Hiya I need urgent help is this 1 page document with no terms and conditions enforceable please?

They also sent me a 2 page doc of the current card carrier it semms. The APr does not match though..

this 'agreement' also states:' I apply for an RBS Advanta Classic Card and Pin to be issue to me....' so indicates it was pre contract/ card and looks like they executed on the receipt of this.

BLOWN UP AGREEMENT FROM ORIGINAL SIZE IN COMPARISON IS A CREDIT CARD ITSELF!

not vastly experienced in these...the partially sighted leading the blind i'm afraid..

but..it looks pretty solid to me ..the prescribed terms appear to be there..

they've signed it as have you presumably blocked out ..so it's executed..

all that i can see that is wrong is that the title should be "credit card agreement" rather than just credit agreement.

I've seen some posts that claim that this may make it unenforceable...but i think it's a bit of a technicality myself...not aware of any court rulings on the subject...

see if you can get more learned help from another cagger

FOTN

Hi FOTN:)

Yes thats what I kinda thought, though this was pre 2004 and I am of belief that the T&C's are unable to be referred to elsewhere. These have not been received so basically my argument is what gave them the right to charge late payment fees, issue a default, pass the information on to third parties if they are not within the sig doc?

the repayment terms are not entirely clear to the debtor or any other rights, very basic pre contract agreement me thinks.

Milly XX

P.S I wanted to say I enlarged this so called agreement. It is 1/4 the size of a A4 paper which I believe is a microfilm or something as it is tiny.

Milly X

I'm really suspicious of these 'agreements' rbs are dishing out. For one thing, there are newspaper articles discussing how rbs recreate agreements if they don't have them (we might assume this would be 'fraud', but in the world of banking it's called 'thinking under pressure', hilariously).

I realise the doc is very small (so was mine), but I don't understand why the boxes are so wonky.

Heck, if I have time I might even make a small video and show you how easy it is to put a signature from one document on to another via photoshop...

HI danson:) yes me too. I am sending them aletter saying they have not complied as it is hardly legible.

Also I may have to travel to Scotland as I am asking to view the 'original'!!!!

milly XX

.... edited as the address seems ok though strangely different placed as just typed.

By the way it is not signed by them unless the big stamp is acceptable and the RBS advanta logo that is on others i have seen is NOt on mine. The top of the agreement looks like its been added and is very fiffernt as I said to others. This card was applied for decemer 2000.

Milly X

addin this link for future reference,as it shows a logo of rbs advanta and the top is set out differently as I thought;) no logo on mine, sniffing out a cut and paste maybe.........

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/123233-mrs-p-mint.html#post1974060

milly X

The agreement in post #1 is probably not properly executed but, as it has your signature and the prescribed terms (credit limit, monthly repayment terms and interest rate), it would be enforceable.

The agreement in post #1 is probably not properly executed but, as it has your signature and the prescribed terms (credit limit, monthly repayment terms and interest rate), it would be enforceable.

wo, wo!!! sorry but i disagree , the agreemen tposted in number 1, is not, in my opion enforceable. There are no terms and conditions - missing payemnts, cancellation rights etc. where are the terms and conditions it refers to above the signature of the card holder.

I received one of these and told RBS it was unenforceable. They then sent another agreement which was concocted and did not contain my signature. It refers to missing payments, a term not used in 2000. It refers to charges prevalent today. Now if they bekllieved the first agreement was ok why have they now sent another one. I have been through 3 dca and 2 different firms of solicitors on this matter and they all keep refering back to RBS

However i stand to be corrected

wo, wo!!! sorry but i disagree , the agreemen tposted in number 1, is not, in my opion enforceable. There are no terms and conditions - missing payemnts, cancellation rights etc. where are the terms and conditions it refers to above the signature of the card holder.

The court's powers of enforcement are defined in s127(3) - a document signed by the debtor and having the prescribed terms. The document in post #1 complies with this - it may not have all the T&Cs but it does have the ones that matter as far as enforceability is concerned (ie the ones set out in Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983). It is therefore enforceable.

so i wnder why they sent a second cca. well i will wait and see what they produe in court and hope they produce the second one

The agreement in post #1 is probably not properly executed but, as it has your signature and the prescribed terms (credit limit, monthly repayment terms and interest rate), it would be enforceable.

Hi steven,

I have sent a letter to triton and mint regarding this credit card sized agreement and requested a viewing 13th january. I have heard nothing as of yet. Just to remind you this agreement is from the year 2000. They also have not provided the original T 7C's referred to seperately { of which this is wrong anyway as it is supposed to be contained within the 4 corners of the agreement]

There is something I would like your opinion on as the wording on asection of mine is wrong.

Under the heading:

IMPORTANT -READ YOUR RIGHTS CAREFULLY

where it says. 'The consumer credit Act 1974.....'

look through this section I have found a wording flaw compared to everyone elses that has this section.

'.........which must be satisfied when the agreement is made. If they are not, we can enforce this agreement against you without a court order.....'

Well this is entirely incorrect terms isnt it as EVERYBODY elses says CANNOT, even on my mint card holder it says Cannot.

Whats your opinion on this please.

One other thing the APR is not correct on cash advances look at the monthly rate it is the same as the purchase rate yet a different apr.

milly x

wo, wo!!! sorry but i disagree , the agreemen tposted in number 1, is not, in my opion enforceable. There are no terms and conditions - missing payemnts, cancellation rights etc. where are the terms and conditions it refers to above the signature of the card holder.

 

I received one of these and told RBS it was unenforceable. They then sent another agreement which was concocted and did not contain my signature. It refers to missing payments, a term not used in 2000. It refers to charges prevalent today. Now if they bekllieved the first agreement was ok why have they now sent another one. I have been through 3 dca and 2 different firms of solicitors on this matter and they all keep refering back to RBS

 

However i stand to be corrected

Hi DVD:)

Is your agreement the same as mine as we seem to have the same year {2000} as the time taken out.

As far as I am concerned I want to see the original as the size it came was teeny weeny and I wonder why that would be. I am not convinced as their is a lot of spacing and on comparing some others sentences have been omitted where there is a lot of gaps in mine, aside the typed name and address which is odd.

milly X

Don't worry Milly, RBS are notorious for 'creating' agreements.

As far as my similar situation goes, I haven't heard from Mint for months following my complaint to the ICO. if you haven't already, go to the ico website and put your complaint together...

Hiya Danson, yes all quiet since my letter to them. I am wondering if this misrepresentation on the alleged cca is importnat or not though.

Milly X

It's a weird one. Personally, i'm thinking that RBS would have a standard agreement form (with different headers for different card types etc). Why would the forms vary so much? You'd expect the figures to change from time to time, but not the layout of the form.

In your case, a typo is odd - it could indicate someone typed it on to the 'agreement' at RBS's creative team.

I'm more than convinced RBS has been messing with our (and many other's) credit agreements - the problem would be finding a way to prove this...

Well I do find it odd too. I also noted that a sentence regarding ' legal reasons hs been omitted from mine and there is a gap there. I find mine has been typed everywhere with spacing and the signature 'box' is not complete with the lines being broken too.

I wonder if misrepresenting peoples rights on an credit agreement is important or not. Would be lovely if it was;) Gonna look up the term misrepresentation on google.

found this to do with a contract:

http://www.gillhams.com/articles/401.cfm

and on this google book found something about unenforceability;

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wpGn2csrdRkC&pg=RA1-PA29&lpg=RA1-PA29&dq=misrepresentation+legal+rights+in+credit+agreement&source=web&ots=sPmz1Bp0vJ&sig=sgooz3FRDqWL6BGY9VaSOqXHcIg&hl=en&ei=-LyaSf-hKoyT-gayw_X4CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

probably would mean nothing that is why a mods opinion would be great.

milly XX

What they have to put is laid down in schedule 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 - it should definitely be 'cannot'.

THis error could well make the agreement not poroperly executed (s64(5) of the CCA 1974) I don't think it makes it unenforceable though. I f the right to cancel the agreement are not in the prescribed form, then the agreement would be unenforceable under s127(4)(b)

hi steven, if then it means its not properly executed through a 'mistake' on their part what do you suggest I do now. This bit is to do with legal rights and tells you to read this section carefully and yet they have made a stupid error.

i am a bit confused between not properly executed.

Milly X

Its okay i get it now, they would have to take me to court and let a judge make up his mind.

milly X

Hold on under section 127[4]b it says

(b) section 64(1) was not complied with.

so if so ,the debt cannot be enforced in court by a judge. have I read that right or not?

millyx

Got it wrong it can be challenged by me and I now see thats waht steven was saying. a guy here explains it to another person on this thread and post:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use-post1985653.html#post1985653

Milly,

please confirm steven as I am all of a tizzy , my agreement was from 2000:confused:

milly XX