Just been thinking

If you apply for credit online after 2005 you can electronically sign the agreement. So when you send a CCA request or the creditor applies for enforcement should there still be that box there that says "this is a regulated agreement blah blah sign only if you want to be bound by its terms"

Also should that online application be produced in a format that you would have filled in or can it just be a list with the relevant details such as name address, employer etc

AFAIK fletch, yes there should still be that box, with the tick box also.

And again AFAIK it should still be laid out in the prescribed format, I did think that all agreements, especially those taken out

online, after 2007, were deemed compliant, as they began realising their mistakes by then and started to act professionally.

Can't find any links to any guidance at the minute, might have bookmarked it somewhere??

Thanks BB. The reason i was asking is that I have an Amex agreement and for the CCA request they sent me the online application from AMEX Canada InTRAnet with no tick box or anything and then an agreement with unsigned signature spaces. Then in one letter they say it was an online application and in another they say there was a box that I signed saying consumer credit act blah blah. We will have to wait and see

Thanks again

Very confusing??

IMO I would say that if you took it out online, then it may well be compliant, BUT, if they're confused as to how you took it out, then you could run rings round them..

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3236/contents/made

In particular:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3236/article/4/made

Cheers Andy, bookmarked!

Thank you.

So yes it still needs to have a "signature" box?

I am possibly one of the biggest advocates of complain complain complain and following the process through to its conclusion however I am wondering if this is the best course of action on this one. I also normally recommend replying to all letters

In sept 2005 I applied for and received an Nectar CC through American Express( The start date on my credit file is 25/09/2005). This entry is now long gone as I defaulted in 2007 but went into a payment plan

In 2012 I sent a S78 request off and after much agro and letters sent they replied to my "data" request with what they said was an online application (in reality a list of my data held on Amex Canada Intranet) and a set of terms and conditions .

The Terms and conditions come in the format of an unsigned credit agreement between Amex and my name is left blank , there are the PTs there and a signature box obviously without a signature . The default fees are £20 .

As I defaulted in june 2007 I am assuming that those default fees would have changed by then

There is no statement of account or balance due in the letter anywhere and they make references to statements sent being enough to validate the debt

On two occasions I have complained that they have not fulfilled my S78 request. This is my genuine belief .

In their last response they have said they will only read and file any further letters and I can go to the FOS using the enclosed leaflet (missing) but they still say it is enforceable. (If this was post April 2007 I would tend to agree with them but still argue non compliance with S78)

I am just not sure what to do for the best,

1) make a complaint to the FOS who may agree that S78 has not been complied with and they could then put that right

2) Write one last letter saying make a claim/make me BR or shut up

3) Ignore everything from now on unless a claim is made

Financially I have nothing and am likely to be living on student loans and grants for the next 4 years by which time the debt will be SB

Any thoughts please anyone?

certainly wouldn't go for no1, given your circumstances I would give no3 a go

the increases in issue fees may make them think twice

I am possibly one of the biggest advocates of complain complain complain and following the process through to its conclusion however I am wondering if this is the best course of action on this one. I also normally recommend replying to all letters

 

In sept 2005 I applied for and received an Nectar CC through American Express( The start date on my credit file is 25/09/2005). This entry is now long gone as I defaulted in 2007 but went into a payment plan

 

In 2012 I sent a S78 request off and after much agro and letters sent they replied to my "data" request with what they said was an online application (in reality a list of my data held on Amex Canada Intranet) and a set of terms and conditions .

The Terms and conditions come in the format of an unsigned credit agreement between Amex and my name is left blank , there are the PTs there and a signature box obviously without a signature . The default fees are £20 .

As I defaulted in june 2007 I am assuming that those default fees would have changed by then

There is no statement of account or balance due in the letter anywhere and they make references to statements sent being enough to validate the debt

 

On two occasions I have complained that they have not fulfilled my S78 request. This is my genuine belief .

 

In their last response they have said they will only read and file any further letters and I can go to the FOS using the enclosed leaflet (missing) but they still say it is enforceable. (If this was post April 2007 I would tend to agree with them but still argue non compliance with S78)

 

I am just not sure what to do for the best,

1) make a complaint to the FOS who may agree that S78 has not been complied with and they could then put that right

2) Write one last letter saying make a claim/make me BR or shut up

3) Ignore everything from now on unless a claim is made

 

Financially I have nothing and am likely to be living on student loans and grants for the next 4 years by which time the debt will be SB

 

Any thoughts please anyone?

Is this a uk card as if so the t&cs are wrong. In 2006 the deafult charges went down to £12 so were NOT £20. You should have been sent a second set of T&Cs indicating this as they should have sent you ALL relivant t&cs during the lifetime of the card. I would be inclinded to go for 3 aswell but you have a solid argument for them being wrong in regards to deafult amounts. Further info to follow.

The OFT ruling[edit]

In 2006 the Office of Fair Trading investigated the charges being imposed on customers of credit card companies. In its report, the OFT said that many of their default charges were unlawful, as they constituted unjust enrichment. It stated that it would act upon receiving notice of any charge over £12 as a penalty, and therefore unlawful [1]. However, the report also specifically stated that the OFT did not necessarily consider £12 a fair charge, and that this would be up to a court to determine. It suggested that the £12 "cap" was intended as an initial step towards fair practice and compliance with the law. Whether or not an individual charge constituted a penalty fee would be based on the established legal precedent that the only cost recoverable would be actual costs incurred.

The credit card companies have so far failed to produce evidence of their actual costs to the OFT[citation needed], instead insisting that their charges are in line with policy and information provided to customers. A report in produced in October 2006 by the Competition Commission on banking in Northern Ireland stated that "[c]harges are a significant source of revenue for the banks on [personal cheque accounts] . [bank name omitted] said that increased unauthorized overdraft fees were part of the strategic imperative to turn the PCA into a profitable business over time."

Many customers have acted upon the ruling of the OFT[citation needed], in particular as the report explicitly states that while the investigation was into default charges levied towards credit card customers, there is no reason why the same principle should not extend to personal banking. Some have successfully demanded the return of penalty charges for returned cheques, direct debits and unauthorised overdraft charges. Campaigners argue[citation needed] that the current regime of fees is well beyond the cost of sending a computerised letter if indeed any correspondence is sent at all. Frequently the charges are applied without any notification to the account holder other than when it appears as a transaction in their bank statement.

Fletch if this " recon" is missing any one of the following points it does not satisfy the CCA request.

1. The Debtors name and address at the inception of the account.

2. The name and address of the creditor at inception.

3. The Ts & Cs at inception.

4. " " " at closure.

5. All material amendments to those Ts & Cs.

6. Any other docs mentioned in the Ts &Cs.

7. A current statement of the account.

The statement is Not enough to validate the debt.

FROM MEMORY ( not always reliable) the Amex Nectar branded cards (online app) had a "booklet" containing the Ts & Cs issued with the card so this should also be provided.

My choice would be No.2. A robust put up or shut up letter, not admitting liability of course.

Ignoring is not always beneficial.

Thanks all. This has been a funny one. It is with the same dca for the 2nd time. I feel that Amex do not understand the concept of a S78 request or the importance on 2007. O know that a 2nd set of terms are needed as well as a compliant DN

Interestingly I was previously advised by a self proclaimed expert somewhere else that this was enforceable but that never sat right with me.

I know people talk about a tick box for online applications but I would expect to see some evidence of that.

Brig I am quite used to telling firms to put up or shut up so maybe one carefully worded letter might be in need.

I am also generally uneasy about not having the last word as you may have noticed lol.

Your input is gratefully received