1st Credit

Hi All
1st Credit have been chasing me since February 2015 for an alleged credit card debt that they (allegedly) purchased!. I sent the 3 letters plus the estoppel & since 2015 have been exchanging further letters with them. They have recently sent me a copy of the default notice from the original company, which previously they said they could not provide, & have essentially re-started the attempted collection process by sending their introduction letter from February 2015 (very odd!). I would be grateful if you could advise me on which course of action to take for the best. I believe my options are to either ignore them or write to them again reminding them of the letters I have sent previously.

Many thanks in advance for your advice.

What's the date on the default notice they've sent you?

You could sent something like this to them like I sent to lowell last year

Dear Interloper
The so called evidence you sent me is not what I asked for, is not acceptable and you have not proven any debt.
The evidence I requested from you is as follows
True and certified copies (NOT photocopies) of the Deed of Assignment (Not the Notice of Assignment) and Deed of Novation. I also requested the name of the individual who is the duly authorised representative from your company, who has seen the Original Note and is certifying these assignments as certified copies and that your company now has the Original Note (Credit Agreement) under penalty of perjury and with unlimited liability and confirm that the Note has never been sold prior to your company purchasing this account and also confirmation of the name of the individual who is the duly authorised representative from your company, who has carried out due diligence under The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and what actions s/he has taken in relation to this account.

Nothing other than what was requested will be accepted!

So sorry to say no payment will be made on this account. I also mentioned in my letter dated (Letter 3 Date) that we are now in a tacit agreement which includes a fee schedule. Please find your bill enclosed with this letter which is to be paid within 30 days from the date on this letter by cheque


I understand some don't like billing so if this is the case with you simply leave that bit out

Hi Tiggy
My apologies I should have said 'Notice of Assignment', not 'Default Notice' from Barclaycard, but sent to me by 1st Credit. The date on the NoA is 26/02/2015.

Hi discodave4093
Many thanks for your reply & advice. Did Lowell come back at you after to sent this?.

Ithesoul wrote:Hi Tiggy
My apologies I should have said 'Notice of Assignment', not 'Default Notice' from Barclaycard, but sent to me by 1st Credit. The date on the NoA is 26/02/2015.

What's the original debt for? Do you know when the default notice was issued and have they sent you a copy of the agreement?

Hi Tiggy
The original debt was for 12.5K. The default notice date, from Barclaycard, is August 2014.
I received a copy of the Ts & Cs from Barclaycard but with no signed or dated agreement. I also received a copy of the Ts & Cs from 1st Credit.

Ithesoul wrote:Hi Tiggy
The original debt was for 12.5K. The default notice date, from Barclaycard, is August 2014.
I received a copy of the Ts & Cs from Barclaycard but with no signed or dated agreement. I also received a copy of the Ts & Cs from 1st Credit.

sounds as though they've reconstituted the agreement, which they are allowed to do as long as it is a true representation of the actual agreement. Search Waffle's posts for a link to how they try and use any old agreement and pass it off as the same as yours.

Also, go through what they've sent you with a fine tooth comb to ensure it has all the prescribed terms, without them it's unenforceable against you.

Ithesoul are u a bk? cool.

They can reconstitute the agreement but cannot prove that you signed it. There was a case on this and i'll try and seek it out.

Also, you may find that 1st credit are committing a criminal offence as they are no longer regulated.

handle wrote:Also, you may find that 1st credit are committing a criminal offence as they are no longer regulated.

They will be working to a service agreement to another Company within their group, it's a loophole in the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13349239

also

Note the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson & Ors v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 and Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27; [2000] 2 All ER 897 both ofwhich confirm that where a document does not contain the required prescribed terms under the 1974 Act and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) the Agreement cannot be enforced.

Further, note the 1974 Act provides that the prescribed terms cannot be found in a secondary document as according to section 61(1) (a),(b) & (c) the agreement must at the time it is laid before the debtor contain all the terms of the agreement (Wilson & another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299).

ALSO, BFO Capital Ltd v Roland Wegmuller [2012] EWMisc 19 (CC) (24 January 2012)
Para 33, being words ITom Mr recorder Cambell: "Firstly, I look at the document itself; the application form. That is the best evidence that the claimant has been able to provide in terms of the documentation. Quite simply, there is no reference whatsoever to any of those three prescribed terms that are required [he was referring to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, clauses 3,4,5 mentioned previously in paragraph 13 being the credit limit, the rate of interest and how the obligations are to be discharged]. It is submitted that I should infer that it is more probable than not that they would have been there, either in the blacked-out areas or on the back. I am afraid there is guite simply insufficient evidence to enable me to draw that inference. And I repeat that matters may have been very different if further and better evidence had been produced, either from the claimant or Barclaycard, as to what the position was back in 1996. We do not have that evidence and I have to deal with the evidence that is before me."

In the case of Carey V HSBC and dealing with the issue of proving the original agreement and its contents of terms and conditions, is the following: Section 53 (11) "..If he does and for example asserts positively that although he has been using a credit card agreement for years he never actually signed an agreement, or one that complied with s61, the creditor may well have to try and find the original in order to deal with that allegation..." Thus, it makes no difference if the claimant asserts that they have complied with their duties under the consumer credit act s77/78 if they cannot prove that those terms were actually in or referred to in the original agreement. Also, in the Carey case "Under Regulation 7 of the Copies Regulations, Waksman, in Carey v HSBC [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) para. 108, stated: 'I conclude that Regulation 7 requires a copy of the executed agreement in its original form ... .' ". The Case made a distinction between section 77-79 (which the judgment said was for Information purposes) and not proof purposes. Hence the reference to Section 7 and the original agreement.

In the case of Hillesden Securities v Harry Moore (June 2014) HHJ Charles Harris decided against the
claimant in favour of Harry Moore based on the illegible document of the agreement.

Without the proof of the notice of assignment the Claimant has no standing before the Court (Compania Colombiana
de Seguros v Pacific Steam Navigation Co [1965]1 QB 101).

Under S60(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the following provisions must be contained in the
agreement:
a) the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement,
b) the amount and rate of the total charge for credit
c) the protection and remedies available to him under this Act

HFO Capital limited v Denis Robinson- The Claimant represented by Turnbull Rutherford Solicitors
failed before Deputy District Judge Bradly to satisfy the Court that section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act
1974 had been complied with.

HFO Capital Limited v Michael Burney- The Claimant represented by Turnbull Rutherford Solicitors
failed to satisfy the District Judge that the Default notice was compliant with s87(1) Consumer Credit
Act 1974.

ahem,
https://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=80540

Default Re: PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN



PRA GROUP (UK) Limited were again defeated today in Truro County Court when the District Judge dismissed the claim having found that they -


1. had not proved assignment so no legal right to bring the claim
2. had not proved service of a Default Notice despite producing a reconstituted document
3. were in breach of section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?96606-PRA-GROUP-(UK)-LIMITED-v-DIANA-MAYHEW-WIN/page2

Hi Tiggy & handle
Many thanks for your help & advice.

Yes lowell did come back to me but I just kept sending replies telling them to refer to my previous letters, then it eventually became statute barred

Hi discodave4093
Many thanks for your reply.