Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I am STILL musing over the BOS v Mitchell court case and I think this deserves a thread all of its own to debate WHY BOS bottled out...
The bit about the guy saying he was not given terms and conditions even though BOS said he would have been originally given them with the pack is a vital point in enforcibility of docs for many of us .
I have some CCA docs sent to me by vultues (YES - INCLUDING BOS AND THEIR LOVERS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DESK BOS) that seem like they have ALL the prescribes terms on the signed application/agreement BUT the terms and conditions/Conditions of use are on a seperate sheet that we could, like Mitchell, FAIRLY claim was never given to us when the agreement was indeed executed/signed - which may in fact be true - regardless of any questionable ref numbers at the botton of the page (which are often very hard to make out anyway).
Do I have a good point here or am I being daft?
BANK OF SCOTLAND -v- ROBERT MITCHELL
1st June 2009
APPROVED JUDGMENT
So was there more to this big BOS climb down than than we saw? Clearly they did NOT want others to get wind of this affiar as it could cost them a lot of lolly.......
More importantly - how does it affect the comsumer with the frequently questionable docs the creditors send us in response to our CCA requests?????
6. The thrust of Miss Gardner's submission is that the issue directed by the District Judge, and on which the evidence has been focussed, is whether the bank supplied the defendant at the time of signing the application form for credit with documents which contained all the terms of the agreement between them. I shall elaborate a little further on this. It has been the defendant's case that he was supplied with nothing more than the application form which he signed.
The above was the main thrust of the case, the lack of the prescribed terms within the 'four corners' of the signed document.
Personally – I have questioned my BOS CCA docs (and those from other sources) on grounds of them not being “easily illegible”.
This is something that I am informed they have to be in the first instance to be legitimate.
If they DO give me something I can actually read then I may also write to these lovely people to tell them that, like Mr M, they have sent me agreements that have Terms/Conditions on a “separate” sheet, which I am not aware to being given to me at the time the agreement was executed, regardless of any page ref numbers they may shout about on the two pages.
I may ask them if they will therefore kindly close my accounts as they have done with Mr M for reasons of legal unenforceability.
The above was the main thrust of the case, the lack of the prescribed terms within the 'four corners' of the signed document.
Somewhat comically - one agreement copy they gave me appears to have MY signature in the box that they are supposed to have signed for the bank. I never worked for them either.There is what seems to be a rubbed out smear under my sig that looks like its been erased in a hurry. I had to laugh at this.
I wonder what breach, under the CCA, this boo bo may possibly be . lol I am thinking of sending then a letter saying they own me a few grand with similarly iffy signatures on and see if they pay me .. :grin:
The 2 pages also have different ref numbers at the botton too. Not sure if it was copied up by by Eric Idle or John Cleese in their hayday
One thing that puzzles me is that if you take out a personal loan secured/unsecured or a mortgage you receive a duplicate copy of the documents.
With a credit card, there appears to have only ever been one copy. This would have been signed by the applicant and returned to the CC company. Very few people would have had the foresight to photocopy before returning.
I personally would have expected a copy to be returned to me.. bearing their signature ! Along with all the other documents ie terms and conditions they say they "would have "been provided.
The only company I ever received a signed copy of the agreement and the terms and conditions from was, paypal credit card.
1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -HERE
2: Take back control of your finances -Debt Diaries
3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?Read Here
When the Liberals and Conservatives were in opposition, they both agreed that banks should pay back high bank charges to customers. Nothing seems to have happened since they came into power as a coalition. PPI Insurance has been sorted. Now they should turn their attention to bank charges and help customers get exorbitant charges refunded.
Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank 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.
PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE
The Consumer Credit Act 1974 was written by the draftsman of the Act, Francis Bennion, and originally published in one volume in 1976. Francis Bennion informs us:
127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.
Are you not aware that this comment by the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 means that the signatures, relating to the entire and fully understood agreement, must in fact be made at the very end of the agreement, and that all the terms and conditions are to be embodied in the actual agreement ‘before’ the signatures are executed?
This is a vital moot point relating to the legality of this issue. Separate sheets of terms and conditions, that may or may not relate to the aforementioned agreement, would therefore be deemed worthless unless the signature of both the applicant and lender WERE INCLUDED AS A LAST ITEM on this final page AFTER ALL RELEVENT CONDITIONS ETC. The critical point is that signatures must be presented at the very end of the entire document to be logically acceptable and more importantly - lawful.
Any agreement that is not in fact formatted in such a manner may be likely to be deemed UNLAWFUL.
BOS v Mitchell - thoughts on docs
v Mitchell court case and I think this deserves a thread all of its own to debate WHY BOS bottled out...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by cerberusalert
