Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Less than 1% of Japan's top companies are led by women despite years of efforts to address the issue.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Enforceable CCA?


lee32uk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5028 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi

I recently applied to RBS for a copy of my CCA.They replied back with the copies below.

One question i have as well is that my card changed from the standard classic card to a gold card after about 12 months or so, and the new card had a different account number.I also didnt sign any paperwork for the new updated gold card.Does this make any difference to the CCA request ?

 

Thanks for any help

 

Lee

 

 

 

 

rbs10046jo0.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Page 1 is the application form with no prescribed terms.

 

Where was the second page you have posted supposed to be? Was it on a separate piece of paper, or was it supposed to be on the back of the application?

 

The current terms and conditions are not the ones you were given when the account was opened. The figures are wrong.

 

You need an expert's advice here. The prescribed terms are not on the front of the application form, and they must be "within the four corners of the agreement" - can be overleaf, but cannot be on a separate leaflet.

 

Someone else with much more expertise will help you soon.

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with Daniella....no prescribed terms on the signature page - when read in line with this -

 

A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor.

 

Further, s.127(3) CCA 1974 makes the account unenforceable if it is not in the proper form and content or improperly executed.

 

In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement”.

They will of course continue to argue that what they have is enforceable....(of course they will !!!!)

You could send them this back...

Thank you for your response to my request under the Consumer Credit Act section 78.

 

I am pleased to see that you confirm this as a true copy of the original agreement executed by yourselves on the XXXXX.

 

As you must realise this agreement does not conform to sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer credit Act 1974 and would therefore only be enforceable by a court under s65. However, the absence of any prescribed terms means that a court would be prevented from enforcing it under s127(3)"

You had until (date here) to provide me with the true copy I requested. After that date you entered into default of my request and I am therefore advising that the matter is now in dispute . Whilst the matter is in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, make any further charges to the account or pass the account to anybody else.

 

Please note you may also consider this letter a statutory notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies including any defaults. Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’, you must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

 

Should you fail to respond within 21 days, I will expect that this means you agree to remove all such data

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Lee32uk

 

This seems a pretty standard, stock answer from RBoS. I got this from them too, although slightly different wording and not signed by the same person.

 

Do what I did - hit them with this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html

 

Write, giving them 21 days to reply. I'll let you know what happens when I get a response. The deadline is next Friday - 20th.

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes me laugh is the wording on the "True Copy" Credit agreement:

 

"The Consumer Credit Act 1974 lays down certain requirements for your protection which should have been complied with then this agreement was made. If they were not, we can not enforce this agreement without a court order".

 

So their own credit agreement drops them in it !! and they still have the cheek to say they've done nothing wrong.. but won't supply the signed credit agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Anyone else having problems with royal mail tracking site ? Sent a letter to RBS on 16th march, but it just says received at post office (we have your item) :confused:

I will have to give the post office a ring otherwise

 

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont expect Royal Mail to help, you pay extra and they still dont get a signature!

 

I too received an Application Form, put account in dispute and received a similar reply to you and then a request for payment.

 

Am making a complaint through their complaints procedure which im sure will go nowhere, but then I can complain to everyone else and say iv gone through the hoops.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi all

 

Received a default notice today from RBoS :rolleyes: As far as i am concerned the account is still in dispute.

I am waiting for them to send me my SAR.They have until 12th May before their 40 days is up.

It should be interesting to see what they send, as i have 2 different account numbers (Original card replaced by a goldcard) but only remember signing one application.

 

Anyway back to the point in question, is the default notice they sent me correctly set out ?

 

thanks

 

4t4i6e.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Thanks for the reply 42man.

 

I will just have to sit back now and wait for their next move.If they are relying on the above CCA then I should be ok.

 

 

cheers

 

Lee

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently received a Subject Access Request back from RBoS (Well part of it anyway :rolleyes:) as I am currently claiming back PPI, as well as questioning the CCA.

 

Anyway there is one thing that is nagging me, and I haven't been able to find out a definitive answer to it.

I originally applied for the Standard Mastercard in 2003.A few years down the line RBoS decided to issue me with a Goldcard (Which replaced the original card) without me asking for it.

The two cards had totally different 16 digit numbers.My credit card statements also showed the new card number.

 

So my question is, that if I have had two different cards with different account numbers, then should they have given me a new agreement to sign ?

 

The CCA in this thread relates to the Goldcard (2nd card) and the SAR that I sent to them was for the original Card.

They have sent me the same CCA for both cards, so how can one CCA relate to two cards ?

 

Is this a glaring error on their part ??

 

Hope I haven't made this too confusing :)

 

 

thanks

Lee

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for the reply 42man

 

The SAR they sent me only contained about 2 statements, a copy of the CCA (Original card) and a list of a few telephone call records.I wrote back to them giving them a further 7 days to comply :) If they don't then I will go down the Court route.

 

The reason I wanted an answer on this particular question was in case they took me to Court.Obviously they would use the current Goldcard account number which dates from about 2005.Both of the CCA's they have sent are dated 2003 which relates to the original card :)

It also lacks any prescribed terms :)

cheers

Lee

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...