RBS Mint Mrs P V MINT

[underdog13]

The signature and date could have been lifted from another document and pasted onto this one.

 

Did you originally apply for a Mint card, or was it an RBS Advanta (which later converted to Mint)?

[phatram]

I'm sure it was a mint card. Must say I'm getting very suspicious now.

Edited March 9, 2009 by phatram

[underdog13]

Think you are right to be suspicious.

[phatram]

 

Is the info in this letter correct ? And Mrs P seems to think it was an advanta card not a mint card.

Edited March 16, 2009 by phatram

[phatram]

bump

[phatram]

Sending this,

 

Dear Sirs,

 

 

Re; your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I note that you have replied to the above by sending your company’s current Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act.

 

To clarify, just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement.

 

This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.” This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

 

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

 

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

 

And more importantly

 

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

 

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

 

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

 

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

 

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

 

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.

It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

 

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues

 

Yours faithfully

[davefirewalker]

hmmmmmm

 

I'm extremely worried....

 

the agreement given to you looks enforceable and if taken to court you would lose. However you could try the cpr 31.16 route and metion that you want to view the original....(which they wont have)

 

try posting on pt2537's thread about cpr31.16

 

Dave

[car2403]

The letter in post #40 is irrelevant, as what they've sent does comply with the regulations.

 

The agreement is enforceable, because the prescribed terms are there and it has the debtors signature.

 

Have you tried reclaiming charges/PPI, as that will reduce the balance? you can then make a short settlement offer, if it suits you.

 

Bearing in mind they only require a certified copy of the original, I can't see how CPR Part 31.16 can help.

[phatram]

What about the following post?

 

the agreement

posted in number 1, is not, in my opion enforceable. There are no terms and conditions - missing payemnts, cancellation rights etc. where are the terms and conditions it refers to above the signature of the card holder.

 

I received one of these and told RBS it was unenforceable. They then sent another agreement , same as your second one, which was concocted and did not contain my signature. It refers to missing payments, a term not used in 2000. It refers to charges prevalent today. Now if they bekllieved the first agreement was ok why have they now sent another one. I have been through 3 dca and 2 different firms of solicitors on this matter and they all keep refering back to RBS

 

 

 

My wife is paying this and will of course continue to pay back anything borrowed. Just not going to be ripped off anymore:)

[car2403]

What about the following post?

 

 

 

 

 

My wife is paying this and will of course continue to pay back anything borrowed. Just not going to be ripped off anymore:)

 

Ok, the post may be right.

 

The key is how can this be enforced?

 

If the agreement is not compliant with s.60/s.61 CCA 1974, then it is improperly executed.

 

Improperly executed credit agreements can be enforced by an application to the court for an enforcement order under s.65 of the Act.

 

When considering such an application, the Court has to consider limitations to it's powers of issuing an enforcement order, which is outlined in s.127.

 

s.127 states improperly executed credit agreements may be enforced, at the discretion of the court, but the court has to consider the amount and extent of any prejudice caused to the debtor by the improper execution. It's also bound to consider the culpability of the parties with regards the improper construction of the agreement.

 

Further, s.127(3) totally limits the Courts powers to enforce an improperly executed credit agreement in certain circumstances. The basics of this is whether the agreement contains the prescribed terms and the debtors signature as a minimum, without which, the agreement cannot be enforced, regardless of any prejudice to either side.

 

I suspect that the poster of that message was talking about improper execution of your agreement, as all the terms of the agreement are not contained in the document - this alone, will not prevent enforcement.

 

In short, you would need to show you've been prejudiced sufficiently by the improper execution to ensure the court doesn't allow enforcement. I can't see how that can happen here, IMHO.

 

The agreement you have is not irrevocably unenforceable, as a result of all this. Reading through the sections I've reference here will help you understand this, as it is quite complicated to take in initially.

[phatram]

Thank you.

Still as clear as mud to me tho'.

[pussycatdoll]

It will be interesting to see what comes up in your SAR. If you have been defaulted and its invalid then you may still have something to work on.

[phatram]

Still nothing from Mint SAR wise, but this arrived today,

 

[millymollymoo]

Still nothing from Mint SAR wise, but this arrived today,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blimey phatram are you sure that letter is in relation to your letter, the reason I ask is it sounds alot like a reply I am expecting to a letter I sent a few months ago.

 

Milly XX

[millymollymoo]

Could someone please check if this CCA is enforceable - thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are a few differences between image 1 and images 2 & 3, ie credit limit, APR, default charges etc

 

 

I received letter from Triton Credit Services today, rang them and my payment has been cashed. I asked to change the repayment date (to suit wages) and was told it had now been passed to Solicitors. I have not missed payments, some may have been a little late, and as far as I was concerned, my arrangement to pay an agreed amount was still running.

 

 

 

 

You know there was something I noticed on your agreement the person whose name is on the stamp - L Angell, well thats the name thats has signed my s.78 request letter end of 2008, well well they are busy arent they and have worked for RBS along time then;-)8-).

 

 

mmmmm, i wonder if this 'date stamp' is the original and if in fact the original agreement did not have this on there if you get my drift. \highly suspicious even more now.....................

 

 

Milly XX

[phatram]

Any ideas what we could do?

[millymollymoo]

Any ideas what we could do?

 

I wouldn't really know what you could do other than S.A.R for the original copy, albeit Mint are not wanting to send then though:rolleyes:

 

i am STILL waiting for a response to all my letters. blatantly ignored the lot.

 

All I can say it just seems strange to me that the person seems to 'busy themseves' quite alot over the last 6 years8)

 

 

I suppose itis because I am highly suspicious of these agreements8).

 

hopefully others whom are suspicious can pop in and give their opinions.

 

Milly X

[phatram]

Sar arrived.It only contains copy statements, no agreement etc

[phatram]

Then this arrived,

 

 

[phatram]

[pussycatdoll]

My SAR request came through and is identical unfortunately although they say they have sent something under separate cover which I havent received yet.

 

PCD

[phatram]

I have been paying £120 a month to Triton for about 6 months and every 3 months they ring to "make a new arrangement" but they say it has to increase every time? WTF?

It was £110 then £115 then £120 now they want £125 !!

What do I do ?

PS I asked for a statement of account and they said they cant do one!

[phatram]

[phatram]

Any advice folks?

Thanks

[car2403]

What action can they take if you are making reasonable payments? If you can't increase those payments, you can't increase them.

 

Have they had the harassment templates, yet? Time to do them, if they haven't.