Debt written off due to Carers Allowance?

[davey77]

ah yeah. i rushed into a bit. Thanks! I'll play with it a bit! Hoping the wind will be blown places other beers can't reach with that sentence also!

 

[hellhasnofury]

Hello Davy,

 

Nice to see you are still writing these very good letters and whats even better is that I understand them. Maybe I am spending too much time on CAG:lol:

 

Can you post up your amended version please:grin:

[davey77]

Hi there HHNF!

 

Nice to see you again, hope you are well. Thanks.. I'm still here and still trying! lol Pleased if my letters are useful to anyone else out there.

Apart from a general tidy up, that point Steven has corrected me on now states:

 

.."b. The credit limit is not present and as this is one of the prescribed terms as laid down within Consumer Contracts (agreements) Regulations 1983 it must be considered a ‘missing prescribed term’. It is a requirement that the prescribed terms are correctly shown otherwise the documentation is a legally unenforceable agreement."

 

Hopefully this will force their hand as it could tell me what they have that they would rely on in Court and i would know exactly where i stand. Or it may have an even better effect in that they may give knowing i mean business.

I'll be sending this to many others over the next week or so once i have tailored each reply individually. Watch this space!

[davey77]

A reply from Triton (MINT).

 

[davey77]

Also an updated response from Callcredit:

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Callcredit31jan.jpg

 

And a reply from Halifax re the S.A.R:

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Halifax31Jansar.jpg

[davey77]

My reply to Triton (above) and I'll be sending it directly to Mint also:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your recent correspondence received 31 Jan 2008 in relation to your inaccurate and misguided interpretation of the status of the above alleged debt.

 

Firstly, i must point out in the strongest terms possible that i am not, as you incorrectly stated, attempting to avoid my responsibilities, but merely exercising my rights as a consumer. The rights of which you seem to be mainly, or in part, unfamiliar with.

I am confident a Judge in a Court of Law would not disagree that i have acted properly and communicated fully detailing various lawful and reasonable requests with Royal Bank of Scotland and it’s unlawfully appointed Debt Collection Agencies over the past 14 months by studying the detail of my written correspondence of which i have kept copies.

 

In reference to the documentation that your previous letter asserts to in relation to past requests i have made to Royal Bank of Scotland under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 i feel i must point out in detail the unenforceability of these documents which Triton, and Royal Bank of Scotland respectively, have considered adequate within themselves to justify their continued pursuit of an unenforceable and alleged debt.

 

1. You will note the ‘application form’ that i received in relation to the above request is a pre contractual application for credit in the first instance.

 

2. The start date for the above alleged account on that ‘application form’ is clearly stamped 19 May 2004. Yet the Terms and Conditions i received, pertaining to be part of that ‘application form’ refer to a £12 late payment charge which was a fee only introduced in 2007 in response to an OFT measure and therefore this means that the documentation i received has no pertinence to any application for credit applied for during the 3 years preceding the introduction of the new charges.

 

3. The address contained within the Terms and Conditions is a more recent address that i was not resident at during the time of initial application.

 

4. The Consumer Contracts (agreements) Regulations 1983 clearly define what information should be included within a properly executed agreement and several prescribed terms are not evident within the documentation that has been supplied to me previously under any Consumer Credit Act requests therefore making the said documentation legally unenforceable.

 

I must also point out that any litigation involving statements that are unfair, unlawful or misinformed including other infringements that may have been used in correspondence between myself and Triton Credit Services and/or other Debt Collection Agencies over the past 14 months or more is a responsibility that Royal Bank of Scotland must take account of due to Office of Fair Trading Guidelines in that an original creditor is lawfully responsible for the actions of third parties. I refer in particular to documented cases of, but not inclusive to:

 

1. Communicating in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner.

 

2. Falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when legally it cannot.

 

3. Ignoring or disregarding a debtors request for information that they are legally entitled to receive.

 

4. Demanding payments that are in unreasonable large instalments.

 

5. Committing a criminal offence in not supplying legally entitled documents within the statutory timeframe and/or possible attempted Fraud under the 2006 Fraud act in not supplying documentation that a debtor is legally entitled to.

 

6. Failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed.

 

7. Not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt.

 

8. Not making the purpose of any proposed visit by Debt Collection representatives clear, merely stating that collectors or field agents will call at any time without prior consent or appointment.

 

With this past behaviour that Royal Bank of Scotland is legally responsible for as the originating creditor and based on your final reply to this correspondence i must inform you that i am considering litigation in this matter and under Pre-Action Protocol 4.6 request a copy of any documentation that would be relied on in Court should enforcement activities commence.

 

In particular, I request that such documents should include the properly executed and original agreement complying in all respects with the form and content requirements of the Consumer Contracts (agreements) Regulations 1983 that was signed by myself in respect of this alleged debt. In short, i require all documentation pertaining to any original and properly executed agreement that Royal Bank of Scotland would rely on in an attempt to enforce any agreement within a Court of Law.

 

Royal Bank of Scotland have 10 days from receipt of this letter to comply or i will begin immediate legal proceedings without further notice. If your department is unable to comply i suggest that you forward this letter to your legal department as a matter of urgency.

 

Please also note, that if a representative of the BBC Watchdog Program contacts you about this matter, that Royal Bank of Scotland or Triton Credit Services have my full permission to disclose all documents and correspondence upon their request.

 

 

Yours sincerely, me

 

[davey77]

Just recalled that Mint did come up with a leaflet for application date T&Cs.. oh well, i've posted that letter now so don't care at the mo.....

[davey77]

Think i've messed up haven't i? the OFT £12 charge was introduced 2006... not 2007?! think i'll go get some fresh air a bit..

[steven4064]

Think i've messed up haven't i? the OFT £12 charge was introduced 2006... not 2007?!

Why does it matter - you are not going to pay it to them

[davey77]

Why does it matter - you are not going to pay it to them

 

Well, my reasoning is that the £12 has nothing to do with the application date so therefore the T&Cs are not relevant to any 'agreement' they have sent me. So if my dates are wrong then my argument falls apart somewhat. I am ok with Mint as that as a 2004 application but i will have to look and see if Halifax introduced that before or after my application for credit in 2006....

[davey77]

A reply from link re the S10:

 

And from Cap1. Guess they didn't like the S10 and were not serious about 'investigating my complaint' as per their letter just the other day:

[davey77]

As per my concern about the OFT £12 introduction, i have just read a reply someone else received here from Halifax whereby they state:

 

"Please be advised the new fee structure (£12) came into effect on 1st

August, until then the existing terms and conditions of your account

applied"

 

Although i incorrectly stated that the £12 charge was introduced 2007 instead of 2006 as the Mint application date was 2004 and the Halifax application date was June 2006, the principle of my argument, that the £12 figure and therefore the 'agreements' have no relevance to me, still stands (if that post about the time scale of Halifaxs' new charging system are correct.)

[davey77]

I've been reading the threads about Fredrickson and in particular this Bryan Carter and they seem to be pretty quick to want to start Court proceedings and are right swine from what i have read so far.

With that in mind i had better send off a CCA as a precautionary measure:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to your letter dated 30 Jan 2008, I require you, in your capacity as a Debt Collection Agency representing Capital One Bank (Europe) PLC to supply the following documentation:

 

A copy of any credit agreement and a full breakdown of the account including any interest or charges applied. I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 [sections 77-79], I am entitled to receive a copy of any credit agreement and a statement of account on request. I enclose a payment of £1 which represents the feepayable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

This fee is not to be offset against the amount allegedly owing under any circumstances.

 

I understand a copy of any credit agreement along with a statement of account should be supplied within 12 working days.

 

I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 creditors are unable to enforce an agreement if they fail to comply with the request for a copy of the agreement and statement of account under these sections of the Act.

 

I also require a signed true copy of a deed of assignment of the above referenced agreement that you allege exists.

 

You are notified that you are obliged to supply these documents, whether your client is the original creditor or not under S189 of the CCA 1974.

 

For your information this account is already in lawful and reasonable dispute. That the Financial Ombudsman Service is currently investigating my complaint in regards to Capital One’s failure to supply a properly executed agreement and also of their unfair and unlawful behaviour contrary to OFT Guidelines and the Consumer Credit Act.

 

Please note, my complaint with the FOS will be updated with this, and other correspondence on a regular basis until their adjudication.

 

Take note at this stage, that any legal action you consider taking against me, will be both vigourously defended and contested.

 

your sincerely, me

 

[reallymadwoman]

Davey - how about including the Watchdog line too? Give them plenty to think about.

[davey77]

Oh good idea! Thanks RMW. Forgot about that actually. Can't hurt!

 

[reallymadwoman]

I really like that line - I may 'borrow' it.

[davey77]

No you can't borrow it.. i have copyright on it and i want £1000 or else! Ohhhh all right then, just because it's you.. you can borrow it! lol

[Maggiebroom]

Hi Davey

 

I too may 'borrow' your letter if I may. Suitably altered to my circumstances of course.

I am still following your thread with great interest.

Your doing well so far. Keep up the good work.

 

I am still basking in a silent period from Crap 1. No letters, no phone calls, nothing.

Suspicious that they may have lots up their sleeve.

 

maggiebroom

[Maggiebroom]

B....y hell Davey

 

Youre quick off the mark. We must have posted at the same time. I thought the above reply was for me. Hang on while I get out my credit card

 

maggiebroom

[davey77]

Hey MB.. I'm still amazed that all (i use the word 'all' lightly) it took was for Cap1 to hear from a member of the legal profession and they stood up and took notice. Very pleased but still surprised and, i suppose saddened, that that is what it took for you to be treated with respect and courtesy!

 

Feel free to 'borrow' anything at any time (i wouldn't really ask £££! lol).

 

I hope one of these days I'll have a bona fide success on here... and Davey can write ***won*** on this thread somewhere! I am surely hoping for a resolution in 2008 one way or another!

 

Thanks for looking in and enjoy your silence-basking.

[davey77]

Credit card?? The one that's cancelled? lol

[davey77]

I am going to reply to Capital One directly as i am still annoyed at their actions of passing the account to Fredrickson days after acknowledging my S10:

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I feel i must make a formal complaint in regards to Capital One’s actions and correspondence that has occurred in the last 2 weeks.

 

My last letter to you of 2007 was dated August 24 detailing confirmation of my complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and the response from Capital One dated 12 September 2007 clearly indicated acknowledgement that my complaint had been lodged with the FOS and was being investigated by them.

 

I received no further correspondence from Capital One thereafter and so presumed that Capital One were complying in their duty of care and awaiting the full investigation process by the FOS to begin in earnest and took Capital One’s silence to mean that they were respectful of my actions and were not concerned about any behaviour the FOS investigation may shed light on.

 

In 2008 i sent Capital one a Section 10 notice under the Data Protection Act 1998 dated 15 Jan 2008, whereby i received a reply dated 24 Jan 2008 (received 26 Jan 2008 which stated: “Thank you for writing to us about your account... we’ll do everything we can to get an answer to you within four weeks”. A slightly unusual response considering my letter of the 15 Jan 2008 was not a complaint but as that was the only correspondence i had sent Capital One since the previous August I rightly assumed it was a direct reply to my communication of the 15 Jan 2008.

 

Then, on the 1 Feb 2008 i received a letter (dated 30 Jan 2008 and only 6 days after Capital Ones reply) from Fredrickson International Limited stating that: “Your account has been passed from our client Capital One Bank to collect the above debt which is seriously overdue. Capital One have given us clear instructions. If this is not paid in full within 10 days then your account will be sent to Bryan Carter and Company Solicitors for immediate litigation proceedings”.

 

I have informed Fredrickson International Limited of the ongoing dispute and that the FOS are investigating my complaint in this matter.

 

I find it extremely distasteful and distressful that Capital One have acted in this manner and this behaviour not only contravenes OFT Guidelines on debt collection where an account is in dispute but is, in my opinion, immoral, unethical, disrespectful and intentionally intimidating and feels like a very obvious attempt at punishment and bullying for sending the Section 10 letter earlier in January 2008 and is certainly an aggressive and discourteous response that i would not have expected from a large and well known organisation.

 

As a full time Carer for my elderly mother and on Carers Allowance, of which Capital One is fully aware of from previous correspondence and copies of benefit entitlement letters, i find it distressful, time consuming and tiring to have to regularly remind Capital One of OFT Guidelines and to highlight the more appropriate manner in which to conduct themselves.

 

As well as being a Carer I currently suffer from a condition known as Sarcoidosis, the symptoms of which include some tiredness which is only compounded by unnecessary correspondence and it should not be my role as a consumer to inform and educate Capital One of the Consumer Credit Act, OFT Guidelines or the appropriate method of behaviour in which response, I have for the most part, received only computer generated letters and incorrect, bullying and unethical behaviour.

 

I must insist therefore that you withdraw Fredrickson International Ltd’s interest in the above alleged account and cease attempting to circumnavigate and forestall the current FOS investigation with immediate effect.

 

Please also note, that if a representative of the BBC Watchdog Program contacts you about this matter, that Capital One have my full permission to disclose all documents and correspondence upon their request.

 

Yours sincerely, me

 

 

[davey77]

Take a look at this one folks!.......

 

How trustworthy is your bank? | Money | The Guardian

[Alphageek]

Take a look at this one folks!.......

 

How trustworthy is your bank? | Money | The Guardian

 

Wriggle off hook, back peddle and other phrases come to mind.

[davey77]

Wriggle off hook, steal his boat, back peddle, tell him he has to pay to get his boat back, and other phrases come to mind. Tell him it was his fault for fishing in the first place and that he'll have to go to court to get his boat back and the fish did nothing wrong because the fisherman's hook was the wrong shape anyway and he'll have to prove it as the fish is quite big and has influential friends in the same pond!