Tweet
Hi im a newbie, i'll start with a brief background which will lead to the explaination of the title.
CCA fast or multi track case
1. Lloyds TSB Gold Card, between 1996 and 1998 I think.
2. Last payment to CC March or April 2012, when wages dropped to half. No contact with Lloyds after this date - due to prolonged period of illness.
3. January 2013 court papers from Northampton received
‘by agreement in writing & regulated by the CCA 1974, the Claimants issued to the Defendant a credit token, Lloyds Bank Gold Card, for the purpose of the Defendant acquiring goods/services on credit.
The agreement provided that the Claimants would furnish the Defendant with a monthly statement showing the balance currently due, the minimum payment to be made and the date for payment. If the balance was not paid then provided the Defendant made the minimum payment on or before such date the remainder of the balance should remain outstanding and the Defendant should pay interest upon it per month in accordance with the agreement. In breach of the agreement, the Defendant failed to make payment and on the 12/6/12 the Claimants issued a Default Notice pursuant to section 87(I) of the CCA 1974. On the 13/7/12 the Claimants did issue a Formal Demand to the Defendant. The Claimants therefore claim the balance due under the agreement…..
4. February 2013, SARs and CPR request submitted to Lloyds and SCM respectively. Recorded Delivery
5. February 2013 CCA request made to Lloyds. Recorded Delivery
6. February 2013 response from Lloyds advising I must provide signature to have my SARs proceed.
7. February 2013, response to CCA request. Provision of recon and a signed statement of account and stating
‘The office of fair trading has recently issued a press release with Ray Watson Director of the OFT’s Consumer Credit Group, stating consumers have a right to information on debts they owe, but it is important that they realise that these sections of the Act cannot be used to write off legitimate owed debts. You can find more details of this press release at…..’
8. February 2013, signature response provided re SARS. Recorded delivery
9. February 2013, further letter to SCM reminder CPR still outstanding
10. February 2013 response from SCM. CC statements from 2000. But its obvious that an account was in place before this or why would the account start with an outstanding balance in excess of £2,000??
11. Response re SARS confirming receipt of signature and SARs response by April 2013.
12. February 2013 ‘embarrassed defence submitted’ citing unable to provide full defence as CPR14 not complied with and denying liability, (SCM response received after defence submitted - i think they send their post by 2nd class)
13. March 2013, reminder to SCM as CPR still not fulfilled and querying CC statements as not provided back to inception.
14. March 2013, response from SCM. Stating
‘ we confirm that a copy of all the available cc statements have already been provided to you, covering a period of nearly 13 years. The Claimant is only required to hold statements for a period of not less than 6 years, so they have more than met their obligations in this regard.
The Claimant has been unable to locate a copy of the original signed agreement so we attach for your records, a recon agreement which contains all the relevant Tic’s that were applicable at the time the agreement was entered into. There is no requirement for the Claimant to provide a copy of the signed agreement. Case law exists which supports the suitability of a recon agreement, as they contain all the relevant T&c’s.
There is no requirement under the CCA for the Claimant to retain copies of the DN it issues, and they do not do so for practical reasons, given the large numbers of such documents produced. The Claimant’s computer records clearly show the issue of the DN and we attach for your records a template. The Claimants computer system would complete the variables and or relevant fields with the information applicant at the time of issue.
The issue of the DN is clearly noted on the banks records. It was sent by first class post and therefore no proof of postage will be available to the bank, notwithstanding that postage alone constitutes service by reason of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the DN is in any event deemed to have been delivered. There is no record of the DN being returned undelivered.
The letter goes on to say
...to prevent any further court proceedings and costs, they want me to withdraw my defence as they feel my defence does not disclose of any reasonable grounds for defending the claim. they
suggest a consent Order be negoiated and give a limited time to respond.
Additionally there was a great deal of telephone harassment, which was not dealt with at the time or unfortunately logged. I think you need to be well to undertake the logging of all the calls you get day and night. I ended up not answering the phone letting it go to message to hear who it was that was calling before picking up. In the end I would only pick up to the medical profession, Is there a way that I can get a log of calls received by my landline which would confirm the harassment I experienced. The messages were short, basically stating that I need to contact Lloyds TSB urgently and leaving a telephone number, but the calls were up to 8 or 9 times a day - even the weekends! From around 8am to around 9pm.
1. however what is a consent order? what happens if i do not want to agree to one, or i feel any terms put down are not reasonable? is there an alternative that i can suggest?
2. and what about their missing paperwork, surely if nothing else but common curtesty i should be provided sight of the doc's that specifically refer to me and that they rely on in their POC? i did confirm to the court and Lloyds that 'strict proof' point
3. thinking on it, i am very suspicious about the lack of the DN, with modern techno surely my file copy would be kept online for printing off at a later date if necessary. is it possible that they have recognised that there was something wrong with the issue and are trying to get round it with excuses? i have the termination notice
Sorry its so long, and i apologise for any pertinent glaring points that i have missed.
Thanks.
CCA fast or multi track case
1. Lloyds TSB Gold Card, between 1996 and 1998 I think.
2. Last payment to CC March or April 2012, when wages dropped to half. No contact with Lloyds after this date - due to prolonged period of illness.
3. January 2013 court papers from Northampton received
‘by agreement in writing & regulated by the CCA 1974, the Claimants issued to the Defendant a credit token, Lloyds Bank Gold Card, for the purpose of the Defendant acquiring goods/services on credit.
The agreement provided that the Claimants would furnish the Defendant with a monthly statement showing the balance currently due, the minimum payment to be made and the date for payment. If the balance was not paid then provided the Defendant made the minimum payment on or before such date the remainder of the balance should remain outstanding and the Defendant should pay interest upon it per month in accordance with the agreement. In breach of the agreement, the Defendant failed to make payment and on the 12/6/12 the Claimants issued a Default Notice pursuant to section 87(I) of the CCA 1974. On the 13/7/12 the Claimants did issue a Formal Demand to the Defendant. The Claimants therefore claim the balance due under the agreement…..
4. February 2013, SARs and CPR request submitted to Lloyds and SCM respectively. Recorded Delivery
5. February 2013 CCA request made to Lloyds. Recorded Delivery
6. February 2013 response from Lloyds advising I must provide signature to have my SARs proceed.
7. February 2013, response to CCA request. Provision of recon and a signed statement of account and stating
‘The office of fair trading has recently issued a press release with Ray Watson Director of the OFT’s Consumer Credit Group, stating consumers have a right to information on debts they owe, but it is important that they realise that these sections of the Act cannot be used to write off legitimate owed debts. You can find more details of this press release at…..’
8. February 2013, signature response provided re SARS. Recorded delivery
9. February 2013, further letter to SCM reminder CPR still outstanding
10. February 2013 response from SCM. CC statements from 2000. But its obvious that an account was in place before this or why would the account start with an outstanding balance in excess of £2,000??
11. Response re SARS confirming receipt of signature and SARs response by April 2013.
12. February 2013 ‘embarrassed defence submitted’ citing unable to provide full defence as CPR14 not complied with and denying liability, (SCM response received after defence submitted - i think they send their post by 2nd class)
13. March 2013, reminder to SCM as CPR still not fulfilled and querying CC statements as not provided back to inception.
14. March 2013, response from SCM. Stating
‘ we confirm that a copy of all the available cc statements have already been provided to you, covering a period of nearly 13 years. The Claimant is only required to hold statements for a period of not less than 6 years, so they have more than met their obligations in this regard.
The Claimant has been unable to locate a copy of the original signed agreement so we attach for your records, a recon agreement which contains all the relevant Tic’s that were applicable at the time the agreement was entered into. There is no requirement for the Claimant to provide a copy of the signed agreement. Case law exists which supports the suitability of a recon agreement, as they contain all the relevant T&c’s.
There is no requirement under the CCA for the Claimant to retain copies of the DN it issues, and they do not do so for practical reasons, given the large numbers of such documents produced. The Claimant’s computer records clearly show the issue of the DN and we attach for your records a template. The Claimants computer system would complete the variables and or relevant fields with the information applicant at the time of issue.
The issue of the DN is clearly noted on the banks records. It was sent by first class post and therefore no proof of postage will be available to the bank, notwithstanding that postage alone constitutes service by reason of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the DN is in any event deemed to have been delivered. There is no record of the DN being returned undelivered.
The letter goes on to say
...to prevent any further court proceedings and costs, they want me to withdraw my defence as they feel my defence does not disclose of any reasonable grounds for defending the claim. they
suggest a consent Order be negoiated and give a limited time to respond.
Additionally there was a great deal of telephone harassment, which was not dealt with at the time or unfortunately logged. I think you need to be well to undertake the logging of all the calls you get day and night. I ended up not answering the phone letting it go to message to hear who it was that was calling before picking up. In the end I would only pick up to the medical profession, Is there a way that I can get a log of calls received by my landline which would confirm the harassment I experienced. The messages were short, basically stating that I need to contact Lloyds TSB urgently and leaving a telephone number, but the calls were up to 8 or 9 times a day - even the weekends! From around 8am to around 9pm.
1. however what is a consent order? what happens if i do not want to agree to one, or i feel any terms put down are not reasonable? is there an alternative that i can suggest?
2. and what about their missing paperwork, surely if nothing else but common curtesty i should be provided sight of the doc's that specifically refer to me and that they rely on in their POC? i did confirm to the court and Lloyds that 'strict proof' point
3. thinking on it, i am very suspicious about the lack of the DN, with modern techno surely my file copy would be kept online for printing off at a later date if necessary. is it possible that they have recognised that there was something wrong with the issue and are trying to get round it with excuses? i have the termination notice
Sorry its so long, and i apologise for any pertinent glaring points that i have missed.
Thanks.
Comment