Bank of Scotland(part of LLoyds)

[roksee]

Hi there,

Have read the site but can't find relevant information.

Right, my friend(yes really), has a credit card debt(hate to use that word), which has now been turned over to Blair, Oliver and Scott ltd for collection.

However i believe that the original credit card is unenforceable under the consumer credit act 1974 (the bank may no longer have the original contract), since she has informed me that she has had this credit card for a number of years now, and i am aware that a large portion of card agreements prior to 2007 may be unenforceable.

I have asked her to request a copy of the original contract.

since there maybe no agreement, there is nothing to enforce.

and secondly before its mentioned, a reconstructed agreement would i believe not be enforceable since the bank failed to run its financial business according to uk law(if thats the case then surely the court cannot enforce a claim which wholeheartedly is illegal), the judge would be operating in Ultra Vires.

My question is, if we are informed that the original contract is no longer in existance. Do we contact Blair, Oliver and Scott re recovery of the amount of money claimed off my freind, or does she make a claim to the bank.

If we are told that no contract can be presented then i shall ask her to stop paying this company any money.

Oh by the way just thought of this one, does any one know how banks notify debt collectors that someone owes money, do they telephone, send fax, letter or emails but more to point do they sent copy of contract, to ensure that debt collectors are within their rights.

Your thoughts please

Roksee

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Bank of Scotland(part of LLoyds)

If it is unenforceable that does not stop a DCA chasing the debt it just merely means that it cannot be enforced in a court of law.

the bank failed to run its financial business according to uk law

In what way please explain that assumption because only a Judge can decide that.

That may be your assertion but a Judge could see it totally differently taking into account all the merits of the case.

BTW those DCA'S are BOS inhouse debt collectors and sit at the next desk.

[roksee]

Re: Bank of Scotland(part of LLoyds)

Hi there, thanks for your reply, you asked in what way.

Well if the financial institute had to run an account a certain way, ie maintain a record for inspection on demand at a later point, and also have for inspection a set of signatures which he doesn't have, and this action was required by law(the consumer credit act 1974), The bank has no authority in law to make demands, after all, don't forget ignorance of the law is no excuse, they have no arguement to say the least. They should have been aware of the credit act, they failed to comply with the law, its unlawful(it's called a technicality), another way of seeing things is to look at fines imposed by the fsa on banks for failing to hold true accounts(in your arguement, they wouldn't get fined, As a bank they make money end of story)

Misappropriation of funds is unlawful, do is decption

Secondly i think a judge would decide on this matter since, it would be proved an unlawful action(failing to comply with an act of parliement, the ACT 1974), you would be in your rights to challenge any negative decision and also report him for acting in Ultra Vires(going beyond his powers)
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
There are many other instances where this action is important, look at wills, you still need prove to shown that you have ownership, and that is what a will with signatures does, it might be a different concept but the basis is the same.