S 77 request

[labman]

Re: S 77 request

Hi Jon,

On a different tack to save argument over technicalities. You effectively state that as you have other creditors you're not paying as you're waiting for one of them to make you BK ( or for all debts to become SB). I don't know about now, but a few years ago, this was Citizens' Advice suggestion - if you can't afford the £525, stop paying and wait to be made BK.

Given this is the situation, and you know these companies will check you out financially before making you BK (they're unlikely to pay their good money in order to help you out of your problem if they get nothing out of it), why bother spending money on stamps, SAR's etc... to argue UE? The money isn't going to be paid regardless. :beagle:

[wales01man]

Re: S 77 request

no DCA or company will spend hundreds to make you Bankrupt if they wont get any money cos you have nothing its not good business.
When you are deep in debt I AM you only really have 3 choices PAY IT IGNORE IT or FIGHT IT question is do you want the hassle of fighting it, the money to pay it or the sense to ignore it when you have nothing they probably wont try a CCJ at best that can cost them about 60 quid fees and solicitors cost

[jon1965]

Re: S 77 request

Well it seems pretty settled then. I have no money to pay, no money to make myself BR. Most of the time I can cope with the fighting but seems ignore the silly repeat letters is the sensible option. All I do is waste time going over each debt again and again . The only people who seem to hassle me really are RBS (Mint and Natpest) and Hillsden

[jon1965]

Re: S 77 request

Well i did send a rather sarky letter off to DLC saying even a schoolchild could tell that they had not complied with my S77 request so bugger off and leave me alone. I also said , if they thought differently they should make me BR.

Today had a letter back admitting that they failed to send the supporting terms and conditions but will when they get them and blah blah blah s77 is for info only and not a way to stop paying the debt. So they owe me two sets of T&C's and unless I am wrong , they have to send everything in one envelope and not bit by bit. I might even get to string this one out

[labman]

Re: S 77 request

LOL - not sure about having everything in one envelope. If I was replying to a belligerent bugger like you, I'd probably send it all one word at a time, not that you'd object as it would draw things out even longer.

[mystery1]

Re: S 77 request

LOL - not sure about having everything in one envelope. If I was replying to a belligerent bugger like you, I'd probably send it all one word at a time, not that you'd object as it would draw things out even longer.

HFO CAPITAL V ROBINSON JUDGEMENT (1).pdf

M1

[labman]

Re: S 77 request

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9862[/ATTACH]

M1

You could have pointed me to para 14, not made me read it all! :tung:

[jon1965]

Re: S 77 request

LOL - not sure about having everything in one envelope. If I was replying to a belligerent bugger like you, I'd probably send it all one word at a time, not that you'd object as it would draw things out even longer.

Me belligerent ? As if!

Thanks M1, I knew it was there somewhere

[jon1965]

Re: S 77 request

One last quick question (for now)

Each time they write to me they add the paragraph " The last payment received on this account was 30th Jan 2012, as we have received payments on the account between May 2010 and Jan 2012 we assume your liability in this matter is not in question"

When I write to them I start with something like "Firstly I must stress I do not admit any liability to either yourselves or your clients with regard to the above number account."

Are they playing games with me to keep the account alive or does what they assume count for diddly squat?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: S 77 request

One last quick question (for now)

Each time they write to me they add the paragraph " The last payment received on this account was 30th Jan 2012, as we have received payments on the account between May 2010 and Jan 2012 we assume your liability in this matter is not in question"

When I write to them I start with something like "Firstly I must stress I do not admit any liability to either yourselves or your clients with regard to the above number account."

Are they playing games with me to keep the account alive or does what they assume count for diddly squat?

This is a common retort when you are challenging the account, saying you've made payments thus you admit liability. You're not saying you never had the account, you're just arguing the legal points so it's irrelevant whether you made payments or not. Merely arguing you've been making payments won't keep the account alive, only actual payments made will count.

Remember they are using templates, not writing a bespoke letter every time they write. I'd be inclined to totally disregard such statements.

[jon1965]

Re: S 77 request

Thanks FP. That's what I was hoping , just needed it confirming...you know what I am like

[jon1965]

Re: S 77 request

Well DLC have come up trumps sadly and sent me a copy of my agreement with the related terms and conditions from inception. However on those it states missed payments etc will incur a £15 charge. When I look at my statements they provided however they applied missed payment charges of £12. To me that is a clear change in T&C's so am I right in thinking they should have sent me a separate set with the charges changed?

Overall I am now just going to ignore them for a while , if they start bombarding me again I will just send a non compliance letter, if they issue a SD I will say ta very much and if the go for a CCJ I will talk to PT and probably defend on the basis of non compliance with S77...he may have other ideas

[Amethyst]

Re: S 77 request

When was inception of the account and when was the first £12 charge? It may be the terms changed later after they were told to reduce penalty charges and they don't have to send you ALL terms in operation since inception under the CCA 77 request.

Are you posing up a copy of the agreement and terms you received ?

On What basis would be be responding with 'non compliance'?

[Amethyst]

Re: S 77 request

ok I read back a bit - you want to go bankrupt ? how much is your total debt liability at the mo... I presume you have no assets to speak of if you are choosing bankruptcy.

[mystery1]

Re: S 77 request

When was inception of the account and when was the first £12 charge? It may be the terms changed later after they were told to reduce penalty charges and they don't have to send you ALL terms in operation since inception under the CCA 77 request.

Are you posing up a copy of the agreement and terms you received ?

On What basis would be be responding with 'non compliance'?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

108. Accordingly, I conclude that Reg. 7 requires a copy of the executed agreement in its original form as well as a statement of the terms as they are at the time of the request.

M1