• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Jumper v Vanquis

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jumper v Vanquis

    Usual long story with cca agreements and armies of DCA's chasing one debt. Although the amount is not huge.....is still a pain in the XXXXX!

    I made a request to Lowells to send me my cca request agreement and centuries later it arrived yesterday with a letter attached saying:

    Dear xxxxx,

    We enclose a copy of your original on-line application form with Vanquis in response to your written request to us under section 78 (1) of the CCA Act 1974. Accounts opened over the internet are subject to the CCA Act 1974 (Electronic Communication) Order 2004 which came into force on December 31 2004.

    OK.........I get that.....but the agreement Vanquis have sent me is completely different to one I have. Good job I still have my copy....and the one they have sent is not the same.

    I will post up for all to see and compare....and was wandering and thought that the lender had to send a copy of the original? If Vanquis had agreed years ago when I got into financial difficulties to accept lower payments then thsi debt would have finished months ago...but every offer I made was refused.....then I could not be asked.....to continue with trying with them. Now I am receiving letters from Fredrickson International......asking me to contact them as they assume I have received my CCA request from Lowell...whom I had to make the request to.....

    What a waste of time all this is.....just thinking whether I should tell them their agreement is not what they originally sent me...or wait for them to issue proceedings....

    I have a faulty DN and now on top I have a faulty CCA agreement.....won't look good if they do issue proceedings will it...and I maybe should just write and ask them to write the debt off.......will post up mine and their copy of my agreement later.

    Vanquis claim my digital signature application was made in September 2008.....and the agreement they sent with the terms and conditions id dated March 2009.

    My agreement copy with terms and conditions is dated October 2008.

  • #2
    Re: Jumper v Vanquis

    Hi Jumper,

    I guess you've got all the usual covered - SB, NoA, etc.

    It will be interesting to see what POS reconstituted stuff they have fabricat......er, found for you.
    CAVEAT LECTOR

    This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

    You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
    Cohen, Herb


    There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
    gets his brain a-going.
    Phelps, C. C.


    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
    The last words of John Sedgwick

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Jumper v Vanquis

      Originally posted by jumper999 View Post
      Vanquis claim my digital signature application was made in September 2008.....and the agreement they sent with the terms and conditions id dated March 2009.

      My agreement copy with terms and conditions is dated October 2008.
      Since this all took place after April 2007 I'm not sure the section 78 argument is relevant

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Jumper v Vanquis

        Originally posted by PlanB View Post
        Since this all took place after April 2007 I'm not sure the section 78 argument is relevant
        Lost cause after 2007 it has been stated. any tick will do!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Jumper v Vanquis

          Originally posted by PlanB View Post
          Since this all took place after April 2007 I'm not sure the section 78 argument is relevant

          Would not the fact that V have concocted completely fabricated, as opposed to reconstituted, evidence have a bearing?
          CAVEAT LECTOR

          This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

          You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
          Cohen, Herb


          There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
          gets his brain a-going.
          Phelps, C. C.


          "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
          The last words of John Sedgwick

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Jumper v Vanquis

            Thanks all....and yes charity, this is a question I would like to the answer too also.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Jumper v Vanquis

              Originally posted by charitynjw View Post
              Would not the fact that V have concocted completely fabricated, as opposed to reconstituted, evidence have a bearing?
              One would like to think. But isn't the question do they have to produce any agreement at all whether it be real or imaginary?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Jumper v Vanquis

                Originally posted by PlanB View Post
                One would like to think. But isn't the question do they have to produce any agreement at all whether it be real or imaginary?
                If it goes to court, 'imaginary' could be thin ice.
                CAVEAT LECTOR

                This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

                You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
                Cohen, Herb


                There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
                gets his brain a-going.
                Phelps, C. C.


                "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
                The last words of John Sedgwick

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Jumper v Vanquis

                  Originally posted by charitynjw View Post
                  If it goes to court, 'imaginary' could be thin ice.
                  If it goes to court wouldn't Jumper have to reveal the real copy which she has got in her files under the rules of Disclosure?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Jumper v Vanquis

                    Originally posted by PlanB View Post
                    If it goes to court wouldn't Jumper have to reveal the real copy which she has got in her files under the rules of Disclosure?
                    In an ideal world, yes - one of the maxims of Equity is 'clean hands'.

                    & we can totally rely on similar honesty & integrity from banks & debt purchasers, can't we?
                    CAVEAT LECTOR

                    This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

                    You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
                    Cohen, Herb


                    There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
                    gets his brain a-going.
                    Phelps, C. C.


                    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
                    The last words of John Sedgwick

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Jumper v Vanquis

                      Originally posted by PlanB View Post
                      If it goes to court wouldn't Jumper have to reveal the real copy which she has got in her files under the rules of Disclosure?
                      If Jumper was going to produce the said document then it would have to be disclosed or evidence is inadmissable!?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Jumper v Vanquis

                        Originally posted by charitynjw View Post
                        In an ideal world, yes - one of the maxims of Equity is 'clean hands'.

                        & we can totally rely on similar honesty & integrity from banks & debt purchasers, can't we?
                        Talking about clean hands....Lowell have still yet to advise me where the payment of £11.59 they believe I made to them last year......I know I did not make this payment and that they will have to prove I did if this matter gets to the court stage.

                        I have no problem showing my agreement.....but is it quite different from the one they sent.....yes maybe they will get off with technicalities.....but after fighting off the big boys (Blemain) I don't think I am going to lose any sleep over this. Plus they sent me a faulty DN.....add all the faulty things they have and continue to do....well.....just have to wait and see what they do next I suppose.
                        Last edited by jumper999; 8th October 2013, 10:25:AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Jumper v Vanquis

                          Regarding the comparison between the original document Jumper had, and the reconstructed document supplied - are they different in material terms or just in appearance ?
                          #staysafestayhome

                          Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                          Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Jumper v Vanquis

                            Hi Ame...they are different in both material terms and appearance.....I will scan and post up both copies if you want to see?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Jumper v Vanquis

                              Originally posted by PlanB View Post
                              Since this all took place after April 2007 I'm not sure the section 78 argument is relevant
                              The question is surely whether or not they complied with the s78 request.

                              As the terms and conditions sent were some six months later than the start of the agreement, it would seem that they have not complied.

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                              Working...
                              X