Cabot and Citi Card debt

[purplefile]

hehe

 

your right there!

 

But do you really believe that they ever thought the charges were fair or reasonable or that they just thought they could get away with it ???

 

I was first given this info in ex position as underwriter for secured loans and it was being warmly welcolmed by the fat cats.

 

(lulled into a false security) most of what I have read so far sounds like a genuine move in the right direction.

[dolly]

Just had my cca request and postal order returned by Scotcall on the deadline. They are passing it back to RBoS.....hope they cant find the paperwork. MIGHT be in with a chance here (I hope)

 

Dave

 

Having MAJOR problems with these and closed accounts....lets just say that they are not complying with DPA requests and 2 years ago I made full and final settlements to 6 companies I was dealing with through them.....all of these companies still have an outstanding balance and Scotcall will not give me anything. I am issuing court proceedings next week for disclosure if they fail to give me the information as we are talking £1800+.

[JonCris]

hehe

 

your right there!

 

But do you really believe that they ever thought the charges were fair or reasonable or that they just thought they could get away with it ???

 

I was first given this info in ex position as underwriter for secured loans and it was being warmly welcolmed by the fat cats.

 

(lulled into a false security) most of what I have read so far sounds like a genuine move in the right direction.

 

I think a bit of both. Lets face it it's all about profit so they don't pay for the best legal opinion or if it doesn't fit they just ignore it.

Now all the lenders will have had legal opinion which is why they are stopping short of a proper hearing only going so far in the hope of scaring off the claimants.

 

As for the new act yes I think they are being lulled into a false sense of security particulary as ALL agreements shall now fall within the CCA. I suspect the reason the gov. has decided that agreements can no longer be challenged on a technicality is that it would be unfair as many pre act agreements over the present limit would fall into that category. I also think that is why there is the new test of "unfairness" which gives the court a very wide descretion something it never had before

 

I don't think there is any less a requirement for them to provide the docs requested under the CCA or the DPA. If they don't they could find the debt scrubbed. We just need the 1st judge to come along & use his discretion

[purplefile]

I just hope that includes the first point sale of financial products with particular emphasis on lump sum payment protection sales.

Protection that in many cases is of no use or benefit and is sold regardless of need.

There is more commission in a PP sale than in a loan.

Statistics show that 70% of loans are redemed early either by overpayments or by re brokeing and lump sum protection is added to the loan upfront and interest is charged on it!

This leaves many people are paying DCA's PP interest along with their excess charges.

 

Perhaps this recent influx of the DCA's trying to cash in on old debts has been brought about by this new legislation as after April 2007 it will (hopefully) be harder for them to act in the manner that they are at the minute.

 

There absolulty has to be a requirement for them to provide the docs requested under the CCA or the Data Protection Act. None of this will change, its just that it will no longer automatically unenforceable if the agreement is missing.

 

I feel that there should also be a more controlled and accountable manner in which lenders & DCA's chase statute barred monies and that this activity should be regulated with a more assessable means of legal retort.

 

Maybe its all there and I havent read that far yet !

Optimist Always

[davefirewalker]

Hi Martin

 

"Exactly the same thing happeed to me last week.........

 

 

Would the letter by any chance have come from a Mrs.J Hart in Accounts ?"

 

ermmmm yes it would

 

Dave

[davefirewalker]

OK a bit unclear now......

Do I have to send another cca to rbs or does the original still stand ??

scotcall returned my postal order (now useless) and probably havent applied to rbs for the docs ?

 

Dave

[alanfromderby]

I agree that there is a lot og good in the CCA(2006)

 

However Business have been led to believe that it will be the end of automatic unenforceability from a lost credit agreement.

 

Total unenforceability and other court powers

The new Act will remove the possibility for agreements to be totally unenforceable because they do not comply with the technical requirements of the CCA Agreements Regulations Instead, where defects arise in the form and content of agreements, the court will have a discretion as to whether to enforce the agreement or not.

 

Consumer Credit | Experian UK

 

No, this is totally different. This is where agreements become unenforceable due to technical errors in drafting etc. It is specifically relating to the content of the agreement - not the existence of an agreement.

 

Sections 77 and 78 are unaffected, and indeed are strengthened in scope by the inclusion of detailed statements. It is important to remember that without a copy of the original agreement, how can a court make any ruling on its validity?

[PKea]

I was recently paying off a debt to GE Money through Payplan, but last month i recieved a letter from CL Finance sating that they had purchased the debt. Then the next day i get a letter form Lewis debt recovery chasing the full balance. I also got the standard (Scary! all bright Pink & Red) Final demand stating blah take you to court blah blah debt colectors knockinh on the door. Anyway I know these are to try and make pay them. Sorry was waffling then. I have not spoke to either CL Finance or Lewis Debt recovery,so i am going to send a CCA letter out but does it go to Lewis or CL Finance? If it goes to CL Finance do i tell Lewis or just continue to ignore them.

[alanfromderby]

I would send one to each company, and a full DSAR to GE.

[MARTIN3030]

OK a bit unclear now......

Do I have to send another cca to rbs or does the original still stand ??

scotcall returned my postal order (now useless) and probably havent applied to rbs for the docs ?

 

Dave

 

 

Are we talking about a CCA from the RBS ?

 

They deal with this at Telford as you are aware.

I have recently had a letter from them saying they cannot supply me with a copy of the default notice.They say that when it was issued I contacted them to dispute some charges so I did know about it.

I am arguing that I may have contacted them disputing charges but that does not prove I rec the default notice.

I did get a copy of my original agreement from the dca who bought their debt.

I also got a dodgy supposedly copy of a deed of assignment from Capquest.

My efforts to see the one from the Rbs have fell on deaf ears.

I am now free to start a MC against the bank so will address the default issues with that.

Jonnie2bad did a letter whilst his claim in process addressing the same issue.

I think that might be a good road to go down.

 

Of course once unlawful penalties are given back by the bank then how can a dca insist on collecting a debt that effectively does not exist ?

[MARTIN3030]

This is something that I too could not get my head around.

 

But I saw a thread in which citi argued in their defence that since they had lost out in the first place.....by them not being paid in full and then sold on the account to a dca at a fraction of its value IF they were forced to pay the claimant then they would effectively be losing out twice !!

 

The case went on to be settled.(and Citi did not defend in court )

 

If they are prepared to sell on a debt at a fraction of its value.....then I dont suppose they can later claim that they are miffed about having to pay it back and lose out......as they were already previously prepared to do so.

 

One thing thay IS puzzling me is how the banks and dcas are getting around this.

Presumably the banks are taking the debt back and compensating the dcas ?

Is the selling off of defaulted accounts going to stop..at least for the moment?

 

I have been waiting for someone to answer the these questions....but I think both the banks and the dcas are keeping their lips tightly sealed.

[gizmo111]

This is something that I too could not get my head around.

 

But I saw a thread in which citi argued in their defence that since they had lost out in the first place.....by them not being paid in full and then sold on the account to a dca at a fraction of its value IF they were forced to pay the claimant then they would effectively be losing out twice !!

 

The case went on to be settled.(and Citi did not defend in court )

 

If they are prepared to sell on a debt at a fraction of its value.....then I dont suppose they can later claim that they are miffed about having to pay it back and lose out......as they were already previously prepared to do so.

 

One thing thay IS puzzling me is how the banks and dcas are getting around this.

Presumably the banks are taking the debt back and compensating the dcas ?

Is the selling off of defaulted accounts going to stop..at least for the moment?

 

I have been waiting for someone to answer the these questions....but I think both the banks and the dcas are keeping their lips tightly sealed.

 

Citi were saying that they hadn't received the payment of charges - the DCA had so therefore they were losing - the whole point is they levied them and I am still paying DCA - therfore I am paying them and have a default to boot! Tough luck on citi for selling the debt! Maybe they will start claims against DCA's for recovery of unlawful cahrges collected by them!

[elsinore]

Citi were saying that they hadn't received the payment of charges - the DCA had so therefore they were losing - the whole point is they levied them and I am still paying DCA - therfore I am paying them and have a default to boot! Tough luck on citi for selling the debt! Maybe they will start claims against DCA's for recovery of unlawful cahrges collected by them!

 

Exactly, gizmo!

Original lender doesn't have to sell the debt. It's not compulsory. If they got a grip of their accounts collection techniques they could collect the debt themselves, just as easily as any DCA.

 

Any business trading on a credit basis makes a provision for bad debts in its accounts. CC companies are so used to raking in huge profits that their bad debt provision is small beer. It's easier to write it off than incur more expense collecting it. Besides, if you sell off a tranche of bad debt for 15% of its value, that mitigates your bad debt write off anyway. How can they complain if a DCA then collects the lot?

 

As far as we are concerned as claimants, an unlawful charge is an unlawful charge, whether it has been paid or not! It seems to me to be quite proper to claim it back and receive it. If it had not been imposed in the first place then one would not have had to pay the DCA.

 

All the rest must be a squabble between the original lender and the DCA and not involve us.:grin:

 

Elsinore

[JonCris]

I just hope that includes the first point sale of financial products with particular emphasis on lump sum payment protection sales.

Protection that in many cases is of no use or benefit and is sold regardless of need.

There is more commission in a PP sale than in a loan.

Statistics show that 70% of loans are redemed early either by overpayments or by re brokeing and lump sum protection is added to the loan upfront and interest is charged on it!

This leaves many people are paying DCA's PP interest along with their excess charges.

 

Perhaps this recent influx of the DCA's trying to cash in on old debts has been brought about by this new legislation as after April 2007 it will (hopefully) be harder for them to act in the manner that they are at the minute.

 

There absolulty has to be a requirement for them to provide the docs requested under the CCA or the Data Protection Act. None of this will change, its just that it will no longer automatically unenforceable if the agreement is missing.

 

I feel that there should also be a more controlled and accountable manner in which lenders & DCA's chase statute barred monies and that this activity should be regulated with a more assessable means of legal retort.

 

Maybe its all there and I havent read that far yet !

Optimist Always

 

If a lump sum PPI payment is added before interest then the agreement IS unenforcable. Any additional charges can only added to the total AFTER interest. There is recent case law confriming this. A large secured loan was found to be unenforcable because of such a practice

[JonCris]

Exactly, gizmo!

Original lender doesn't have to sell the debt. It's not compulsory. If they got a grip of their accounts collection techniques they could collect the debt themselves, just as easily as any DCA.

 

Any business trading on a credit basis makes a provision for bad debts in its accounts. CC companies are so used to raking in huge profits that their bad debt provision is small beer. It's easier to write it off than incur more expense collecting it. Besides, if you sell off a tranche of bad debt for 15% of its value, that mitigates your bad debt write off anyway. How can they complain if a DCA then collects the lot?

 

As far as we are concerned as claimants, an unlawful charge is an unlawful charge, whether it has been paid or not! It seems to me to be quite proper to claim it back and receive it. If it had not been imposed in the first place then one would not have had to pay the DCA.

 

All the rest must be a squabble between the original lender and the DCA and not involve us.:grin:

 

Elsinore

 

Understandably most people wonder why lenders are prepared to sell of their defaulted debts for so little. The reason is once they do this they can use the bad debt to reduce their profits tax liability by the same amount. So you see they are on a win win position

[MARTIN3030]

Understandably most people wonder why lenders are prepared to sell of their defaulted debts for so little. The reason is once they do this they can use the bad debt to reduce their profits tax liability by the same amount. So you see they are on a win win position

 

 

Never looked at it in that context

 

 

Do you beleive that to be the case?

[seylectric]

Oh, definately Martin. Also worth remembering is that it costs money to chase debts, and if it is a debt where they have had little success in getting anything out of the debtor, it's hardly going to be worth their while taking out a CCJ which still guarantees them nothing. It' costs a great deal more to send in the bailiffs and even then they are not guaranteed a return.

 

If you are disputing the debt the cost to them rises again, now they need to take legal advice. You might owe a company £500 but if you dispute it they have to send a solicitor to the court to argue their case which may have already cost them a four figure sum, with no guarantee of them winning and at best might result in the judge agreeing to let you repay £5 a month. The costs they can claim are limited and it will have cost them more than you owe to get their money. Much more profitable to sell the debt on cheap and write it off as a tax loss.

 

Great news for us - fight them all the way, that's why the banks cave in, it's cheaper to settle up than pursue and reduce their tax liability plus they don't need the bad publicity or the fact that a successful case against them would open the floodgates.

 

Don't be irresponsible with your debts - if you owe it, pay it if and when you can (but sod the charges) but DO fight the injustice of the system - it might just save you a few quid

[JonCris]

Never looked at it in that context

 

 

Do you beleive that to be the case?

 

I know it is. It's usualy called the bad debt provision & is offset against overall profits. If you read the accounts of these companies you will see it referred to by all lenders including utilities.

 

I understand for it to be eligible for full relief the Treasury expects them to have made an effort to recover the debt themselves before selling it onto DCA & seeking relief.

 

The more they spend on recovery reduces the benefit of any tax allowance. Thats why some lenders only go through the motions before quickly farming the debt out.

 

Utilities have used their bad debt provision as an excuse to raise prices. They have misled OFWOT by exaggerating the level of bad debt. As well as being investigated by OFWOT a number are also currently under investigation by the police for fraud

[gizmo111]

Exactly, gizmo!

Original lender doesn't have to sell the debt. It's not compulsory. If they got a grip of their accounts collection techniques they could collect the debt themselves, just as easily as any DCA.

 

 

As far as we are concerned as claimants, an unlawful charge is an unlawful charge, whether it has been paid or not! It seems to me to be quite proper to claim it back and receive it. If it had not been imposed in the first place then one would not have had to pay the DCA.

 

All the rest must be a squabble between the original lender and the DCA and not involve us.:grin:

 

Elsinore

 

In my case with citi they sold the debt of £870 for £221, and £600 of that was charges before interest (my reqest at mo is £708) - so in effect all citi actually lost was £50. 870 - 600 = 270 they were paid 221 left 49outstanding of which it actully cost them to lend me money. I was trying ot work out the formula for selling and it seems to me that citi recovered their loss and left the DCA to make a big fat profit. I owe at present around 525 so have paid 345 - which Iwould have continued to do without the valuable help of this site.

[ecobabe]

alanfromderby will hopefully know the answer to this or anyone else!! I sent a CCA and DPA to barclaycard for a 10 year old debt that had been passed to lowell, the original debt was on barclycard visa and for about 7 months i paid £100 to lowell, money had been paid before that as well but i remeber the £100 definately. anyway i sent CCA & DPA to barclcard on 27/6(they received it on the 28/7 by registered). received the usual bumf about statement and microfiche but they defaulted on the CCA. so by my calculation they should have supplied the agreement by yesterday 28/7. anyway today a letter and copy of agreement comes through door, no statements. the letter is dated 24/7 but the frank on postmark is 28th. i never received anything form lowell at all. so my question is .....how rigidly does the law apply? their one month ran out yesterday 28/7 but it was only posted on the 28/7. now if i still owed them money i would pay what i owed but when when the card was stopped the balance was £1000 and i paid it for ages then it was passed to lowell who i paid at least £700 to. so have they committed an offence. and how do i prove it? i kept envelope with postmark clearly 28/7 . help

[gizmo111]

alanfromderby will hopefully know the answer to this or anyone else!! I sent a CCA and Data Protection Act to barclaycard for a 10 year old debt that had been passed to lowell, the original debt was on barclycard visa and for about 7 months i paid £100 to lowell, money had been paid before that as well but i remeber the £100 definately. anyway i sent CCA & DPA to barclcard on 27/6(they received it on the 28/7 by registered). received the usual bumf about statement and microfiche but they defaulted on the CCA. so by my calculation they should have supplied the agreement by yesterday 28/7. anyway today a letter and copy of agreement comes through door, no statements. the letter is dated 24/7 but the frank on postmark is 28th. i never received anything form lowell at all. so my question is .....how rigidly does the law apply? their one month ran out yesterday 28/7 but it was only posted on the 28/7. now if i still owed them money i would pay what i owed but when when the card was stopped the balance was £1000 and i paid it for ages then it was passed to lowell who i paid at least £700 to. so have they committed an offence. and how do i prove it? i kept envelope with postmark clearly 28/7 . help

 

If you stopped paying lowell 9 years ago and haven't acknowledged or paid debt, then it was statute barred 3 years ago. Can you check those dates, cos even if you acknowledge after 6 years it is still unenforcable - so that may be your easiest option.

[davefirewalker]

As I see it they have defaulted on the CCA and you could probably report them.......BUT they have eventually supplied the paperwork, so I think the debt still stands!!

 

As for any limitations etc I dont know

 

This is only from what I have gleaned by reading the forums Someone else might know better

 

rgds

Dave

[MARTIN3030]

Yep I agree the stat bar sould have been effective 3 years ago,providing as has been said,there has been no acknowledgement of the debt or payments made against it in the 6 years preceeding the last 3.

[ecobabe]

i honestly don't know if i've had contact over last 6 years, i possibly have. but i'm sure i read a post saying that if it arrives a day after the one month deadline it's unenforceable and they can't claim without going to court. Act is quite clear, and the fact that it wasn't posted til day it was due, i still received it one day after deadline. in addition barclaycard couldn't supply me with the list of transactions over the years so don't know how that will go. i will look around and see if i can find post i am sure it was alanfromderby, about unenforceablity. how can they claim that it is still owed when they can't supply the statements.

I will also send a DPA to lowell which i hadn't done til now. but i think that because it wasn't posted until the date that i should have received it the one month deadline as stipulated in the Act, and therefor wouldn't arrive until after the deadline they have to go to court to enforce it. and then they will have to supply all the statements that so far they have failed to do and i'll see all the charges. i think that the frank on the envelope is unique to the company using it so i have that. god 6 weeks ago i would have been p**ing my pants now i'm looking to challenge them.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes you are right it was alanfromderby I remember reading this myself,in fact its only been in the last couple of days or so.