Thread: help needed with barclays latest response - it's a long one

history so far -

CCA'd Barclays last year, they came up with a signed application form, but definitely no signed agreement. Sent them the account in dispute response as they hadn't provided a copy of an executed agreement. They sent back the usual we have complied with our obligations and resent the original info to me. I replied with this on CAG advice:

Re; your reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

I note that you have replied to the above by sending only a copy of your company's current terms and conditions. I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act.

To clarify, just sending the terms and conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a "true copy" of the agreement.

This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, "the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form." This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

And more importantly

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-
(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;
(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.
It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable. I await a true copy of the agreement and would remind you again that, whilst the request has not been complied with, the default continues.

You may now consider this to be a formal complaint.

Yours faithfully

received this back today:










I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this as they seem they are still trying to tie me up with "legalese" - I'm also presuming that since this account went default in july of last year, if they could have enforced payment by now they would have done?

clarification please somebody?

Originally Posted by Alphageek

The first page is too small to read. Can you make it a little bigger please?

don't know what you mean as they all appear the same size in my browser?

here it is again