Number6
Registered UsersChange your profile picture
-
Posts
1,819 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Number6
-
The letter states....."To be an executed agreement, it would have had to have been signed originally and contain all the terms of the agreement" S61(1) states: ergo combining the letter and S61 clearly shows that any application form that is not signed by both parties CANNOT be an agreement. Again from the above, an application form and a SEPERATE copy of the T&C's cannot be a valid agreement either. "... it would have had to have been signed originally and contain all the terms of the agreement" And finally "...Prior to the CCA 2006, the section also provided that the Court could not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1) was not fully complied with" So add up all the above and whichever way you cut it an application form + a seperate copy of the T&C's cannot be an agreement - if the T&C's are not contained within the same document as you signed how can anyone prove that you saw and read them before signing?? Pete
-
SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement
Number6 replied to baconbuttyman's topic in Student loans/SLC
See my post HERE Pete -
Dayglo's mission to get his life back!
Number6 replied to dayglo's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
Good to see you back SB!! DG - I have your email but I'm running around like a headless chicken right now; I'l answer a.s.a.p. Pete -
Hi Tam, I think it actually says quite a lot: It confirms once and for all that an application form cannot be construed as an agreement. It confirms that the courts cannot currently enforce any agreement that does not comply in totality with CCA 1974 S61(1) It confirms that a copy agreement has to be a true copy, i.e. identical to the original with only the signatures and boxes removed - i.e. a "generic" T&C type document simply will not do. I think it's a very useful piece of back-up data that could be put under a judges nose. Pete
-
SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement
Number6 replied to baconbuttyman's topic in Student loans/SLC
I can certainly send you a copy but not by PM. If you PM me your email address I'll send it there. Pete -
Here's the OCR'd text for you - hope it's clearer: Pete
-
Logically would have assumed so, however that's not what the letter says. It says it will apply to all agreements; this may be a misprint or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. I've written back to my MP requesting urgent clarification. Pete
-
SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement
Number6 replied to baconbuttyman's topic in Student loans/SLC
Well done Bready... excellent news! I've just received some further interesting information regarding the CCA 1974 and 2006 from the DTI. See here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-480912.html Pete -
Just received this reply from Ian McCartney, via my MP Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 I've underlined interesting bits. The final paragraph on page 2 is interesting because it's ambiguous; does it mean that all agreements will come under it's remit, or only new agreements entered into following enactment? I'm writing back for clarification. Pete
-
Dayglo's mission to get his life back!
Number6 replied to dayglo's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
That's it, leave us all why don't you!! Pete -
I agree. How can a piece of paper claim to be an agreement unless it has something on it that signifies acceptance by all parties, e.g. signatures of all parties? And that it has on it ALL of the terms of any agreement? An application form cannot be a legally binding agreement unless it is at least signed and dated by both sides. Pete
-
Thank you both Pete
-
As per point 6 on the Allocation Notice I filed my statement on 28th December. I checked with the court this morning and they haven't received anything from SCM / LTSB. My question is this; is the non-submission by SCM important? Can I request for example that their defence be struck out because of this? Or is it simply the case that if they don't submit it they can't then use it in court? Pete
-
Thanks both. Gizmo, I just found that number on their website also - thanks. Buzby - I have written, and telephoned several times and am getting nowhere fast so I just wanted a contact point that I could fire off a tirade of faxes until someone bothers to reply to me. Thanks all. Pete
-
Does anyone have a fax number for BG, either accounts or customer services? I have an ongoing problem with BG that is really messing with my head right now and i need to fire off a few faxes. Thanks in advance. Pete
-
Happy New Year to everyone here! I'm also at a similar stage with two CC companies. Pete
-
Dayglo's mission to get his life back!
Number6 replied to dayglo's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
Yeah... whatever!! Pete -
Dayglo's mission to get his life back!
Number6 replied to dayglo's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
:o Pete -
Dayglo's mission to get his life back!
Number6 replied to dayglo's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
No need to be nasty just because I got a free VAIO!!... Pete -
Dayglo's mission to get his life back!
Number6 replied to dayglo's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
That'll be at least three then. Pete -
Dayglo's mission to get his life back!
Number6 replied to dayglo's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
What forms do I need? You will need Form N1. With it you should also be given notes for guidance for yourself (the claimant) on how to complete the form, and notes for guidance for the defendant (the person, firm or company against whom the claim is being made). Once you have filled in the Form N1, you should photocopy it and the defendant's notes for guidance so that you have: one copy for yourself; one copy for the court; and one copy for each defendant you are claiming from. -
Dayglo's mission to get his life back!
Number6 replied to dayglo's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
Just trying to add "material"! Pete -
Dayglo's mission to get his life back!
Number6 replied to dayglo's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
Can't see Britney Spears there - with or without underwear!! Pete -
Dayglo's mission to get his life back!
Number6 replied to dayglo's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
So are they all the people that phone Allyxia??? Pete
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
The Consumer Action Group
- Create New...