Jumper v Vanquis

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

s.78 is still relevant, it was s.127 that was repealed, sadly that was the one that stopped a court from issuing an enforcement order unless they could produce a properly executed agreement.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

s.78 is still relevant, it was s.127 that was repealed, sadly that was the one that stopped a court from issuing an enforcement order unless they could produce a properly executed agreement.

But if the creditor's purported "twue copy" isn't a true copy of the agreement - here, because their version only existed six months after the agreement was made - can the creditor be said to have complied with the s78 request?

[Amethyst]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

That'd be good Jumper - pop them up in VIP though rather than on this public thread.

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Will do Ame....soon as I get back from work at 6pm.

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Yesterday I received this letter from Bryan Carter and they are threatening proceedings if payment is not made by the 4 November 2013.

Lowell sent a response to my cca request albeit their agreement was different than the original one. I also have a faulty that does not comply with the cca act 74.

A bit at a loss now as what to do next. As anyone can understand going through any court proceedings is both stressful and time consuming, I also know that Bryan Carter when challenged are quick to drop/withdraw proceedings as fast as they issue them.


You will notice they do not say they may issue proceedings on the 4 Nov 13, but they have been instructed to issue them if they do not receive a response from me by that date. Even if I am to reply, what would I possibly say to them....and if I do not and they go ahead and issue proceedings than that will look bad on me in court by not responding.

Any helpful tips or ideas will be greatly appreciated. Thanks to all in advance.

[pt2537]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Did you have any PPI with Vanquis?

I think it would be a prudent step to reply to Carters, and set out the issues you have with the case. Saying nothing can have adverse costs consequences against you, so its best to reply.

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Hi & Thanks pt....I did have ppi....but later cancelled it.....

I agree with you and that I should send a reply....but equally confused on what to say to them.

As far as Lowell are concerend they have complied with my cca request...as I said before....the agreement they sent is not a copy or the same as the original....plus I still have the original faulty DN they issued.

There is also a payment of £11.59 which they believe I made to them a in 2011..and I know for a fact I did not..and I have asked for evidence from them how they received this sum...and from whom....no response to that question.

So maybe I should reply to BC and say that there is a dispute outstanding....and not yet resolved...and take it from there...or if there is any more suggestions from anyone I would appreciate them also.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Hi & Thanks pt....I did have ppi....but later cancelled it.....

I agree with you and that I should send a reply....but equally confused on what to say to them.

As far as Lowell are concerend they have complied with my cca request...as I said before....the agreement they sent is not a copy or the same as the original....plus I still have the original faulty DN they issued.

If memory serves me, this is a post-April 2007 card, isn't it? I don't think you should mention a faulty DN at this stage as they could rectify it.

There is also a payment of £11.59 which they believe I made to them a in 2011..and I know for a fact I did not..and I have asked for evidence from them how they received this sum...and from whom....no response to that question.

This would only be relevant if the debt was, otherwise, SBd, and they were using the payment to argue it's not. :noidea:

So maybe I should reply to BC and say that there is a dispute outstanding....and not yet resolved...and take it from there...or if there is any more suggestions from anyone I would appreciate them also.

What would be the nature of your dispute?

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

If memory serves me, this is a post-April 2007 card, isn't it? I don't think you should mention a faulty DN at this stage as they could rectify it.

This would only be relevant if the debt was, otherwise, SBd, and they were using the payment to argue it's not. :noidea:

What would be the nature of your dispute?

Hi FP...I don't think my card is pre-2007....according to my credit file I defaulted on 31 August 2009...not 100% sure when I last paid.

Points of dispute were excess charges...ppi refund....and also my several attempts to try and get Vanquis to accept lower payments due to financial difficulties...each request was refused.

If they had refund the charges they added and accepted my payment plan then this debt would have nearly finished by now. It is not a huge amount and nothing compared to what I have faced before with Blemain.

I have attached a copy of my DN....Vanquis have terminated the agreement and was wandering if they still could rectify the faulty DN?

The debt will become SB on August 2015....

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Hi FP...I don't think my card is pre-2007....according to my credit file I defaulted on 31 August 2009...not 100% sure when I last paid.

It doesn't matter when you defaulted, it' whether you took out the card before or after April 2007 what matters for the purpose of enforceability. If you defaulted in 2009, then it can't be SBd regardless of when you last paid.

Points of dispute were excess charges...ppi refund....and also my several attempts to try and get Vanquis to accept lower payments due to financial difficulties...each request was refused. If they had refund the charges they added and accepted my payment plan then this debt would have nearly finished by now. It is not a huge amount and nothing compared to what I have faced before with Blemain.

These are the points you could mention in your response to their letter, which seems to be a letter before action.

I have attached a copy of my DN....Vanquis have terminated the agreement and was wandering if they still could rectify the faulty DN?

The debt will become SB on August 2015....

The DN would come into play if they took this to court, I wouldn't mention it in any letter to them at this point but I'd certainly mention the points above.

That's a strange DN because it mentions applying to the court to allow you more time to pay, when no court had yet been involved. :noidea: :confused2:

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP....just sifted through some paperwork....and last correspondence I received from Lowell ref cca request there is a "Digital Signature Application Form" saying that application date was 1 September 2008 and was Approved on 4 September 2008...so guess that is when I took the card out.

On the cca agreements both their copy and my original one there is not date on either of them...just 5 pages of terms and conditions.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

There's a fairly standard response to a solicitor's letter before action that was originally drafted by PT elsewhere, :yo: which has been adapted to suit various situations. It's not a template as such, but you could use it as a starting point. Hope it helps. :thumb:

Dear Sirs

Re your letter dated xx/xx/2013.

Thank you for your letter, the contents of which I have noted.

Since your letter clearly refers to the threat of litigation, I am treating it as a formal letter of claim, albeit an entirely defective one. I refer you to the Civil Procedure Rules Pre-Action Protocol practice direction, in particular Annex A and Annex B. You will note your letter fails to comply with either of the aforesaid Annexes. Since you are a firm of solicitors, I cannot excuse such failures, and place you on notice that any litigation on the back of this letter will result in an immediate application to the Court requesting the matter stayed, with costs against you and your client on the indemnity basis. I refer you to Para 4.6 of the Practice Direction which explains the consequences of non compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol.

Turning to the subject matter of your letter, this matter is the subject of a dispute which has been raised with your clients representatives, and therefore it would be appropriate before you threaten litigation for your clients to actively deal with the issues which I have raised.

The main crux of my dispute is [INSERT YOUR REASONS AS ABOVE]

Accordingly, and in accordance with the CPR Pre Action Protocol practice direction, I look forward to your reply setting out correctly the nature of your clients claim and answering my dispute as stated above.

Yours faithfully,

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

I have also noted on the application form a box which reads Terms and Conditions NP-TA-10 But my original copy of the terms and conditions reads NP-TA-11.....bit strange to date terms and conditions 2 years after taking out an agreement hey? I am just looking to find what ref it states on the cca request they recently sent.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP....just sifted through some paperwork....and last correspondence I received from Lowell ref cca request there is a "Digital Signature Application Form" saying that application date was 1 September 2008 and was Approved on 4 September 2008...so guess that is when I took the card out.

On the cca agreements both their copy and my original one there is not date on either of them...just 5 pages of terms and conditions.

Just as I suspected... :sad: This means the usual unenforceability arguments would not apply, furthermore, if it was an online application, then a tick box would serve as a digital signature from Jan 2005 onwards. Sounds like you will have to concentrate on the other issues you've raised. :thumb:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

I have also noted on the application form a box which reads Terms and Conditions NP-TA-10 But my original copy of the terms and conditions reads NP-TA-11.....bit strange to date terms and conditions 2 years after taking out an agreement hey? I am just looking to find what ref it states on the cca request they recently sent.

They probably weren't the terms from inception, as they'd have to be from 2008 or earlier, however, as it was a post-2005 online application, you'd have agreed to the terms by ticking the box. :typing: