Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I agree with what you are saying, I only mentioned the governing body code of practice as a nod to the fact that I wasn't dismissing the BPA or whoever out of hand, thought that would go in my favour before a judge. I wrote a long post about the BPA CoP earlier but then deleted it because I realised I wasn't talking about points of law but a set of guidelines drawn up by one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans. It is ludicrous that the 5 minute consideration period doesn't apply if the motorist parks, such nonsense. As for legislation, I was referring to the government legislation (if it is legislation?) document which has been withdrawn. Does that stand until it has been reintroduced? In the explanatory document it is quite clear. Otherwise, how does one hold them to the consideration and grace periods? Or is that at the discretion of the judge?
    • Thank you all   JK, I agree; if they were to accept my full claim today, then the interest would be around 8-9 pounds. If I were them, I would have offered to pay the interest and said no to the 12 pounds for the letters. These have not been mentioned, which is my mistake.   As you pointed out, if the judge were to award at 4% and I did not get the letters, I would get less.   Bank, thank you. I do hear what you are saying. If I am to continue with this, then I will need to pay an additional trial fee of £59. If I win everything, then great, but if I win less the claim and court fee, then I lose out. I am not sure what the judge will think about the interest. I think we have to remember that I won the item and, therefore, did not pay a penny for it. Yes, I have had to purchase an additional one, but maybe the judge will hold this against me. I am content that this is a win. I have not signed any non-disclosure clauses, and they do not ask for this either in their offer. 
    • Are you saying that both businesses were closed? Yet you stayed there for over two hours. . If both were closed than to charge £100 is a penalty since Horizon had no legitimate interest in keeping spaces clear for the company. sake as there were no customers..
    • Well you would think that would be the case. Sadly i doubt there is one honest broker within the BPA or IPC and most of their members. they are there to take as much money as they can from motorists regardless of PoFA.   Take the Consideration  period for example. This is a minimum of 5 minutes to allow motorists to find a parking space, read the T&Cs giving them enough time to leave the car park without having to pay if they decide not stay. Simple. Well it would be simple if it were any other company than BPA [or IPC who have now fallen into line with BPA's "reasoning"].  You see if you decide to stay then despite the fact that during the Consideration period when you still weren't classed as parking , once you accept the terms [with all the underhand little tricks designed to trip you up] that five minutes is now included in your parking time. [No not the parking period because the poor dears who ANPR cameras are apparently unable to work out what the exact parking period is since their ever so infallible cameras [yeah right] are incapable of tracking cars once they are in a car park]. After 12 years they still haven't worked out a way of doing it. Some of them fudge and the majority [with a wink fro their ATA [Accredited Trade Association though it should be Discredited Trade Association] just ignore the parking period all together. This is what BPA claim is the Consideration period Entrance grace period: This is for when motorists enter a car park, read the signs and/or attempt to make payment then leave. In these instances, motorists must be offered a reasonable amount of time before an operator takes enforcement action, but we do not define this time, due to the variance in size and layout of car parks. An entrance grace period for a small, permit-only car park could be below 5 minutes, whereas for a large multi-story this could be 15. But  heaven forbid that anyone should leave 6 or 7 minutes after entering  their member's car parks. . They are dutybound to receive a PCN. This is regardless of how busy the car park would be [Christmas eve for example ] .Our minimum is their maximum. Moving on to Grace periods. Again BPA gobble degook. Exit grace period: This must be a minimum of 10 minutes and this is when a motorist intends to stay – for example, if you paid for an hour but spent a total of 1 hour 10 minutes on-site, you will not receive a PCN. It is important to note that the grace period is not a free period of parking however and should not be advertised as such. If that ten minutes in not free parking what is it. their members all think they can send out PCNs for anything after 1 minute after the exact time never mind ten minutes. Our snotty letters have stood the test of time. Do not try to reinvent the wheel -especially with DCBL . They don't even know what a non compliant PCN is for goodness sake! You already know more about PoFA then they do. However if you include that they will find a way to disabuse the Judge of your logic and the law. So don't give them the chance.  I am sure you have the Parking Prankster going on about the rogues misusing the rules on planning permission by lying and stating that they had "retrospective permission". There is no such thing in English law yet Judges were swallowing it until one Judge pulled up Parking Eye about one of their Witness Statements alluding to "rp" by claiming it was "tantamount to perjury".  It wasn't tantamount,it was plain and simple perjury. Parking Prankster: The great private car park planning approval scam PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM Guest blog from shuteyepark, from the Consumer Action group forums In December 2013 my daughter received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) fro... Hope it wasn't too long winded Nicky Boy.🙂
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Electronic Signature for Online Applications


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3521 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 All,

 

Does anybody have any information on online applications for credit cards? I know that as of 31/12/2004 a written signature is not required on a credit agreement for an online application, but how does this affect the copy of the CCA that the creditor has a duty to supply under S78?

 

Do the T&Cs still have to be within the four corners of the CCA? Vanquis and Lowell don't seem the think so. They have just supplied a screenshot titled 'Digital Signature Application Details' along with a generic copy of the T&Cs which states that it is a 'Credit Card Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'.

 

Any ideas guys?

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi All,

 

Does anybody have any information on online applications for credit cards? I know that as of 31/12/2004 a written signature is not required on a credit agreement for an online application, but how does this affect the copy of the CCA that the creditor has a duty to supply under S78?

 

Do the T&Cs still have to be within the four corners of the CCA? Vanquis and Lowell don't seem the think so. They have just supplied a screenshot titled 'Digital Signature Application Details' along with a generic copy of the T&Cs which states that it is a 'Credit Card Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'.

 

Any ideas guys?

 

The reason they havent stated that the t&c are in the four corners are due to the HSBC v Carey case where the judge tried to blur the line between a document being a single form or a collection of information delivered to the signee at the time of signing.

 

As these t&c were shown to you digitally prior to signing tho I feel you might have a difficult time convincing a judge that they didnt display them prior to you ticking the box, the judiciary are inclined to give the lenders the most leeway possible.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shadow,

 

Thanks for the reply. I understand that now, and thank you for the very frank advice.

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi All,

I know its been a while since I posted on this thread, but I have just read on here that these electronic signatures are enforceable using a tick in a box (which I'm fully prepared to accept), but that the tick has to be shown on the CCA. I have also noticed some incorrect information on the 'screenshot' which I wouldn't have submitted (like the time at present address). I think that Vanquis have made this up from the limited information that they might have had and guessed at some of it.

 

My question is, does the tick box have to be shown? And should I contest this as I wouldn't have submitted some of the information contained in it?

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites

As these t&c were shown to you digitally prior to signing tho I feel you might have a difficult time convincing a judge that they didnt display them prior to you ticking the box, the judiciary are inclined to give the lenders the most leeway possible.

 

S.

 

How on earth could a judge honestly accept this particular document as being valid at all?

 

I think that your opinion is slightly misleading, did you actually see what Lowell's and Vanquis are trying to 'fob off' as being legal?

 

It is ridiculous!

 

Any child could get the same info and produce the same documentation if they knew where to look.

 

Surely a DCA cannot just simply 'fabricate' documents and 'insert' information that is sparse at best and often inaccurate and incorrect?

 

I can not accept that the legal system is that ridiculous!

 

If I send Lowell's a spreadsheet of imaginary payments I have made them since they started harrassing me, would this be legal?

 

The creditor has to be able to prove that the credit was applied for online, NOBODY would offer credit to ANYONE unless they provided comprehensive accurate personal information NOT the crap that is printed on these Lowell speadsheets.

 

Name one online creditor that doesn't require marital status, previous address or occupation before they approve the application?

 

Have a look the crappy document that was sent to us and give us your opinion, if it was sent to you would you accept it?

 

LowellCrap1.jpg

 

LowellCrap2.jpg

Edited by RoyalIrish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonny,

 

Just to let you know mate, this is most certainly NOT a computer screenshot.

 

It is a spreadsheet that was most probably manufactured by Lowell's to LOOK like a screenshot.

 

It is extremely shabby and is full of mistakes.

 

Please don't for one minute presume that this is official, it is crap made to look official.

 

RI

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that RI. I might SAR Vanquis and see what they come up with. If Lowells have made this up, Vanquis won't have a copy.

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Biggeorge,

 

So you got yours straight from Vanquis then. Maybe Lowells aren't making them up then. I think that they might be questionable at best, but we need to find out more about the requirements, and why there appear to be so many mistakes on them with regard to personal data. Are there any mistakes on yours?

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vanquish are a joke, I recently sent an SAR to them, due to the age of the account I no longer had the account number. I sent security detail, DOB, mothers Maiden name etc and a copy of recent bank statement, and a copy of a driving license. Vanquish sent it all back with a not even a covering letter, just a compliment slip stating they could do nothing without an account number. So as far as I'm concerned they have failed to supply a SAR and have admited an account does not exists in my name. So they can remove any information from my credit file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vanquis are actually incompetent. I once tried to make a payment to them of £15, they took £50. When I complained they paid the £50 back, told me it was my fault and I should speak up on the phone, then gave me a late charge because by this time there wasn't a payment made by the due date.

But my problem is now with Lowells. I'm really not sure what to do about this at the present time, and the more I read about it, the muddier the waters become.

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonny,

 

I would SERIOUSLY advise you NOT to pay Lowell's ANYTHING until such times as it is 100% confirmed that you are indeed liable for the debt.

 

Lowell's are **** and throughout this forum you will see many instances of their attitude and mistreatment of decent people.

 

Take it to the wire, do everything you can to frustrate and irritate them because they will take great pleasure in doing the same to you.

 

I would think that this 'speadsheet' began it's travels at Vanquis but Lowell's seem to think that they can use it to play the 'Electronic Communications Order 2004' card.

 

Basically it is useless because of it's obvious amateurish design and the dubious data contained therein.

 

How on earth could this be a legally binding document when there are so many errors and such little factual information?

 

I doubt very much that this is enforcable due to these factors, if it was enforcable it would open the floodgates to many more DCA's producing these crappy looking spreadsheets and claiming that they are actually 'online applications'.

 

I wouldn't use it to line the hamster's cage!

 

My understanding was that there had to be a 'terms & conditions' section with an 'accept' button.

 

Remember, it's not actually taken from a web application either, it is simply a spreadsheet with some personal details filled in.

 

It would take literally 2 minutes to enter a person's details onto it.

 

There is NO WAY that this is the actual 'online application' that Vanquis used for credit card application.

 

I think that this spreadsheet has actually been designed to LOOK as if it is emphasising the 'Electronic Communications Order 2004'.

 

If you look on mine, the document seems to be less interested with accurate personal details and moreso with the emphasis being on INTERNET and DATES etc.

 

Thus this would neatly fall into their claims that the account was opened online and would fall into the 'Electronic Communications Order 2004' category.

 

If you see what I mean?

 

Shhhh, don't tell them but the date that I actually applied for a Vanquis card is different than they have got on the spreadsheet!

 

RI

Edited by RoyalIrish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi RI,

I might just write to Lowells then and say that because some of the information contained in this spreadsheet is incorrect, and there is no indication that I accepted the terms and conditions that the spreadsheet alludes to, I am putting the debt into dispute.

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said mate, make life particulary difficult for Lowell's!

 

Let them keep sending their stupid threatograms and only write to them if it is absolutely nessessary!

 

It costs them money for every letter they send, not much but it gives me a wee tickle knowing I'm costing them!

 

I'm going to call their bluff and see what action they take!

 

If they reckon that their stupid attempt at an electronic signature bluff is viable then let them bring it on.

 

I don't see any point in playing letter 'ping-pong' again with them again, they will ignore any complaint that I make anyway.

 

You have to remember that Lowell's are totally despicable and will NEVER admit to any wrong doing, EVER!

 

They will lie, cheat and if they could, steal money from you!

 

I have numerous letters from Lowell's regarding a CCA request and a final letter stating that my account is now closed (wait for it), DUE TO THE LENGTH OF TIME SINCE THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED WE CANNOT LOCATE THE CCA. (Classic!)

 

Now they are trying to say that I opened it in 2007, you gotta laugh at them really!

 

RI

 

RoyalIrish waves to Lowell's Losers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool! I'll keep you posted

 

It shouldn't be long now I've already had the

"We have not received payment, or any valid reason for non payment" letter

 

In another letter I have from them, they're threatening an "Attached Earnings Order"

and "securing the value of the debt against your property"

1. I don't own a property. And

2. There isn't even a CCJ yet!

 

So they might have a bit of trouble on both accounts I reckon. Never mind eh?

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to give you the heads up. Lowells are now using a BT service (08456021111) to send text messages by voice to your phone. If they do this to you, just call 0800 5875 252, press option 1, then option 5. This will stop the messages altogether.

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple of threads with the same excel file posted up - have a read...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?303275-Interesting-Development-In-Lowell-Vanquis-Debacle

 

Yeah, I know!

 

One of them is mine!

 

There are a few people needing help with this one, if it bores you or you find it annoying then please accept out humble apologies and leave the thread.

 

RI

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...