Natwest CCA response, Help Please

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hi

 

I have received today from Natwest a responce from my CCA request.

 

I have received (Below) the agreement that I signed but there are no terms on it.

 

They have also enclosed T&C which have APR on.

 

My question if anybody can help is does the prescribed terms have to be on the page you sign as the T&C are just a print off.

 

Cheers

 

RO

 

[harrythehawk]

Mmmm there is alot of use of the word application on there !! Will leave to some more knowledgable person to confirm

[Curlyben]

As mentioned on your other (LTSB) thread:

 

S61(1)(a) CCA provides that, for a regulated agreement to be properly executed, it must contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement and conform to regulations under s60(1) – see Q1.14.

 

Reg 6(1) provides that the terms specified in Sch 6 to the Agreements Regulations are ‘prescribed terms’ for the purposes of s61(1)(a) and s127(3) – see Q8.2.

 

8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect?

 

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor – see Q1.21.

 

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

 

 

8.3 What are the prescribed terms?

 

The prescribed terms specified in Sch 6 are as follows:

 

* amount of credit – see Q8.

 

* credit limit – see Q8.5

* repayments – see Q8.9.

* rate of interest – see Q8.6

 

Sch 6 was not amended by the 2004 Regulations.

 

Now how was this card applied for as this could make a serious difference ??

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hi CB

 

It was applied on the internet back in Feb 2004.

[Curlyben]

The CCA regs where changed in December 2004 to allow for electronic signatures, but as this predates that change then you're fine.

 

Now does this have any prescribed terms at all ?

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hi CB

 

The CCA request came with the letter above, a 10 page old T&C`s (but with in these is APR, Credit Limit) but they look like a standard print off.

 

Also an upto date Credit Agreement not signed with BLUE COPY stamped everywhere.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Am I correct:

 

The Prescribed terms MUST be before you sign the agreement. They cannot be added after the signature. Also The bank HAS to sign the agreement.

 

Sorry to keep going on, but again today I have received another CCA with no terms and bank signature.

 

I cannot understand why they send them out when they are worthless??

[risibilis]

Am I correct:

 

The Prescribed terms MUST be before you sign the agreement. They cannot be added after the signature. Also The bank HAS to sign the agreement.

 

Sorry to keep going on, but again today I have received another CCA with no terms and bank signature.

 

I cannot understand why they send them out when they are worthless??

 

They're arrogantly assuming that you don't know any better!

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I didnt untill I cae across this site.

 

THey cant fool us CAGers:D

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Sent this off today

Will see what happens

RO

Dear Sir or Madam:

Re: my request under s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Thank you for your recent letter sent to me dated xx August 2007, the contents of which are noted. However, the reply received by me does not fulfil your requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

You refer to The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983.

I will quote the regulations below:

3.-(1) Subject to the following provisions of these Regulations, every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in

the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall be a true copy thereof. THE REQUEST YOU HAVE SENT IS NOT A TRUE COPY.

(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 there in by the Act or any Regulations there under as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy; The prescribed terms under section 60 & 61-(1) of the CCA 1974 are required for an executed agreement.

The Act demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter, dated 17th July 2007. Upon receipt of the original request the specified account legally entered into disputed status.

 

My request remains outstanding. An application form does not constitute a true copy of a credit agreement and that which you sent doesn't even contain all the prescribed terms and is not 'properly executed'. The statements sent do not correspond to the amount stated in your earliest correspondence and therefore they do not satisfy the requirement to supply me with a statement of account.

 

As you will know, under section 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law.

 

You had until xx August 2007 to provide me with the true copy I requested. After that date you entered into default of my request. Whilst the account 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, pass the account on to another collector, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agencies (or any third party).

 

To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the data subject to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this.

 

The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. Any such attempts to share my data without my consent will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

The time limits, which are laid down in the Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 are clear. You must supply an executed credit agreement within 12 working days of a proper CCA request. If you fail to comply with a legitimate request the account enters a default situation and if you fail to comply after a further 30 days you commit an offence. You entered into a default on xx August2007 and subsequently committed a criminal offence on xx September 2007.

 

Therefore you have 7 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint, otherwise your conduct will be reported to the Office of Fair Trading, the Financial Ombudsman and Trading Standards. Any investigation undertaken by them may affect your ability to offer credit in the future.

 

To sum up, I will not be making any further payments to you until you provide me with the document I have requested. Should you not have any signed credit agreement in relation to this alleged debt, please confirm this in writing to me.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Update!!

 

Got a reply from the letter above.

 

As you can see thet go on and on about dont need a signature bla bla when they have showed it anyway...

 

They even admit it is an application form, and as you can see it has no prescribed terms. But they still will not give up telling me to write to FOS if not happy.

 

Should I send it to T/S not quite sure what to do on this one.

 

Also any advice on page 2 about the CRA.

 

Cheers

 

HAK

 

 

[hellhasnofury]

Hello,

 

I do feel this woman is a little bit up her own bottie.

 

She is extremely defensive and it makes you wonder why. perhaps she is made to protest to much

 

I have reported her to Trading Standards, I think that is possible a good be. The more the merrier for her

[Goldlady]

It really annoys me when people put an apostrophe in its when it's not needed. And she can't spell statutory.

 

On my understanding of CCA's I don't think it is valid, but like 'Hell' I also think she has gone over the top to justify it.

[clutchingatstraws]

If this was a game of chess (must warn you I haven't played in 20 years) I would be shoutring "check".

 

Have a look at Section 59.

 

If you write back remind them that the OFT takes a dim view of passing debts in dispute.

[ian1969uk]

They have complied with Section 78 by sending you what they rely on as the agreement, there's no milieage in telling them they haven't.

 

You now need to take the bull by the horns and write back to them, thanking them for what they confirm to be a true copy of the agreement they rely on. Unfortunately, as it lacks all prescribed terms it is unenforceable under Section 127 of the CCA 1974 and therefore you will be making no further payments.

[Maggiebroom]

I got practically the same letter some months ago, and I am still waiting for a true copy of an agreement. The one they sent me was completely illegible, and was also an application. I couldn't even see mine let alone read it.

 

You stick to your guns.

 

maggiebroom

[dpick]

Hi as ian1969 says while they may have complied in sending you what they believe is your agreement what they have sent is unenforceable as to s127(3) cca 1974. I would write to them agreement unenforceable will not be making any further payments etc. If they keep trying to enforce then you can report to OFT and TS but they seem to be useless with CCA so I would file at court to have agreement declared unenforceable.

 

all the best dpick:)

[Peterbard]

Hi

I drafted a letter for creditors who think that section 3 of the Si 1957 gives them the right to send anything they want, it is here.http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/93663-letters-dti-oft-regarding.html#post1108322

Hope it is of use

 

Best regards

Peter

Peter

[Docman]

Surely the whole point of S77/78 is that the OC or DCA has to provide INFORMATION about the agreement under dispute, not necessarily a copy of the actual agreemnt. The 1983 Copy Document Regulation much quoted by Nat West, RBS, HSBC and other banks just clarify what information that should be provided. However, whatever is provided must still be a ‘true’ copy, not an ‘actual’ copy.

When it comes to a court case, the OC must provide the actual excuted agreement with all the prescribed terms. If that is the case, the question I ask myself is why do the banks etc use the Copy Document Regs to get round producing an actual document. Wouldn’t it be easier for them to produce a copy of the actual agreement that they will have to produce later? Unless of course, they don’t have an actual executed agreement in the first place. IMO, if anyone gets the ‘Copy Docs regs’ response from an OC or DCA, I would just ask the OC to confirm it is a true copy of the actual executed agreemnt. If they do confirm, then write to say it doesn’t comply with the Act as it doesn’t contain the presribed terms and invite them to take the matter to court.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Thanks for all the replys:D

ask myself is why do the banks etc use the Copy Document Regs

Tell me about it Docman.. They must think we are stupid!!

[Peterbard]

Hi

After all this time i still haven't worked out the reasoniing behind the SI that allows the absense of signatures from a post contractual copy.It seems to me an essential part of the request is to be able to validate the agreement .

I still beliefve that the 1557 reguatlion was intended for pre conratual one/two copies issued under section 62-63 when usually only T and Cs are sent not for the post contractual requests but there was a slip up when it was drafted.

To late now of course to do anything about it

 

Bes regards

 

Peter

[Curlyben]

Peter, I was under the impression that SI 1983/1557 only covered sections 58,62,63 and 64 and not s77-79 at all.

After all s61 demands a signed agreement for execution and as such needs presented to comply with s77-79 requests.

Adding common sense, without the signatures how are we meant to verify if the document sent is indeed a true copy of the alleged agreement !

[Curlyben]

Also I believe that the prescribed terms MUST appear on the same sheet as the signatures executing the agreement, as this is part of the prescribed form of the agreement.

[Peterbard]

Peter, I was under the impression that SI 1983/1557 only covered sections 58,62,63 and 64 and not s77-79 at all.

After all s61 demands a signed agreement for execution and as such needs presented to comply with s77-79 requests.

Adding common sense, without the signatures how are we meant to verify if the document sent is indeed a true copy of the alleged agreement !

 

Hi C

 

This was my intitial impression when the issue of creditors using SI 1557in order to send unsigned copies raised its head last year unfortunately i was proved wrong.

 

Inthe regulations it says

eneral requirements as to form and content of copy documents

3.-(1) Subject to the following provisions of these Regulations, every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall be a true copy thereof.

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

IN my mind this completely goes against the request for an executed copy made in setion 77, however section 180 of the act enables the regulator to modify the regulations regarding copies of documents and this he has done in the SI above.

As i said before i personally think this was done in error but the fact is it is on the statute and therefor is legally correct.

 

Bes regards

Peter

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hi Peter

 

If it went to court tho they would have to produce the original signed copy so it makes you think why they bother:confused:

 

HAK