Hello, anyone about?

Anyone?

Hmmm. Anyway, would still like to know what format the original application took/looked like.

Nope, it looks ok. Can anyone remember what format these apps took? I think they were on of those that were on a single sheet of A4, but I'm not too sure. Its just that I have a theory, but I would like to confirm the physical structure of the Virgin application before revealing my deductions. My app is the same as the on on post #3 (I think) at the start of this thread.

Had a girl on the home phone yesterday from 1st Credit asking me to confirm I was happy that there was no fraud on the account. I told her I hadn't mentioned fraud and the account was in dispute because they hadn't complied with my CCA request. She still banged on about fraud and I why I hadn't confirmed I was happy as such as requested in their letter. I told her I couldn't comment until I had the full, compliant agreement. She then tried to get me to confirm that once I had the full agreement, that they DID have that I would clear the outstanding amount. I just reiterated my, 'no comment until I recieve a full, compliant agreement', statement. That cheered her up no end, hehehhe. She promised to send it out yesterday, so I will see what happens. Puzzled as to why they are so keen about my alleged fraud bit. I have not mentioned it, so I figure there is some angle there that they are worried about. Just have to work it out. Funny lot to deal with though..

Thanks ever so much, Sent that. Nomore

My wife has started to get caals on her work mobile from after she put them into dispute with over her 2002 agreement. She had been paying Moorcroft and CCA'd them followed by account in dispute letter as there was no 'credit limit' specified, just a 'limit', as per several other threads on the matter. Problem is, she is often in her company car, hands free and it becomes her worts nightmare as a call from a DCA comes through on loudspeaker. I seem to remember that there is a letter somewhere she can send off to them which generally makes them stop. As regards other threads on harrassment, no point in recording the calls, just wants them to stop on her works telephone. Any advice peeps?

I've sent 1st Credit a letter asking that they comply with my request as an edited response is clearly outwith the requirements of the CCA. I'll see how they respond to that. My letter can hardly be a bombshell to them surely?

ooooohh. The thought never entered my mind. Not.

Sorry to hijack your thread a bit, but if they are sending out info similair to the stuff I have recieved, and in the small print it says 'edited' then I would guess thats its not fraudulent, but very misleading. Anyway, I will keep you all posted. Interestingley, in a previous letter from 1st C, they told me that I shouldn't use info or templates from unregulated forums as the info is often wrong and that I should use a solicitor or CAB. Watchdog would love them. Rogue traders would love them even more.

I think I will write back asking them what has been edited, because as it stands, the info they have supplied is in no way an enforceable agreement as it is missing several important prescribed terms. Also, it is not a 'true' copy as stipulated in the '74 CCA.

It looks like a template to be honest so most of it is irrelevant. But it probably does why everyone has been getting upset about their stuff from MBNA which is the same as mine. If 1st credit are admitting they are editing the information required under the CCA requests, surely that is illegal? Either way, it makes them all unenforcable IMHO.

I have a mbna/virgin agreement dated 2002 similair to the ones posted above recently provided after 2 months by 1st Credit. I also am sure that it is a cut and paste job, if for nothing else that any graphic designer would produce such a messy back page. Anyway, reading the letter from 1st Credit, they admit that they have sent me an 'edited' version. There's no way that is a compliant version under the terms of a CCA request then. Upon closer inspection of the small print in the rh column, it refers to various sections that are not present. Think thats them stuffed. Any thoughts?

I have an early 2002 agreement similair to one previously posted. I propose to send this letter to them. Any thoughts or advice before I do? ARC Europe, Kent House Churchfield Rd Walton on Thames Surrey, KT12 2TU Dear Sir, Ref : Egg, ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE Thank you for sending me what you have confirmed to be a true copy of the credit agreement that exist in relation to this account. As you have sent this document in response to my requests under Section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, then this statement by you is now binding on you as per section 172 of the Act. The document that you have supplied does not constitute a legally binding regulated agreement between us and is in breach of Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and is therefore unenforceable by virtue of Section 127 of the act. It does not comply with the act because: A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor. The agreement you have supplied does not have a section under the title ‘Credit Limit’, It does not inform me either of a credit limit or method of deciding one. It also does not inform me of charges in the event of a default. These omissions individually therefore make the agreement unenforceable. I do not acknowledge this alleged debt and therefore dispute the legality of the debt until such a time as the production of a satisfactory and enforceable consumer credit agreement has been supplied. Furthermore, you are reminded that a creditor is not permitted to take any action against an account whilst it remains in dispute. The lack of a properly executed credit agreement is a very clear dispute and therefore the following applies: You may not demand any payment on this account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. You may not add any further interest or charges to this account. You may not pass this account to any third party. You may not register any information in respect of this account with any of the credit reference agencies. You may not issue a default notice related to this account. I look forward to your reply regarding this matter. Yours faithfully,

subbed

Well I don't particularly want to mess my file up even more than it is at present, but would like to generate a response demonstrating that clearly the info they have sent doesn't comply, despite what they say. I would think the third paragraph is the one I need to argue about. Any ideas?

Hi, Just got this letter back from the NastWest in response to an 'account in dispute' letter I sent them telling that the info they sent me was not compliant with the cca request. Help! What should I do now folks?

Thats what I thought. Sent them such a letter earlier today. See what happens and will keep everyone posted. Thanks for the 2nd opinion. Nomore.

On the third paragraph from the bottom in the signed credit agreement sheet, (MY POST #1, 3RD PAGE DOWN - or link below) http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo4/NomoreBaloney/natwestsignedcreditagreement-1.jpg it states 'I confirm that i have read and understood the conditions of use.(Including the abridged conditions set out on the previous page). Am I correct in thinking that any terms etc. on the 'previous page' would need to be signed as well?

Boooger! Oh well, some you win.... Thanks anyway.

They sent me another sheet with what I think are the current terms on.

Any thoughts peeps? Just got it back from Mint today.

Sorry to be thick here, but I can't find the bit that says the prescribed terms have to be within '...the four corners of the agreement'. Also, in the letter I recieved from the Nastywest, last sentence of paragraph one, it says that: '... the true copy requirement can be satisfied by providing a copy agreement at the date the card agreement was made and providing that plus a copy of the current terms of the card agreement.' How have they arrived at that conclusion. Its quite important I can get this right folks as I my wife and I have 4 cards, (Mint, RBS, Nat wets x2) all coming back with the same argument.

Help! I've got Moorcroft back on my case now as they think the Nastywest have complied. Want to put my payments up from £3 per month to £50. Bit of a jump that.

Not a bump, more of a slight nudge actually...