Barclaycard

I am new to this forum. I have had Barclaycard in irrevocable estoppal for a number of years now. I have repeatedly asked for proof of debt, a copy of the original consumer credit agreement, and various other documents which BC have refused to supply. In one letter they even admitted that they could not supply a certified copy of any consumer agreement signed by me. Despite repeated letters from me, they have twice sold on the alledged debt to various DCs, on each occaision the alledged debt has been returnd to BC. Having not heard anything from anyone for 3 years, out of the blue I receive a letter from Hoist Portfolio Holdings, telling me that they have purchased this alledged debt, and that they have appointed Robinson way Ltd. to manage the account.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but once BC are in irrevocable estoppal, and tacit agreement, surely any DC agency acting on their behalf, or any other agency dealing with this alledged debt are bound by the same irrevocable estoppal and tacit agreement? Does this approach by yet anothe 3rd party interloper constitute harrassment, which is now a criminal offence? What should I do? Any help or suggestions will be greatly received, and very much appreciated. Thank you.

EDIT to post:- I've a mind to deal with these 3rd party interlopers the same as the other DCs, that is, use the letter process I've successfuly used in the past.

Report them to the Police for demanding money with menaces and demand a crime number from them. If the Police refuse to act make an official complaint and then get in touch with your local MP and make him/her earn there keep.
Don't know if the above will work or not but got to be worth a try. You could even try trading standards don't they deal with this sort of scam, and it is a scam now. If the letters originated from Nigeria they would look into it.

Druid666 wrote:I am new to this forum. I have had Barclaycard in irrevocable estoppal for a number of years now. I have repeatedly asked for proof of debt, a copy of the original consumer credit agreement, and various other documents which BC have refused to supply. In one letter they even admitted that they could not supply a certified copy of any consumer agreement signed by me. Despite repeated letters from me, they have twice sold on the alledged debt to various DCs, on each occaision the alledged debt has been returnd to BC. Having not heard anything from anyone for 3 years, out of the blue I receive a letter from Hoist Portfolio Holdings, telling me that they have purchased this alledged debt, and that they have appointed Robinson way Ltd. to manage the account.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but once BC are in irrevocable estoppal, and tacit agreement, surely any DC agency acting on their behalf, or any other agency dealing with this alledged debt are bound by the same irrevocable estoppal and tacit agreement? Does this approach by yet anothe 3rd party interloper constitute harrassment, which is now a criminal offence? What should I do? Any help or suggestions will be greatly received, and very much appreciated. Thank you.

EDIT to post:- I've a mind to deal with these 3rd party interlopers the same as the other DCs, that is, use the letter process I've successfuly used in the past.

How long has it been since you stopped paying, do you know the date they issued the default notice.

If they have stated they can't supply a copy of the agreement then under Section 78.6 of the Consumer Credit Act it's unenforceable against you.

Stopped paying in 2014, when first disputed. This is an extract from the original letter received from BC when I made my first request for a copy of the CCA :- "Due to circumstances beyond our control, we no longer hold a copy of your executed agreement. Regulation 9 of the CNC Regulations confirms that, in these circumstances, for accounts opened before 19 May 1985 (such as yours) the copy agreement we provide may comprise an easily legible statement of the current terms of the agreement. A copy of the terms and conditions currently applicable to your account has been (or will shortly be) sent to you under separate cover"

In reply to Jinxer, BC have sold the alleged debt on to Hoist Portfolio (third DC this alleged debt has been sold to) who are using Robinson Way to action it. RW are threatening court action (CCJ). I used to get advice from Faljay on the other forum, but it seems he's no longer around.

What they are referring to is:

Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (the “CNC Regulations”).

Copies of old agreements and security instruments where the agreement or security instrument has been lost etc

9.  Any copy of an executed agreement made before 19th May 1985 or of a security instrument relating to security provided before that date which is given to the debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act on or after that date may comprise an easily legible statement of the current terms of the agreement or security as the case may be insofar as they are known to the creditor or owner where, due to an accident or some other cause beyond his control, the creditor or owner does not have in his possession the executed agreement or security instrument or any copy thereof.


Did they actually supply anything?  I would be tempted to make a request for a copy of the agreement with Hoist (and pay the £1 fee), they're even less likely to be able to produce anything then Barclays were !!

BC have never supplied ANY document that I have requested. Of all the letters and requests for documentation I have sent to BC, they Have never replied to anything I have sent, except for the letter containing the above quote. I have appended the full contents of that letter to this post.  
Initial letter sent to BC:- Dear MS  Keating
I would be happy to settle any financial obligation I might lawfully owe, as soon as I have received the following documentation from you:
6. Validation of the debt (the actual accounting);
7. Verification of your claim against me (a sworn affidavit or a hand signed invoice in accordance with  The Bills of Exchange Act (1882) );
8. A copy of the contract signed by both parties and therefore binding both parties.
9. Please also provide me with a true and certified copy (NOT photocopy) of the Original Note (Credit Agreement), under penalty of perjury and with unlimited liability and confirm that this Note, has never been sold. Please also confirm 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 she/he has taken in relation to this account.

I hereby give you ten (10) days to reply to this notice from the above date with a notice sent using recorded post and signed under full commercial liability and penalties of perjury, assuring and promising me that all of the replies and details given to the above requests are true and without deception, fraud or mischief. Your said failure to provide the aforementioned documentation within ten (10) days, from the above date, to validate the debt, will constitute your agreement to the following terms:


10. That the debt did not exist in the first place;
OR
11. It has already been paid in full;
AND
12. That any damages  suffer, you will be held culpable;
13. That any negative remarks made to a credit reference agency will be removed;
14. You will no longer pursue this matter any further.
15. You agree to pay all fee schedules.

Please Note: I wish to deal with this matter in writing and I do not give your organisation permission to contact me by telephone. Should you do so, I must warn you that the calls could constitute ‘harassment' and I may take action under Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40, which makes it a Criminal Offence for a creditor or a creditor's agent to make demands (for money), which are aimed at causing 'alarm, distress or humiliation', because of their frequency or manner
                                                           Yours sincerely,

Letter received from BC in reply (this is the only acknowledging letter I have ever received). :-  Reference: Section78 of the consumer Credit Act 1974

I refer to your request for information dated 19/08/14.

The information we must provide to you under the terms of section 78 of
the consumer Credit Act 1974 (the "Act") is prescribed by the Act and by
the Cosumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents)
Regulations 1983 (the "CNC Regulations"). Section 78 of the Act provides
that, where a creditor receives a Section 78 request, the creditor shall
give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (and any document
refered to in it) and a statement of the account.

Due to circumstances beyond our control, we no longer hold a copy of your
executed agreement. Regulation 9 of the CNC Regulations confirms that, in
these circumstances, for accounts opened before 19 May 1985 (such as yours)
the copy agreement we provide may comprise an easily legible statement
of the current terms of the agreement. A copy of the terms and conditions
currently applicable to your account has been (or will shortly be) sent
to you under separate cover

A statement of your account is below:

The curant credit limit is £********;
The current balance of your account is£********;
and your next payment of £***.** will be due on **/**/**

While there is no formal obligation on our part to provide documentation
in answer to Validation of Debt correspondence, we have undertaken steps
to provide you with the contractual terms under which your obligations
arise and a statement of account.

With regard to your request for verificationof our claim; there is no
legal requirement for us to provide signed affidavit invoice in order
to verify or enforce a debt under the CCA 1974. We issue monthly
statements to provide details of your account, they evidence the
transactions and payments youm,ake on the account and provide details of
the borrowing. We therefore will not provide you with a sworn affidavit
invoice that you request under CCA 1974.

Your request for a hand signed invoice appears to be based on the
misconception that Barclaycard has provided you with a bill of exchange.
This is not the case. The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 provides the
following definition of a bill of exchange in section 3(1):

A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing addressed by one
person to another, signed by the person giving it,requiring the person to
whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future
time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or
to bearer.

As is required by law, the credit agreement states that it is regulated by
the Consumer Cresdit Act 1974. The credit agreement does not meet the
definition of a bill of exchange. Itis not an unconditional order. It is a
contract stating the mutual rights and obligations of the parties. The
existance of those mutual rights and obligations demonstrate the agreement
is neither unconditional nor an order.

With regards to your request for a copy of the contract signed by both
parties I would like to advise that this is not a requirement for a
regulated agreement under the consumer Credit Act 1974, nor is it a
general requirement of English contract law. Our obligation is to provide
you with a copy of the agreement (if any) which is limited under the
Consumer Credit Act 1974 to the following instances:

Customer's request under section 78 upon receipt of £1. Duty to provide
a copy agreement when a new card is issued to a customer. A statement of
account showing the amount currently payable under the agreement and the
date and amount of the next payment due.

We have provided all of the above. Together they form a valid and binding
agreement under the CCA 1974.

With regards to your referral the the Money Laundering Regulations 2007,
I must advise we are not obliged to provide you with any information
relating to due diligence that we carry out. Barclaycard takes its
responsibilities in relation to the Money Laundering Regulations 2007
very seriously and complies with all necessary regulatory requirements
in this regard.

The information given to the credit referenca agencies each month shows
the current payment position of the Barclaycard account. It builds up an
accurate credit history which may be used byprospective lenders when a
request for credit is made. The agencies record the last 36 months
payment history and this information is held for 6 years after the account
has been closed.

We have a legal duty to report accurate information to the cresdit reference
agencies, and as such are not permitted to amend your records.

All Barclaycard applications since November 1992 included notification of
consent to share information, which is a condition of an account being
opened. As your account was opened prior to November 1992, such consent
was not required therefore you account are/is excluded from the
information submitted each month.

We have the right to instruct a third party to act on our behalf in
dealing withyour account. Collectors will continue to contact you by
telephone, letter or personal visit until a suitable repayment
agreement has been made.

This is stated in your agreed terms and conditions as varied as
detailed below,

25.4 We may transfer your client to any other person any or all of our
rights under this agreement at any time and our duties (including,
without limitation, our duty to lend to your client). We may do this
without telling your client. Your client's rights under this agreement
and your client's legal rights (including under the Consumer Credit Act
1974) will not be affected.

I refer to your proposed changes to your terms and conditions and fee
schedule. We do not accept any of your proposed changes to your terms
and conditions or your proposed fee schedule. The terms of your agreement
with us does not give you the ability to make any variations to it.

This completes our obligations under Section 78 of the Act.

Yours sincerely



Stuart Newton
Barclaycard Customer Services.

Hi all

'...some other cause beyond his control' - this could be a useful leverage point for someone in the future. Just have to press the issue of whether it was sold - that's not beyond someone's control.

Is #25) referring to your 'person' as your 'client'? Interesting.....

Cheers!

They have "sold" this alleged debt to Hoist Portfolio. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it was illegal/unlawful to sell a debt on.

I would count up the amount of times you have asked BC and all the other parasites .Reply to Robbing way that you have requested proof of claim xxx times and no one can provide it .You now look forward to their attempt.

So, do I write HP & RW a letter now, or should I wait until their next contact? I get the impression that these people have purchased a raft of debts, and have sent these letters out to see if anyone bites.

Up to you ,
I like to set the tone in my letters that their crap is having no effect on me whatsoever.
I believe that a robust reply will have a far greater chance of them giving up ,than a conciliatory one.

I don't do conciliatory !!I shall just do the 3 letter thing with these monkeys and take it from there.

Hi Druid666


RW will keep pushing and yes even threaten court action, without the paperwork , glad you do not conciliatory only robust reply will work with these people yes do the 3 letters

Druid666 wrote:They have "sold" this alleged debt to Hoist Portfolio. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it was illegal/unlawful to sell a debt on.

They assign the debt under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

I don't know whether I do the right thing, but I ignored all the letters I kept getting for my son who has the same name as me. He had a few different ones from credit card and overdraft to mobile phone contracts and ebay and paypal, they haven't wrote for a while so hopefully they will all be statute barred soon and that will be the end of them, He's been left home for a good few years now.
The only time I would make contact with anyone is if they threatened Court action, then I would follow Tiggy's advice to the letter if it wasn't to late.

First letter being sent. I will inform the third DC that, as agents of BC, they are bound by the same irrevocable estoppal as BC have been since 2015. Let's see what happens.

Hey Druid

An assignment suggests the DCA has acquired beneficial title to collect the receivables on that BC account, the right for them to sue on that basis is sometimes referred to as a Chose in Action, pronounced as shows, meaning a thing, its in action because the right can only be realised through a suit, meaning they have to take you to court to get anywhere.

To know if that is so, you should have received Notice of a Deed of Assignment from the OC, you certainly can request to see the deed under disclosure rules, you presume that the DCA has an agency relationship with the OC why is that ?

They may have one or more of a variety of relationships with the OC, Equitable Charge, Assignment for Bailment, Agency or Transfer or Title (Equitable or Legal) don't just make presumptions, this is the problem with following templates they are formulated on presumptions which cannot always keep up with change.

If you still have the original terms of the agreement, there will be provision for what the OC can or cannot assign or convey, they cannot go beyond that with the exception of a variation or novation clause, which means a Deed of the same if transferred as such and notice thereof, knowing what to ask for and when is key, bearing in mind these assignments are passed in bulk, there is no shortage of omissions and/or errors in due process.

I would also add that notice to agent and principle either way is still Notice, just don't presume that its a principal - agency relationship without proof, Imputed or constructive Notice can be an equitable assistance, but you have to call it correct or the District Judge (who doesn't want to help you anyway) will strike out your defence if it goes to court.

Tiggy has also given you some good pointers, by the way.

Hi Druid,
Seems like you have kept them at bay successfully for a good length of time, they are not giving up so presumably it's a substantial sum involved. You said the debt had been "sold on twice to various DCs", but I don't think it has been sold, B'card are just using the DCs to send you letters/threats. There's no mention of assignment on their long letter you quoted. I also agree the mention of "your client" is confusing.

Lansdowne wrote:Hi Druid,
Seems like you have kept them at bay successfully for a good length of time, they are not giving up so presumably it's a substantial sum involved.   You said the debt had been "sold on twice to various DCs", but I don't think it has been sold, B'card are just using the DCs to send you letters/threats. There's no mention of assignment on their long letter you quoted.  I also agree the mention of "your client" is confusing.

They've sold it to Hoist Portfolio (mentioned in an earlier post). Hoist are debt purchasers and Robinson Way act as Hoist's agents.

OK fair do's Tiggy, I do sometimes see on here where people muddle up a debt being bought/sold with a debt simply being chased by a DCA on behalf of the company.

I'm getting confused here. If a bank is in irrevocable estoppel, is it not illegal for them to then sell the debt on? (Three times now).

If the estoppel is ordered by the court then yes they would be in breach of the court order to do anything more to pursue the alleged debt. If you mean you sent an estoppel letter, that makes part of your argument if it came to court. In other words you asked for certain information and said that if it is not received you consider that they are no longer pursuing the claim. But as you've said, they did reply giving their version, so the court has to decide whether they gave enough information to justify their claim.

BB, or any of the other DCs have never produced ANY documents requested.

Forgot to add:- The letter I received purportedly from BC is, in fact, a photocopied BC letterhead, poorly done by RW. How do I know this? Because the return address on both envelopes was EXACTLY the same !! LOL