Jumper v Vanquis

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP...much appreciated for all your help.....and the above info....and yes your right I will concentrate on the above points.

There is nowhere on the application form where it states tick in the box. I have posted a copy below.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP...much appreciated for all your help.....and the above info....and yes your right I will concentrate on the above points.

There is nowhere on the application form where it states tick in the box. I have posted a copy below.

Even if the tick box is not on the form, the form does say "Digital signature application". That implies you would have "signed" by ticking a box, agreeing to the T&Cs on the site. The Consumer Credit (Electronic Communications) Regulations 2004 allows this for online agreements from January 2005.

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Ahhhhh.....now I understand. Well guess the first way forward is to write and respond with my dispute....s.....and see what happens from there. I will keep updated...and hopefully this debt of a couple of hundred will not mount to a couple of millions :wink1:

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Not quite sure what to write as my disputes as for it is not rocket science......and I never ignored or intentionally had any plans to take this matter this far. All I asked for was that Vanquis stop adding so many charges and refund the charges they had added....as these ballooned the debt more than it should have....they should have accepted my payment offer...refund all the ppi payments I made too.

Now if I put the same proposal forward now....and they accept if then I will keep to it. If they do not then they are free to issue proceedings. This is not a case of me looking for a loophole out of the agreement....or an escape.....but I believe I should only pay what is right at the same time. It is about unfairness mostly.

Just have to wait and see what response I get back.

FP do you think that after I have added my list of disputes I have that I should make a proposal to start repaying....that way if this does get to court will show that I am not avoiding the debt of what I owe? Its negotiations which the court like to see before any court case kicks off I think!

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Just looking through some past letters....I have a letter dated 4 July 2013 from Fredrickson International Ltd....saying that a default notice was issued on the 4 September 2008 advising me that my account fell into default on 31 August 2009.

Bit confusing.... as my application date states I applied for a card on the 1 September 2008....and they say that I defaulted 3 days later on the 4 Sept 2008.....? and my account fell into default on 31 August 2009.....yet my default notice is dated 9 June 2009.......

I only just got this....they say that the default notice issued on the 4 Sept 2008 advised me that my account fell into default on 31 August 2009....so they were advising me of something almost 11 months into the future.....makes no sense at all. If they word all their letters similar.....lord knows what their claim form will say if they issued one against me. Should be fun....then again they will get off with a technicality I guess.... saying it was an admin error

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Ahhhhh.....now I understand. Well guess the first way forward is to write and respond with my dispute....s.....and see what happens from there. I will keep updated...and hopefully this debt of a couple of hundred will not mount to a couple of millions :wink1:

No reason why it should.

Not quite sure what to write as my disputes as for it is not rocket science......and I never ignored or intentionally had any plans to take this matter this far. All I asked for was that Vanquis stop adding so many charges and refund the charges they had added....as these ballooned the debt more than it should have....they should have accepted my payment offer...refund all the ppi payments I made too.

You've just mentioned what you could write, presumably you mentioned your concerns above with regards to charges and PPI mis-selling.

Now if I put the same proposal forward now....and they accept if then I will keep to it. If they do not then they are free to issue proceedings. This is not a case of me looking for a loophole out of the agreement....or an escape.....but I believe I should only pay what is right at the same time. It is about unfairness mostly.

Just have to wait and see what response I get back.

FP do you think that after I have added my list of disputes I have that I should make a proposal to start repaying....that way if this does get to court will show that I am not avoiding the debt of what I owe? Its negotiations which the court like to see before any court case kicks off I think!

I would wait for their response (if any) before making any repayment offers, bearing in mind this is around 5 years old and you don't want to be acknowledging the debt by making a repayment proposal at this stage, :nono: not if you can help it. :thumb:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Just looking through some past letters....I have a letter dated 4 July 2013 from Fredrickson International Ltd....saying that a default notice was issued on the 4 September 2008 advising me that my account fell into default on 31 August 2009.

Bit confusing.... as my application date states I applied for a card on the 1 September 2008....and they say that I defaulted 3 days later on the 4 Sept 2008.....? and my account fell into default on 31 August 2009.....yet my default notice is dated 9 June 2009.......

Sounds like a typo to me, they probably meant to say a DN was issued on the 4th of September 2009, which would make more sense if your account fell into default in August 2009. :grin:

Freddie's are not the sharpest tools in the box.

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP.....DN was issued on 9 June 2009....not 4 September 2009 if that what they meant.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP.....DN was issued on 9 June 2009....not 4 September 2009 if that what they meant.

Looks like they haven't got a clue, which may work in your favour. :bounce: :bounce:

[pt2537]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

In my own case i argued that the PPI was a failure of consideration as it provided no benefit to me whatsoever. The PPI wasnt PPI at all, it didnt reduce the liability it just froze the account, which was a pile of toss in my view.

All i can say is the matter was resolved to my satisfaction, im sure you will get what i mean by that

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP...& PT for your valued input.....very much appreciated.

xx

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

I have attached a copy of my credit report below. Noticed that the lender is noted as "Lowell" whom I thought were a DCA and not a lender as the card was applied through Vanquis.

Callcredit report shows default placed August 2010 and Equifax report shows default placed August 2009......DN issued 9 June 2009.....DN placed on credit report 3 months later on Equifax....a year and 3 months later according to Callcredit......guess not that important....but I really need to know how Fredrickson can clai that I last made a payment of £11.59 on 2 April 2012....which will be one of my disputes.

I have also attached the letter I received from Fredricksons....

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

The letter from Freds was probably typed up in haste by someone under the influence of something strong as the dates don't match up...

The main point is that both CRAs say it will be reported till August 2015, which is 6 years after defaulting in 2009, so their records are accurate. :thumb: Of course it would be better if Fred's were right, because the default would be dropping off next year :grin: but, sadly, they are not.

Lowell are a debt purchaser and they currently own the account, hence being referred to as the 'Lender' (a generic term in this context). Fred's are acting for Lowell so they may not even be acting on their behalf when this gets to be SBd in a couple of years' time. :clock: :clock:

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP.....just wanted to know...one of my disputes is that they claim I made a payment of £11.59 on the 2 April 2012. I have looked through my past statements and last payment of £5 was made to them on the 22 April 2009. I have 3 letters where they refused to accept lower payments and the minimum they would accept was £12 a month.....which at that time was unaffordable to me in my situation.

I have two letters where they offered to refund me default charges...total of £72....but that was not enough at that time. Then they sent me their final offer of £132 which again was not correct....

Having been to the steps of the courts with BIG BOY SHARKS BLEMAIN in my repossession case....this matter seems so tiny.....and I can say that I am confident that if went into court I could get a judgment against them.....all the excess charges...the PPI....and their total unfairness at not accepting lower payments at the time of financial difficulties....but I really would like to avoid all the courtroom drama as much as I can.

But if they do not agree to sort this matter out then...they are free to issue a claim which will be defended fully.

Funnily enough in the post I received a letter addressed to the owner....inside was a re-application form agreement for a Vanquis Card.....and a set of terms and conditions were enclosed...I have received many of these and just throw them in the bin....but I will start keeping them from now on....and maybe I may just apply for another to see what happens....lol.....(not really).

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP.....just wanted to know...one of my disputes is that they claim I made a payment of £11.59 on the 2 April 2012. I have looked through my past statements and last payment of £5 was made to them on the 22 April 2009. I have 3 letters where they refused to accept lower payments and the minimum they would accept was £12 a month.....which at that time was unaffordable to me in my situation.

As you are not arguing that the debt is already SBd, you probably shouldn't include that in your response to your LBA at this point.

I have two letters where they offered to refund me default charges...total of £72....but that was not enough at that time. Then they sent me their final offer of £132 which again was not correct....

Having been to the steps of the courts with BIG BOY SHARKS BLEMAIN in my repossession case....this matter seems so tiny.....and I can say that I am confident that if went into court I could get a judgment against them.....all the excess charges...the PPI....and their total unfairness at not accepting lower payments at the time of financial difficulties....but I really would like to avoid all the courtroom drama as much as I can.

But if they do not agree to sort this matter out then...they are free to issue a claim which will be defended fully.

Have you written the response to their LBA yet with the points above? Have you actually tried to reclaim the PPI? As you say it's a small amount, maybe with the PPI and the charges, the balance would be cleared or almost cleared. Have you any idea how much PPI you paid?

Funnily enough in the post I received a letter addressed to the owner....inside was a re-application form agreement for a Vanquis Card.....and a set of terms and conditions were enclosed...I have received many of these and just throw them in the bin....but I will start keeping them from now on....and maybe I may just apply for another to see what happens....lol.....(not really).

I also receive quite a few Vanquis applications in the post, I've never had a Vanquis, maybe I should apply for one. :spooky: :marchmellow: