Credit card agreement misfiled and they can't find it!

Hi

Would appreciate your help

This is from Natwest - they cannot find the credit card agreement

How does this affect me now?

What should I do next?

Thank you for your help as always

Much appreciated

Prometheus

Great, they are telling they do not have the agreement & cannot enforce what they do not have.
Continue the letters until the end.

Thank you Daveiron
already all done with letters
have a great week

I had the same one last year. "We regret to advise we can't find it". They only regret it because they will lose out.
They contradict themselves by saying it is not void - they cannot enforce something that doesn't exist. Were they to try to take it to court, they wouldn't have any case as they have no evidence. The last line about "We may take such action as legally permitted" is laughable - they can't do anything.

Brilliant !!!!

Hi everyone

has been quite from Natwest since the letter of "they cannot find the credit card agreement" and then received this
how is it best to respond?
Your help always very much appreciated.

Prom

Personally I would just refer them to their letter in your original post.

Thank you @daveiron
much appreciated your quick response

Actually, I would take a slightly different view to Daveiron, but follow what he says; in addition I would be looking for a case of harassment against them as they are now giving you the evidence to do so.

They agree they have no agreement and have admitted so, they are now trying to enforce something they know to be unenforceable, and this constitutes harassment as defined by the harassment act which requires two or more actions to be taken against you and it must cause you a harm or loss. Lets look at what the law says, specifically the Harassment act:

1
Prohibition of harassment.

(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

[F1(1A) A person must not pursue a course of conduct —

(a) which involves harassment of two or more persons, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and
(c) by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)—

(i) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or
(ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.]

(2)
For the purposes of this section [F2or section 2A(2)(c)], the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to [F3 or involves] harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3)
Subsection (1) [F4or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

They have admitted that they have misfiled (excuse for not having) the alleged document which they need to prove the alleged debt exists, so they have no proof.
They are pursuing a course of action against you for which they have no proof and which the law says:

(ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

They are making an unsubstantiated claim and without proof of claim then you are not obliged to do anything.

Dear Assassin
Thank you -excellent
do you have wording around this to send to them to stop them in their tracks?
Much appreciated
Prom

Hi,

Why not print or copy what assassin has posted and include it in a letter to them.You can always post
here a draft of your letter ,others can suggest additions or amendments to help you. I say this as its
much more satisfying when you get the hang of how to write to the parasites.

Why do you fall into the same trap as everyone else? almost everyone wants to argue and have a golden bullet; do not argue with them and do not refer to this legislation and for good reason.

With harassment you need evidence, if you write to them and tell them they are harassing you then they prepare and you have exposed your hand for them to counter before they even send a letter; it is much better to let them send, and continue to send their letters as this is evidence. You need two examples within what is deemed a reasonable time and judges abuse this time period for the benefit of these companies; if you have four letters over four months then you have been harassed for four months, if you have nine letters over six months then you have been harassed for six months and the more evidence you have, the harder it is for them to dispute.

Harassment is simple, you let them dig their own graves and bury themselves, you need as much evidence as possible and you let them give you this; so think about it, if they repeatedly send you letters saying bailiff scum will visit your home for an alleged debt they cannot prove then it strengthens your case and you also have to beat the judge as well as the claimant and you let them beat themselves.

I take your point assassin, Thats great if you want to pursue it in court ,and hope you get a judge
who is prepared to do his job. I think most folk just want to be left alone ,hence my response.
Of course the choice is always open .

Totally agree Dave and this is why the options need to be explored and other avenues opened up, and this is why the issues of harassment and individual liability need to be pursued, for people on low incomes there are no fees for a County Court hearing and it can be dealt with as an administrative hearing so there is no need to attend. These courts are supposed to operate on the evidence and in this case there is no admitted evidence so why are they pursuing someone for an unenforceable debt? this, by its very nature is harassment and nothing else, and there has to be someone creating this harassment.

Onto the game, they play a game of railroading people and the majority play that game and play their game when we should be playing our game and not theirs, and financially; what does it cost us? for anyone on low incomes it is free and with an administrative hearing there are no court expenses, so the decision of a judge is immaterial as this can be appealed in a higher court.
What does it cost them? it costs them time and money, they have to prepare their case which is expensive, they have to have their legal representatives to appear in front of a judge if it is a litigant in person and this costs them money and time, and this hits their bottom line or their profits. Remember that this is the case of harassment only and is the reason that they should be sepeaated and kept as separate cases and the judge is only dealing with a harassment case and nothing else. In reality most companies do not want this as they do not want the expense and in many cases they will keep it out of court as it will be a financial decision only.

Once you win a harassment case you can go for the individual and this will either be a director or person with significant control, this damages their reputation and this damaged reputation means this can be highlighted when they tender for work; this means the more claims against them means more damaged reputations and more potential clients are less willing to employ them.

On that point assassin, not checked it out with pertaining to debt purchasers but with Banks ,any complaint
made to the FCA .The Bank is charged £ 400.00 or thereabouts per complaint.

Thank you Gentlemen for your wisdom- will keep you posted as more evidence comes in
Now I know why they call you the Assassin - silent and deadly

I think to harassment the litigant could add intimidation and unconscionable conduct.

Just in case it helps the debtor litigant, this comes from the Aus "Debt collection guideline for collectors and creditors."

There is a lot of info in this the debtor litigant can use to make up their case.

"Coercion
Judicial authority indicates that s. 50 ....... prohibits any ‘coercion’, not just ‘undue coercion’. Coercion involves actual or threatened force or pressure that restricts a debtor’s choice or freedom to act.
It is important to note that coercion may be exhibited in many forms, and is not limited to using or threatening physical force. A person may be considered to be coerced by another person either to do something or refrain from doing something. Unlike undue harassment, there is no requirement for the behaviour to be repetitive for it to amount to coercion.

Then there is unconscionable conduct.

It is behaviour that is substantially more than just hard commercial bargaining. The relationship or dealings between a creditor or collector and a debtor is one that could assume characteristics of unconscionable conduct. This is because the collector is often in a position of strength and can exert pressure or unfair tactics over a debtor.

This type of unconscionable conduct occurs when one party knowingly exploits the special disadvantage of another. This is general unconscionable conduct according to historical judge-made law. Factors that may give rise to a special disadvantage include:
• ignorance of a debtor of important facts known to the staff or agent of the business
• illiteracy or lack of education of the debtor
• poverty or need of any kind of the debtor
• the debtor’s age
• infirmity of body or mind of the debtor
• drunkenness of the debtor
• lack of explanation and assistance when necessary.
You should consider whether any circumstances of special disadvantage or vulnerability apply to a debtor whom you contact. If it does, make sure you interact with the debtor in a way that does not take advantage of their special disadvantage. Otherwise, your conduct is likely to be regarded as unconscionable and in breach of the law under this provision.
When you know or suspect a debtor lacks knowledge of the law, the debt recovery process, or the implications of non-payment of a debt, you must not take advantage of their ignorance.
Depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate to encourage the debtor with a special disadvantage to seek the assistance of a financial counsellor or other suitably qualified representative to act on their behalf.

my preferred method for dealing with them is to make them an offer to cease and desist

to form an adhesion contract,

daveiron wrote:I take your point assassin, Thats great if you want to pursue it in court ,and hope you get a judge
who is prepared to do his job. I think most folk just want to be left alone ,hence my response.
Of course the choice is always open .

This is why you pursue it in court, they have no case and they know it, once papers are served upon them they will forget it and you get a default judgement registered against them and they leave you alone. If they try to sell it on then they are knowingly selling on an unenforceable debt which has a judgement and if the debt purchaser tries to collect them you can bring claims against both of them for harassment, fraud, and professional misconduct; one thing courts hate are people ignoring their judgements and they automatically swing to your side, rather than theirs.

daveiron wrote:On that point assassin, not checked it out with pertaining to debt purchasers but with Banks ,any complaint
made to the FCA .The Bank is charged £ 400.00 or thereabouts per complaint.

Then you follow this up with an official complaint to the FCA and not only do they lose collection of monies they expect to get, they also get hit with an additional £400 bill, so already their costs are rising and they are getting nothing back.

waylander62 wrote:my preferred method for dealing with them is to make them an offer to cease and desist

to form an adhesion contract,

And yet another option appears, if done correctly you can do all three.

thank you for your help on this
let them keep sending and then I will hit them with harassment
will keep you posted
have a great week