BPF unsigned credit agreement and unsigned direct debit. ***Received Full payment***

[Its WAR]

I am Power of Attorney for my uncle.

He bought a car which was financed through Barclays Partner finance.

I sent them a Subject Access Request to obtain copies of contract and statement of payments. 

It arrived (a month late).

 

He had a 49 month agreement with 48 monthly payments and one final balloon payment.

It has 8 months to go.

If he makes the balloon payment he keeps the car, if he does not pay he can return the car. It is worth keeping the car.

 

The problem is the credit agreement and the direct debit are both un-signed.

I had expected to see accurate documents and settle the account in full rather than have him continue paying 11% apr.

 

What effect does the unsigned documents have?  

Is there an argument to suggest I make a lower payment in full and final settlement (maybe deduct the interest), or do I pretend he signed the agreement and direct debit and finish paying according to the agreement?

 

Is it standard practice that  signatures are deleted when replying to an SAR?

In this case they are not blacked out, the signature boxes are all blank.

[Its WAR]

Thx DX.

It seems odd that a copy of a credit agreement and direct debit forms are supplied in response to an SAR, but they lack signatures.

 

Do I assume if I did a CCA the contract might also be unsigned?

 

The thing is, I did an SAR against Sky TV and that too contained an unsigned direct debit mandate and because of which, I reclaimed under the dd indemnity.

 

I don't think that is appropriate here, but why are these docs unsigned?

[Its WAR]

But how can Barclays send me an unsigned one...........unless it was never signed in the first place? How did they process the direct debit if it too is unsigned?

Edited November 9, 2020 by Its WAR

[Its WAR]

Thx DX. I agree. We can settle the finance agreement, clear the debt and sell the car. We Buy Any Car have suggested a value that makes it £1000 more than just returning the car. I still don't understand how Barclays don't have a signed agreement or direct debit, and just sent us unsigned ones. 

 

[Its WAR]

So do they remove the signatures or do they send fresh agreements and just type in the original details?

[Its WAR]

Eventually, they sent the info.

We negotiated a settlement and paid the balance.

 

As a gesture of goodwill Barclays Partner Finance offered a further £250 gesture.

It never came.

 

I have written more letters and issued a Notice before Action, all again have been ignored. I am now issuing a summons for the £250.

 

But who do I sue?

Barclays Partner Finance at their Cardiff Head Office address or (because that is a trading name, do I issue against  Clydesdale Bank who own them,  or  Barclays Plc  who is the owner of all the companies in their group ?

 

[Its WAR]

The notice before action was addressed  to Stuart Muir at BPF. The offer, "Due to the distress and inconvenience you have faced and as way of apology, I have arranged for a cheque for £250 to be issued to you" was written to me by Stuart Muir of BPF.

 

[Its WAR]

BPF made the offer on 4 Dec. I issued the NBA 18 Feb by signed for post. Dear Mr Muir, It seems you are again ignoring my correspondence (copies enclosed). I Now intend to issue proceedings in the County Court to recover the sums due, along with interest and costs. In order to avoid this action, please forward the sum of £250 as agreed in the correspondence, before 3 March 2021. Proceedings will commence on 3 March 2021 if payment has not been received by me prior to that date. Yours sincerely.

[Its WAR]

Yes BF. I was about to issue that evening before I wondered whether the summons should actually be issued to them (Barclays Partner Finance at their head office) or to Clydesdale who own them? Or even to Barclays  as the owners of the groups. Thing is, I will issue as soon as I know and they have had a few more days grace if they think an NBA during Covid should allow more time.

 

[Its WAR]

Exactly BF. Barclays Partner Finance at their Head Office are the people I would expect to issue to. But I am asking here whether anybody thinks I should actually be issuing to them or to the parent bank (Clydesdale who own BPF, or Barclays who own Clydesdale? 

[Its WAR]

Thx BF. The thing is, your advise is spot on and valued. The point about not threatening to sue unless you intend to do so, has been well made on many posts and I am sure most of us have taken that on board. Often your posts do not beat around the bush and it gives you an online personality. Certainly no offence is taken, indeed when I read similar phrases on your  other posts , it makes me smile. I would say though, this particular issue (which address to serve) is often a difficult question to answer. In my recent claim against the BBC, I was unsure whether to sue Capita (the people the BBC employ manage the TV license) or the BBC. So you are right to say it, we should answer that question early in the process and get our ducks lined up. Although I would say, I had never really expected to have to answer that question for this £250 and it only came to mind as I sat down on the allotted date to actually start the claim (so I was trying to behave myself).

 

Answering Slick's question: The paperwork says " Barclays Partner Services is a trading name of Clydesdale Financial Services Limited, a member of the Barclays Group".  They all  have the same  head office address (1 Churchill Place, London), although they have different correspondence addresses. I have been using BPF address in Cardiff and their correspondence to me is letter headed the same.

 

[Its WAR]

I have checked, it's not been received. Had they have issued a cheque or made a direct payment, I would still expect them to say so. Especially after all the correspondence chasing it.

[Its WAR]

Yes, Stuart Muir.

 

[Its WAR]

" I can confirm I am upholding your complaint, due to the poor service you have received in relating to Mr (my uncles) account. Due to the distress and inconvenience you have faced and as a way of apology, I have arranged for a cheque for £250 to be issued to you. Please expect this to be received within the next 15 business days."

 

The rest of the letter provides details of the amounts owing on his account (which is what I had been trying to ascertain for months), a reduction of some interest  and provides a settlement figure. It invites me to make an early one off payment to close the account within 14 days.

 

I didn't reply immediately but decided to wait for the cheque to arrive (it didn't arrive), but chose to pay the final balance any way by the 14th day, rather than have to get revised figures or keep paying monthly. I wrote more letters chasing the £250 and everything has been ignored.

[Its WAR]

Yes I get that. Although the 'offer' says  they had decided to actually make the payment. It didn't seem to be an offer that required my acceptance. They had simply arranged to send the cheque already. I could have written to complain, or do nothing to accept. I chose o do nothing and banking the cheque would have implied acceptance (had the cheque arrived).

[Its WAR]

Payment received in full.

 

Whilst I wasted time deciding who to sue, I had a letter from their solicitor responding to the notice before action. Despite the NBA stating I would have already issued the summons by then, the letter requested more time to look into the matter and it would be premature were I to issue the summons before they completed their enquiries, and if I did issue, they would bring this to the attention of the court. So basically a hollow threat or warning.

 

I knew full well it was unlikely to ever get to a hearing, once the summons was issued it would have the effect of putting their toes in the fire.  Moral of the story..........issue the summons sooner rather than later (as Bank Fodder explains).

 

However, as I had not yet issued, I decided to give them another week. The payment arrived without further contact. Thereby saving the trouble of issuing a summons balanced against the satisfaction of issuing a summons.

 

We should remember though, this matter was latterly only arguing over £250, but this is no reason to be lazy just because it was a small amount. These small amounts should be dealt with as if they were important amounts. They make excellent practice for any time when you might be faced with making a substantial or worrying claim. I was a little lazy with this one.