol.

 

Hence my original question Pinky69 Stated they shoud be supplied. I was asking if this advice was true.

 

If it was it could be of help. You can view the documents sent on my thresd and the obliterated copy.

[prince-albert]

thank you pinky

[prince-albert]

thank you as well jonoh1

[PriorityOne]

Jonoh.... why on earth are you pushing so hard for an enforceable copy of your CCA?! I'm assuming you don't actually want them to supply you with it... because most of us don't.... You sound as if you're hounding them for a true copy.

 

As I read things, they don't have one... so let it go.

[PriorityOne]

 

 

I asked for statements for the life of the account. You won't get these from a CCA request.... you need to do a SAR for these. They should provide you with a Statement of Account... which is a different thing altogether, but you might have to state that you want one.

 

 

..

[jonoh1]

Thanks for the reply P.O.

 

I did the subject access request and the reply was they are not obliged to provide statements that are over six years old.

 

Pinky69 stated on another thread quote

 

"They are allowed to send a reconstructed copy of the original agreement to fulfil a CCA request BUT they still must send original T&Cs and statements. If they don't send those they have not fulfilled your request and you can put the account in dispute. Reconstructed copies are a good indication they don't have the original agreement or they would send that. If you want a copy of the original agreement you have to request it through the CPR rules."

 

So that is what started this and I was asking if this was the correct information. Because my understanding is that they have complied with a cca request when they have supplied the documents either copies or reconstituted copies plus a statement of account at that time.

 

You appear to agree with my interpretation.

 

Yes I am pushing them, that is the OC. because the first DCA they passed it to became very aggressive with my wife whilst she had a serious illness. I will not go into detail.

 

I am holding the OC responsible for the actions and I will push them for whatever it takes. I am not pulling the hearts and strings but they have done some seriously bad things.

 

The OC said they investigated, so they say (another cut and paste letter) and said they don`t think they have done anything wrong.

 

Anyway I know many people have such horror stories. So I must admit this as now become a personal vendetta against them. Win or lose I will never let it go.

 

So to be honest the point about legal enforceability is now a secondary issue to me.

[PriorityOne]

Thanks for the reply P.O.

 

I did the subject access request and the reply was they are not obliged to provide statements that are over six years old. They are legally obliged to provide you with all transactional data under a SAR.... which suggests that they've either destroyed it or don't want you to have it. If they don't want you to have it and then produce something at a later date, then it puts them in breach of your SAR.

 

Pinky69 stated on another thread quote

 

"They are allowed to send a reconstructed copy of the original agreement to fulfil a CCA request BUT they still must send original T&Cs and statements. If they don't send those they have not fulfilled your request and you can put the account in dispute. Reconstructed copies are a good indication they don't have the original agreement or they would send that. If you want a copy of the original agreement you have to request it through the CPR rules." You can request it through the CPR, but you can also request it as part of your SAR.... although you'd have to stipulate that you want a true copy of any alleged Agreement they have in their possession.... in order to give them no room to manouvre with it.

 

So that is what started this and I was asking if this was the correct information. Because my understanding is that they have complied with a cca request when they have supplied the documents either copies or reconstituted copies plus a statement of account at that time. They have complied with your request as far as they're able to at that point, but this doesn't give you any absolute proof that no CCA is held. They could locate it at any time and go for re-enforcement at a later date. If you make a request as part of a SAR or CPR however, then they would have some explaining to do if it went to court. At the end of the day though... an (un)enforceble Agreement is still an (un)enforceable Agreement, whichever method succeeds in producing it for you.

 

You appear to agree with my interpretation.

 

Yes I am pushing them, that is the OC. because the first DCA they passed it to became very aggressive with my wife whilst she had a serious illness. I will not go into detail. Are you certain that the OC still owns the debt?

 

I am holding the OC responsible for the actions and I will push them for whatever it takes. I am not pulling the hearts and strings but they have done some seriously bad things.

 

The OC said they investigated, so they say (another cut and paste letter) and said they don`t think they have done anything wrong. They always say this....

 

Anyway I know many people have such horror stories. So I must admit this as now become a personal vendetta against them. Win or lose I will never let it go.

 

So to be honest the point about legal enforceability is now a secondary issue to me.

 

To be honest, I would think very long and hard before you take this any further because if you lose, you won't have the satisfaction of doing anything of any real effect to them at all. In fact, if they win.... you could end up feeling much worse and your wife's health may even deteriorate further.

 

I'm not big on revenge tactics as such.... I take my satisfaction from the fact that monies are owed on creditor/DCA books and they can do b*gger all about it.... There are many victims of DCA tactics in here, but it may be wise to think twice about starting a lone crusade against a company much bigger than yourself with tactics they could stamp on if they wanted to....

 

There is much more to life....

[jonoh1]

Originally Posted by jonoh1

Thanks for the reply P.O.

 

I did the Subject access request and the reply was they are not obliged to provide statements that are over six years old. They are legally obliged to provide you with all transactional data under a Subject Access Request.... which suggests that they've either destroyed it or don't want you to have it. If they don't want you to have it and then produce something at a later date, then it puts them in breach of your Subject Access Request.

 

They state that even under the data protection act they are not obliged to provide statements over six years old. The real reason is they have provided t&c`s which do not contain any charges in them for late payment etc..... Thus the balance can be disputed.

 

Pinky69 stated on another thread quote

 

"They are allowed to send a reconstructed copy of the original agreement to fulfil a CCA request BUT they still must send original T&Cs and statements. If they don't send those they have not fulfilled your request and you can put the account in dispute. Reconstructed copies are a good indication they don't have the original agreement or they would send that. If you want a copy of the original agreement you have to request it through the CPR rules." You can request it through the CPR, but you can also request it as part of your Subject Access Request.... although you'd have to stipulate that you want a true copy of any alleged Agreement they have in their possession.... in order to give them no room to manouvre with it.

 

It was stipulated in the SAR`s and they sent the same false document. When I complained again they sent the same document but this time illegible. When I complained again they sent a blank reconstituted document. I complained again they sent the same false documents with the details obliterated and another reconstituted document. This time the reconstituted document contained the false details.

 

So that is what started this and I was asking if this was the correct information. Because my understanding is that they have complied with a cca request when they have supplied the documents either copies or reconstituted copies plus a statement of account at that time. They have complied with your request as far as they're able to at that point, but this doesn't give you any absolute proof that no CCA is held. They could locate it at any time and go for re-enforcement at a later date. If you make a request as part of a Subject Access Request or CPR however, then they would have some explaining to do if it went to court. At the end of the day though... an (un)enforceble Agreement is still an (un)enforceable Agreement, whichever method succeeds in producing it for you.

 

Again may be sounding stupid and it was not get at Pinky. I just don`t see how you can go down the CPR route especially after some of the judges comments

 

You appear to agree with my interpretation.

 

Yes I am pushing them, that is the OC. because the first DCA they passed it to became very aggressive with my wife whilst she had a serious illness. I will not go into detail. Are you certain that the OC still owns the debt?

 

100% certain they still own the debt and 100% certain that it would be impossible for them to have an enforceable agreement. They are threatening to sell it rather than go to court. I have begged them to take it to court. Even now got their chief executive involved.

 

I am holding the OC responsible for the actions and I will push them for whatever it takes. I am not pulling the hearts and strings but they have done some seriously bad things.

 

The OC said they investigated, so they say (another cut and paste letter) and said they don`t think they have done anything wrong. They always say this....

 

Anyway I know many people have such horror stories. So I must admit this as now become a personal vendetta against them. Win or lose I will never let it go.

 

So to be honest the point about legal enforceability is now a secondary issue to me.

 

Understand your final comments P.O. and normally I would agree. I will not to into detail but whatever happens I will fight these cretins to the end.

 

Thanks for your help and advice. Best of luck in your quest.

[Pinky69]

If you weren't getting at me it certainly sounded like it. You are not on these forums 5 minutes and you criticised my advice at length and said I sounded like a DCA. I am not the DCA who upset your wife so don't take the chip on your shoulder out on me. You even implied I was in some way "the enemy." I laughed it off because that is all it deserved but I can assure you I will never under any circumstance give you any advice again.

[PriorityOne]

 

100% certain they still own the debt and 100% certain that it would be impossible for them to have an enforceable agreement. They are threatening to sell it rather than go to court. I have begged them to take it to court. Even now got their chief executive involved.

 

 

You've already achieved the objective of finding out if they have enforceable docs. They don't, which makes selling the account a flimsy threat.... it means nothing and the DCA who's stupid enough to buy it should therefore be fairly easy to get rid of. They won't take you to court.... not because they're afraid of what you have on them but because they have nothing enforceable on you, so to speak.

 

If you're still determined to take them on though, then the CPR route is (one of) the correct way(s) forward. People who decide to go down that route are normally assumed to be aware of the costs involved before doing it.... as all court action carries an element of risk. That's why reading around the site is so important.

 

Edited February 6, 2010 by PriorityOne

[jonoh1]

If you weren't getting at me it certainly sounded like it. You are not on these forums 5 minutes and you criticised my advice at length and said I sounded like a DCA. I am not the DCA who upset your wife so don't take the chip on your shoulder out on me. You even implied I was in some way "the enemy." I laughed it off because that is all it deserved but I can assure you I will never under any circumstance give you any advice again.

 

It is important that if you give advice it is factual and correct. I was asking if the advice you had given was correct. Because if it was it could help me.

 

Eg. " you state

 

"They are allowed to send a reconstructed copy of the original agreement to fulfil a CCA request BUT they still must send original T&Cs and statements."

 

The statements bit is factually incorrect

 

You then state

 

"If you want a copy of the original agreement you have to request it through the CPR rules."

 

I in my opinion think that if you give that advice you should also make the person aware of the cost implications.

 

Surely it is fair to question the advice and I had already asked you about the CPR route on this thread.

 

If I am wrong on these two issues then I stand to be corrected.

 

Priority One

 

Thanks for the advice.

 

I agree stalemate is good. I certainly would not go down the CPR route myself and I would certainly not advice anyone to be the claimant. Even with what I have there is still a big element of risk.

 

There are other issues that I would be prepared to push further.

 

Anyway back to the fight I just believe to deal with these people you need to act on factual information.

 

But hey that's life onwards and forwards. Good Luck.

[PriorityOne]

You do need to act on factual information, yes.... and the majority of people give advice in good faith on here Jonoh. Some people follow it to the letter.... and others adapt it to suit their own needs. Personally, I think you're being a bit harsh on Pinky.... and the way you're pursuing this on here will only discourage people from wanting to help you in the future.

 

When I started my journey on here, I was advised to do many things which I went away and thought about before doing. It can get very nit-picky on here sometimes... but it doesn't have to get personal. All you needed to do was ask for clarification in a nicer way. Asking the difference between "statements" and "statement of account" for example.

 

Any journey through the courts comes with an element of risk, as said before.... but providing you don't go forward as a Claimant, which you've said that you're not, then I can't personally see how the cost implications would come into it at this stage anyway. This is because as a Defendant, you either choose to defend or you don't. If you don't, then then the company/DCA will get a Judgement by default (by you doing nothing)... and if you do, then the CPR route would be the way forward.... as Pinky said.... because once court action has been started, time is no longer on your side to wait for SAR info. to materialise. You'd also need to have sight of all docs. they were seeking to rely on in court.

 

Edited February 6, 2010 by PriorityOne
typo

[jonoh1]

Yes I agree with your statement P.O.

 

At that stage I agree the CPR route is the correct way. That was why I questioned Pinky because it sounded like the suggestion was to go down the CPR rote at an earlier stage and that can be very dangerous.

 

I think if you read back over my posts I was asking if the advice was correct in a courteous manner. The reason being it was pertinent to me as I have explained.

 

I am not pursuing it in a nasty way and I just wanted to query the points.

 

If this is considered harsh then I apologise.

[PriorityOne]

 

At that stage I agree the CPR route is the correct way. That was why I questioned Pinky because it sounded like the suggestion was to go down the CPR rote at an earlier stage and that can be very dangerous.

 

 

There are circumstances where you can go down the CPR route prior to court action and there is a thread on this by pt2537. I can't see how this can be dangerous unless you intend to bring legal action yourself because the cost implications would only arise once legal action has been started.

 

If you stated that you had no intention of being a Claimant, then the cost implications would have been irrelevant.... since the only other available option would be for you to roll over and give them a CCJ by default, so to speak.