Consumer Credit Act Agreements

[tamadus]

Originally Posted by pcr1

Thaaat's the gamble!



No, as a remedy to an unfair term, per legislation, the contract will remain in force when the court invalidates the offending terms. Only if the offending term forms such a substance to the contract that the contract cannot possibly continue without it, will the court terminate the contract.

It says this in UCTA and UTCCR but I don't have them to hand to quote unfortunately.

You're much better off going down the s77, s78 and hopefully even better the s85 route. (I say better because under s85, even if they produce an agreement, they need to refund a fair bit of interest. One of my Barclaycards started July 2003 and doesn't expire till December this year!)



It's reference only and not widely available, so you'll need to sit in the library to read it or copy it (which is what I'll be doing!). I'll post the ISBN/ISSN number when I look it up again, which will probably be tomorrow, if not then Thursday.

I have already started down the s78 route with Barclaycard who have just sent me a lovely copy of the original application form from 1979 Just written back to them saying thank you very much but I asked for a copy of the signed agreement as along with everything over 2 years old you failed to supply it under my Subject Access Request.

The 30 days runs out on 5th October

If they do manage to surprise me then I might fall back onto the s85 argument and demand they rectify their default (which must date back to about 1980/81)and refund all that interest.

Another card from the early 80's also run out of time on the 5th October and they must be running around scratching their heads as they have sent me another 2 copies of data under my Subject Access Request from July

[pcr1]

I believe what we're looking for is:
"Consumer credit law and practice"
General editor: R.M. Goode

Dewey Decimal classification: 346.073/GOO

There are various volumes. Last publication date is 1999. There is also a CD-ROM version if you can get it, published 2003.

I'll most likely check this out on Thursday.

[The Terminator]

thanks for that pcr1.I'll look on the web later to see if there is an e-book version.Had a look this afternoon to see if I could get some more info but have hit a blank at the moment.

[tamadus]

I just got back from my daughters house and mentioned it to her and she thinks she may have a copy at her office. She owns a company that does costings for legal firms so she is going to look tomorrow and let me borrow it if she has it

I did a quick search earlier on the net and hit a blank wall.

[tamadus]

I just had a thougt pcr. How about we get both yours and this thread merged for clarity ?

[tamadus]

I have managed to find Goode's Consumer credit law and practice for sale online but I changed my mind about buying it at £768

[The Terminator]

I've come up with something which may be of interest.I went through some old papers tonight and stumbled on what could be the key that we are looking for.I've found an old letter from MBUSA which has the following. Top right hand corner replacement card.Then underneath details of activation.Underneath this credit agreement as regultated by the cca(1974) then it go's on about the terms and conditions etc.Then it says copy of agreement for you to keep and a notice about your cancellation rights.T&C continue on the back.The key is that nowhere on the letter is there a signture and it is not a copy of the original executed agreement so I am treating this as a breach of S85.I read the Act again and it is that first line.This is going back to 2000 and basically it is a cancellation form which says only send back if you wish to cancel and tooking through some of the terms very unfair.

[tamadus]

Originally Posted by The Terminator

I've come up with something which may be of interest.I went through some old papers tonight and stumbled on what could be the key that we are looking for.I've found an old letter from MBUSA which has the following. Top right hand corner replacement card.Then underneath details of activation.Underneath this credit agreement as regultated by the cca(1974) then it go's on about the terms and conditions etc.Then it says copy of agreement for you to keep and a notice about your cancellation rights.T&C continue on the back.The key is that nowhere on the letter is there a signture and it is not a copy of the original executed agreement so I am treating this as a breach of S85.I read the Act again and it is that first line.This is going back to 2000 and basically it is a cancellation form which says only send back if you wish to cancel and tooking through some of the terms very unfair.

I am convinced the executed agreement has to be signed, what you have a a standard pre-printed thing so I am inclinded to agree its a breach.

I am just having a lot of difficulty believing they have all made such a big and fundamental mistake over s85. They have teams of legal eagles to make sure all this stuff is within the regulations and yet a couple of people on this site stumble onto it ?

[The Terminator]

Im 99.999% sure they can't get out of this one.S85 was written into the Act for a purpose.It would be pointless putting something in an act only for it to be totally ignored.If you look at a couple of post down somebody has mentioned S85 in a sample letter to Trading Standards.

[dollies01]

Sadly I have to admit all this has gone right over my head..............I felt the breeze!
But does any of it mean, I can tell Lowell finance that a Application form does not cover a cca request?!

[The Terminator]

You most definitly can.

[tamadus]

Originally Posted by dollies01

Sadly I have to admit all this has gone right over my head..............I felt the breeze!
But does any of it mean, I can tell Lowell finance that a Application form does not cover a cca request?!

dollies, I have today written to Barclaycard telling them that very same thing. The regulations are very clear about the format that the agreement is presented in. It has to clearly say 'Credit agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974'

[tamadus]

OH something else that has come up in the last couple of days. Apparently a default notice isnt fully binding unless it is served by hand, but I need to cross check this still. But a couple of people independantly have said it so its very possibly true.

[pcr1]

Originally Posted by tamadus

I have managed to find Goode's Consumer credit law and practice for sale online but I changed my mind about buying it at £768

Hence why I'm off to the library!

I've hit blanks when searching for Goode and for s85 online (using various terms - I can Google pretty well!). I found a mention of s85 in a high court case about a mortgage (where the credit agreement was found to be totally unenforceable because the lender put a number in the wrong place), but the judge said he wasn't looking at that as it didn't matter, and furthermore wasn't up to speed on it so wasn't sure of the implications. The lady was claiming that Lloyds did what we're saying (no signed agreement with new card) with her Access card, as it was called then.

But nothing else... so Goode had better have the goods!

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by tamadus

OH something else that has come up in the last couple of days. Apparently a default notice isnt fully binding unless it is served by hand, but I need to cross check this still. But a couple of people independantly have said it so its very possibly true.

It also says in the T&C that the the CC company are to be informed of change of address but gives no timespan and I'm reading from MBUSA's T&C and I quote"If any cardholderchanges his/her name or you change your address you most notify us as soon as you can".So in effect you could change your name and address tomorrow and tell them in six years and a days time thus the agreement being stature barred.Limitation Act(1980).As for delivering by hand I'm sure that only applies to warrents issued by the courts.

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by pcr1

Hence why I'm off to the library!

I've hit blanks when searching for Goode and for s85 online (using various terms - I can Google pretty well!). I found a mention of s85 in a high court case about a mortgage (where the credit agreement was found to be totally unenforceable because the lender put a number in the wrong place), but the judge said he wasn't looking at that as it didn't matter, and furthermore wasn't up to speed on it so wasn't sure of the implications. The lady was claiming that Lloyds did what we're saying (no signed agreement with new card) with her Access card, as it was called then.

But nothing else... so Goode had better have the goods!

Do you have a link to that piece of case law it must be old.

[tamadus]

Originally Posted by tamadus

OH something else that has come up in the last couple of days. Apparently a default notice isnt fully binding unless it is served by hand, but I need to cross check this still. But a couple of people independantly have said it so its very possibly true.

Ok forget this bit as section 176 covers service of documents and clearly states that posting a document to the last known address is sufficient to be deemed served.

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by tamadus

Ok forget this bit as section 176 covers service of documents and clearly states that posting a document to the last known address is sufficient to be deemed served.

When I read that I was inclined to mention S196 of the Law of Property Act(1925) but thanks for clarifying it in the Act

[pcr1]

Originally Posted by The Terminator

Do you have a link to that piece of case law it must be old.

It's about 1987-1991ish.

Sorry, I have no idea where it is. I remember the judge starting off by saying it was a very sad case, as a good bank-customer relationship had broken down completely.

It was over a second mortgage, and I think it was a possession hearing. The judge noted the PPI amount was in the wrong section ("total charge for credit" or amount advance, one way round or the other) and the agreement was therefore unenforceable. He then touched upon the s85 argument but said because of his judgement it was now irrelevant (I think; whatever he said he was right but it was disappointing it wasn't tried).

I think I followed the link from a forum when looking for something else. If I find it I'll post it but I've just had an unsuccessful Google for it.

[tamadus]

Originally Posted by pcr1

It's about 1987-1991ish.

Sorry, I have no idea where it is. I remember the judge starting off by saying it was a very sad case, as a good bank-customer relationship had broken down completely.

He must be thinking that their are a lot of sad cases now for the same reason.

It was over a second mortgage, and I think it was a possession hearing. The judge noted the PPI amount was in the wrong section ("total charge for credit" or amount advance, one way round or the other) and the agreement was therefore unenforceable. He then touched upon the s85 argument but said because of his judgement it was now irrelevant (I think; whatever he said he was right but it was disappointing it wasn't tried).

Why on earth dont they include extra things like this in their judgement to save it having to be gone over at some future date.

I think I followed the link from a forum when looking for something else. If I find it I'll post it but I've just had an unsuccessful Google for it.

If