Tweet
Hi everybody my first Thread
I must point out I do not condone not paying your debts But when asking your Creditor for help in reducing their excessive APR and refunding the overcharging I didn't expect what the Bank contrive to do to a Debtor.
February 2013 Halifax sent three Documents stating this is what I agreed to.
No. 1 Document was a poor photo copy of the application form No.2 documents where automated copies of the Credit Agreement (20 years to late) No3 a crude forgery of the CCA 1974. When contacting the Bank and explaining to them this was misleading and false they replied " we will investigate it further and respond accordingly," I waited 5 weeks and then they stated 'no further explanation will serve any useful purpose, therefore you may regard this letter as our final response on this matter.' and referred me to FOS. This turned out to be a complete waste of time in my situation the FOS are the Bank policing the Bank the FOS adjudicator took 8 months to decide if it was a forgery or not(she found in favor for the Bank)no surprise there? Whilst speaking to the adjudicator about her decision I found out she didn't even look at my evidence. Then it was passed onto the Ombudsman (she also found in favor of the Bank) stating although she agreed the Bank did send the Document but concluded they found no evidence it was fraudulent. So if you decide to proceed down the FOS route remember as its free (they want you to) the FOS are Judge and jury they freely admit they only have 38% of actual solicitor's the rest are made up with 19 year students and under graduates who no little or nothing about Financial dealings (guess which one I got) further more even a High court Judge cannot over turn their final Decision.
Sorry for ranting I just cannot believe how they get away this. Let’s get back to the Documents as The Consumer Credit Act 1974 known as 127(3)which was revoked in the 2006 Amendments, however the amendment was not retrospective Therefore 127(3) of the Act STILL applies to consumer credit agreements executed prior to April 2007.
As I see it the true agreement must be signed and contain the prescribed terms within.
No. 1 Document the Halifax sent was the Application form (this is not acceptable as a signed true copy)
No 2 Documents automated copies of the Credit Agreement and these would be contained within the signed agreement and be presented when signing not 20 years later (These are not acceptable assigned(true copies)
No 3 The forgery this Document had the wrong address also stated I had a promotional rate of 9.95% for 6 months then would revert to 29.9% (completely false)
this only proves that FOS did not view my evidence because the photo copy of the application form did state that the monthly APR would be charged on a daily
basis at 1.58% plus statements which confirmed there was no promotion rate to the alleged account FOS condoned a forgery.
As the account was in dispute on the 1st March 2014 after waiting 12 months for FOS to help the Bank in deciding it was not a forgery once again I requested a true copy of the CCA 1974.
Response from the Bank on 14 March 2014 (awaiting documents.) Response from the bank letter dated 17th March 2014 states enclosed a copy of your reconstituted version of the executed agreement comprising both the original and current Credit Agreement and a copy of your original application form.
No 1 Document reconstructed version postal address is wrong and not correct as of the date of signing therefore could be constructed as deliberately misleading or possibly fraud.
No. 2 Identical automated copies of Credit Agreement not signed.
No 3 Identical copy of original application form not acceptable assigned true copies.
The Bank concluded by stating we will not be entering into any further correspondence regarding the requirements relating to the provision of copy agreements.
Thus their actions constitute a limitation on my human Rights.
Due to the Banks rejection to further correspondence by me to the Head of Customer Support Operations I sent my reply on the 25th March 2014 signed for to the Service Officer, Disputes Team, at Dunfermline, Fife. To inform the Bank they had failed to supply an enforceable document. (To date letter ignored).
The Account is now in serious Dispute and the Bank has committed a criminal offence under section 77/78 of the CCA 1974 executed prior to April 2007 by: -
1. The sending of Intimidating letters.
2. Producing a crude forgery of the CCA 1974 which deliberately is misleading or possibly fraudulent.
3. Reconstructing the agreement with wrong address and no commencement date when signing.
4. Have on two occasions refuse to enter in further correspondence.
5. Which constitutes a limitation on my Human rights making it impossible for the Debtor to respond to the Default Notice?
6. Whilst in Dispute the Director of Collections started the harassment from call centers in Manila also India at unsocial times Ignoring my Cease and Desist letter.
7. Reportingthe matter to the credit reference agencies.
8. Servicing a DEFAULT NOTICE.
The Bank now has a flagrant disregard to the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on sections 77/78/79 of the CCA 1974 SECION 5 Sanction for Non-Compliance.
Also Quoted from OFT 5.11 32
(The criminal offences for non-compliance under the Act no longer apply as section 77(4) (b), 78(6) (b) and 79(3) (b) have been repealed by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) Guidance on section 77,78 and 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
As the 2006 Amendments was not retrospective credit agreements executed prior to April 2007 still apply therefore the Bank have committed a criminal offence under section 77/78 of the CCA 1974.
I am going to fight this injustice and awaiting any court hearing.
I've been studying the CCA 1974 now for 15 months 'not looking for loopholes' but I've notice an inconsistency by (Discriminating against the Debtor by Legal Equality.)
I keep you informed of the conclusion
Hopes this helps someone to hang in there and don't be bullied into submission.
I must point out I do not condone not paying your debts But when asking your Creditor for help in reducing their excessive APR and refunding the overcharging I didn't expect what the Bank contrive to do to a Debtor.
February 2013 Halifax sent three Documents stating this is what I agreed to.
No. 1 Document was a poor photo copy of the application form No.2 documents where automated copies of the Credit Agreement (20 years to late) No3 a crude forgery of the CCA 1974. When contacting the Bank and explaining to them this was misleading and false they replied " we will investigate it further and respond accordingly," I waited 5 weeks and then they stated 'no further explanation will serve any useful purpose, therefore you may regard this letter as our final response on this matter.' and referred me to FOS. This turned out to be a complete waste of time in my situation the FOS are the Bank policing the Bank the FOS adjudicator took 8 months to decide if it was a forgery or not(she found in favor for the Bank)no surprise there? Whilst speaking to the adjudicator about her decision I found out she didn't even look at my evidence. Then it was passed onto the Ombudsman (she also found in favor of the Bank) stating although she agreed the Bank did send the Document but concluded they found no evidence it was fraudulent. So if you decide to proceed down the FOS route remember as its free (they want you to) the FOS are Judge and jury they freely admit they only have 38% of actual solicitor's the rest are made up with 19 year students and under graduates who no little or nothing about Financial dealings (guess which one I got) further more even a High court Judge cannot over turn their final Decision.
Sorry for ranting I just cannot believe how they get away this. Let’s get back to the Documents as The Consumer Credit Act 1974 known as 127(3)which was revoked in the 2006 Amendments, however the amendment was not retrospective Therefore 127(3) of the Act STILL applies to consumer credit agreements executed prior to April 2007.
As I see it the true agreement must be signed and contain the prescribed terms within.
No. 1 Document the Halifax sent was the Application form (this is not acceptable as a signed true copy)
No 2 Documents automated copies of the Credit Agreement and these would be contained within the signed agreement and be presented when signing not 20 years later (These are not acceptable assigned(true copies)
No 3 The forgery this Document had the wrong address also stated I had a promotional rate of 9.95% for 6 months then would revert to 29.9% (completely false)
this only proves that FOS did not view my evidence because the photo copy of the application form did state that the monthly APR would be charged on a daily
basis at 1.58% plus statements which confirmed there was no promotion rate to the alleged account FOS condoned a forgery.
As the account was in dispute on the 1st March 2014 after waiting 12 months for FOS to help the Bank in deciding it was not a forgery once again I requested a true copy of the CCA 1974.
Response from the Bank on 14 March 2014 (awaiting documents.) Response from the bank letter dated 17th March 2014 states enclosed a copy of your reconstituted version of the executed agreement comprising both the original and current Credit Agreement and a copy of your original application form.
No 1 Document reconstructed version postal address is wrong and not correct as of the date of signing therefore could be constructed as deliberately misleading or possibly fraud.
No. 2 Identical automated copies of Credit Agreement not signed.
No 3 Identical copy of original application form not acceptable assigned true copies.
The Bank concluded by stating we will not be entering into any further correspondence regarding the requirements relating to the provision of copy agreements.
Thus their actions constitute a limitation on my human Rights.
Due to the Banks rejection to further correspondence by me to the Head of Customer Support Operations I sent my reply on the 25th March 2014 signed for to the Service Officer, Disputes Team, at Dunfermline, Fife. To inform the Bank they had failed to supply an enforceable document. (To date letter ignored).
The Account is now in serious Dispute and the Bank has committed a criminal offence under section 77/78 of the CCA 1974 executed prior to April 2007 by: -
1. The sending of Intimidating letters.
2. Producing a crude forgery of the CCA 1974 which deliberately is misleading or possibly fraudulent.
3. Reconstructing the agreement with wrong address and no commencement date when signing.
4. Have on two occasions refuse to enter in further correspondence.
5. Which constitutes a limitation on my Human rights making it impossible for the Debtor to respond to the Default Notice?
6. Whilst in Dispute the Director of Collections started the harassment from call centers in Manila also India at unsocial times Ignoring my Cease and Desist letter.
7. Reportingthe matter to the credit reference agencies.
8. Servicing a DEFAULT NOTICE.
The Bank now has a flagrant disregard to the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on sections 77/78/79 of the CCA 1974 SECION 5 Sanction for Non-Compliance.
Also Quoted from OFT 5.11 32
(The criminal offences for non-compliance under the Act no longer apply as section 77(4) (b), 78(6) (b) and 79(3) (b) have been repealed by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) Guidance on section 77,78 and 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
As the 2006 Amendments was not retrospective credit agreements executed prior to April 2007 still apply therefore the Bank have committed a criminal offence under section 77/78 of the CCA 1974.
I am going to fight this injustice and awaiting any court hearing.
I've been studying the CCA 1974 now for 15 months 'not looking for loopholes' but I've notice an inconsistency by (Discriminating against the Debtor by Legal Equality.)
I keep you informed of the conclusion
Hopes this helps someone to hang in there and don't be bullied into submission.
Bye..
Comment