Good morning

All this rubbish from DCA's etc demanding a signature before they will deal with CCA requests or what ever really pee'd me off

I've been having a dig around and found the following . .

Select committee on Trade and Industry minutes of evidence

(1996 Legislative working party)

2. The working party looked at the legal issues regarding the terms document, writing, signature, instrument, and records of transactions and originality. The Government's current proposed legislation focuses particularly upon the issue of signature. The working party considered the leading case in English law on signature methods, Goodman -v- J Eban Limited. That decision established that:

2.1 mechanical signatures using rubber stamps, printing or typewriting were valid in english law;

2.2 a signature can be by a mark rather than a name as long as evidence can be given to indentify the placer of the mark and the intention to sign; and

2.3 words other than a name can amount to a signature if the necessary intention to sign can be proven

Now although this working party was looking into the Electronics Commerce Bill it points to . .

Goodman v J Eban Ltd (1954)

A solicitor signed a solicitors bill with a rubber stamp which contained the name of the law firm. In the judgment it was determined that the rubber stamp was a valid signature, even though the Solicitors Act of 1932 required a solicitors bill to be signed; it was established that it is enough to demonstrate that the rubber stamp was affixed by the solicitor with the intention to sign the solicitor's bill.

So now taking the highlights above I go to:

Interpretations act 1978

Schedule 1

1973 c.37.

"Writing" includes typing, lithograpgy, photography or other modes of representing or reproducing words in a visible form and expressions refering to writing can be construed accordingly

I don't know what others will think but I feel that there's at least something within that little lot to make the DCA's realise that we are NOT under any obligation to provide our signatures despite what they say and even if I get loads of disagreements it was an enjoyable exercise and helped a quiet afternoon at work fly by ;-)

Regards

R

( I have kept the pages I found the info on )

Well done Revenant - good thread.

subbing

Well done Revenant - good thread.

Thanks pinky

The thing is these DCA's are so stupid that they don't realise that the more the push the more we dig in :grin:

Rx

There is also the ico guidelines which state that if a creditor/DCA has already been in previous contact it can safely be assumed that the person making a SAR/CCA request is in fact that person.

There is also the ico guidelines which state that if a creditor/DCA has already been in previous contact it can safely be assumed that the person making a SAR/CCA request is in fact that person.

I'd not seen that before but I have seen that Creditors/DCA's don't seem take take any notice of it then . . like OFT/CSA Guidelines as well

Thanks Cerb

R

The fact is whatever they say, it they can't or won't produce a CCA they get nothibng, signature or not. Also if they don't know who you are they have already breached the very act they using to try and get a copy of your signature. I had this argument with Citi a while back.

The fact is whatever they say, it they can't or won't produce a CCA they get nothibng, signature or not. Also if they don't know who you are they have already breached the very act they using to try and get a copy of your signature. I had this argument with Citi a while back.

That's all true c o but it's nice to think that there's some "Legalese" to chuck at them too . . they chuck enough stuff at us ;-)

R

Thanks for this, it will come in very useful:D

Thanks for this, it will come in very useful:D

Your welcome cB

Every little helps

R

The following is downloadable at BAILLI:

What is a Signature? (C Reed) [2000] JILT 48 (2000)

http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/JILT/2000/reed_3.rtf

Kry10

Well it says quite clearly that an electronic signature is acceptable.

The following is downloadable at BAILLI:

 

What is a Signature? (C Reed) [2000] JILT 48 (2000)

 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/JILT/2000/reed_3.rtf

 

Kry10

Thanks for that Kry10

More ammunicition to fire back at them

R

Thread stickied.

I have a friend who had problems getting his SAR from the bank because his signature didn't match the one on record. He explained that due to medical conditions the only sig he could make was the one on his request. The fact that he hadn't signed anything to do with the bank for several years (cheques, cheaque card. letters etc) meant he couldn't remember his old signature anyway. He made a thread on here about it.

He made a complaint to the ICO and they believed the bank was ok as verifying the signature was part of their procedure for proving ID. He provided all the stuff mentioned above (Chris Reed, work of some DTI committee looking into e-commerce etc) and pointed out that the bank were happy enough to write to him to chase debts, to pass his details to collectors, and to respond to letters (with his new signature) about other matters, and according to the ICO a matching signature for proof of ID was only suitable when the info would not cause loss or embarassment if revealed incorectly, ie a signature is a low level of proof of ID. He made the point to the ICO that the bank DID know who he was and had no reason to believe his mail was intercetped or ID theft had occurred and that they had enough proof, including his past addresses for 8 years, and security info provided to the bank (passwords). The ICO ruled after 12 months that the banks procedure was not unreasonable and that they were correct in requiring proof of ID before processing a SAR. My friend said that having a procedure that cannot be followed by the applicant is hardly fair, nor in line with the DPA requirement to ID the person. Got no where.

In the end he wrote a letter to the MD of the bank literally telling him to take the DPA, and the procedures and stick them in his rear end, forcefully. He got a reply saying they were sorry he felt like that but had done all they could within the limits of the DPA.

He suspects that the bank couldn't supply the DPA and were looking for excuses not to.

The problem is with the DPA and the ICO who literally don't want to upset the banks and look for the easy way out. Any hope of changing the situation must start with reforming the DPA and the ICO

If you consider that all a banks dealings with a customer is covered by the DPA, then all transactions should be to the same level of security. eg, if they doubt someone is the account holder, then they cannot reveal any info about them or the account, including sending demands for payment. Similarly, if they are confident the account holder lives at the address, then they should process a SAR arising from that name and address, providing other reasonable info can be verified, eg you make a request, they phone you on your usual number, ask verification questions. If they are unwilling to accept your ID when you make a SAR, they shouldn't be sending demanding letters to the same address. They shouldn't be able to send a demand to your address with no verification, but then create an obstructive procedure so they don't have to process a SAR. It should work both ways.

Without a common sense approach from the ICO and better calibre staff, things won't change

The problem is that the banks have a procedure that satisfies the DPA. Any deviation from that procedure means they may not satisfy they DPA so they won't deviate. Thats how they get round it. If their procedure says that only a handwritten signature in ink is acceptable to verify your ID, they can refuse everything else.

My friend pointed out to the ICO that if the bank had a procedure that meant you had to turn up at a named destination hundreds of miles away, with 6 proofs of ID a policeman and a JP who both knew you, and you had to attend at precisely 12.37 PM on the third wednesday of the month, (unless it was raining in which case it was the 2nd Thurday of the following month at 11.23AM,) then they had aprocedure that they claimed proved ID and thus satisfied the DPA. The fact that it was extremely difficult to follow the procedure and give satisfactory proof of ID meant that it wasn't fair and was thus not in the spirit of the DPA, was lost on the ICO person. The fact my friend has lost much use of his writing hand was also lost on the ICO.

interestingly. in one case, a sar was signed with a slight variation to the one on their computerised record (obvious difference if viewed together) in a shaded box, and they went on with the sar without question! (don't know whether the 'usual address' played a part or not!)

imo

what about this, im currently dealing with a catalog debt. they provided a credit agreement with no signature and the wrong address written on it. they told me they do not need to supply a original credit agreement. do i have a chance to fight back?

many thanks in advance x

my thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?313267-I-need-some-help-with-reliable-collections-please&p=3491005#post3491005

The wrong address as in you have never lived there or are no longer living there?

They do not have to supply a signature.

The wrong address as in you have never lived there or are no longer living there?

 

They do not have to supply a signature.

they wrote my current address. the account was not opened at this address.

My wife sent off a request for a SAR on one of her debts recently.

The company in question sent back a form for her to fill in to help identify her before releasing documents.

Now she has never signed any agreement with them, the account used to be with Argos,which then changed to Argos Additions, and recently to Very.co.uk.

The original account was set up as far back as 1999 with Argos.

So the company she is being asked to sign documents for as proof, have no recorded previous signatures from her.

Surely the fact that all of the demands and monthly statements which are sent to this address from them must be enough along with a return of the form they want her to sign along with a witness signature and contact details of said witness would be enough,even if she did not sign but merely printed to acknowledge who she is would be sufficient.

My wife sent off a request for a SAR on one of her debts recently.

The company in question sent back a form for her to fill in to help identify her before releasing documents.

Now she has never signed any agreement with them, the account used to be with Argos,which then changed to Argos Additions, and recently to Very.co.uk.

The original account was set up as far back as 1999 with Argos.

So the company she is being asked to sign documents for as proof, have no recorded previous signatures from her.

Surely the fact that all of the demands and monthly statements which are sent to this address from them must be enough along with a return of the form they want her to sign along with a witness signature and contact details of said witness would be enough,even if she did not sign but merely printed to acknowledge who she is would be sufficient.

The Information Commissioner will no doubt say that it is not unreasonable for the company to request a signature..

You can however, take steps to protect yourself from any misuse of your wife's signature.

In a situation similar to yours, I sign my OH's name and he signs mine. Alternatively your wife can sign, but make the signature slightly different to her normal one.. take a photocopy of the signature so you will recognise it again if it turns up on something it shouldnt. Or.. simply draw a light grid of lines and sign over the top of it.

HTH

Thanks Citizen,

On this occasion we have sent back letter with no signature,they have sent over 20 letters in the past 2 months,we have responed to each one.

I think its reasonable to say they should know she is the person living at the address they keep sending letters to.

Your suggestion on any future requests for signatures is great advice.....that will be our plan B....

Thanks Citizen,

On this occasion we have sent back letter with no signature,they have sent over 20 letters in the past 2 months,we have responed to each one.

I think its reasonable to say they should know she is the person living at the address they keep sending letters to.

Your suggestion on any future requests for signatures is great advice.....that will be our plan B....

Good thinking, a Plan B waiting in the wings is always a good idea