Get Out Of Debt
  • Write off unaffordable debts
  • Lower your monthly payments
  • Stop creditors from contacting you
  • Check My Debt Options

How Can I Get Out of Debt?

With a simple legislated debt solution you can consolidate all your debts into one lower, affordable monthly repayment. Make one set payment per month for a set period, and after the period expires any remaining debts left are legally written off. This can be up to 90% depending on your circumstances.

METROPOLITAN admit they are HSBC – And then MOORCROFT

patrickgill asked:

This is the next chapter in my ongoing saga – you can see the ‘Bank’ stage of affairs at:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v … =6&t=22975

Okay, so where we are now. I have sent two of the DCA template letters out to METROPOLITAN, ten days apart. Metropolitan note at the bottom of their letters that they are: “a member of the HSBC Group and operates an internal complaints handling procedure”. So, in essence, I believe they are a separate company (they don’t have the HSBC logo anywhere on their papers), and to be honest their letterhead looks a little cheap (obviously they’re dealing with far too many GetOutOfDebtFree folk!).

So, the letter that arrived today said the following:

Thank you for your letter dated 13th October 2010.

Please be advised that Metropolitan Collection Services are the in-house debt collection agency working on behalf of HSBC bank and therefore we do not require authorisation in order to deal with your account.

We now require your payment proposals within fourteen days to avoid further recovery actions.

We trust this clarifies matters.

Yours sincerely,

(UNINTELLIGABLE SQUIGGLE)
Metropolitan Collection Services Ltd.

Thanks to Ceylon, I had the latest DCA Tacit Template 3 almost all ready to go – I have made a couple of amendments, and will be sending it out next week, ten days after I sent out my version of Template 2. Would be very grateful for any tips and suggestions on what’s below – hopefully some of you may even find use for it (?).

And yes, these have been going out as scanned colour copies of the original letters, complete with postage stamps (signature and date top left to bottom right across them), thumbprints, Stamp for Trademark Name, Stamp for Copyright Name.

Non-Negotiable

Patrick-Michael: Gill ©
c/o Address Line 1
Address Line 2
Address Line 3
Near (XX1 1XX)

Metropolitan Collection Services Limited
56 St. James Road
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 1JL

2nd November 2010

Re: Client Reference Number: XXXXX. Ref: HSBC XXXXX (£XXXX.XX)

Dear Third Party Interloper,

I wrote to you on 13 October 2010 and 23 October 2010 requesting verification of your claim including a lawful contract; a signed invoice, and proof of agency, to validate the debt, within ten (10) days. I have received a response dated 26 October 2010, with an unattributed electronic signature, informing me you are working ‘on behalf of’ HSBC. You cannot do that and be ‘in-house’ (and your letter would be on HSBC headed paper); therefore HSBC is lawfully your client, which necessitates proof of agency. As you have failed to provide the documentation within the ten (10) days requested in my last correspondence, we are now in agreement to; and have a lawfully binding tacit agreement comprising, the following terms:

1. That you are a third party interloper;

2. That you have no legal standing;

3. That you have no first-hand knowledge of this matter;

4. That your claim is fraudulent;

5. That any damages I suffer, you will be held culpable;

6. That any negative remarks made to a credit reference agency will be removed;

7. You will no longer pursue this matter any further;

8. You have not proven any debt; if you sell the alleged liability, pass it back to your client and/or appoint an agent to act on its/your behalf on this matter you will have broken our agreement and you agree to pay the following fee schedule: £x,xxx.xx for dishonouring our agreement; £1,000 per hour or part of it of authorised representative’s time nunc pro tunc; £1,000 per recorded delivery response nunc pro tunc; £1,000,000 per Trademark Infringement of my Legal Fiction Name nunc pro tunc. Also, any further contact is now not necessary; if however you deem a need to contact me by phone or letter the fee is £100 per item payable in advance – place the cheque in the envelope; if no payment is made in advance, the fee will rise to £1,000 per item and you will also be held culpable for any cost incurred while recovering the debt you owe. Payment terms are strictly 21 days from Royal Mail Recorded Delivery receipt of invoices; late payment fees of £1,000 per item per day will be added to all invoices.

This is not a complaint or a query and is not to be treated as one. This is not a request for a statement / agreement and is not to be treated as one. Do not refer to me as Mr or any title, which is a legal fiction and is not me. You may only use my Legal Fiction Name when sending payments.

Yours faithfully

By:

By: Sovereign Patrick-Michael: Gill ©

Authorised Representative All Rights Reserved. Errors & Omissions Excepted

WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT

patrickgill replied:

Dear oh dear, poor old Metropolitan still playing catch-up. They have now replied to my SECOND tacit letter (bearing in mind that my THIRD one went out on 2nd November, the same day they allegedly wrote this new one – although it is postmarked 9 November 2010 on the envelope, and arrived today, 13 November!). Emboldenings are mine…

So, can you guys confirm that my next step is to invoice them?

Mr Strawman Name
Address
Post Code

Dear Mr Strawman,

Your account with HSBC Bank plc
Account number: 66666/666666 Outstanding Balance: £x,xxxx.xx

Thank you for your recent letter dated the 23rd October 2010, the contents of which have been noted.

Firstly, please allow us to provide some clarity in regards to our company and the role we have in the collection of debt owed to HSBC Bank Plc. Metropolitan Collection Services Limited are the wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Bank and we act as the internal debt recovery arm of the Bank.

We are therefore not a third party and we do have legal standing when dealing with your debt.

Therefore we now require a full income and expenditure breakdown incorporating all other creditors and your offer of repayment. Would you please submit this information by return.

We trust this clarifies matters.

Yours sincerely,

(Electronic Squiggle)
Metropolitan Collection Services Ltd.

Now that I have them in a tacit, I don’t think I actually need to reply to this, just send them an invoice?

Let me know if that’s the best way to handle these oiks. Again, this was on a METROPOLITAN rather than an HSBC letterhead, so all this flannel about being one and the same must be a nonsense?

ceylon replied:

yes invoice them

ambchop replied:

They may be under the same wing as the bank but if they have different accounts then they are a separate company and there fore a “third” party

reborn replied:

Does not matter who they are as in the letter you asked for proof you own them (themselves as Metropolitan or HSBC) or their client (HSBC) this debt.

patrickgill replied:

Thanks for the comments – I returned home to follow in the post:

…. FASTRAK MESSAGE …. FASTRAK MESSAGE …. (In big red letters)

FREEPHONE 0845 609 0545

Mr A Strawman
Address
And So On
Post Code

66666666 / CTDCXX

WE CONFIRM THAT WE WILL BE CALLING YOU
TO CONFIRM YOUR RESIDENCY AT THE ADDRESS
ON XX/XX/10.

IF THIS IS NOT CONVENIENT PLEASE CALL
US ON THE ABOVE NUMBER

Metropolitan Collection Services Limited is a member of HSBC Group and operates an internal complaints handling procedure.
Registered in England number 1475006 Registered office 56 St. James Road Edgbaston B15 1JL. Telephone calls may be recorded.

NOTE – This was NOT on Metropolitan headed paper, or HSBC, for that matter.

So, I make that another £1,000 for an unauthorised letter, £1,000 for my time, £1,000 for another Recorded Delivery, amd £1,000,000 for (just the one) Trademark breach (only one rather than the usual two this time).

On top of the previous invoice for over £6,000,000 last time.

Which is nice. 🙄

Anyone had anything like this before?

One interesting point… they state that the 0845 number is “FREEPHONE” … as far as I am aware, the 0845 number series is ONLY free if you are a BT customer. Everyone else pays for caling these numbers? If so, is that, to a certain extent, more FRAUD ??? Can I bill them something for a lie (I am not a BT customer!)?

smilingalltheway replied:

Never had one like this but have a listen to david sydneys rideout:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v … 10&t=25242

you will see that you are not a resident

with regards to phone numbers, I wouldn’t call them for any reason, they owe you and should be paying up.

there is a link somewhere in the forum for noto0870 numbers or do a search on the internet and you’ll find it for normal call costs.

I have seen letters from banks with no letterhead, unsigned offcourse, just bullshit.

If you want you can increase the fee for them failing to pay in 7 days, I tell them it’s increased to the full amount as of such and such a date or tell them the fee has now increased to (the total ) per day for failure to pay. (just include it in your invoice)

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25026

these are multi billion ££ companies, a few million doesn’t scare them…… that why I’m applying pressure on them.

montana2 replied:

If you really believe that money doesnt exist why are you asking for money?

Id be happy with £1 and a month inside for them……

smilingalltheway replied:

I know money doesn’t exist, but it seems that they still believe it does…..

if they leave you alone for £1 a month then I’m happy for you.

patrickgill replied:

Okay, following my last invoice, another communication today (arrived in the post SIX days after the date of the letter…!):

PLEASE QUOTE YOUR REF: 66666666 /CNDC01

Mr Straw Man
Address
Post Code

URGENT COMMUNICATION
DO NOT IGNORE

Dear Mr Straw Man

Your account with: HSBC Bank plc
Account Number: 666666/66666666 Outstanding Balance: £x,xxx.xx

We are Debt Recovery Specialists who have been insructed to recover the outstanding balance on the above account.

You must telephone our office immediately on TELEPHONE 0845 609 0545 to confirm when full repayment of £x,xxx.xx will be made.

Please use the Bank Giro Credit Slip printed at the bottom of this letter to make your payment at your own bank or any branch of HSBC Bank. Cheques should be made payable to MCS. You can also make payments securely on line at http://www.paymcs.com by debit or credit cards, or alternatively you can request a plastic payment card administered by Girobank which can be used to make your payment at any Post Office or Paypoint outlet.

Failure to make full payment within seven days may result in legal proceedings being issued, and additionaly costs charged to you.

Our offices are open between the hours of 8:00am and 9:00pm (Mon – Fri) and 8:00am and 4:00pm (Sat).

CONTACT US NOW ON TELEPHONE 0845 609 0545.

Yours sincerely,

(unattributed squiggle)
Metropolitan Collections Services Ltd

Right then, invoice number 3 about to be prepared; think I’ll put “URGENT COMMUNICATION – DO NOT IGNORE” at the top …

😎

ceylon replied:

they do sound really desperate lol

patrickgill replied:

Quick update – Metropolitan are but days away from an Estoppel notice, and have just got a solicitor to sign and witness my “Statutory Declaration of True Name” (SDTN – cost a fiver!).

Meanwhile, it appears Metropolitan have passed on the “debt recovery” to DG Solictors, 12 Calthorpe Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 1QZ – their marvellously scarily-named “Pre-Sue Unit”.

Anyhow, here’s their text for reference:

Dear Mr Strawman,

Re: Your Account (Blah-blah-blah details)

We act for HSBC Bank Plc of 8 Canada Square, London, E14 5HQ (“the Bank”). We refer to the Bank’s correspondence with you demanding repayment of this debt. We are advised that despite the demand full repayment has not been made.

We may be instructed to take legal action against you in the County Court to recover this debt. This could result in the Bank obtaining a judgment against you which may affect your ability to obtain credit.

To avoid legal action, you must pay the amount outstanding within fourteen days from the date of this letter. If you need more time to pay, we may be able to arrange this. Please telephone this office immediately on 0845 666 666.

Free independent advice and assistance can be obtained from National Debtline (Free phone 0808 666 666); Consumer Credit Counselling Service (Freephone 0800 666 667); Citizens Advice (the address and telephone number is available via your local Yellow Pages or Thomson local directory, or from their website – http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk); or Community Legal Advice (0845 666 6666).

It is important that you immediately contact us.

Yours faithfully,

“DG” (Automated Electronic Squiggle)

Alan M Burden B.Sc Paul Kavanagh LL.B
This firm is the practising name of solictors employed by the HSBC Group
Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority – SRA Number 346635
Telephone calls may be recorded.


Notice all the “may” and “could” statements within that. Wishy washy …!

So, first tacit letter went in the post today.

Just wondering whether to invoice Metropolitan for passing on the debt at the same time as issuing their estoppel? I think if I do, with their other unpaid invoices, it will probably send their total bill, with late payment charges included, into the region of 15 MILLION GBP. Which is nice ….

ceylon replied:

yes invoice and you notice they tell you to go to debtline and all the other crap lines paid for by the banks the scam is so big its funny but we have fell for it for so long they have no idea what to do now we know.

patrickgill replied:

Another update of an interesting month.

Sent an Estoppel to Metropolitan, with an invoice for something around 14 MILLION POUNDS (curses that they don’t use my Legal Fiction name more – can’t quite afford to buy Tracy Island off their misdemeanors yet!).

Not head a word from DG Solicitors since their first letter. Just sent them their third tacit letter so they are now locked. As they’ve sent nothing since the first week in January, won’t be long until I can send them an Estoppel.

MEANWHILE, coming out of the woodwork is Central Debt Recovery Unit, which their amateurish letterhead (would take a 9-year-old five minutes in MS Word…) says at the bottom are “… a trading style of Metropolitan Collection Services Ltd”, and next to it giving their registered office as the usual one for the Met – 56 St James Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 1JL.

Anyhow, I decided they needed a tacit too, as they are obviously trying to distance themselves from The Met and HSBC by having a Worthing PO Box. Their second letter goes out today to the address on the letterhead – PO Box 4093, Worthing, West Sussex BN11 2RD. Incidentally, the return address on the back of the envelope was PO Box 5350, Coventry CV3 9FW.

So, I thought for the second letter I would investigate getting hold of their real address, so that on any invoices that might eventually have to be drawn up I can put something along the lines of: “We reserve the right to visit your premises at (Insert real address) and remove goods to the value of the debt you now owe.”

Anyhow, I phoned Royal Mail (being one of their business customers), and asked for details on both PO Boxes. This the helpful lady began to look up, but came up as “cancelled”. Strange, considering just over a week ago the Recorded Delivery Tacit Letter Number 1 was signed for. After a bit of probing I am then informed of two possible options…

The first is that Royal Mail no longer have exclusive rights to the selling and management of PO Boxes. The helpful lady did not know who these companies were, or how many of them there are, but confirmed they are out there.

The second is that some PO Boxes, for reasons of “confidentiality”, cannot have information given out about them, which can be made a condition of them being taken out with Royal Mail (and, of course, if Royal Mail won’t grant such a request, then the business can be taken elsewhere to one of the other suppliers!). The only way to get the real addresses is through the police…!

I know which one of these I’d put my money on!

Anyhow, as the PO Box Recorded Delivery got signed for, I shall try that PO Box address again for Tacit 2 going out today.

Talk about protecting these fraudsters from their victims!

🙄

patrickgill replied:

Well, well, well … Central Debt Recovery Unit have finally deigned to reply to the first tacit letter (dated 28 Jan, received today, 4 Feb). Here’s the body text:

Dear Mr Strawman

Our client: HSBC Bank plc
Accnt No: 666666/66666666
You Debt : …..

We write in response to a recent letter concerning the above acccount.

Firstly, in the context of your name and identity, unless you can demonstrate that you were not the person who entered into the Agreement with our client, the question of your liability for the indebtedness remains without question. For the avoidance of doubt, we will continue to address our correspondence as above. (NOTE – They have the Postcode wrong, STILL, depite having been told it’s wrong!).

Whilst we note the points you make in your letter, our client is under no obligation to provide the information requested and as such, your continued requests for the same will not be considered further.

Therefore, unless we received (sic) your proposals for repayment within 14 days, we will be left with no option but to continue our recovery action without any further delay. If you are unsure of your position we recommend that you seek legal advice from a solictor, your local Citizen Advice Bureau or Law Centre.

We trust this clarifies our final position in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

(NAMELESS SQUIGGLE)

Central Debt Recovery Unit

So, the reply will go out NEXT Friday (to tie in with the 10 days since the 2nd Tacit letter went in the post) – any musings as to what to include, please make them known here (all very much appreciated).

So far, in terms off addressing the first para’s name question, I’ll be sending them a copy of my “Statutory Declaration of True Name” (witnessed and signed by a solicitor). I will also note that I am not obliged to explain the law to them, but will as a courtesy to them, so they do not waste any further time on this action, and do not find themselves liable for my exhoritant fees.

2nd para – it’s NOT the client who has to provide the information; it is THEY who have to provide the information. And yes, they are obliged to send the information or they will not have proven any debt.

3rd Para – the client has been put into Estoppel, so by acqueiscence has lawfully not got a leg to stand upon. It is they who are expected to carry out the action, as the client knows this and has duped them into believing they have any lawful standing, which they don’t.

Finally, as this is the third tacit letter, they have acquiesced and are therefore now liable to the fee schedule that will be outlined in the final version of the letter they receive.

Any more gems I should include?

😎

patrickgill replied:

Okay, felt like running up a draft letter for next week (well, once it’s ready, it’s done!), so hopefully your wonderful eagle eyes can tell me if anything’s missing or wrong:

Non-Negotiable

© Flesh-And-Blood: Human; Authorised Representative for
MR STRAW MAN FICTION™ and all derivatives thereof.
c/o Address Line 1
Address Line 2
Address Line 3
Near (POST CODE)

Central Debt Recovery Unit
PO Box 4093
Worthing
West Sussex
BN11 2RD

11 February 2011 CE

Dear Interloper

Re: Account with HSBC Bank XXXXXXX/XXXXXXXX; Reference Number: 66666666/ ADDC61

I wrote to you on 22 January 2011 CE, and again on 1 February 2011 CE, both received by yourselves via Royal Mail Recorded Delivery, requesting: verification of your claim including a lawful contract; a signed invoice; and proof of agency, to validate the debt, within ten (10) days.

I have since received a letter from you, dated 28 January 2011, received on 4 February 2011. It should not be up to me to explain the law to you, but as a matter of courtesy I will do so, as it would be unfortunate if you were to have to explain to your superiors why your company has become liable to huge debts, for continuing to pursue a matter that is without controversy, but that you, and your client, singularly refuse to supply information that has been respectfully requested. But first, I note your comment that you will ‘continue to address our correspondence as above’. As I have already stated to you, you have part of the address wrong, hence the long delays in your letters reaching me. It has been correct on all my correspondence to you, and I am certainly not minded to prompt you further when you refuse to accept any error on your part. Then again, this is typical of the arrogant narcissism which is rife within your entire communication, as I shall now explain.

Concerning identity and legal fictions, please find enclosed a copy of the relevant ‘Statutory Declaration of True Name’, which notes the status of the legal fiction that your client has issue with. You will see it has been witnessed and signed by a solicitor. As noted at the top of this letter, I am the Authorised Representative of the legal fiction you are noting as MR STRAW MAN FICTION. As you should be aware from your training in law, a ‘person’ is a corporation, not a flesh-and-blood human being. As I am a sentient natural-born, white adult living man, I can never have responsibility for the debts of a corporation, a legal fiction.

As you will note, in point 7 of the ‘Statutory Declaration of True Name’, I rescind all documents or instruments that have failed to fully disclose risks, perils, and responsibilities within them. As has been explained to your client, and indeed as is now the case with you and other employees of Central Debt Recovery Unit involved in communications with me, you have failed to demonstrate the essential elements of a lawfully binding contract. So that you know, and as I have said, I have no commitment to actually reveal this to a third party interloper such as yourself, I requested from your client the following documents so that I may settle any financial obligation that I might lawfully owe:
1. Validation of the debt (the actual accounting).
2. Verification of their claim against me (a sworn affidavit or a hand signed invoice in accordance with The Bills of Exchange Act 1882).
3. A copy of the contract signed by both parties and therefore binding both parties.

What was sent to me were some statements (statements do not have to be paid – only hand signed invoices in accordance with the Bills of Exchange Act 1882) which I did not request; as you should know any LAWFUL contract must meet four criteria:
1. Full Disclosure by both parties; neither party can claim ‘you should have known’ if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract. As your client did not provide full disclosure of where they had obtained said funds (in this case out of thin air), a key component of a lawfully binding contract is missing. Please check the Bank of England’s Quarterly Bulletin 2008 Q1 (Vol 48, No 1, page 103) as additional background – you will note the following within that page: “… banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer’s current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank ‘writing a cheque on itself’. That is, banks extend credit by creating money”.
2. Equal Consideration being offered by both parties, this being the subject of exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value, and must come from a party’s own resources. Both parties agree that their Consideration is worth (to them) the other parties’ Consideration. The Considerations, once agreed, must be fixed – otherwise they cannot remain ‘equal’. As the money you client alleges to have “lent” my legal fiction was borne into life via the fraud of fractional reserve banking, clearly there was no equal consideration;
3. Lawful terms and Conditions for the contract, to which both parties agree. These should rest entirely on Common Law.
4. Manifestations of intent by both parties, such as ‘wet’ signatures and some conduct of performance which shows ‘intent to contract’.
All your client has is partially number 4 – the start of performance from me; however by LAW all four of the criteria must be met or all contracts are null and void in law. This is your client’s LAWFUL obligation, so saying that they are ‘under no obligation to provide the information requested’ is not only wrong, but should whoever is advising you of your wording have any grasp of the law, an outright lie.

Therefore, anonymous employee of Central Debt Recovery Unit, as your company has failed to provide the documentation within the ten (10) days requested in my last correspondence, we are now in agreement to, and have a lawfully binding tacit agreement comprising, the following terms:

1. That you are a third party interloper;
2. That you have no legal standing;
3. That you have no first-hand knowledge of this matter;
4. That your claim is fraudulent;
5. That any damages I suffer, you will be held culpable;
6. That any negative remarks made to a credit reference agency will be removed;
7. You will no longer pursue this matter any further.
8. You have not proven any debt; if you sell the alleged liability, pass it back to your client and/or appoint an agent to act on its/your behalf on this matter, you will have broken our agreement and you agree to pay the following fee schedule: £x,xxx.xx for dishonouring our agreement; £1,000.00 per hour or part of it of authorised representative’s time nunc pro tunc; £1,000.00 per recorded delivery or any other response nunc pro tunc; and £1,000,000.00 (ONE MILLION GB POUNDS) per unauthorised use of my © or ™ legal fiction name nunc pro tunc. Late payment fees, at rates and timescales at my discretion, will also be payable, but these will be noted on invoices, and may be applied on a sliding scale of lateness. Additionally, any further contact is now not necessary; if however you deem a need to contact me by phone, letter, email or physically, the fee is £100.00 per item – payable in advance – place the cheque in the envelope; if no payment is made in advance, the fee will rise to £1,000.00 per item, and you will also be held culpable for any cost incurred while recovering the debt you owe.

This is not a complaint or a query or a request for a statement / agreement and is not to be treated as one. Do not refer to me as Mr or any Title, which is a legal fiction and is not me. You may only use my name when sending payment.

Yours faithfully

By:

By: Sovereign Flesh-And-Blood: Human ©

Authorised Representative. All Rights Reserved. Errors & Omissions Excepted
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT

GANGSHIELD replied:

Await in anticipation to see their reply!!!

patrickgill replied:

Big shame … my phone has recorded a call from 0161 475 2875 (although the 1471 says the number was actually 0161 475 2861…). Recorded cybernetic voice telling me to urgently call MDR on 0161 475 2875.

Looking those numbers up on the web, looks like I (or, more accurately, my legal fiction) has been passed on to Moorcroft Debt Recovery (MDR).

Searching these forums suggests they are easy – three letter route and done!

Tempted to use Ceylon’s single letter smartbomb this time … just for variety! Any views?

When they write to me, then the battle may commence!

😎

kittiebelle replied:

Hello

I have been following all this Metropolitan stuff with interest. I was just about to send them letter number three when I got a reply to letter 2 which stated that “with regret we are unable to obtain an original copy of your agreement; however we have enclosed evidence that there is a legitimately owed debt”. All they have sent is a load of computer printouts of bank statements.

It really made me laugh.

Prior to that, I got a reply to letter number 1 which was identical to Patrickgill’s on this thread.

They have used three different adresses now. I am sending copies to each. This last letter has made me realise they are pretty desperate. I’m thinking of going down the CCA route with egg card next.
What is this smartbomb one letter of Ceylon’s that is being referred to on this thread??

Thanks for all your support and encouragement everyone. I’m starting to really enjoy this!

kittiebelle 😆

patrickgill replied:

Hi Kittiebelle,

The “Smartbomb” is described in the following thread: http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v … =5&t=25734

Regarding the statements sent, hope you can use the bit I added to my Tacit Letter 3 to CDRU above (again, mercilessly compiled from the work of others on these forums).

patrickgill replied:

Well, well, well, I think we count this as “game, set and match”? Yesterday, I posted off my third Tacit letter to Moorcroft, thus getting them in agreement by them not having done anything.

This morning, 5th March, I finally get a second letter from Moorcroft, dated 16th February – make of that what you will.

Anyhow, here’s what it said:

Dear MR STRAWMAN (Note – all in caps!!!).

Re: HSBC BANK PLC

We acknowledge receipt of recent correspondence with regards to the above account.

Please be assured that your account is now on hold whilst we investigate this matter further with our client and that we will communicate their response upon receipt.

In the meantime if you require any further information or assistance please do not hesitate to contact us on the above telephone number.

Yours sincerely,

A J Martin
Debt Recovery Manager

Now, if my memory of other threads about this is correct, this is the prelude to them replying and saying they’ve handed the debt back to HSBC?

Given the fact they’re now in a tacit, if they write to me and advise they’ve passed it back, they then get a ‘Bill’ from me. I could do with that £6,000,000 plus right now!

patrickgill replied:

Well, had another letter from MOORCROFT before I could reply, so I sent MOORCROFT a BILL for over 10 Million GBP, with a reminder copy of the third tacit letter with the fee schedule, demonstrating their acquiescence. In the meantime, METROPOLITAN (NOT HSBC … the burkes!) wrote to me with a letter they THINK demonstrates PROOF OF AGENCY for MOORCROFT (this was originally an overdraft debt with HSBC, so who the hell are METROPOLITAN to send something to try and prove THEIR transfer of agency … huge guffaw). So, METROPOLITAN got an invoice for something like 13 Million GBP. Hope you’re keeping up. And now, here’s MOORCROFT’s latest letter … the date is a hoot on its own – and just try and get your head around their final paragraph!

Date: 1st April 2011

Mr XXX Legal Fiction
C/o Address 1
Address 2
Address 3
XXX XXXX

Dear Mr Legal Fiction

Our Client: HSBC Bank PLC

I acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence with regards to the above account. I am the Compliance Officer of this company and it is part of my role to deal with correspondence of this nature.

From the information available to me, it is my understanding that you have raised concerns at our involvement at our client’s request.

I would like to begin by reassuring we have been instructed to assist our client in the recovery of your account. We receive all accounts in good faith from our clients and believe the information provided is accurate and the account is free from dispute. It is our understanding that accounts of this type are referred to us under the terms and conditions of your original contract with our client and section 9 of the lending code, which all banks subscribe to (http://www.lendingstandardsboard.org.uk). I would refer you back to this information for clarification of our involvement at our client’s request.

Under the general riles of agency, the Principal (our client) is legally entitled to delegate to its agent, when delegation is necessary for the proper performance of the task, e.g. when instructing debt collectors/solicitors to take action to recover debts. There is no obligation on our client to seek authority before instructing agents.

With the above in mind I must again advise you that we will not be prepared to discharge any of the element of your charges suggested since there is no direct contractual term between us which would give rise to any obligation on our part of this nature and I also believe there is no relationship between ourselves which would give rise to a duty of care under the common law and/or any statutes governing the laws of tort, nor have we acted in any way which would give rise to an obligation on our part to pay such sums as you have claimed and they are wholly rejected. For the avoidance of any doubt, it is our understanding that our contract is with our client and as such we have been instructed to assist them with the recovery of the outstanding balance associated with this account.

Upon the referral of an account we would then seek to initiate contact with teh accountholder in order for us to bring the account to a satisfactory conclusion. Our position is that in the first instance we explore the option of a full resolution of the account on behalf of our client. We are also obliged to advise an account holder of any settlement offers available on an account. Where an account holder confirms that they are unable to pay the account in full we would look at a suitable monthly payment plan on our client’s behalf. We would also be happy to consider a payment plan that an account holder believes they can afford and maintain supported by the appropriate supporting financial evidence.

Obviously the accountholder does have an opportunity to make us aware of any further information that may need to be considered or disputes on the account they believe remain unresolved. Where this is the case we would cease collection activity whilst we investigated this information with our client.

I can we received the above account on the 2nd February 2010 and immediately sent out our first letter. This letter is designed to explain our involvement, the position of the account and the possible implications of non contact. With this in mid a request is made for the account holder to contact us.

Our records show no initial incoming contact from you following this letter being sent and this has led to further attempts for us to contact you. Our records show the first incoming contact from you was on the 15th February 2011 via a letter at which point you had requested proof of agency. Your account was placed on hold and this matter was brought to our client’s attention. Our client has confirmed that they sent a letter on the 11th March 2011 directly to you confirming our involvement at their request. Our client has also requested that we continue to assist them in this matter. With this in mind I would no request that you contact us on the above telephone number to discuss repayment of your account.

I hope the above answers your concerns. However, if there is any element of my response that you are unhappy with please do not hesitate to contact me. Please be reassured that your account is on hold and this will remain the position for a further 28 days to allow you the opportunity to respond to the letter and our request. However, should we receive no further contact from you within the 28 days we will have no option but to return this account to our client. I would then stress that any further recovery action would now rest with our client and I would therefore suggests that you contact them at your earliest convenience should you have any unresolved concerns regarding this account and your liability.

Yours sincerely,

(An actual signature)

Paula Huddart
Compliance Officer


Here’s a few bits from which I’ll start composing my reply.

Para 1: “correspondence of this nature”. Intriguing. What ‘nature’ would that be.

Para 2: “information available to me” – as we say, no direct first hand knowledge – third party interloper. “our client” – yeah, you have a business relationship with them.

Para 3. “Good faith” – you’ve been lied to. “free from dispute” – quite right, all they have been asked to do is prove the debt, which they have been unable to do. “original contract” – HSBC has been unable to provide.

Para 4. “rules of agency” – this is no doubt a statute I refuse to stand under. You have no lawful standing and are a third party interloper. “No obligation” – as they have not been able to prove the debt, they have already been advised due to their agreement by acquiesence, they are not allowed to pass the debt on to a third party, and have been billed accordingly.

Para 5. I have always said that I will pay any debt that can be proved that I lawfully owe. This evidence has not been forthcoming despite numerous requests from me, and both HSBC and METROPOLITAN are in a state of ESTOPPEL. This is why METROPOLITAN have been sent a revised bill following their most recent contact which is a breach of the Estoppel. Besides, as your are a proven third party interloper, by your own words, I am not obliged to share any information with you, especially what you describe as “appropriate supporting financial evidence”, which is none of your business!

Para 6. “there is no contract” – quite right, but there is a tacit agreement by acquiescence. However, it is good they have said there is no contract, therefore there is no debt for me to pay to Moorcroft! “No common law” – sounds like the Bills of Exchange Act is back? “Our contract is with our client” – excellent, as proof of agency you should have revealed the nature of that contract as part of disclosure, in other words, how much you have paid them for acquiring my debt.

Para 7 – This is going to be a hell of a lot of paper to send. Wonder how much I should bill them for copies? £100 per correspondence? £1000? And “please confirm your acceptance of such terms”

Para 8 – Interesting – you want the “account holder to contact us”. As the account holder is a person, a legal fiction, it has not, and never did exist as a living, breathing human being. And you received the account, that means there was a transaction to secure its rights. As a consequence Moorcroft will have taken on the alleged debt from HSBC at a cost, and therefore the alleged debt no longer is the property of HSBC. Thank you for settling this debt, but as you have stated, there is no contract between us, therefore I am not in any way liable to you for payment of a debt that I have already stated I would have been quite happy to pay to HSBC, had they been able to forward the necessary documentation to prove a lawful contract.

para 9 – Where to begin with this one? First off this is the first letter that had the correct address on it (wrong post code) – the bill I sent details that the first letter arrived two weeks after being sent, and the subsequent long delays in getting to me. If they sent letters recorded mail like I do, there would be no disputes about dates of receipt. METROPOLITAN sent me a letter which they think was ‘Proof of Agency’, but Metropolitan are another third party interloper; the alleged debt I believe was the concern of HSBC.

Para 10 – I have no obligation to contact Metropolitan about anything, however as I believe you need educating about your unlawful behaviour, I have spent the time replying. Please find enclosed my adjusted bill for this, subject to the fee schedule that Metropolitan have already agreed to by tacit acquiescence. Please note that if you are a genuine flesh and blood human being, Paula Huddart, I reserve the right to seek damages from you should Moorcroft refuse to settle their lawful debts.

Para 11 – Yippee!! So, 28 days later, if I say nothing it goes back to whom? Metropolitan (who I have no relationship with?) Or HSBC (the miscreants who started this hoo-hah). However, due to our tacit agreement, it will further add to your bill if you pass the debt back.

All suggestions and additions gratefully received – think I’ll add something that explains contracts to her, the poor thing …

patrickgill replied:

Okay, bit between teeth on this one … will send on Tuesday, so please feel free to make suggestions, correct me where I’m wrong (some kite flying on this one which needs a careful eye or two to confirm/deny), or comment in general?

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

© Name-Name-Name: Family; Authorised Representative for
MR N N N Family™ and all derivatives thereof
c/o Address Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Near XXX XXX


Paula Huddart
Compliance Officer
Moorcroft Debt Recovery Limited
PO Box 17
2 Spring Gardens
Stockport SK1 4AJ

X April 2011 CE

Dear Paula Huddart,

Re: Moorcroft Ref No. 66666666666 – Client Reference 7777777777 (HSBC Bank Plc)

Thanks for your correspondence dated XX April 2011, received XX April 2011. What a difference it makes to the speed of delivery when Moorcroft uses the correct postal address.

To confirm: I wrote to Moorcroft on XX and XX XXXXXX 2011 CE, signed for by recorded delivery mail, requesting a lawful contract; a signed invoice; and proof of agency to validate your claim, so that I may settle any financial obligation I might lawfully owe. Moorcroft were given these two opportunities to do this, however you failed, thus acquiescing to the tacit agreement sent to you, dated XX XXXXXXX 2011 CE, and again signed for by recorded delivery mail:
1. That you are a third party interloper;
2. That you have no legal standing;
3. That you have no first-hand knowledge of this matter;
4. That your claim is fraudulent;
5. That any damages I suffer, you will be held culpable;
6. That any negative remarks made to a credit reference agency will be removed;
7. You will no longer pursue this matter any further.

It appears that you are in some doubt as to the lawfulness of this agreement with you; indeed, as you a third party interloper, I am under no obligation to enter any further dialogue with you. As part of our binding tacit agreement by acquiescence, I am at liberty to simply Bill you for each letter you send. As I have therefore further billed for your latest correspondence (revised Bill enclosed), I thought it only fair to inform you as to where your letter is flawed, and provide information that I hope you and your colleagues will find useful in the future. The deception and unlawful nature of “debt collection” is being widely exposed, so I hope this will assist you in making better career choices, going forward from your present employers.

Paragraph 1: “correspondence of this nature”. This terminology intrigues me. What ‘nature’ would that be? Are there other living, breathing human beings other than myself who are becoming the victims of your attentions?

Paragraph 2: “information available to me” – as I have said, this proves you have no direct first-hand knowledge of me, or this matter, and are a third party interloper. You state that you have a ‘client’, meaning you have a business relationship with them; unfortunately, I have no business relationship with Moorcroft.

Paragraph 3: You state you “receive all accounts in good faith” – I regret to inform you that you have been misled, as I will explain. You are quite right that this affair is “free from dispute” – all your client has been asked to do is prove the debt they allege, and I will settle as any law abiding living human being would do. However, this is something they have been unable to do. You have stated there is an “original contract” – please note that HSBC has been unable to provide me with any such contract.

Paragraph 4: I have absolutely no idea how the “rules of agency” would apply to me. What your businesses agree between you about a third party (in this case my legal fiction) still requires full disclosure. I have not seen a ‘Proof of Agency’ which reveals the terms of that contract between your two corporations, or under what law this would come under to have an effect on me. You have not been able to demonstrate any lawful standing and are therefore a third party interloper. I have to disagree that there is “No obligation on our client to seek authority before instructing agents”. They have to first establish a lawful relationship with me, and then get both a wet signature from me, opposite one from themselves, according to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. This has never happened. As they have not been able to prove any debt, HSBC has already been advised, due to their own binding tacit agreement by acquiescence, that they are not allowed to pass the debt on to a third party, and have been Billed accordingly.

Paragraph 5: I have always said that I will pay any debt when it can be proven that I lawfully owe that debt – there is no dispute. This evidence has not been forthcoming despite numerous requests from me, and both HSBC and METROPOLITAN are in a state of ESTOPPEL BYACQUIESCENCE. This is why METROPOLITAN has been sent a revised Bill following their most recent contact, which is a breach of their Estoppel. Please note that as you are a proven third party interloper, I am not obliged to share any information with you, especially what you describe as “appropriate supporting financial evidence”, which is none of your business!

Paragraph 6: You state “there is no contractual term between us” – this is certainly not in dispute, but there is a binding tacit agreement by acquiescence in place. However, it is good that you have noted there is no contractual term between us, and therefore there is no debt for me to pay to Moorcroft. You state “our contract is with our client” – thank you for confirming this; you should have revealed the nature of that contract as part of disclosure in any attempt to confirm a ‘Proof of Agency’, in other words, not limited to but including how much you have paid them for acquiring the alleged debt in question.

Paragraph 7: There is far more information that can be sent to you concerning this situation. However, this will encompass many documents, and I therefore would have to bill you for my time, materials and labour, at a cost of £100.00 per document. Please confirm your acceptance of such terms if you wish to proceed.
However, if a summary is sufficient, I hope the following is acceptable (again, I must note that I am under no obligation to reveal this to you, as you are a third party interloper, but I will do so for your educational benefit). I requested from HSBC the following documents so that I may settle any financial obligation that I might Lawfully owe:
1. Validation of the debt (the actual accounting).
2. Verification of their claim against me (a sworn affidavit or a hand signed invoice in accordance with The Bills of Exchange Act 1882).
3. A copy of the contract signed by both parties and therefore binding both parties.

What was sent to me were some statements (statements do not have to be paid – only hand signed invoices in accordance with the Bills of Exchange Act 1882) which I did not request; as you should know any LAWFUL contract must meet four criteria:
1. Full Disclosure by both parties; neither party can claim ‘you should have known’ if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.
2. Equal Consideration being offered by both parties, this being the subject of exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value, and must come from a party’s own resources. Both parties agree that their Consideration is worth (to them) the other parties’ Consideration. The Considerations, once agreed, must be fixed – otherwise they cannot remain ‘equal’.
3. Lawful terms and Conditions for the contract, to which both parties agree. These should rest entirely on Common Law.
4. Manifestations of intent by both parties, such as ‘wet’ signatures and some conduct of performance which shows ‘intent to contract’.

All your client has is partially number 4 – the start of performance from me; however by LAW all four of the criteria must be met or all contracts are null and void in law.

So I gained ‘Estoppel by Acquiescence’ with HSBC, which can be detailed as:
1. No response to the Human Self was forthcoming (response was addressed to Legal Fiction Person) despite this having been pointed out numerous times;
2. No response in substance was forthcoming;
3. Thus ‘permanent and irrevocable lawful Estoppel by Acquiescence’ was gained due to their dishonour;
4. My original Conditional Agreement removed all Controversy, and thus removed the possibility of Court Action on their part.

It was pointed out to HSBC that if they ever decided to try and go to court their case would be dismissed, and I will make a counterclaim for harassment in the sum of £50,000.00 for all of the UNLAWFUL stress they have caused. Should Moorcroft continue to contact me about this matter, I must remind you of the lawful fee schedules noted in our binding tacit agreement by acquiescence. I must note that you passing the alleged debt back to your client, as suggested as a course of action in your correspondence, will represent another breach of our agreement, and therefore eligible for further fees.

Paragraph 8: You note you would like the “account holder to contact us”. As the account holder is a person, a legal fiction, it has not, and never did exist as a living, breathing human being. As you have received the account, that means there was a transaction to secure its rights, lawful or otherwise. In other words, Moorcroft has taken on the alleged debt from HSBC at a cost, and therefore the alleged debt is no longer the property of HSBC. Thank you for settling this debt, but as you have stated, there is no contract between us, therefore I am not in any way liable to you for payment of a debt that I have already stated I would have been quite happy to settle with HSBC, had they been able to forward the necessary documentation to prove a lawful contract.

Paragraph 9: I should note for your files that your most recent correspondence was the first one that had the correct address on it (wrong post code) – the Bill I sent previously, and the revised one enclosed, details that the first letter arrived some two weeks after being sent, and the subsequent long delays in getting to me were due to you being provided with the wrong address. If Moorcroft had sent letters by recorded delivery mail like I do, there would be no issue concerning dates of receipt. It was METROPOLITAN that sent me a letter which they think was ‘Proof of Agency’, but Metropolitan are another third party interloper; the alleged debt I believe was the concern of HSBC?

Paragraph 10: I have no obligation to contact Moorcroft about anything, however as I believe you need alerting to your unlawful behaviour, I have spent the time replying. Please find enclosed my adjusted Bill for this, subject to the fee schedule that Moorcroft have already agreed to by tacit acquiescence. Please note that if you are a genuine flesh and blood human being, Paula Huddart, I reserve the right to also seek damages from you should Moorcroft refuse to settle their lawful debts.

Paragraph 11: It would be of interest to find out where you would pass the debt back to: Metropolitan (who I have no business relationship with, but also have an Estoppel by Acquiescence with) or HSBC (who broke their own lawfully binding Estoppel by Acquiescence by passing on the alleged debt, and have been billed accordingly)? As previously noted, however, due to our own lawfully binding tacit agreement, passing the debt anywhere will further add to Moorcroft’s own Bill , as it will if you pass it on to another third party interloper.

In conclusion, please note all Bills are payable in Twenty One (21) days of the date the Bill is received by you, as evidenced by Royal Mail recorded delivery tracking number. I reserve the right to administer a sliding scale of late payment fees, which can range between anything from £100 GB Sterling to £10,000 GB Sterling per Bill item per day depending on Moorcroft’s circumstances. I believe you should advise your senior managers and even the Managing Director / Chief Executive that prompt payment is recommended. Non-payment might lead to recovery action, which I am sure Moorcroft would wish to avoid. I am certain you are not paid enough in your role in the company to take on such responsibility yourself, so highly recommend you do not take such a decision on your own shoulders.

If your company is unable to pay within the designated timescales, I would be delighted to discuss a payment plan with you by written correspondence, all subject to the previously advised fee schedules. Note that pre-payment is an excellent way to save costs in this instance.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By Sovereign © Name-Name-Name: Family
Authorised Agent and Representative

Errors & Omissions Excepted
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT

kittiebelle replied:

Great Letter, especially apragraphs 6 and 8, about them admitting they have no contract with you. Can’t wait to see how they (could possibly) respond. You’ve reaaly got them clutching at straws. Do you mind if I borrow some parts of it?? I have Metro giving me some crap at the mo ??

patrickgill replied:

As I’ve stolen so much of this from others myself, I think the phrase is “all property is theft”!

Just give it your own ‘inimitable’ style!

😎

trojan73 replied:

Well done.
This makes me so happy to read this.
Good luck with it all.
Fight hard
The Trojan

banana123 replied:

This is superb!

Many thanks for taking the time and energy to share this with us all. It’s really confidencing boosting to know that someone has dealt with these shysters in an intelligent and constructive manner. I also may need to use your material as I deal with Moorcroft and several others.

I am on the first steps of what will be a long road in clearing my debts but your comprehensive postings have really given me real affirmation that I can deal with these bullys once and for all.

thanks again!

banana123 replied:

I would like to know if you ever received a reply to your letter from HSBC/Metropolitan or Moorcroft?

patrickgill replied:

Strange that you should ask; this very morning I have just received a letter (just in time to put off my Estoppel being sent to them for another month) – normal post again, so they have no idea whether I have received it or not for sure. When you get to the end, it does beg the question: do I bill them again for writing to me, or just keep that in store for the next time? After all, if they do pass it back to HSBC, that’s a cost in itself according to the tacit agreement. Let me know what you think…

27th April 2011

Dear Mr Strawman,

Our Client: HSBC Bank plc

We acknowledge receipt of your further correspondence regarding the above account.

Firstly, I would reiterate our involvement in this matter at our client’s request. As previously advised it is our understanding that accounts of this type are referred to us under the terms and conditions of your original contract with our client. I would refer you back to this information for clarification of our instruction at our client’s request.

With the above in mind and supported by our previous responses, I would reiterate that at no point have we agreed to your terms or contract and it is our understanding that there is no direct contractual term between us which would give rise to any obligation on our part of this nature. We also believe there is no relationship between ourselves which would give rise to a duty of care under the common law and/or any statutes governing the laws of tort. For the avoidance of any doubt we believe our contract is between us and HSBC Bank plc.

Our records show that we have attempted to assist you in this matter and have advised that our client had informed us that they had written to you directly on the 10th March providing their response to the issues you had raised. However, following receipt of your further correspondence we now believe the most sensible course of action would be to return your account to our client so this matter can be resolved as efficiently as possiblle. We would stress that any further recovery action would now rest with our client and I would therefore suggests (sic) that you contact them at your earliest convenience should you have any unresolved concerns regarding this account and your liability.

I trust that this is to your satisfaction and think that it would be sensible for me to explain why I have not attempted to rebut each and every point which you have raised in your letter. I have taken the decision not to do so based upon my assessment of that letter and its contents and must simply point out that I believe that many of the points you have made are simply incorrect and invalid and also that I believe the approach you have taken does not represent a realistic or reasonable approach or is anyway intended to foster genuine dialogue. For the final avoidance of doubt I confirm that your fee structure is wholly rejected and the “bill” which you purport to raise, which seems to request payment of a sum in excess of £12 million is similarly rejected. In doing so I confirm that it is very much the policy of this company to deal with any genuine concerns or complaints and this remains the case in relation to this account or any other.

Should this matter become subject to any scrutiny by any regulator or tribunal, I reserve the right to refer this letter and your correspondence to their attention, particularly with regard to the question of costs.

Please be assured that your account is now closed with us and you will receive no further contact from us in connection to this matter.

Yours sincerely

Paula Huddart
Compliance Officer

kittiebelle replied:

Ha Ha, Your previous letter was so awsome that she could not respond to the points even if she tried. Again she admits her contract is with HSBC and not you. Great. What a load of bullshit. Looks like they have given up. Well done. Do you enjoy letter tennis ?? I know i do and your letters to banks an DC’s are an inspiration to me and others I’m sure when playing the game. Thanks for sharing. Again, Well Done 😎

patrickgill replied:

Thanks Kittiebelle! This and the Census folk have certainly kept me busy, and good to know this helps others in some way!

patrickgill replied:

Oh what a beautiful morning … for sending Moorcroft an Estoppel in the post.

Four weeks after the date of their last correspondence.

But wait … if they pass the debt back or on, or back to source, they ought to see the size of the bill awaiting them. Close to £15 million.

😎

kittiebelle replied:

Marvelous 😆 😆 😆

patrickgill replied:

Just to let you know I’ve kicked off another case with Moorcroft, this time with an alleged O2 debt…

Follow the continuing adventures at …

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v … 999#p48999

😎

luluxiu replied:

This is really confidencing improve intelligence and know someone in a constructive manner to deal with these shysters. I may also need to use the materials, I Moorcroft and several other people to deal with.

banana123 replied:

I found Moorcoft one of the easier ones to deal with. I used to be scared of them, but now I quite look forward to hearing from them!

kay2477 replied:

I am delighted to read all your posts on this matter. I have been dealing with HSBC who then referred me to Metropolitan, I had done all three letters and just billed them last week and this morning I got a letter saying that they are referring me to DG solicitors. Most disheartened with all the time and worry and to be re-referred again its almost like you could give up. But reading these posts has lifted my confidence again and i’m ready to battle again so thank you for sharing in such detail your experience!! Kay.

GANGSHIELD replied:

D.G. Those other people next desk (HSBC)

kittiebelle replied:

After metropolitan and DG mine went to central debt recovery. Got estoppel with them and not heard from anybods regarding that particular ‘debt’ for a couple of months now. Infact all has gone quiet and no letters at all for over a week from any of ’em

kay2477 replied:

I wouldnt mind but its a joint account and they still send us both separate letters, they will just get billed twice now! This is the letter i have wrote to DG Solicitors bearing in mind I had done the 3 letters to Metropolitan!! Ive added an attachment, does it sound ok as the first one to them…??

ceylon replied:

i would do the 2 letters with them aswell

kay2477 replied:

Yes, send two letters separately.. I have done that thanks so much!!