So as I tweeted recently I have had a case involving one of the debt purchasers get handed to me
This debt purchaser will remain nameless at the moment. So the client made a statutory request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a copy of their agreement. The debt purchaser reverted to Barclays who sent the client a letter purporting to comply.
The covering letter said “We enclose your TREMS and CODNITIONS” really Barclays dont you spell check or is it you’re letting the debt purchaser use your letter heads? After all the assignments do allow them to do so. Its brought down court cases too when theyve done so. For example when a letter has been produced purporting to be from the creditor but the letter is alleged to have dated from 2010 yet refers to the FCA which didnt take over these markets til 2014 etc. When I talk about using letter heads I dont just mean Barclays. It happens a lot.
Anyway, This letter has a single.page with ” Right to cancel” stamped on it and then a book of terms attached. Now in my view this was an attempt to mislead the client. It said that the enclosures complied with the CCA, they did not.
The document was partly legible, breach of Consumer Credit Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents Regulations 1983 reg 2. The terms had a materially different cancellation clause to the single page. One contradicted the other.
The terms referred to the FCA as being the regulator yet the account was opened in 2007 the letter from Barclays even said so.
No statement of account provided breaching s78(1)(a,b,c) CCS 1974.
No varied terms were provided.
And what really made it clear they had no idea what they were doing was the fact that the first page referred to condition 1.7 turn the page and it’s only 1,2,3 etc and condition 1 wasnt what it said over leaf.
Now the debt purchaser denies that the documents are non compliant, Barclays didnt even have any business replying (Jones v Link Financial limited) as they arent even the creditor any more. How on earth can banks get this sooo wrong, the High Court in Carey said that this was a simple request to comply with, so why do debt collectors and debt purchasers and to a lesser extent the banks make it seem like you need a phD to be able to get it right
So why does complying with s78 cause so many problems.
The problem is for most consumers they wouldnt know where to start to find faults with the documentation, many people would accept documents that werent even theirs or werent accurate. Imagine being told by a debt collector you breached condition 8 of your contract and when they send you a copy condition 8 is your right to withdraw!!. This type of error happens regularly.
Where are the FCA you ask? Good question and I wish I knew. I’ve reported case upon case, judgment after judgment where the Courts have red s78 breached or no valid assignment or defective default. Nothing happened. Not even a an acknowledgment .
I wish the debt collection world would get its house in order, it would make matters easier, it would make resolving disputes easier and it would stop consumers being misled