Jumper v Vanquis

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Hi FP.....I have 2 letters one dated 12 May 2009 which reads:

"I refer to your recent letter regarding the Repayment Option Plan and repayments to your account. As I have previously advised I am unable to corroborate with your claim for the charges the Repayment Option Plan, and my original offer for a refund of default charges still stands at £72.

2 letter....which I seemed to have muddied the date but will try and find a duplicate....read:

In order to bring this matter to a speedy and amicable resolution. I am prepared to increase my offer of refund of default charges to £132.00. This sum represents the total amount of charges applied to your account to date. Please be advised that Vanquis stopped applying interest to default charges in October 2008 therefore any default charges applied during October 2008 and after have not incurred interest. Due to this the charges applied to your account would not have incurred any interest.

What happened after that is a bit blurry to me....as I know I was going through so much at that time.

FP.....I can't argue SB as I still have a couple of years left...plus I am not looking for a way out of repaying the debt....but I only want to pay what I truly owe. That is the whole problems with these lender...if they accepted peoples genuine offers and proposals when they were made......more than 3 quarters of people in debt would have such an easier life.

I have done nothing...and not ashamed if they want to take me to court....as I have enough evidence to show any court that Vanquis were the ones who were unreasonable from day one.

Exactly the same happened with my HSBC account....same story...they did not accept any offers from me ...then issued a claim....which has been stayed for 3 years.....and that amount is 6 times what Vanquis want.

I have no idea exactly how much PPI I have paid so far and the only way I could find all this out is to do an SAR. Which I could tell Bryan Carter...I am awaiting for vital information therefore not in a position to reply in full.....but could give them a basic outline of my disputes? good idea or not?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

FP.....I can't argue SB as I still have a couple of years left...plus I am not looking for a way out of repaying the debt....but I only want to pay what I truly owe. That is the whole problems with these lender...

I realise that, which is why I said the phantom payment :marchmellow:is not something you should mention on your response to Bryan Carter. The only way you can find out what you truly owe is by sending a SAR, so you know how much was applied in PPI and charges. :thumb:

if they accepted peoples genuine offers and proposals when they were made......more than 3 quarters of people in debt would have such an easier life.

Indeed, that's very true, however, do bear in mind any written proposals and offers :typing: are likely to be construed as acknowledgment of the debt for SBd purposes. :sad:

I have no idea exactly how much PPI I have paid so far and the only way I could find all this out is to do an SAR.

Why don't you? See letter here:http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...736#post382736 :grin:

Which I could tell Bryan Carter...I am awaiting for vital information therefore not in a position to reply in full.....but could give them a basic outline of my disputes? good idea or not?

You should definitely write back to Bryan Carter outlining your disputes with regards to charges, PPI, etc., but I'd leave out the 'phantom payment' for now, since you're not arguing the debt is SBd, it doesn't give you grounds for dispute. :nono:

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP.....for the great info.....quick question.....when I write to BC should I mention that I am/have sent Vanquis an SAR? that way they will have to wait for me to get info before/if they want to issue proceedings?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP.....for the great info.....quick question.....when I write to BC should I mention that I am/have sent Vanquis an SAR? that way they will have to wait for me to get info before/if they want to issue proceedings?

As you are going to mention PPI and charges, you could also say you have sent a SAR in order to ascertain your position regarding such things. Why not? :thumb:

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

:juggle: THANKS FP....will keep in touch...

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Hi FP...was thinking of sending this.....the 4 Nov is only a few days away so wanted to get it posted today and emailed to BC....FP I believe your inbox is full and am unable to send you any further pm's.


Here is what I have written...so far...please let me know if you think it makes sense as half of it is over my head lol


Date: 1 November 2013 Dear Sirs

Re your letter dated 21 October 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 client’s 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 the unfair and excessive default charges. Your client mis-sold me PPI and also charges associated with it, which was added to the account and interest on top. The PPI was a failure of consideration as it provided no benefit to me.

On the 11 August 2013 I received a letter from your client advising me that they were requesting a copy of the agreement from the original lender, and I would receive in the 12 days required period, If however it would take longer they would contact me.

I have not to date received a copy of the agreement neither have I heard from your client to date advising the delay as they had advised.

I am also awaiting a response to a Subject Data Request that was sent to your client on the 28 October 2013 to ascertain my position.

If you issue court proceedings without settling the above matters satisfactorily they will be vigorously defended.

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.


Thanks

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Hi FP...was thinking of sending this.....the 4 Nov is only a few days away so wanted to get it posted today and emailed to BC....FP I believe your inbox is full and am unable to send you any further pm's.

Sorry about that, have just had a clearout and made some room. :washing:

Here is what I have written...so far...please let me know if you think it makes sense as half of it is over my head lol

Date: 1 November 2013 Dear Sirs

Re your letter dated 21 October 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 client’s 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 the unfair and excessive default charges. Your client mis-sold me PPI and also charges associated with it, which was added to the account and interest on top. The PPI was a failure of consideration as it provided no benefit to me.

On the 11 August 2013 I received a letter from your client advising me that they were requesting a copy of the agreement from the original lender, and I would receive in the 12 days required period, If however it would take longer they would contact me.

I have not to date received a copy of the agreement neither have I heard from your client to date advising the delay as they had advised.

I am also awaiting a response to a Subject Data Request that was sent to your client on the 28 October 2013 to ascertain my position.

If you issue court proceedings without settling the above matters satisfactorily they will be vigorously defended.

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.

Thanks

Looks fine, it sets out the reasons for dispute which is what you're trying to achieve. :thumb:

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thanks FP....Well I posted the letter above and sent a copy via email to BC yesterday.....should get to them on Monday....just wait and see what happens now.

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Just received this email from Bryan Carter.....good they have received my email


Dear


OUR CLIENT: LOWELL FINANCIAL LIMITED
ACCOUNT NUMBER:

OUTSTANDING BALANCE:


Thank you for your email.

We confirm that any claim/enquiry you intend to make in relation to the Payment Protection Insurance (‘PPI’) should be referred to the creditor via whom you purchased the policy.

Lowell Financial Limited was not responsible for you purchasing PPI and holds no opinion as to the merits of your claim/enquiry. You should contact the relevant creditor direct. Lowell Financial cannot act as intermediary on your behalf.

We confirm we have referred the contents of your email to our client for further instructions and we will revert to you in due course.

Yours sincerely

Bryan Carter Solicitors LLP
11 De Havilland Drive, Weybridge, Surrey KT13 0YP Tel: 0845 219 8686 Fax: 0845 223 5656
e-mail:info@bryancartersolicitors.co.uk

Guess I should just sit and wait to hear from them now.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

What they are saying is correct, Lowell are just debt purchasers and wouldn't have sold you PPI, however, they purchased an account where the alleged balance included PPI. I don't know what stage you're at with this, presumably you've already started the ball rolling with Vanquis in terms of complaining/reclaiming, or maybe have gone as far as the FOS. :noidea:

I any case, it sounds like the letter has achieved its main purpose, which was to stave off court action. :thumb:

You're right, just wait to hear from them (or anyone else).

[Faithmovesmountains]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Hi FP...was thinking of sending this.....the 4 Nov is only a few days away so wanted to get it posted today and emailed to BC....FP I believe your inbox is full and am unable to send you any further pm's.


Here is what I have written...so far...please let me know if you think it makes sense as half of it is over my head lol


Date: 1 November 2013 Dear Sirs

Re your letter dated 21 October 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 client’s 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 the unfair and excessive default charges. Your client mis-sold me PPI and also charges associated with it, which was added to the account and interest on top. The PPI was a failure of consideration as it provided no benefit to me.

On the 11 August 2013 I received a letter from your client advising me that they were requesting a copy of the agreement from the original lender, and I would receive in the 12 days required period, If however it would take longer they would contact me.

I have not to date received a copy of the agreement neither have I heard from your client to date advising the delay as they had advised.

I am also awaiting a response to a Subject Data Request that was sent to your client on the 28 October 2013 to ascertain my position.

If you issue court proceedings without settling the above matters satisfactorily they will be vigorously defended.

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.


Thanks

Hi,

I have received the same letter verbatim from Bryan Carter but, I don't understand how it's defective and could result in any action of theirs being stayed. Sorry but, am new to this and would appreciate it if someone could explain?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Hi,

I have received the same letter verbatim from Bryan Carter but, I don't understand how it's defective and could result in any action of theirs being stayed. Sorry but, am new to this and would appreciate it if someone could explain?

Sounds like they are using template letters. :sad: Because they are threatening legal action, their letters should be replied to as if they were letters before action or letters of claim. The Civil Procedure Rules pre-action conduct practice direction states how both parties should conduct themselves prior to litigation. Before issuing a claim, a claimant is expected to send a letter of claim, providing full details. When you see what information those letters should contain, you will see why we are saying they are defective. See below for reference:

7. Exchanging information before starting proceedings

7.1 Before starting proceedings –
(1) the claimant should set out the details of the matter in writing by sending a letter before claim to the defendant. This letter before claim is not the start of proceedings; and
(2) the defendant should give a full written response within a reasonable period, preceded, if appropriate, by a written acknowledgment of the letter before claim.

2. Claimant’s letter before claim

2.1 The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information. The letter should include –
(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable);
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant; and

(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.
2.2 The letter should also –
(1) list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely;
(2) set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this;
(3) state the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant; and
(4) identify and ask for copies of any relevant documents not in the claimant's possession and which the claimant wishes to see.
2.3 Unless the defendant is known to be legally represented the letter should –
(1) refer the defendant to this Practice Direction and in particular draw attention to paragraph 4 concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction; and
(2) inform the defendant that ignoring the letter before claim may lead to the claimant starting proceedings and may increase the defendant's liability for costs.

[Faithmovesmountains]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thank you very much for explaining it to me, I won't hijack this thread but, may I refer to (use) your reply in my own thread?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thank you very much for explaining it to me, I won't hijack this thread but, may I refer to (use) your reply in my own thread?

I have copied my post to your thread for reference. :thumb:

[jumper999]

Re: Jumper v Vanquis

Thank you very much for explaining it to me, I won't hijack this thread but, may I refer to (use) your reply in my own thread?

No worries about hijacking my thread......faithmovesmountains....the more the merrier....more info...more we all can learn...especially with the brilliant and great help from FP....and others.

Thanks FP for your step by step help....very much appreciated.

I am going to wait and see what response I get from BC....and also see what comes back through my data request also.

I am also going to write a letter to Vanquis & Lowell inquiring about the PPI that was added to my agreement and a breakdown of all charges. Hopefully should take them a couple of years to reply lol.....will keep updated.