Apex Credit Management bought my disputed debt

[Coactum]

You might want to start here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-my-debts.html for general background info. In particular refer to this post:

Originally Posted by Coactum

Barclays have acquired my Morgan Stanley account. I had an agreement to pay £50 per month with Morgan Stanley but Barclays insisted this needed to be at least £120. I declined their invitation to increase my payments and initially made a CCA request to them on 26/3/2009 as part of a letter in response to an arrogant letter I received from them. Ever since although they have been communicative they have failed to show me anything that resembles a CCA, they have not even sent the application form. What they have provided is similar to many other threads within this forum. A print of current T&C prints of what Barclays terms were when I accepted my Morgan Stanley card without explaining way this is in any way relevant and the standard response letter relating to my dissatisfaction with the documents provided. phone calls began from Mercers and were later passed to Calder Financial Services but they soon gave up when I declined to discuss anything with them over the phone. I now have a final demand for payment from Barclays for nearly £8.5K giving me until 10th June to settle or a debt collector will call etc. I’m sure you all know the letter I refer to.

Today I received two tellers within the same envelope. The first from Apex Credit Management Ltd and the second from Barclaycard . Both refer to a Goldfish account that remains outstanding. I have never had a Goldfish account! Although I did have a Morgan Stanley account that was transferred to Barclaycard. The card number stated on both letter is not that of either my Barclaycard ref no nor my Morgan Stanley account.

In my opinion Barclaycard failed to satisfy my CCA request and therefore they have no right to sell a disputed account. Any advice most welcome.

[slick132]

Hi Coactum,

Sounds like they've made an error here if the a/c no. referred to is not the BC or the MSDW.

You could send them the "Prove It" letter - http://www.consumerforums.com/resour...ng-of-the-debt

And maybe adapt the letter to add that you DO have a BC a/c which was formerly MSDW but never a oldfish a/c.

[Coactum]

Ideal thanks. Got the suggested letter in Word now and will get it off in the post today.

[Coactum]

At 08:08 this morning I had a silent call from 01789265999 who I believe to have been APEX. On another thread on this forum I read that they could only call 9am – 9pm. Does anyone know if this is correct?

[the_shadow]

Originally Posted by Coactum

At 08:08 this morning I had a silent call from 01789265999 who I believe to have been APEX. On another thread on this forum I read that they could only call 9am – 9pm. Does anyone know if this is correct?

The OFT guideline state they cannot contact you at a unreasonable hour, I believe this is taken to mean reasonable hours = 8am - 9pm.

2.2 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:
f. contacting debtors at unreasonable times

However they are breaking Oft guidelines for the following and I would write back stating this to them.

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:
h. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are
disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

and as they havent yet proved the debt...

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:
a. sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that
they are the debtor in question, for example, threatening debt recovery
action to 'the occupier' or sending a payment demand to all people sharing
the same name/date of birth as a debtor in the hope that contact with the
correct debtor will be made.

and further

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:
i. failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued

Complain to the OFT at the same time and ensure you put in your letter to apex that you are reporting them to the OFT also.

S.

[slick132]

We hear all the time of peeps getting calls from 8am onwards but I don't know what is deemed reasonable officially.

Complain to the OFT and this will log against the DCA's record but it won't help your case individually.

Complain to the fos and they will charge the DCA to investigate the complaint - I hear it's £400 to £500. The fos will tell the DCA if they consider the DCA is wrong.

[Coactum]

Thanks The Shadow and slick132 for your advice.

Can you please clarify if I should attempt to complain via the oft web site The Office of Fair Trading: making markets work well for consumers or if a letter is considered better? When complaining to OFT and fos is it considered best to place one complaint per letter/email or should I catalogue all my grievances in one?

[the_shadow]

Originally Posted by Coactum

Thanks The Shadow and slick132 for your advice.

Can you please clarify if I should attempt to complain via the oft web site The Office of Fair Trading: making markets work well for consumers or if a letter is considered better? When complaining to OFT and fos is it considered best to place one complaint per letter/email or should I catalogue all my grievances in one?

I'd send a letter to OFT, they'll reply back stating they cant look at individual complaints but will log it against the DCA, they have a special team looking into DCA's supposedly.

As slick says the only complaining that'll help your situation is the fos but expect a 3-8 month wait apparently. I'm on month 3 for a complaint against MBNA.

S.

[Coactum]

I wonder if anyone has registered a complaint against fos for taking so long to deal with complaints? Scrub that I can see another bureaucratic layer being added to inspect the inspectors and then where will we all be?

[Coactum]

I've just had an email from Credit Expert to whom i subscribe and I'm pleased to report that "Barclaycard have deleted the entry that you disputed"

I do not have any detail yet but have asked for additional info. I hope this means what it says. I logged into my account and the default has definitely gone.

[slick132]

Well done on this - sounds like a good result.

[Coactum]

I should have known that my joy would be short lived. Apex have now added a default and written to me again demanding payment. They have enclosed a very poor quality photocopy of my original application to Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter which from what I can make out does not tick all the boxes for prescribed conditions to be a valid CCA

[the_shadow]

Originally Posted by Coactum

I should have known that my joy would be short lived. Apex have now added a default and written to me again demanding payment. They have enclosed a very poor quality photocopy of my original application to Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter which from what I can make out does not tick all the boxes for prescribed conditions to be a valid CCA

Hmm check the date that Apex have added that default and match it to the default notice you received. IF MSDW originally defaulted you for this when you made your arrangement to pay with them then APEX/Bcard should not have re-instated this on your credit file.

You might want to post up a copy of the agreement. CHECK carefully it has a mention of data protection act and giving permission for them to mark your credit file.

S.

[slick132]

See Link No5 in my signature re checking credit agreements.

Put a copy here to be checked, after hiding your personal data, if you're not entirely sure.

[Coactum]

Let me go back in time a bit here. First in 2000 I applied for and was issued a Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter Gold card. In April 2005 I noticed that my statements bore the name Morgan Stanley International Ltd or simply Morgan Stanley on the logo. In 2006 following some business problems which caused me cash flow problems I wrote to all creditors to seek agreement to pay a reduced amount. I was at that time paying MS £50 per month. This arrangement was still in place when in October 2008 my account was transferred to Barclaycard.

Barclaycard refused to accept my £50 per month which forced me to seek help and much of what happened next is contained elsewhere within this site.

In May 2009 I was advised that Barclaycard planned to sell my debt yet having made no payments for a while I was surprised when in June 209 Barclaycard wrote to accept my £50 offer and also reduced interest to 0% only to find on 1st July that Apex now claimed to have purchased my "Goldfish" account.

I wrote to Apex repudiating their claim and stated that at no time had I ever had a Goldfish account. Several letters have since exchanged between Apex and me and in their most recent letter they enclosed the MSDW application.

I replied reiterating my stance that I had no Goldfish account and believed that they had just given proof to that effect and notwithstanding this the paperwork would not be a valid CCA

[Coactum]

Although I have heard nothing new from Apex regarding their purchase of my Morgan Stanley account they are now writing to me re a HBOS account. Now what is strange here is that I’m already giving HBOS a run for their money in the Scottish Court and they are desperate to abandon the action. The Apex communication refers to another card, a Bank of Scotland one, issued back in the 80’s which fails to even say the words Regulated Agreement on the application form let alone any of the usual necessary terms. This is all that HBOS have ever produced when asked for a CCA so I consider this account to be in dispute.

I find it strange that these DCA’s do not compound all the debts allegedly owed by an individual and seek recovery for the lot. Or am I missing something?

[the_shadow]

Originally Posted by Coactum

Although I have heard nothing new from Apex regarding their purchase of my Morgan Stanley account they are now writing to me re a HBOS account. Now what is strange here is that I’m already giving HBOS a run for their money in the Scottish Court and they are desperate to abandon the action. The Apex communication refers to another card, a Bank of Scotland one, issued back in the 80’s which fails to even say the words Regulated Agreement on the application form let alone any of the usual necessary terms. This is all that HBOS have ever produced when asked for a CCA so I consider this account to be in dispute.

I find it strange that these DCA’s do not compound all the debts allegedly owed by an individual and seek recovery for the lot. Or am I missing something?

I dont think the CCA1974 act allows them to do this, each regulated agreement is a specific debt and the court can only act on the individual agreement rather than merging everything together.

They have to seek to "enforce" each agreement separately afaik.

S.

[Coactum]

Thanks Shaddow, I knew that there had to be a reason.

[Coactum]

as mentioned earlier I wrote to Apex regarding another account that they have started to pester me about. When writing I advised them that I was registering a complaint about their practices with the OFT. They replied giving details of the two accounts they hold relating to me. This disputed account that they claim to have bought and the other, the one I was complaining about.

Anyway in this letter they say “Account reference ******* is owned by ACM (I take this to be Apex Credit Management)..... This account is on hold pending further information from our client.... we ceased activity... and will continue to do so until we are able to address the issues that have been raised...." etc.

So let me get this straight they own the account yet need information from their client to continue. Are they not their own client? I’m a bit confused here.

[slick132]

They will chasse an a/c that they have bought, regardless of whether they have the correct documents to back it up.

Only when a debtor queries their right to pursue a debt, will they start to check and see if there is an enforceable credit agreement for it. They have to go back to the original creditor (OC) and ask for this.

I suspect that, if the OC had such an enforceable credit agreement, they wouldn't have sold it for a pittance.

See what they come back with.