SLC CCA not signed by them enforceable?

[krysus]

Quite simple..

 

I have a copy of a CCA from a loan i took out with the Student Loans Co. back in 1994.

 

SLC have not signed the agreement.

 

Is this unenforceable?

 

Did try searching for an answer, but it's like a needle in a haystack!

[steven4064]

I think it is enforceable - the main thing is have you signed it and does it have all the T&Cs on the same page as your signature?

[krysus]

I have signed it, but the T&C's are on a separate sheet.

 

Did find a thread covering this... Not signed by either party is "an unexecuted agreement", not "an incorrectly executed agreement" (i.e. incorrect terms, missing terms, etc.) - a small but significant difference apparently.

 

Still only enforceable by a Court nonetheless.

[rory32]

The agreement is only enforceable by a court, but it will IMO always be enforced by a court as long as the agreement contains all the prescribed terms if only you signed it.

 

T&C's are not prescribed terms.

[steven4064]

krysus

 

Can you post it here (personal details removed, of course)

[TheChancellor]

How can we lay-men tell the difference?

[rory32]

Have a read here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

 

I don't have any case law to hand but the Act is fairly clear and judges are extremely likely to favour the creditor on the basis that in all likelyhood you did enter into a credit agreement.

[johndeevoy]

I understood that credit cards were not a statutory cancellable agreement but I thought I read somewhere on the forum that s64 applied to any credit card agreement where the creditors include a cancelation clause, thereby making the agreement 'cancellable'.

 

Maybe I am mistaken but it would certainly not hurt to argue that such an agreement is 'cancellable', for a start the defence may not know the difference between what is and isn't and offer no counterargument.

 

I'm going to include it anyway and leave it up to the defence to make the point that s64 does not apply.

 

The main jist of my claim will be that the agreement is improperly executed, and in fact was never executed according to statute, and it is not justified for the Courts to enforce the agreement by looking for a common law solution (which is what the Courts do each and every time they 'enforce' an improperly executed agreement). I think there is a nice quote from Wilson that I can use. re: looking for a common law solution when statute offers none.