Capone (cap one)

[patrickq1]

Please don't mention the TS they are a dirty word in this house at the moment.

We are thinking of complaining to the Council as they fund these people. Perhaps they should make them justify their wages, by learning the law before they write stupid letters.

 

It will take a few days before anything happens via our MP as they have to check the law etc., but as soon as there is anything to report I shall be on here like a shot.

 

If only I could say how badly I want Ellie Renshaw and Capital One on a plate They have turned me into a wicked revengeful woman.

 

maggiebroom

i would make the complaint to the council thats what you pay your council taxes for maggie its not just for the bin men but TS are becoming arrogant and they seem to have slipped in my estimation of them as being one of the best and most considerate but in the last two years since all the bank actions stuff came to the fore they have cracked at the seems they dont even know how to respond to anything now,i think it is partly to do with our knowledge is becoming grewater than theirs and they feel their noses have been shoved out of joint...good luck with your MP maggie mad (old should i say this)woman lol

patrickq1

[Kaaron]

Good Luck with your bank charges claim Maggie but I thought all court cases were on hold whilst these test cases were going on?

 

I really do think Crap 1 should get their knuckles rapped over their harrassing you(or perhaps something more painfull).I shall keep tuning in to find out what the end result is. Fingers crossed!

 

Keep smiling and all the best for tomorrow.

 

Kaaron

[Maggiebroom]

HI Kaaron

 

Its up to the judge if the claims are paid or not and so far we have not heard that there is a stay on the case, so we are going along tomorrow to plead our case, and hopefully the bank will have to pay out. I have the letters and statements regarding a possible stay. lets just hope the judge sees it our way.

 

I have already made inquiries with the BBC re the harassment and when I have some definite news I will post it on here. I want to get Watchdog involved if I can. However perhaps I should not say anything in case I mess up any legal issues. Lets see what happens tomorrow.

 

maggiebroom

[Maggiebroom]

Hi Patrick

 

Not so much of the OLD thank you . As the saying goes, your only as old as you feel, but I will accept the mad woman part.

Now I want someone old to feel :o

 

maggiebroom

 

PS still no calls today

[hellhasnofury]

HI Kaaron

 

Its up to the judge if the claims are paid or not and so far we have not heard that there is a stay on the case, so we are going along tomorrow to plead our case, and hopefully the bank will have to pay out. I have the letters and statements regarding a possible stay. lets just hope the judge sees it our way.

 

I have already made inquiries with the BBC re the harassment and when I have some definite news I will post it on here. I want to get Watchdog involved if I can. However perhaps I should not say anything in case I mess up any legal issues. Lets see what happens tomorrow.

 

maggiebroom

 

Hello Maggie, These are not bank charges are they, They are credit card penalties yea. The stay is only on bank charges not credit cards.

 

If I have got it wrong I apologise and I will you good luck for tomorrow:D

[Maggiebroom]

Hello Maggie, These are not bank charges are they, They are credit card penalties yea. The stay is only on bank charges not credit cards.

 

If I have got it wrong I apologise and I will you good luck for tomorrow:D

 

HI Hell How are you my friend.

 

It's Hubbys Barclays Bank charge case tomorrow. He got the date the day after the OFT case was announced. So while we are at the court we will make inquiries about the harassment with Crap 1. It's a separate issue to the Crap 1 case. Its been going on since last October so hopefully we will get it sorted tomorrow. If we win I can feel a holiday coming on.

 

Update as soon as.

 

maggiebroom

[Maggiebroom]

Hi All

 

Now come on, Own up, you little devil you. One of you must have set fire to Crap 1 house. Who lives in Nottingham? Your medal awaits.

 

NO CALLS TODAY Yippee!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

maggiebroom :D:D

[reidnet]

Good luck for tomorrow Maggie...

 

Ian

[Maggiebroom]

Thanks Reidnet

 

I got a reply from the OFT today and I quote below:

 

If a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid request within a period of 12 days (not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all. This prevents enforcement with or without a court order.

 

If a default lasts for a month (for example a calender month) it constitutes an offence. We understand your concerns in this matter but please do remember however that once the creditor/owner complies with the request albeit out of time, he may once again reinforce the agreement.

 

A 'true copy' of an agreement principally consists of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the statuary content of the agreement. The name, address and signature of the debtor does not have to be provided. Additionally, the creditor must supply the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor; the total sum which has become payable under the agreement but which remains unpaid; and the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor (the latter two must include the various amounts comprised in that total sum and the date when each is/was due. However, the copy must be a copy. It need not be exact on immaterial points, but it cannot be a conjectured reconstruction. If the trader has no original copy, the trader will have difficulty showing that he has complied with the regulation by supplying a 'true copy', since nobody would know what was in the original. When the trader comes to enforce the debt in court, he needs to have a signed copy of the agreement in order to enforce. As the law stands currently he cannot otherwise.

 

Pretty conclusive to me. Crap 1 have not complied with either the 'true copy' part and were also in default. I know we all know this, but it makes it better to see it in writing from an official source, and supposedly regulating body.

 

Basically it also states that although they make note of my complaint they cannot act on any individual case because of the restrictions in Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

Never heard of that one before. Has anyone else?

 

However I am feeling more confident now that I have it in writing, and will update again when anything else happens.

 

maggiebroom.

[hellhasnofury]

Thanks Reidnet

 

I got a reply from the OFT today and I quote below:

 

If a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid request within a period of 12 days (not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all. This prevents enforcement with or without a court order.

 

If a default lasts for a month (for example a calender month) it constitutes an offence. We understand your concerns in this matter but please do remember however that once the creditor/owner complies with the request albeit out of time, he may once again reinforce the agreement.

 

A 'true copy' of an agreement principally consists of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the statuary content of the agreement. The name, address and signature of the debtor does not have to be provided. Additionally, the creditor must supply the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor; the total sum which has become payable under the agreement but which remains unpaid; and the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor (the latter two must include the various amounts comprised in that total sum and the date when each is/was due. However, the copy must be a copy. It need not be exact on immaterial points, but it cannot be a conjectured reconstruction. If the trader has no original copy, the trader will have difficulty showing that he has complied with the regulation by supplying a 'true copy', since nobody would know what was in the original. When the trader comes to enforce the debt in court, he needs to have a signed copy of the agreement in order to enforce. As the law stands currently he cannot otherwise.

 

Pretty conclusive to me. Crap 1 have not complied with either the 'true copy' part and were also in default. I know we all know this, but it makes it better to see it in writing from an official source, and supposedly regulating body.

 

Basically it also states that although they make note of my complaint they cannot act on any individual case because of the restrictions in Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

Never heard of that one before. Has anyone else?

 

However I am feeling more confident now that I have it in writing, and will update again when anything else happens.

 

maggiebroom.

 

Hello Maggie, I have had the same response from the oft:roll: Basically its states that although this company has failed to comply and broken the law, they cannot do anything about it:eek: and so ?????????????

[Maggiebroom]

Hi All

 

Whoever set fire to Crap 1's house did not go far enough. The calls have started again.

Two blissfully quiet days then yesterday, 8 calls.

 

Crafty buggers though. The first call just after 10 am was from Capitas Legal Services.

 

Script:

 

Capitas legal services here.

 

me: Who?

 

Capitas Legal Services, can I have your birthdate please?

 

me: What for? You should never ask a lady her age. (by now the penny has dropped this is another Crap 1 ploy to get to me) I have never heard of you. Who do you work for?

 

We are the legal department for Capital One Bank.

 

me: Well as I have stated in many letters, If you want to communicate with me, you will only get a response from a letter. Goodbye.

They are definitely treating their customers like they are stupid. Do they really think that any of us are daft enough to fall for their underhand tactics. Its so obvious it's painful. 1471 brings up all their numbers.

 

I wonder how many calls I shall have to put up with today. I hope their call centre staff are on double time for Sundays working.

 

However this week I am expecting an answer from my MP's legal bagels. Can't wait for that.

 

maggiebroom

[Maggiebroom]

Hello Maggie, I have had the same response from the oft:roll: Basically its states that although this company has failed to comply and broken the law, they cannot do anything about it:eek: and so ?????????????

 

Hi Hell

 

Totally agree re: OFT. They are spineless. I also had another reply from my TS Officer who is still of the opinion that Crap 1 have complied with my request. And is still insisting I speak on the phone to them. Is she for real? She also sent me a reply she had from Crap 1 insisting that I had no recourse to any refund of PPI as I had signed the application form when I took it out. Actually it isn't about the PPI anymore. I am going for their jugular because they have not acted within the law and do not keep proper legal documents (ie: properly executed CCA's) and their harassment of their customers is unbelievable. If they had treated me with any respect and not assumed I was an ill informed idiot I would willingly speak and come to an arrangement with them. As they have acted abominably towards me, they must expect the same treatment. Respect earns respect. Just because they are a large financial company, I will not be treated as though I am a little bug they can squash.

 

God I sound like a nagger. A good rant does you good now and again.

 

I hope one day she is not in the same position and suffers like we Caggers are.

 

maggiebroom

[Maggiebroom]

Hi again

 

I have just spoken with my local TS Officer who is dealing with my case against Crap 1 and she is insisting that the application they have sent me and the current terms and conditions are complying with the Act.

She is also insisting that Crap 1 can continue to call me because I will not answer them once. I told her I spoke to Crap 1 legal dept (Capitas) on Saturday and told them I would only accept letters. and she still insisted that they are entitled to phone because I will not go through their security questions

What absolute and utter b*******

 

I did finally get her to admit that 13 calls a day is a 'bit much' and when I stated that it was bullying, intimidation and harassment, she got very flustered. Said she would write again re the phone calls and I said I would not hold my breath.

 

I said that anyway they were in default and she insisted that as they had now produced the agreement they could reinforce the debt, and I said 'not without a court order'. That shut her up but she did say they would not prosecute Crap 1, and I said.

'Don't bother I am doing that myself'. That shut her up again. She was very surprised that I would do that. Why???

 

So we parted on very dodgy terms and that is the last I will hear from them I hope.

 

Update again asap.

 

maggiebroom

[the main man]

Hi Maggie,

 

Don't give up on TS, their failings need exposing as much as Crap1's. TS will quite happily let you take them to court because it saves them from putting their neck on the chopping block and opening the flood gates.

 

I would write and ask her to back up her reasoning to her decision, and to send copies of the relevant legislation she has used to come to this decision. Inform her that you are going to invole your MP and also ask her what other channels are available to you to make a complaint. USELESS!!!

 

Well it has been four and a half days since my phone rang!! Is this a record??!!

 

 

Regards

 

MM

[Maggiebroom]

Hi Maggie,

 

Don't give up on TS, their failings need exposing as much as Crap1's. TS will quite happily let you take them to court because it saves them from putting their neck on the chopping block and opening the flood gates.

 

I would write and ask her to back up her reasoning to her decision, and to send copies of the relevant legislation she has used to come to this decision. Inform her that you are going to invole your MP and also ask her what other channels are available to you to make a complaint. USELESS!!!

 

Well it has been four and a half days since my phone rang!! Is this a record??!!

 

 

Regards

 

MM

 

She reckons she has taken legal advice from a solicitor. (I don't believe this, but I think she was saving face as she knows she has cocked up).

However she is going to write again re the calls, so I suppose I shall have to be content with that. I am saving the MP bit for when I hear from the MP. I don't know the outcome of that yet, and the waiting is killing.

 

No calls for four days. :o My God who did you bribe. Oh what bliss.

 

maggiebroom

[the main man]

Well Have done it on a technicality. The phone bill is not in my name, so my wife told them that I have never had the authority to use this number as it was her business line!! (true, honest!!) she then told Crap 1 she was withdrawing her authority for them to use it and could they remove the number from their list ASAP or face legal action. After about seven harassing phone calls to them the phone calls stopped

[hellhasnofury]

Hello Maggie,

 

Well done to you. Glad your on my side. You really have got the fire back in your belly. Trading Standards are much more likely to prosecute some poor trader, for calling a cake a fairy cake, because it is not made of fairies.

 

They are just plain pathetic, and not used to rowdy consumers who have educated themselves in the way of the dogdy dealing and slackness of these reputable financial institutes who for years, have driven ignorant people to financial ruin and worse, in their underhanded bullying and threatening unlawful tactics.

 

I would listen to MM and ask her, specifically for her legal interpretation of the CCA, bet she doesn't reply. Stupid woman. she should be ashamed of herself.

 

Rant over.

[Maggiebroom]

HI Hell

 

I felt sorry for her actually (well for about 2 seconds) as I had more answers than she thought I would. And when I got off the phone I had more answers, but isn't that always the way.

As soon as I get some info from my MP I will go to town (be it good or bad).

That is taking longer than I thought, but hopefully it means that is favourable.

 

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

HOWEVER

 

NO calls yesterday :o Oh what bliss. Something is wrong I can feel it in my water.

 

Perhaps they have seen the error of their ways.

 

maggiebroom

[hellhasnofury]

Hello Maggie,

 

Have just read this post from a extremely knowledgeable Cagger.

 

It makes interesting reading

 

 

Yes Laiste & whilst the reconstructed document might legitimately (although there is some dispute) satisfy their CCA obligations their continuing use of it, without disclosure, to extract monies from the debtor could be I am sure deemed to be a Fraud under the 2006 Act.

 

To be a fraud there has to be a thinking mind behind the act who knows they have no lawful reason to collect any monies. In other words when a creditor has the clear evidence put before him that their agreement is unenforceable but continues to attempt to enforce that most certainly would amount to both a criminal harassment & a fraud

[Maggiebroom]

Hello Maggie,

 

Have just read this post from a extremely knowledgeable Cagger.

 

It makes interesting reading

 

 

Yes Laiste & whilst the reconstructed document might legitimately (although there is some dispute) satisfy their CCA obligations their continuing use of it, without disclosure, to extract monies from the debtor could be I am sure deemed to be a Fraud under the 2006 Act.

 

To be a fraud there has to be a thinking mind behind the act who knows they have no lawful reason to collect any monies. In other words when a creditor has the clear evidence put before him that their agreement is unenforceable but continues to attempt to enforce that most certainly would amount to both a criminal harassment & a fraud

 

HI Hell

 

Now that is very interesting. The only problem I can see is putting the evidence into action where the creditor is forced to admit that they have no CCA. No creditor will admit that their agreement is unenforceable.

 

(And stupid TS Officers telling them they have an enforceable agreement doesn't help any claim for fraudulent enforcement) We all have clear evidence but no one will admit anything.

 

maggiebroom

[Maggiebroom]

Just another update (to keep this on the first page actually )

 

No word from Crap 1 just the usual phone calls up to 13 a day. Will they never learn.

 

Still no word from my MP, but then no news is good news.

My nails are down to the quick though.

Anyone got a good nail technician in Essex? My last one who was very good, left to have her first baby and I haven't found a good one since.

 

maggiebroom

[Maggiebroom]

At last a reply from the FOS

 

Not sure if its good or bad, but the phone calls may stop.

 

Dear Mr and Mrs Maggiebroom

 

Thank you for sending us your completed complaint form.

I enclose a leaflet which explains how we can help to resolve complaints. As you will see, before we can consider a complaint the business concerned must have been given a chance to put things right. All they have to do is supply a properly executed agreement, and they have had more chances than enough.

I note that you have contacted Capital One about your complaint. I have also written to them to let them know you have been in touch with us. They should send you their final response within 8 weeks, of the date they received the original complaint.That is long past as much as 2 months ago.

On receipt of Capital Ones response, if you feel they have not put things right, or alternatively if you have not heard from them after 8 weeks, please contact us again. You will need to return the complaint form together with any supporting documentation.

I have returned any papers you may have sent us at this stage is case you need to refer to them

Why not keep them then (they returned all my original letter copies) they are clearly marked copies and need not be returned.

No further action unless you contact us.

 

yours FOS

 

Still don't understand when the 8 weeks starts, can anyone enlighten me?

I am sure the copies will go back to them again as Crap 1 are not going to cave in yet are they?

 

maggiebroom

 

[davey77]

well, that's certainly a much more detailed and personal response than i have had from the FOS to date! They almost seem annoyed with Crap1 and looks like at the moment the FOS are on your side totally.

 

I don't get what they mean by the 8 weeks statement either I'm afraid?!

 

I too (on one occasion) have been sent back all my supporting documents which seems silly. They should have kept them as i'll only have to send them back again!

[Maggiebroom]

Hi All

 

This is the letter I received from Crap 1 yesterday.

 

Dear Ms maggiebroom

 

I understand you're unhappy with the default notice we've sent you as you feel you are in dispute with us.

 

Looking at your account, I can see that we wrote to S** W******* at your local Trading Standards Office,on 3 September. We informed her that the payment protection insurance (PPI) has been added correctly. This is because you ticked the acceptance box on your application. We sent you the terms & conditions of your PPI policy and it gave you 30 days to cancel if you decided it wasn't for you. You could have also contacted us at any time to cancel the policy if you were unhappy with it.

 

You've mentioned that there isn't a regulated agreement for your account. However the letter we received on 3 September from Ms W****** states that we have complied with Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act. We did this by sending her a copy of your short application form, that has the credit agreement on it, that you signed and returned to us. By signing this agreement you accepted the terms & conditions of your account.

 

The default notice we sent on 2 September is correct and on line with the terms & Conditions of your account. It has been sent because you're over your agreed credit limit and we haven't received a payment since April.

 

In the default notice it states we need to receive your payment of at least £*** no later than 23 days after we sent it to you. Therefore we should receive your required payment by 24 September. If we don't receive your payment we will a statement of default and report this to the credit reference agencies. If your account does default we will pass it on to a debt collection agency. They will contact you directly about paying your outstanding debt.

 

yours sincerely

 

Ellie Renshaw.

 

I am not quite sure how to reply to this. Thanks to TS, who have made the whole thing ten times worse, Crap 1 have decided that my application is not unenforceable, and that I should pay up. Never mind that they defaulted on the original request for the CCA, they have totally ignored the legal dispute and caused me much distress and harassment with continuous telephone calls.

 

I am totally p***** off with all this now. I know that the CCA is not properly executed and the only way I can see now is to take them to court for the harassment which will bring up the question of the CCA.

 

If anyone has any thoughts on this I would appreciate them. I shall have to compose another letter that deals with all their statements, and will post it here when I have decided what to write.

One good thing: today I got a copy letter from TS to Crap 1 telling them that they now think they have committed harassment.

 

What sort of idiots are they? Having messed up the whole argument they now seem to want to put this small matter right. I think its too late for that.

 

Anyone?? I need a little encouragement today, as I am a bit down.

 

maggiebroom

 

[davey77]

Hi Maggiebroom..

 

That is a very (but not unexpectedly) uncompromising response from Crap1. I take it that is their final response letter after being contacted by the FOS?

If so, then i wouldn't get to bothered by it to be honest. I would just resend the complaint back to the FOS stating why you still consider the documents to be non-compliant and ask them to investigate again.

I would also mention to the FOS in brief that TS are (possibly) upholding your complaint against Crap1 for harassment too. It all helps.