• 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.

Longish Story

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

  • #31
    Re: Longish story...

    Can this be used to get their Consumer Credit Act licences revoked?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Longish story...

      Originally posted by Bill-K View Post
      Yes, they are not obliged to supply the original agreement, but may be required to produce it as proof of the existence of the debt, if they pursue it in court. Unfortunately, non-compliance with a CCA s.77-79 request is NOT in itself proof that there is no agreement, nor that the contract - or debt - is unenforceable.
      Are you quite sure?

      Section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (link) suggests that the alleged contract remains unenforceable as long as the creditor fails to comply with a request made under section 78(1).

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Longish story...

        Update as of 2nd October 2012.

        Today I received a letter from Lowells syaing that "we have been advised by SAV Credit Limited that the original credit agreement is no longer available due to the length of time since the account was opened with you. We have closed our file etc etc".

        While this is great news :tinysmile_grin_t: and once again I thank you all for your advice, how does this affect my original aim to clear the default from my credit file? Do I write to Experian or Lowells? And what do I say - remove it in 28 days or else?

        Many thanks Crusty

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Longish story...

          Hi Crusty
          Good news but did they say how long they were closing your file for. Can't be trusted Lowell. My file was closed in 2009 when Lowell involved McKenzie Hall and Kilmarnock Trading Standards said they were acting in contravention of industry guidelines. MH had just had a slap from the OFT. Lowell opened the file 6 months later. Kulmarnock TS told West Yorkshire TS but West Yorkshire turned a blind eye. I have seen some interesting emails between Lowell and WYTS by the way very friendly and cosy relationship they have.

          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