Hi all, hope this is in the right place. Ok Cap one and bluestone credit management have both refused to send me any info beyond 6 years so I'm looking at taking them to small claims to force compliance. Both are clearly saying that the DPA says they don't have to. While I'm pretty certain that it doesn't I thought i'd better double check? My real reason for this posting is for help with the POC's, I have got a copy from the library but are these still current and will I need to add to them? I'm thinking maybe something because of them both claiming they don't have to provide anything beyond 6 years. Thanks Jim

Hi, thats the APR on the agreement.

Fraud is a criminal offence not a civil offence. These are 2 separate and very different entities, the level of proof for each is very different, as in the bank charges claims, it is a case of arguing that the company, institution or whatever had a responsibility to deal fairly with you, within the law and within the terms of the contract, if they, as a respectable firm, who you believed were acting within this framework, then go on to provide you with misleading/untrue advice/instructions, for whatever reason, doesn't have to be fraud, it could be something as simple as poor training and again the claimant has no need of absolute proof any of this, then it is possible for the six year rule to be waived, but only if the claim is started within 6 years of the discovery of this. This has been the basis of thousands of successful charges claims going back well beyond 20 years, there's dozens of threads on this site which use this to claim beyond 6 years. I am not trying to flame you in any way, I just believe that there is a way for the OP to go for the lot, it won't be easy and will need a lot of work but it is possible.

Hi all. I'm new here but my understanding of the statute barred rule is that this isn't barred, the OP is still paying for this car, surely that means that the clock isn't even ticking? Nevermind already barred. Also to my understanding the OP could argue that she was mislead into signing the car over so the statute could be waved, using the same arguements as the bank charge claiments? I know that I've read of dozens of stituations where this has happened? I am now hiding behind the settee waiting to be shot down.