Credit Security limited

by Snoop Sat May 18, 2019 10:50 am

I started the DCA 3 letter process for an alleged BoS credit card just shy of £7000 with Wescot I’m 2 letters in and have had zero correspondence from Wescot (letter 3 due out Monday). I have now received 2 letters 1st from BoS containing a letter from credit security limited both telling me that CSL would now be collecting the alleged debt. This was sent a week after Wescot received letter 1. The second letter 11 days later stating notice of further action blah blah blah. Both have taken a couple of weeks for me to receive as they were sent to an old address.

Is possible that Wescot had already passed this back to BoS (as I had been burying my head in the sand and had ignored BoS and then Wescot for a long time) by the time I’d sent them letter 1 or did they bottle it when i sent them the letter? Also should I continue and send letter 3 to them then use the estoppel notice?

I will now restart the process with CSL has anyone had any dealings with them? Should I also start the process with BoS or just stick with the company asking me to RE-pay the money I created?

by **Mrblue2015** Sat May 18, 2019 12:33 pm

Check the letters to be 100% clear who has bought the alleged debt. Wescot may only have been acting as a DCA (debt collection agency) but are not the owners of the alleged debt.

I am aware that wescot has acted as a DCA in other cases.

by **Mrblue2015** Sat May 18, 2019 12:35 pm

Also it’s a v good idea to get a DSAR (data subject access request) to BoS ASAP... template elsewhere on this site Smile

by Snoop Sat May 18, 2019 4:13 pm

Thanks mr blue. Wescot were definitely agents probably why they gave up so easily. I now plan to write to CSL using the 3rd man technique, to establish if they’ve bought the alleged debt or if they’re acting as agents. I’ll up load the letters if I read them correctly I think they’re agents but as ever they’re ambiguous.

by **Mrblue2015** Sat May 18, 2019 4:20 pm

You’re welcome buddy. Yep DCAs (ie as they haven’t purchased the alleged debt) have no legal hold on us whatsoever.

Sounds like CSL have bought it but yes, ask for formal confirmation. Then assuming they are, use the Debt Purchaser (not DCA) letters.

by **Mrblue2015** Sat May 18, 2019 4:21 pm

Here’s the link:

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t1131-new-3-letters-for-debt-purchasers

by **Mrblue2015** Sat May 18, 2019 4:24 pm

Give them 10 days in between in letter and regardless what they send (as no way will they have all of the evidence required to substantiate their claim) send letter 2 then 3 then get back to us. Get on with your life in the meantime and ignore their template letters UNLESS they confirm they are taking legal action (if they only say “we may litigate” just ignore it...)

by **daveiron** Sat May 18, 2019 5:28 pm

just another bottom feeding collector. I find it useful to just go to the web site of whoever is contacting you in order to check their status.

https://www.creditsecurity.co.uk/portal/csl/faq.html

by Snoop Sat May 18, 2019 5:42 pm

Ideal thanks for the advice I will get letters composed and find out and simultaneously dsar PoS. Here’s the letters I’ve had so far. Since rediscovering the awesome community that is goodf and taking the time to research the fraud I’m significantly less stressed about the whole process!

by **assassin** Sun May 19, 2019 3:48 am

Look at the wording

We need to understand why you have not contacted us

No you dont, this is a play on words to get you to contact them where they will work on you to get you to consent to an alleged debt. They want their slice of the profits.

Or attempted to repay what you owe

How do they know that you actually owe any alleged debt? its an assumption, remember non asumpsit.

We will work with you

What they really mean is that they want you to admit you actually owe a debt as they cannot prove, or have actual proof that any alleged debt exists.

Unfortunately, without your cooperation we are unable to assist you

What they really mean is that without you admitting you owe any alleged debt they are screwed and will not get their commision.

We look forward to hearing from you

Of course they do, if you make contact they can work on you and beg and plead with you to repay something and consent by action to something they cannot prove you owe.

Your debt needs to be repaid

What debt? you haven't proven any debt so you are getting desperate as your excessive commission is going through the window and you are assuming I owe a debt.

One of our agents will be calling you

Call more than twice after being told NOT to contact me and this is harassment and id breaking the law and you can hit them with a claim.

If they come by Royal mail I would put them back in the letterbox after marking them RTS.

by Snoop Sun May 19, 2019 8:00 am

Thanks for the education assassin it reminds me of being in school and the English teacher saying “what do you think the author meant when they said . . .”! Except this is the education all of us should have been getting!

I’m starting to understand the game better so I will start to look at the deeper meanings of their words rather than taking it at face value so I can rebut them more effectively rather than just putting 2 fingers up at them. The more education I get the more confident I feel going forward with rather than attacking it with brute force and ignorance.

by **Mrblue2015** Sun May 19, 2019 8:53 am

Brilliant break down by Assassin. All they have is the hope that you will fear them. As one previous contributer once said; “It’s just people in an office”. And I’ll add my bit: they’re incompetent (make mistakes) and guess what? They use template letters Wink

by **assassin** Mon May 20, 2019 1:48 am

It is important to understand because courts only operate on paperwork and legal experts only make a play on words to manipulate people and courts, and paperwork always wins so it is very important to understand words and their multiple meanings.

by Snoop Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:35 pm

Good evening all,

I have had some correspondence from CSL 3 letters in fact that I’ll post below this synopsis first saying they are in receipt of my template letter account not subject to the bill of exchange act, the account not subject to a deed of assignment awaiting doc that they will forward. Next letter was with a large wad of cc statements with a sneaky paragraph about the account not being in dispute previously and please confirm if I acknowledge opening and using said account. Last one stating they had the pleasure in enclosing proof of account ownership with a printout of an online credit card agreement with boxes ticked. Then stating that they trust this clarifies their position and to contact them to arrange affordable repayments blah blah blah.
I gave only just received all 3 together as I’ve been away and they were sent to an old address. I’ve been behind sending letter 2 as I’ve been away.

My thoughts are that I will send letter 2 with a bit extra asking why they believe it is not subject to the bills os exchange act ask them to clarify their position as to whether they own the account or are acting as agents, I know they mean that they think a printout of a couple of tick boxes makes it mine, point out that I disputed this alleged debt with BoS previous minions and also that as there was no signature with the letter containing the dodgy cc agreement that I don’t believe it to be a certified true copy as they are not willing to put their personal liability on the line. If I’m going wildly off course with this if someone could steer me back on as I plan to get this sent in tomorrow’s post!

by Snoop Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:37 pm

by Snoop Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:39 pm

by Snoop Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:21 pm

The letter I am sending them in morning.

by **daveiron** Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:35 am

I like it. The only thing I would add concerns the part in their letter where they state they only hold the account for a small amount of time ,so its important you respond quickly.
All I would add is " Your timescales for responses are not my concern,I do however endeavour where possible to reply within 40 days"

by Snoop Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:19 am

Thanks for the vote of confidence and the addition daveiron. The letter is already in the post however I will add it to my arsenal for the next one that puts a time frame on!

by **Mrblue2015** Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:40 pm

Good man

by **Mrblue2015** Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:09 pm

daveiron wrote: "Your timescales for responses are not my concern,I do however endeavour where possible to reply within 40 days"

Hi DI (sorry to jump in Snoop!). Are you sure that 40 days is a reasonable time to delay our response? What if a DP/DCA were to ignore that and still send more letters in-between and we did not respond to those until the 40 days were up), could that be held against us in the future? Thank you Smile

by **daveiron** Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:01 pm

Hi,
Because their timescales are just that,THEIR timescales . Just the same as my time scales are mine.

by **Mrblue2015** Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:39 pm

I agree and see where you’re coming from mate!

But then why not suggest 90 or 190 days (for example)? My main point was, roughly speaking, at what point could (???) there be implications, as there is only so long they would wait / chase us before potentially turning up on our door steps (which we don’t want).

And would / could leaving such a long delay he held against us in future by a solicitor / judge ie might they take the view that we were being unreasonable?

Hope that makes sense! Smile

by **daveiron** Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:02 pm

If for example you sent them a SAR they would have a month to respond ( and as we know they stretch it
out for the full month) ,If that is deemed a reasonable time ,then anything similar from us should also be
reasonable.

by **Mrblue2015** Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:14 pm

Damn good point mate and in my case they took a lot longer than a month!

by Sponsored content

Credit Security limited

Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited

Re: Credit Security limited