HFC - CCA request

[PriorityOne]

They do try and confuse...... which is why it's important to keep hold of everything sent through to you.

 

One missed payment is quite trivial in the grand scheme of things though... you'd think they' have better things to do...

 

Oh well....

[victoria_siempre]

Hi Always

 

I get demands from new DCAs where I am making agreed token payments to OCs; reasons like required payment date has changed, you must pay us direct blah blah, blag, blag (they should join the bl**dy looters); threats like sky will fall in in 72 hours etc etc.

 

I always send them a request for a NoA quoting the European Credit Directive (however I'm in a minority in favouring this new piece of UK legislation) which they refuse to supply so regrettably I cannot pay them direct; I've had 2 bandits in a row go up in smoke like this.

 

x

 

v

[Always Struggling]

Will sit back and await any further correspondence P1. Will keep your info in mind also VS

[Always Struggling]

Having now received a reply from my SAR I find that there is no agreement copy (true of original signed or otherwise), plus these are all still illegible to read as posted earlier. I am sending the following today:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Thank you for your letter dated xx April 2011, the contents of which have been noted.

 

You have failed to respond to my legal request to supply me a true copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement for the above account.

 

On xx March 2011, I made a formal request for a true signed agreement for the alleged account under consumer credit Act 1974 s77/78. This was signed for as delivered on the xx March 2011.

 

Rather than assume you deliberately gave the least, or omit, information I followed up with a Subject Access Request in the hope that giving you a chance to correct your error would produce the correct full information required by law to fulfil my CCA request.

 

 

However, you have failed to comply with my request, and as such the account entered default on xx May 2011 (12+2 working days after I made the initial request).

 

The document that you are obliged to send me is a true copy of the executed agreement containing all of the prescribed terms at inception, this can be, as you are keen to point out, a constituted version, however, if this is to be the case then you should also realise it is to be a copy of the original agreement including it being filled out accordingly as per original signed agreement with the same relevant information populated within the document aside from my signature, plus all the prescribed terms at the time of inception, interest rates at the time plus any and all changes accordingly with the varied terms. If the executed agreement contained any reference to any other document, you are also obliged to send me a copy of that document.

 

Furthermore, you are aware that the Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for a request for a true copy of a credit agreement to be carried out before you enter into a default situation.

 

This limit has expired long before giving you an opportunity to correct this error.

 

As you are also no doubt aware section 78(6) states:

 

If the creditor fails to comply with Subsection (1)

 

(a) He is not entitled , while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

 

Therefore this account has become currently unenforceable at law as you have failed to comply with a lawful request for a true copy of the said agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it.

You will also be aware of the CPUTR 2008 and the OFT’s guidelines on debt collection which state, under the title Deceptive and/or unfair methods - Examples of unfair practices are as follows - 2.8

 

(i) - 'Failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued'

 

(k) - 'Not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonable queried or disputed debt'

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Furthermore I shall counterclaim that any such action constitutes unlawful harassment.

 

Please also take this as a formal request under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008.

 

I require your organisation to provide written confirmation that states clearly whether you currently hold an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement, or whether you do not hold an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement pertaining to myself.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement is just that; not an application for credit and not a reconstructed document from other sources.

 

Please also note that failure to provide a direct answer to this request will be brought before the court, should you decide to defy the content of this letter and instruct solicitors to pursue enforcement action regardless.

 

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit.

You have 21 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint.

 

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Is this ok in regards to challenging their reconstituted version?

Edited August 22, 2011 by Always Struggling

[PriorityOne]

Your letter seems to have addressed all the main points.....

[Always Struggling]

Thanks.... was in a bit of a rush yesterday .....too much in the end.... forgot to put my name at the end of the letter . Will they still acknowledge it or will they ignore it? Account details, my address etc. were all present still.

 

I didn't got into detail with CCA1974 but as the agreement was from 1999 I'm assuming that section 127(3) would also be applicable?

[PriorityOne]

Thanks.... was in a bit of a rush yesterday .....too much in the end.... forgot to put my name at the end of the letter . Will they still acknowledge it or will they ignore it? Account details, my address etc. were all present still.

 

I didn't got into detail with CCA1974 but as the agreement was from 1999 I'm assuming that section 127(3) would also be applicable?

 

If you have proof it was delivered (rec. delivery) and it contains enough details to identify you, then there should be no problems........ and yes, sec 127(3) is applicable on an account that old.

 

[Always Struggling]

Thought pretty much the same but always nice to hear someone confirm my thoughts. Mail is always, always sent recorded, which was signed for today

[Always Struggling]

Quick update:

I sent the 'account in dispute' letter to HFC via recorded.... they DID want name as well... got to love it when they want to be diligent and have the i's dotted and t's crossed, goes to back-up my request for a compliant CCA request imo .

I figured for simplicity I'd resend with name.... checked PO for receipt signature to find that it hasn't arrived yet, now been over 15days late and am now going to have to send a 3rd time and get a P58 claim form from PO for lost letter .

 

Have also been receiving letters from a DCA on behalf of their clients HSBC in the meantime. The latest is from Nelson Solicitors for DCA. Wanted to put them back in thier box for the moment anyways so wrote the following.

Would appreciate it if someone could look over my reply to them before I send it and confirm all looks accurate with what I say:

 

Dear Sirs

 

I refer to your letter dated xx/xx/ 2011, the content of which is noted.

 

I made a formal request on to your clients’ client (HFC), part of the HSBC group in March 2011 pursuant to s.77/78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They have failed to comply fully within the statutory time limit.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

As a gesture of goodwill and to help keep you informed, as it appears you haven’t been, I enclose a copy of my last letter sent to HFC, this has had to be re-sent to them today as my name had been inadvertently omitted in the original and they obviously couldn’t associate me to the letter with just the address along with account number was insufficient information for them to take action.

 

In the circumstances, your threat of ‘further’ action would appear to be a breach of the Consumer Protection of Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on debt collection. Should you or your client or indeed, your clients, client bring proceedings, they will be robustly defended, and the Court's attention drawn to the above statutory breaches. Furthermore, I reserve the right to bring the conduct of your client to the Court when the issue of costs is being considered.

 

Please be further advised that your clients’ client (HSBC) is currently in receipt of monthly payments from me through their HFC department (part of the HSBC Group) and have been for some months now.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to HSBC for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as Westcot Credit Services cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If Westcot Credit Services chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in line with the Office of Fair Trading Collection Guidelines.

 

On a further point for you to make note and pass on to your clients, Wescot Credit Services, should it be their intention to arrange a “doorstep call”, please advise them that under OFT rules, they can only visit me at my home if they make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with them (westcot credit services) or their representitives.

 

There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for Westcot Credit Services, or their representatives to visit me at my property and, if they do so, they will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Any help is appreciated.

[PriorityOne]

Looks ok to me.... although I'm very, VERY tired this evening..... so if someone else could look this over as well and give their opinion, I'd be grateful....

[ims21]

Hi

 

Nice strong letter.

 

Just one tiny thing I picked up....in this bit I would add the red writing.

 

 

In the circumstances, your threat of ‘further’ action would appear to be a breach of the Consumer Protection of Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on debt collection. Should you or your client or indeed, your clients, client bring proceedings, they will be robustly defended, and the Court's attention drawn to the above statutory breaches. Furthermore, I reserve the right to bring the conduct of your client to the Court's attention when the issue of costs is being considered.

 

Regards

 

ims

[Always Struggling]

Thanks for that ims, will amend before sending ... also noticed another typo/error

I made a formal request on(delete) to your clients’ client (HFC), part of the HSBC group

 

Always good to read and re-read these things if only for grammatical errors

[ims21]

Whoops....didn't spot that one !

 

ims

[Always Struggling]

I'm sure there'll be something else missed .... helping me calm down before bedtime anyways (spot the typo) lol

 

Just having a rant in my Lloyds thread about Fraud and it winds me up the way they are allowed to behave, so this is a 'light-hearted' thread in comparison. heh

[Always Struggling]

Got a 'red' letter today from westcot, still threatening to 'visit' me at home.

 

They state that

they have advised me that one of the actions they are considering is a Door Step Collection Visit. As we know of no genuine reason why you have failed to repay the outstanding balance, instructions will now be provided to our agent to make an appointment with you to visit your home address. The purpose of the visit is to agree with you how you will repay this debt.

You have a final opportunity to avoid referral to a Door Step Collection Agent by telephoning us to agree a suitable method of repayment of the outstanding balance IMMEDIATELY on the telephone number above.

 

I am paying by standing order to HFC £2 a month which I have already informed them of and I wrote to their solicitor stating this along with pointing out that they have no legal right to doorstep me and stating that I do NOT want a visit.

 

How can they ignore the fact I am currently paying £2 and still threaten door step visits? How long until this is harrassment?

[dx100uk]

wescot are 99% automated letters

 

just ignore and carry on

 

they are just trying to make you pay more as they always will.

 

dx

[Always Struggling]

Ok, thx dx... it's just frustrating as they continue sending threatening letters regardless of the fact that payments are being made which they have been told already and they have been sent letters refusing permission to 'door step call'. Seems to me that as soon as anyone questions something on an account via cca or sar then the OC goes on the offensive using any methods possible.

[Always Struggling]

Got a response from Beneficial Finance, seems to be going back to them now.

 

They state that they feel they have complied with sect.78, saying they have fulfilled their obligation by supplying me with a copy of the agreement. The form of any copies they must provide are governed by the Consumer Credit Act (cancellation notices and copies of documents) Regulation 1983. They are confident that HFC Bank has complied with these terms.

 

The next bit took a while to work out what they were actually saying:

With reference to your concerns regarding your account; please be aware that the effect of unenforceability under the CCA and such unenforceability does not apply in this case, as it is to prevent a lender from enforcing the credit agreement in court: it does not render the credit agreement void

 

In the end I read this as: you have an agreement and owe us some money but we cannot enforce it in court.

 

Should I make a request under CPUTR so I can try and ascertain if they have an agreement at all now as I would like 100% clarification that no PPI was ever on this account?

 

I can then look over any penalty charges and move on from there.

 

This can be done at my own pace now at least it would seem.

 

Have enough going on with Lloyds ... will be deciding if I should take on Lloyds as a claimant or wait and see if it'd be better as defendent?

[PriorityOne]

As soon as a company starts waffling on like that, the chances of them having an Agreement become very small. Time to CPUTR if you haven't already done so; they've already implied that they cannot go to court with this, so chuck the ball firmly back into their court.

 

[Always Struggling]

Ball will be back in their court in the next few days

[Always Struggling]

Just looking back over the letters I find that I have actually sent a CPUTR 2 other times. They have not confirmed as yet to holding (or not holding) an agreement.

 

I will send this one last time and not include any other questions except the one pertaining to the original agreement (if they do or don't hold one) so they can have no confusion and no need to reply in response to anything else..

[PriorityOne]

Just looking back over the letters I find that I have actually sent a CPUTR 2 other times. They have not confirmed as yet to holding (or not holding) an agreement.

 

I will send this one last time and not include any other questions except the one pertaining to the original agreement (if they do or don't hold one) so they can have no confusion and no need to reply in response to anything else..

 

They haven't got one then (IMO). If you've already asked under CPUTR, then direct them to your previous correspondence and say that you've yet to receive an answer that doesn't include them waffling on about whatever it is they've waffled on about..... lol..... and until such times as they do, no payments will be forthcoming to anyone or anything. Something like that. Head it up as a "Complaint" as well..... If you've already sent a complaint, then head it up as a "Second Formal Complaint".

 

Companies absolutely HATE this!!

[Always Struggling]

This will be sent off tomorrow, hopefully a reply will be forthcoming...... got to remain positive lol

 

COMPLAINT

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is a formal request under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008.

 

Please be advised that this is my 3rd (third) time of asking under CPUTR 2008 and that I now believe you are failing systematically to respond to my pertinent correspondence and thus dissuade me from exercising my contractual rights or that you may be guilty of a misleading action by leaving out important information. (Previous attempts in April 2011 & September 2011)

I require your company to provide written confirmation that states clearly whether you currently hold an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement, or whether you do not hold an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement pertaining to myself.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement is just that; not an application for credit and not a reconstructed document from other sources but a legally enforceable, original and legible Consumer Credit Agreement. Such that, for example, it would comply with The Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 127(3) for the purposes of enforcement.

Please also note that failure to provide a direct answer to this request, under the CPUTR 2008, will see it brought before a court, should you decide to defy the content of this letter and instruct solicitors to pursue enforcement action regardless.

Yours faithfully,

 

[dx100uk]

go get hfc!

 

dx

[Always Struggling]

Small result so far.... Got a letter today from westcot saying ty for my patience whilst they investigated the enquiry that I had raised. Their outcome was to confirm that as a consequence of the query I had raised the account has been returned to their client and that wescot have closed the debt and that no further action will be taken by westcot to recover the account.

 

Just got to wait now for a reply from HFC in direct response to my 3rd attempt under CPUTR for a definitive answer. 3rd time lucky they say