I hear what you say but I don't know that area of law anywhere near well enough to comment. Pete

You have to understand what section 7 of the Data Protection Act actually allows a Data Subject to ask for. Data Protection Act S7 is not a "catch-all" to allow you to request absolutely any information, only certain types of data come under the remit of the Data Protection Act. Under the Data Protection Act the information you are allowed to see must comply with the following: a) The data is processed automatically. b) Contained within a "Relevant Filing System" as defined by the DPA c) Contains your data d) Does not allow anyone else to be identified unless that other person has given their consent for disclosure to you. The Act describes the relevant data that it covers thus: So it may well be that they do have some other information but if it doesn't comply with the above then they do not have to let you have it. For example there might be a box of documents pertaining to your PPI but if the documents are not in a relevant filing system then you don't get to see it. You could write back and ask them to explain why they have no information, or if they do ask them why they are not prepared to release it to you? Pete

I agree. No, sorry, you are plain wrong here! If the lender sent a document, even if it's unsigned and doesn't have a signature box then they HAVE complied. The CCA 1974 was amended by the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1984 (the CNCD), Section 3(1) and (2) [expurgated] of which states: "(1)...... every copy of an executed agreement........ or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor...... under any provision of the Act shall be a true copy thereof. (2) There may be omitted from any such copy- (a) any information included in an executed agreement ..... relating to the debtor...... (b) any signature box, signature or date of signature ..... So a "copy" of the agreement, so long as it contains all of the statutory terms and conditions does not need to be signed nor does it need to have any of the debtors details. Very likely true but it doesn't change the fact that the lender has complied with S77/78. Pete

Peter, I know what you're saying and I don't disagree but lets not muddy the waters please. Soli2006's question (the first part) referred to compliance with S77/78 of the CCA 1974. His lender has complied with S77/78 as amended by the Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents Regulations. Therefor soli cannot complain to anyone about his lenders non-compliance. Why a lender would send out a "generic" document rather than a copy of the original is a totally different question and I would ask for a copy of the original also that position. BUT, requesting a copy of the original agreement once a "generic" copy has been supplied falls outside the remit of S77 / 78 and therefore there is no applicable timescale for the document to be supplied within. Pete

They have complied with your (presumably) Section 77 or 78 request. The Act as modified says that signature boxes, signatures and personal information can be omitted from any copies of documents sent under any section of the Act. So if you have a copy of what the application form would have looked like then they have complied. You are certainly able to ask for a copy of the original signed and executed agreement, they would have to have this if they went to court anyway, but there is no timescale set out for them to send this; they could take six months if they wanted to. The Data Protection Act S7 states: " 7. - (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 8 and 9, an individual is entitled- (a) to be informed by any data controller whether personal data of which that individual is the data subject are being processed by or on behalf of that data controller, (b) if that is the case, to be given by the data controller a description of- (i) the personal data of which that individual is the data subject, (ii) the purposes for which they are being or are to be processed, and (iii) the recipients or classes of recipients to whom they are or may be disclosed, © to have communicated to him in an intelligible form- (i) the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject, and (ii) any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data, and (d) where the processing by automatic means of personal data of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct, has constituted or is likely to constitute the sole basis for any decision significantly affecting him, to be informed by the data controller of the logic involved in that decision-taking." The important bit is in red. IMO that means copies of letters, memos and telephone recordings or transcripts. Don't forget that an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) is not a request for "evidence" of any sort, merely a copy of your data that the company holds. If they say that they have given you all the data they hold then that's that if and until it goes to court. Again they only have to send you data that they hold about you, they don't have to collect anything from third parties. If they passed your PPI application to a third party then they are probably correct in telling you to contact the third party directly. Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to read but I must emphasise that a Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) is not a request for legal evidence, merely a request to see the data held on you by the company you have applied to. Pete

Well, Consumer Direct (Trading Standards) are a complete waste of space! I emailed a complaint about BLS to them yesterday and got this today: Pete

Yes, I got a virtually identical letter from MBNA too. I really don't know what makes them think they can get away with such tactics! Pete

Yes, quite correct as zoot has already said. However, this does not absolve the lender from the requirement to have to correct paperwork. Unless they have a properly executed agreement that conforms to Section 61 of the CCA 1974 then they cannot enforce the agreement. You can ask the lender to provide a copy of such an agreement and although they are not compelled to produce it they would be silly not to IMO. If they were to go to court to ask a judge to enforce the agreement and they hadn't produced it to you beforehand the judge would most probably take a dim view of their tactics. Pete

Hi Send a copy of your Schedule of Charges along with a covering letter to your bank (your banks brach address is fine for this). Pete

Morning. Links are all HERE Pete

That looks fine Willow. I also like the new avatar! Pete

I would argue that the "Without Prejudice" header applies only to the amount as it is enclosed in a completely seperate box. The letter also breaches 2.6(b) of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance Document of July 2003 which section states: Pete

This is the second letter I have received from BLS collections who are acting as "DCA" on behalf of LTSB cards and who are actually a trading name of LTSB. I replied to the first "standard" collections letter from them with a request for no further contact because LTSB Card Services are in default of my CCA Section 78 Statutory Request. This second letter came anyway and is interesting on two counts: 1) BLS suggest using "savings, alternative financing or the help of a family member" to clear the debt!!! 2) They are offering a reduced settlement figure [the words used are "....settling your account for a reduced amount"] but then go on to say "On receipt of cleared funds, our Client will advise the Credit Reference Agencies to amend your records to show this account as partially settled..."----- Settled, partially settled,... can't they make up their minds?? Naughty, naughty BLS / LTSB!! This will be submitted to TS and FSA with a complaint. Pete

Any condition such as "in full and final settlement" is only valid and enforceable if they give you someting else in return. The clause would have to say something like: "you agree that this is in full and final settlement of your claim in return for which we will give you a sack of potatoes" Silly example but the sack of potatoes is (in contract law) referred to as the "consideration"'; others may call it "quid pro quo". It has to be something tangible over and above your settlement. If they give you consideration then the clause is binding on you. If there's no consideration then it's not binding. Pete

That's all DG's fault.... ask him about it when he gets in Pete

It must be stated again: A lender does not have to supply a copy of the signed agreement. Under Section 77/78 of the CCA 1974 as amended by the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 a lender can send a "copy" that omits things like signatures, signature boxes or any of the borrowers personal details; in effect they can send out a copy of the T&C's which it appears they've done. In that case they have complied. But in order to enforce any agreement they have to have and be able to produce the properly executed and signed agreement. Don't push OFT or TS to prosecute because MS have complied. You need to write to MS asking for a copy of the agreement that complies with Section 61 of the CCA. Pete

This is simply surreal. I have refrained from commenting but I do disagree with some of the more personal comments posted against you, BUT I resent the accusation that I am putting you down! All that I have ever done is to pick up on points that I find to be inaccurate or misleading and attempt to clarify them. It would appear that because you do not agree with my counter arguments that you then consider this to be "putting you down" in some personal way..?? Oh well. Pete

Many thanks zootscoot, elsinore and garyH. That covers point 6 nicely. Zoot, I did originally apply to the court for the change of claim value via a completed N244 application and LTSB have been notified of the changes. Should I then file a new N1 giving the new value? The court office manager said yesterday that there was no need forme to do anything but I'm not so sure; the direction says that I am "at liberty" to change the value, not that it "has been" changed and that suggests to me that I need to do something rather than just let it lie. What do you think zoot? Pete

Of course we would. Whomever was of the opinion that you portrayed displayed a fundamental misunderstanding. Any monies collected by bailiffs have an economically neutral effect at best because the act of confiscation removes that spending power from the individual and transfers it to the state, it merely deflects private spending into public spending which in itself tends to distort the entire economy into a depressive state as public spending tends to be less supportive of general wealth creation than private spending. So at best the effects of the activities of bailiffs on the general economy are economically neutral and at worst are economically negative. Pete

IMO precision is important. In a legal document a misplaced comma or an ill-chosen word can distort the meaning of an entire document. On here we deal with primarily legal issues so we should all endeavour to portray the correct meaning. Pete

That's a vacuous reply; of course it changes things. One of your points was that bailiffs are vital to the UK economy, you presented that as fact. Now it turns out that it is merely an unsubstantiated opinion. Pete

Interesting how points become not worth arguing over when inaccuracies are pointed out. Pete

So you're quoting someone elses unsubstatiated opinion as fact then? Pete

Stating that a fine can be "recovered" is not clarity it is disingenuity. It implies that the "transgressor" has somehow spent the fine. I was clarifying that this is not in fact the case. Pete

You've just confirmed by this that there are some that shouldn't be pursued because their incomes are too low. Pete