Sent three CCA's To Lowell - When is reply deadline?

[L1882]

Hi all

 

Just looking for some advice on timings. I posted 3 CCA's to Lowell on Friday 20/02/2015. Would I be right in thinking they have 14 days from receipt - so basically by the 9th March?

 

Should I be doing any preparation now in the event they do not reply or are unable to fulfil the request?

[unclebulgaria67]

In theory. The reality is that DCA's will deal with the CCA within their own timescales or not at all. You might get an acknowledgement or just receive a letter at some point in the future with the information or one saying that they cannot provide it. This is the general experience from what I have read on CAG.

 

What are you thinking in regard to Lowell not being able to comply with the CCA requests ? When did you take out the credit agreements with the original creditors ? With CCA's issued from April 2007 onwards, for a debt to be enforced in court, they just need to prove the debt and don't have to provide the original CCA or a copy of it. For CCA's issued pre April 2007, they would need the original CCA to enforce in court, but could still try for a CCJ, in the hope that you did not defend.

[L1882]

So they are not legally obliged to comply with a CCA request? Begs the question why bother with them in the first place - seems like a complete waste of time and effort?

 

My objective is to gather all the information I can on my debts so that I can look at whether I can dispute the debt or reclaim charges etc to reduce the amount owed. I'm also looking at the default dates as it seems they have this set as the date they took the debt on, not the original account default date. I have sent SAR's to the original creditors and looking at advice on here believed I also needed to send CCA's to the current debt holder.

[dx100uk]

they have 12+2 working days

then if you are making any kind of payments

you could stop them.

 

 

until/unless they produce enforceable CCA's

that situation persists.

 

 

dx

[unclebulgaria67]

So they are not legally obliged to comply with a CCA request?

Begs the question why bother with them in the first place - seems like a complete waste of time and effort?

 

My objective is to gather all the information I can on my debts so that I can look at whether I can dispute the debt or reclaim charges etc to reduce the amount owed. I'm also looking at the default dates as it seems they have this set as the date they took the debt on, not the original account default date. I have sent SAR's to the original creditors and looking at advice on here believed I also needed to send CCA's to the current debt holder.

 

A requirement under the Consumer Credit Act to provide the CCA on request.

But if DCA's did not meet timescales on dealing with CCA's,

I cannot see any action ever being taken against them.

 

Worth sending and seeing what you get back.

 

Some people say that it is not worth it, if the original CCA was taken out from April 2007.

[firstship]

As dx100uk states 12+2 days for the Original Creditor or the DCA who owns the debt to respond to your request,

 

 

ALL DCAs will make the excuse that they will need to contact the original creditor for the information,

they think this lets them of the hook,

IT DOES NOT.

 

 

You could stop paying them if you are currently doing so,until they produce the agreement ,the choice is yours,

 

 

if your account Credit Card/Loan was taken out prior to April 2007,

 

 

they have to produce a copy of the original agreement along with the T&Cs in force at the time the account was taken out.

 

FS.

[firstship]

THOUGHT???

 

 

with accounts taken out prior to April 2007 which is 8 years or more in many cases..

 

 

the banks and CC companies tell us they do not keep records after 6 years,

so in theory they should be unable to produce any documentation,

we are all aware this 6 year excuse is untrue,

it is just an excuse

 

FS

[citizenB]

THOUGHT??? with accounts taken out prior to April 2007 which is 8 years or more in many cases..the banks and CC companies tell us they do not keep records after 6 years,so in theory they should be unable to produce any documentation,we are all aware this 6 year excuse is untrue,it is just an excuse

 

FS

 

Sadly there was a Judgment that said they could "reconstruct" a document from other sources with the caveat that it had to be a "truthful" reconstruction. This was to satisfy the compliance of the s78 request... only. Agreements prior to 2007 are still required before court action can be taken.. allegedly.

 

There have been many occasions where the claimant has attempted to slip a reconstruction past a Judge where it has been proved that some of the details are so wrong or total fiction and with the right Judge on the right day, the claimant has been seen off with their tail between their legs.

 

MBNA have been hardest hit with this in that they didn't keep any archives of historic agreements prior to 2009 - this was mentioned in the Harrison v Link hearing where MBNA attempted to recreate several different copies .. unfortunately for them. A rummage round his files saw Harrison produce an original which bore no resemblance to those MBNA were trying to say were correct. Furthermore, the original did not comply with the Statutory requirements.

[theoldrouge]

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/CONC/13/1

[firstship]

CitizenB Hi.. yes the word ALLEGEDLY is the operative word,

 

MBNA, I was not aware of this situation that could be useful

 

Thanks

FS

[unclebulgaria67]

THOUGHT??? with accounts taken out prior to April 2007 which is 8 years or more in many cases..the banks and CC companies tell us they do not keep records after 6 years,so in theory they should be unable to produce any documentation,we are all aware this 6 year excuse is untrue,it is just an excuse

 

FS

 

I have dealt with records keeping requirements in financial services.

Banks tend to keep important customer records for atleast 20 years.

They can only keep them onsite for a few years,

before the go to an outside storage provider such as Iron Mountain.

 

 

They provide a very secure facility for records and when a Bank asks for records back, they have to say which box no.

the record is kept in and then the whole box is delivered back to the Bank.

The problem is that sometimes the Bank does not know which box no. it will be in,

so they end up having to get a load of boxes back.

 

The difficulty can be IT changes, as well as how documents are stored and how you then retrieve when needed.

If you made a financial application say 10 years ago, it may well be on paper and it probably won't have been filmed for microfiche or digital retrieval.

If you made the application online, the data will probably have been added to an archive, so not easily available.

 

This is the problem that DCA's have.

Getting a Bank to get hold of documents which are not easily obtainable is not going to work on most occasions.

This is why it can take so long and DCA's often come back saying they can't get hold of documents.

 

If everyone owing debt made a CCA request next week, the Banks and DCA's would have years of work to get through.

[firstship]

UB67 Hi,,,,,you would then think using simple logic,that if you sell a debt to a DCA,you would give them a copy of the Agreement and Application Form along with the T&Cs,not the originals

 

FS

[unclebulgaria67]

UB67 Hi,,,,,you would then think using simple logic,that if you sell a debt to a DCA,you would give them a copy of the Agreement and Application Form along with the T&Cs,not the originals

 

FS

 

Does not work like that.

Banks write off debts against tax.

They then add the debts to a list to sell to debt buyers, who may pay say 10% of the debts value.

 

 

The debt companies then will have a target to obtain a certain amount of revenues from the debts,

by threatening the debtors with action, applying loads of hassle in the form of phone calls/letters.

Most debtors don't know their rights and will pay up if they can.

The remaining unpaid debts are then sold on again to another debt company.

 

As far as I know, all that is passed between a Bank and a debt company, is a spreadsheet with the debtor details.

This is then loaded onto the debt companies database, which they then work from,

adding any extra information they find out.

They don't have copies of the Banks paperwork and would not want it.

 

If government made it a requirement for certain details to be passed to between the Bank and debt companies

e.g copy of last statement of account, copy of CCA, then you would find that the whole system would grind to a halt.

The Banks would have to employs hundreds of extra staff to get the paperwork ready,

so it could be passed on when the debts were sold.

This is not going to happen.

[firstship]

UB many thanks for your time,

 

I have a couple of CCAs to pursue both pre April 2007 ,as usual will use the CAG library for template's,as the debts have now been sold to DCAs

 

Regards

 

FS

[L1882]

I'm now slightly confused because reading the FCA link that oldrouge posted

it says clearly if they are not able to produce an agreement, reconstituted or otherwise,

the debt remains unenforceable until they can

- even though they can chase

- and it appears start court action but not complete it?

- the debt is unenforceable?

 

 

Having read that I can't work out what the real legal position is.

 

In the end with the SARS I should have the information I need to hopefully try to reclaim charges - and maybe some PPI.

[dx100uk]

little point in going to court if you cant enforce the judgement^^^^

 

 

dx

[unclebulgaria67]

I'm now slightly confused because reading the FCA link that oldrouge posted

it says clearly if they are not able to produce an agreement, reconstituted or otherwise,

the debt remains unenforceable until they can

- even though they can chase

- and it appears start court action but not complete it?

- the debt is unenforceable?

 

 

Having read that I can't work out what the real legal position is.

 

In the end with the SARS I should have the information I need to hopefully try to reclaim charges - and maybe some PPI.

 

You are sending the CCA to see what they have got. But if they manage to get hold of it, then if you were not paying the debt back, then they have it in their hands to take to court.

 

If they can't get hold of the CCA and the CCA was issued pre April 2007, then they would not be able to enforce the debt in court without it, if you defended any court claim.

 

For a CCA taken out from April 2007, as long as they had something that contained the details that would have been in the CCA, then it would not matter that it was not the original or a copy. Under the revised act, I think they can mostly just evidence the debt, that they had issued a CCA containing the relevant terms and that you were in default. It would be very difficult to defend.

[L1882]

From what I have read they would need to provide the terms and conditions as they were at the time, interest rates, a copy of the agreement as it would have been etc. not saying they can't do it but as a debt purchaser it may prove less simple.

 

My main objective right now is getting all the data I can so I can work out what options are open to me. Such a large percentage of many of these debts are charges etc - and when BW Legal added over £500 in charges, without informing me, on a debt I am repaying, with 2 of the charges being for legal fees for no reason at all I figured sauce for the goose ...

[catquest]

Once again there is a lot of inaccurate information in this thread.

 

 

The original agreement does not have to be produced in court for a pre April 2007 agreement

as the case Arrow Global v Frost ( 2013 ) shows,

 

 

if the bank can prove that on the balance of probability an enforceable agreement was signed.

 

 

The problem in that case was that the defendant could not find anything wrong with the reconstituted agreement that MBNA had come up with.

[renegadeimp]

little point in going to court if you cant enforce the judgement^^^^

 

 

dx

 

Some dcas will and have. Purely out of spite.

[unclebulgaria67]

Once again there is a lot of inaccurate information in this thread. The original agreement does not have to be produced in court for a pre April 2007 agreement as the case Arrow Global v Frost ( 2013 ) shows, if the bank can prove that on the balance of probability an enforceable agreement was signed. The problem in that case was that the defendant could not find anything wrong with the reconstituted agreement that MBNA had come up with.

 

Thanks for that. I have not seen this being quoted, but it makes sense.

[theoldrouge]

dont think I would be holding up this case as a classic example, given that the judge found both Mrs and Mr Frost

to be less than credible witnesses

 

If you are going to rely on the fact that the creditor cannot produce the agreement, and the claimant has produced

what they certify to be a true copy of the original agreement

 

then you must also make a positive assertion to the court that either there was never an agreement or that there is some material defect in the "true copy" that they have produced, or show that their was some form of defect in the executed document

[L1882]

So by my calculations tomorrow is the deadline and I am more than slightly doubtful that I will receive anything so I'm wondering, what are my options now?

 

 

2 of the debts are currently being paid under an agreement (2 that BW Legal combined and then issued a stat demand on) and one is not being paid that Scotcall are currently chasing. I believe I can put the accounts into dispute due to their failure to provide the CCA within the prescribed time - but I imagine BW would issue proceedings fairly sharpish via the Stat Demand route - though I'd feel more confident to try to get this set aside now - and even counterclaim due to the dodgy charges they have added! but I wondered what other options were open to me? I have sent SARs to the original creditors but they still have until the 1st April to respond.

[renegadeimp]

Cant do bugger all if they dont have the proper paperwork needed to see the debt through court.

 

Bw/Lowells/AG issue stat demands as much as they send out threatograms. THey hope you panic and give in before you get wind that the debts are bad.

[L1882]

Yeah they've done that already, BW - it worked first time but DX has shamed me into growing a spine and challenging the whole corrupt set of ********.