zhanzhibar vs Amex/AIC/Newman/ Brachers Solicitors

[Docman]

Hi Zhan

 

I'm in a similar position myself and I agree with Monty in post #119 above. This seems to be the latest tactic of some companies. They know they cannot win if challenged to produce documents that they don't have or are not compliant. Instead, they make a strke out appplication and flood the court with pages of useless paper in the hope that the judge won't notice that they do not have a legally enforceable agreement.

 

I'm not sure of the best way of dealing with the matter. All I can suggest is that you submit a witness statement of your own. If you are producing documents of your own, you need to do so at least 7 days before the hearing anyway. I think what you have to do is convert what would be your amended defence into the statment. Instead of 'DEFENCE' make yours 'WITNESS STATEMENT of ZHANZIBAR OPPOSING THE APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT'. Make sure though that you answer ever point in the witness statement as well as the amended POCs.

[zhanzhibar]

Hi Zhan

 

I'm in a similar position myself and I agree with Monty in post #119 above. This seems to be the latest tactic of some companies. They know they cannot win if challenged to produce documents that they don't have or are not compliant. Instead, they make a strke out appplication and flood the court with pages of useless paper in the hope that the judge won't notice that they do not have a legally enforceable agreement.

 

I'm not sure of the best way of dealing with the matter. All I can suggest is that you submit a witness statement of your own. If you are producing documents of your own, you need to do so at least 7 days before the hearing anyway. I think what you have to do is convert what would be your amended defence into the statment. Instead of 'DEFENCE' make yours 'WITNESS STATEMENT of ZHANZIBAR OPPOSING THE APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT'. Make sure though that you answer ever point in the witness statement as well as the amended POCs.

 

 

Thanks Docman. It's comforting to know that there is somebody else experiencing the same thing as me. I will take your suggestion and start preparing a witness statement as well I think. I did think about preparing the witness statement since I am going to attend court anyway but the court didn't seem to ask me to do it when they send me the notice of hearing of application so i was a bit unsure what to do.

[Desperate Daniella]

Subscribing.

 

Good luck, Zhan.

 

Daniella

[zhanzhibar]

This is a long thread, it might be helpful to post up again the agreement, the default notice, the POC, and your defence, as these are the only things that matter at this point, if you are going to object to their SJ application

 

Hi CCM

 

In summary, here's what happened so far in

1) 8 months after my initial letter & harassment from Newmans & AIC asking for my alleged copy of agreement, i received this from Amex

 

 

On a separate bundle is a thick set of a standard T&C. I say standard because there is no signature nor names or anything that could relate it to me. here is page 1 of 13

 

& a letter from them too

2) Sometime early June 2008 I received POC

 

3) on 6th June 2008 I sent request for Info

 

4) Then Brachers send a reply to me on

 

 

 

5)24th June 2008 send defense to court( see attachment file)

6) 23rd September got a letter from court

 

7) Received a package from Brachers middle of October 2008. The package consist of

a) copy of fully detailed Particulars of Claim

b) set of documents that was sent to the Judge

i) Copy of screen print of collated information provided by the defendant to the claimant when applying for the credit card.( same as above in (1)

ii) copy of T&C

iii) copies of statements

 

 

8 ) the court has gone quiet since the 6th October & suddenly all this started again this week with arrival of the notice of hearing of application

Post #116 & post #121 of this thread

AMEX - Brachers- Defense copy for CAG.doc

Edited March 1, 2009 by zhanzhibar
Take out claim number

[zhanzhibar]

Hiya again

 

Continue from previous post as I can't upload more than 15 images

 

8 ) I received this on Monday 23/02/09

 

All the exhibit that they provide in their bundle of doc marked SLG1 I have seen & received except for number (iv) the default notice. This is the first time I see a copy of this since i asked for it when I file my defense back in june 2008.

 

Here is their exhibit SLG1 (iv) copy of default notice :

 

 

Having seen this now, I had a look again at the original letter they sent that I found

 

 

Spot the difference :grin:? Yep ... you guess right. Their "copy" has a different date than my original. How is that I possible I wonder? & What does this mean?

[the_shadow]

Hiya again

 

Spot the difference :grin:? Yep ... you guess right. Their "copy" has a different date than my original. How is that I possible I wonder? & What does this mean?

 

Hi zhanzhibar, I'm not conversant in legalise so wont be able to help with that but I'd suggest you read up on default notices, I thought they had to give an actual specific date when the remedy had to be performed by, its not enough to say 14 days from letter date as that gives no scope for posting etc. AFAIK they should give a date which is more than 14 days from letter issue+2 days postage if first class.

 

Also did you keep the envelope that it was sent in as this will hopefully have been stamped by your friendly post office with a date on it. The fact that there default notice is not the same as yours should strengthen your case and possibly call into suspect all their documentation used against you and the reliability of it.

 

As to their documented IP address evidence, they would need to prove that you had that IP address @ the time this application was entered if they are relying on that, your Internet Provider allocates IP addresses on the fly so if you "ping" that address now it'll be someone else. If they wanted to tie down your computer accessing their website and putting the application in they should have used MAC addresses which tie to your actual hardware in your PC.

 

Subbing and best of luck against the bast:x:xds

PmW

[zhanzhibar]

Hi zhanzhibar, I'm not conversant in legalise so wont be able to help with that but I'd suggest you read up on default notices, I thought they had to give an actual specific date when the remedy had to be performed by, its not enough to say 14 days from letter date as that gives no scope for posting etc. AFAIK they should give a date which is more than 14 days from letter issue+2 days postage if first class. that's what I thought too. Thanx for this. I will do more research on this.

 

Also did you keep the envelope that it was sent in as this will hopefully have been stamped by your friendly post office with a date on it. The fact that there default notice is not the same as yours should strengthen your case and possibly call into suspect all their documentation used against you and the reliability of it.

 

As to their documented IP address evidence, they would need to prove that you had that IP address @ the time this application was entered if they are relying on that, your Internet Provider allocates IP addresses on the fly so if you "ping" that address now it'll be someone else. If they wanted to tie down your computer accessing their website and putting the application in they should have used MAC addresses which tie to your actual hardware in your PC. I did ping my ip address & it come out totally different. Rang Virgin Media who is my provider they say IP address never stay static. So my question is how can they proof it is me then? There is no signature of mine anywhere at all.

 

Subbing and best of luck against the bast:x:xds

PmW

 

Thanks PmW.

 

Also does anyboy know of any case law relating to electronic agreement & digital signature?

 

Thanks all

[zhanzhibar]

Hiya

 

Does anybody know of any case law relating to electronic agreement & digital signature?

 

Also where can I read up about default notice & what exactly have to be in a default notice?

[zhanzhibar]

Polite bump!..can anybody help me with my queries above please?

 

zhan

[Cunning Plan]

Hi Zhan,

 

Have a look at this thread re: Default Notices. OK it features Link Financial's attempts at default notices but the same rules apply.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/162255-link-financial-limited.html

 

Sorry I can't be more specific to a particular post in this thread but I'm a bit tight for time today and working on a dial-up connection too

 

CP

[zhanzhibar]

Thanks CP. will have a look now.

[zhanzhibar]

Hi all

Quick question to anybody who is willing to help. Shall I prepare the witness statement for this hearing in a similar manner as I would for a trial?

[creditcardmug]

Morning Zhan,

It seems you have two main points to go at here, the defective Default Notice, and the issue of whether the agreement was correctly executed.

 

Here is an extract from a defence pt did for me, and explains whats wrong with the DN

 

I note the yours does not have a date to remedy by!

 

Details of breach of agreement and action required to remedy, or pay compensation for, the breach

3

A specification of:--

(a) the provision of the agreement alleged to have been breached; and

(b) the nature of the alleged breach of the agreement, specifying clearly the matters complained of; and either

© if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the

date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice,

before which that action is to be taken; or

(d) if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which it is to be paid.

33. Fourteen days were not allowed between service of the default and the time laid out where the alleged breach needed to be remedied. I therefore put the claimant to strict proof as to the date of service of said document

 

34. In addition to the failure of the default notice to allow the prescribed time frame, I note the Default is also deficient in the following areas

 

35. Section 2 (5) and (6) of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 sets out the following

(5) Where any statement is required to be in a form specified in a Schedule to these Regulations and is reproduced in the notice, then apart from any heading to the notice, trade names or names of parties to the agreement-

 

(a) the lettering in the statement shall be afforded more prominence (whether by capital letters, underlining, large or bold print or otherwise) than any other lettering in the notice; and

 

(b) where words are both shown in capital letters and underlined in any statement specified in a Schedule to these Regulations, they shall be afforded yet more prominence.

 

(6) The wording in any such statement shall be reproduced in the notice without any alteration or addition, and in relation to any statement to be contained in the notice the requirements of any note shall be complied with, except that the words "the creditor" may be replaced by the name of the creditor, by the expression by which he is referred to in the agreement or by an appropriate pronoun, and any consequential changes to pronouns and verbs may be used.

36. The notice fails to include the following statement in the form as shown

 

"IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH

 

37. Also the notice fails to set out the statement as set out below

 

"IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN THE FURTHER ACTION SET OUT BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU [OR A SURETY]"

 

 

38. The statements referred to in points 36 & 37 are laid out in schedule 2 of Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561)

 

39. For a creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated credit agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) CCA 1974 which states

(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,-

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e)to enforce any security.

40. I note the opening part of section 88(1), which states

88. Contents and effect of default notice.

 

- (1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form.......

The word must makes it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue

 

 

 

41. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and there fore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the default notice is rendered invalid as a consequence

 

42. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a default notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the default notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgment appears confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the claimant to set out the default notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the default

 

43. I suggest that since the claimant has not complied with the requirements to issue a valid default notice, the claimant should not be bringing this action before the court until the procedure set out for the protection of consumers has been followed. It is noted that the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) require strict compliance and clearly indicates in the wording that substantial compliance is not enough.

 

44. I respectfully request the court give consideration to the claimants rights to bring this case while not in compliance with Sections 87,88 & 89 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in respect of the default notice and its failure to adhere to Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561)

[Cunning Plan]

Hi Zhan,

 

That's what I did with my witness statement. Fully prepared it as if going to trail. At the hearing it will be reviewed by the judge then he/she can give directions. Keep it simple and to the points you are relying on.

 

Hopefully the judge will order AMEX to provide the paperwork you've already asked for but not yet received. A deadline will be set and you'll then just wait for them not to comply, because they haven't already it's unlikely they will now. Their non compliance will really please the judge!

 

It's a waiting game and it will seem to drag on and on but if it follows the same path as my case there is light at the end of the tunnel... and it's getting brighter.

 

CP

[creditcardmug]

Further to what pmw was saying above,

Your IP address can change from minute to minute, so i dont see how they can rely on that, or how if you put them to strict proof, they could demonstrate that you were using a pc connected to their site on that date and that time, and that YOU ticked the box.

 

Every computer has a network chip with a unique address called a MAC address, this is the only thing they could use to show that a particular pc was connected to their site, but how could they get hold of it?, and even if they could, who is to say YOU were using it at the time?

 

This could open up a whole new can of worms IMO

 

Also what is the date of the alledged agreement?, we need to check whether the new regulations regarding electronic applications were actually in force at the time!

[zhanzhibar]

Hi Zhan,

 

That's what I did with my witness statement. Fully prepared it as if going to trail. At the hearing it will be reviewed by the judge then he/she can give directions. Keep it simple and to the points you are relying on.

Thanks for the advice CP. I'll take your advice & will start preparing the witness statement.

 

Hopefully the judge will order AMEX to provide the paperwork you've already asked for but not yet received. A deadline will be set and you'll then just wait for them not to comply, because they haven't already it's unlikely they will now. Their non compliance will really please the judge!

 

It's a waiting game and it will seem to drag on and on but if it follows the same path as my case there is light at the end of the tunnel... and it's getting brighter. Here's hoping that I can see the light soon

 

CP

 

Further to what pmw was saying above,

Your IP address can change from minute to minute, so i dont see how they can rely on that, or how if you put them to strict proof, they could demonstrate that you were using a pc connected to their site on that date and that time, and that YOU ticked the box.

 

Every computer has a network chip with a unique address called a MAC address, this is the only thing they could use to show that a particular pc was connected to their site, but how could they get hold of it?, and even if they could, who is to say YOU were using it at the time?

 

This could open up a whole new can of worms IMO

 

 

HI CCM,

Here lies my problem. They said that the IP is their evidence of my signature & I am saying ..hang on.. here's a print screen from my computer and the ip address shown is nothing like what you have stated & therefore how can you proof that that is me. My problem now is how do i use the law & put this into words in my witness statement? I am trying to find case law to support this but with no success. The only other info I have is from Rory's post back in post#28 of this thread

 

I think it may also be worth addressing the issue of electronic signatures as this may be raised. The Electronic Communications Act 2000 defines an electronic signature as

 

Part II Facilitation of electronic commerce, data storage, etc.

 

7 Electronic signatures and related certificates

 

 

(1) In any legal proceedings—

(a) an electronic signature incorporated into or logically associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data, and

(b) the certification by any person of such a signature,

shall each be admissible in evidence in relation to any question as to the authenticity of the communication or data or as to the integrity of the communication or data.

(2) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature is so much of anything in electronic form as—

(a) is incorporated into or otherwise logically associated with any electronic communication or electronic data; and

(b) purports to be so incorporated or associated for the purpose of being used in establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.

(3) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature incorporated into or associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data is certified by any person if that person (whether before or after the making of the communication) has made a statement confirming that—

(a) the signature,

(b) a means of producing, communicating or verifying the signature, or

© a procedure applied to the signature,

is (either alone or in combination with other factors) a valid means of establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.

 

Even with this I am not exactly sure how to put it in my witness statement:confused: I had a look at the CCA 1974(Electronic Agreement) Order 2004 & CCA 1974(Electronic Communication) order 2004...suffice to say just got a bit dizzy after reading & still haven't got a clue what it all mean!

 

Also what is the date of the alledged agreement?, we need to check whether the new regulations regarding electronic applications were actually in force at the time!According to the intranet form my application is 4th Feb 2006.

[creditcardmug]

Im hoping that someone else will visit the thread to say what date the Act actually came into force, your alleged agreement was dated 4/2/06, but was the act enacted before or after that...if before then they would have had to send a paper agreement for you to sign.

 

On the IP issue im also hoping others will offer support, i know there have been a couple of cases on here before, but i cant find them

 

Its getting late now, will have to come back to this later..........

[42man]

CCM makes some brilliant points on the default notice....it is invalid, as it doesn't give 14 clear days, it only gives 14 days from the date of the letter, and unless they hand delivered it on the day they wrote it (which they can't prove) then they are stuffed on that aspect alone.....

 

This thread might help - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/170345-tale-dodgy-dn.html

 

As for the Electronic signatures - (December 2004) was when they came into force (sorry) - read this -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/152384-help-dca-chasing-me.html#post1618550

[zhanzhibar]

Hi all,

 

Does anybody have detail of Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983?

I Know it has been amended by The Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 but without reading the SI 1983/1553 I can't even try to understand the amendment. Not that I do anyway ... just trying to get the picture what the *** its all about

cheers

 

Zhan

[steven4064]

Here you go http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/statutes-library/27535-consumer-credit-act-1974-a.html#post1209707

[zhanzhibar]

Here you go http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/statutes-library/27535-consumer-credit-act-1974-a.html#post1209707

 

Thanks for this Steven. I found eventually late last night

 

Hi all,

 

Desperate help here please. Can somebody explain to me in simple english what this xtract from Electronic communications Act 200 means

 

Part II Facilitation of electronic commerce, data storage, etc.

 

7 Electronic signatures and related certificates

 

(1) In any legal proceedings—

 

(a) an electronic signature incorporated into or logically associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data, and

(b) the certification by any person of such a signature,

shall each be admissible in evidence in relation to any question as to the authenticity of the communication or data or as to the integrity of the communication or data.

(2) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature is so much of anything in electronic form as—

(a) is incorporated into or otherwise logically associated with any electronic communication or electronic data; and

(b) purports to be so incorporated or associated for the purpose of being used in establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.

(3) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature incorporated into or associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data is certified by any person if that person (whether before or after the making of the communication) has made a statement confirming that—

(a) the signature,

(b) a means of producing, communicating or verifying the signature, or

© a procedure applied to the signature,

is (either alone or in combination with other factors) a valid means of establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.

 

Reason I ask is because I am trying to use the law in saying that they can't use IP address as evidence of my signature as I can prove that my ip address is not the same as what they have given to court.

 

Having trying to read up (with not much success:() the CCA 1974(electronic agreements) order 2004 and CCA 1974 (electronic communications) order 2004 (which I attached here) as well the relevant sections of CCA 1974 & CCA regs 1983,

 

please correct me if I am wrong but I think there is a problem (but I don't know how to use this in e legal manner way..) by them giving me separately

a) the intranet e-application

b) a letter from them saying that my alleged IP address is evidence enough

c) a blank T&C with no signatures (ticking of boxes...just standard paper format)or even info about concluding things electronically as stated in Article 4 of the CCA 1974 Electronic Communication order 2004

 

I've read somewhere about digital signature on online agreement but an IP address is not one of them. Also is it not right (please correct me if I'm wrong) that in summary, all these latest regulations regarding online agreement still require that legal framework of CCA 1974 everything should still be in one document i.e. your digital signature & the prescribed terms. Also there is the word "intent", I was never told that they are going to use my IP address as signature...

 

Please.. could really do with lots of advice here as I need to send this soon becuse I need to prepare for a case management conference for my case with asset link. Just received the court letter today.

 

March gonna one hell of a month for me ...Got a date with AMex on the 25th at the court & then on 30th got a date with Asset Link at the same court!

THE CONSUMER CREDIT (Agreements)(amendments) Regulations 2004.pdf

THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (ELECTRONIC AGREEMENTS) ORDER 2004.pdf

THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION) ORDER 2004.pdf

[zhanzhibar]

Sorry all, another quick question. Can anyone help please?

 

What is the difference between an executed agreement and an enforceable agreement?

[zhanzhibar]

Another quick question just to confirm.

 

Amex/Bracher sent me:

1) a cover letter with my IP address which they say represent my e-signature

2) a screen print of my e-application

3) a blank T&C with no address, names or signature

 

Does these 3 documents combined together represent my executed and enforceable agreement?

[steven4064]

Part II Facilitation of electronic commerce, data storage, etc.

 

7 Electronic signatures and related certificates

 

(1) In any legal proceedings—

 

(a) an electronic signature incorporated into or logically associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data, and

(b) the certification by any person of such a signature,

shall each be admissible in evidence in relation to any question as to the authenticity of the communication or data or as to the integrity of the communication or data.

(2) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature is so much of anything in electronic form as—

(a) is incorporated into or otherwise logically associated with any electronic communication or electronic data; and

(b) purports to be so incorporated or associated for the purpose of being used in establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.

(3) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature incorporated into or associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data is certified by any person if that person (whether before or after the making of the communication) has made a statement confirming that—

(a) the signature,

(b) a means of producing, communicating or verifying the signature, or

© a procedure applied to the signature,

is (either alone or in combination with other factors) a valid means of establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.

As in a lot of sections of Acts, this is in 3 bits - the first says what is required and the other 2 explain what is meant (yes, really ).

 

So, for an electronic signature to be accepted in legal proceedings, you need two things (7(1))

 

1. the signature itself either in the document or logically linked (eg via a web link or database entry)

2. certification that the signature is genuine.

 

7(2) says that pretty much anthing can be regarded as an electronic signature that is or claims to be so

 

7(3) says that a valid certification comprises a statement by someone that the signature itself, the means of producing it, verifying it or communicatring it, or any process applied to it is a valid means of establishing its authenticity. Of course, the value of such a statement depends entirely on who the 'someone' is.

 

I would say that an IP address associated with the 'signature' is enough provided they can demonstrate that it is yours - eg by getting information from your ISP (or former ISP - IP addresses can always be traced back to a specific ISP and they keep records) - that would come under 'verifying it' in the list above. Ask yourself (indeed ask them), what wold they do if you 'signed' their agreement in an internet cafe or public library or if someone else did so impersonating you.

 

You could produce evidence of what your IP address is now (print screen from your router if you have one or use "ipconfig /all" at the command prompt (Run cmd) on your PC if you don't.

 

I think that them sending you

 

a) the intranet e-application

b) a letter from them saying that my alleged IP address is evidence enough

c) a blank T&C with no signatures

 

probably satisfies their obligations under s78 of the CCA1974 as modified by the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983.

 

However, they constitute neither a properly executed agreement nor an enforceable one.

 

The difference between a properly executed agreement and an enforceable agreement is explained in http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/162851-consumer-credit-agreements.html

[zhanzhibar]

Hi Steven,

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

I am beginning to see how to draft my witness statement with the issues i got with them but by using the regs & legislation.

 

Another question [sorry... i do ask too many question don't I?]

 

After the electronic communication act 2000, CCA 1974 E-comm Order 2004, CCA 1974 E-agreement order 2004, for on-line credit, what should an executable and enforceable agreement be like?

 

Pre all this i.e when it paper format everything should be in one legible document ..all prescribed and with signatures. Now it looks like it can come from more than 1 document.

 

I thought (correct me if I am wrong here) the CCA 1974 legal framework still valid for those application before April 2007 (where CCA 2006 comes in) and those new regs or order is just amending it.

 

I am not sure exactly what is "legal framework" means but my understanding is that it should still be in one document (or maybe not as simple as that!) i.e.

 

a) all the prescribed terms should still be in the agreement

b) it should be stated in that same agreement in some way or form that it has been concluded electronically & in it should be at least a tick in the box or an identification that the signature is mine.

 

 

What do you all think?