Multiple Agreements CCA 1974

[ncf355]

Hi folks,

 

see this as bit of a "sub thread" to the HUGE CCA thread

 

So, your thoughts on the following:

 

 

Should a credit card be classed for the sake of the CCA 1974 as a "mutiple agreement" and therefore require seperate documentation for the purchase, balance transfer and cash withdrawal elements?

 

That is to say, each and every part should have a seperate signature document each with its own prescribed terms?

 

The point of this is that if the lot is grouped together, it doesnt take into account the different requirements between the types of documents

 

This is detailed within S18(2):

 

"Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the pruposes of this act as if it were a seperate agreement"

 

 

S18(1):

 

"This section applies to an agreement (a "multiple agreement") if its terms are such as:

 

(a) to place it within one category of an agreement mentioned in this act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category not so mentioned, or

 

(b) to place it, or part of it, within two or more categories of agreement so mentioned"

 

 

 

Now, my thinking is :

 

 

Credit card purchases:

 

(14) Credit token agreements

 

Cash withdrawals:

 

(12) Debtor-Creditor-Supplier agreement

 

Balance Transfer:

 

(12) Debtor-Creditor-Supplier agreement

 

Thus, agreement falls into:

 

"(a) to place it within one category of an agreement mentioned in this act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category not so mentioned, or"

 

 

This (to my interpretation) appears to be backed up by Goode in his "Consumer credit law and practice" loose leeaf publication -

 

"Unitary agreement

 

On the other hand, an agreement providing a single facility covering both restricted use debtor creditor supplier credit and unrestricted debtor creditor supplier credit - e.g a credit card which can be used to pay for goods and services or to draw cash where the interest and repayment provision do not differentiate between one use and another - would seem to epitomise the unitary agreement"

 

 

If we take that and the bold text into the argument that most credit cards have higher interest for cash than purchases and further, different rates for balance transfers it would seem to back the argument?

 

 

Thoughts please?

[ncf355]

Cant resist *BUMP* on this one, I think this worthy of at least some debate?

 

 

(helooooooooooo is anybody there?)

[Brassed off]

I'm here ncf, albeit a little late

 

Why don't you ask a MOD to move your thread to the DAG forum where it'll get more notice?

[ncf355]

Thanks Brassed

 

MOD's - what he said ^

 

Please!

[Brassed off]

I'm a "she"

 

To get your thread moved, you need to report it (click the Red Triangle) but it's OK, I've done it for you

[kennythecelt]

Hi

This will shortly be attended to.

[ncf355]

Thanks

 

(and sincere apologies to brassed for the gender mistake!!)

 

:o

[pt2537]

Thread moved to the general debt forum

[ncf355]

Cheers PT

 

Interested to hear your input on this one m8

[ncf355]

Nuts - just seen your sig

 

Sorry to hear you arent well PT, all the very best for a speedy recovery

[pt2537]

cheers matey,

 

yeah ive been zapped by a nasty illness and its lead to me having to slow down a little on the CAG especailly since i still have a law course on the go which i need to pass but thats life i guess

[ncf355]

Think you have more than earnt the break m8

[ruinedbynatwest]

Hi folks,

 

see this as bit of a "sub thread" to the HUGE CCA thread

 

So, your thoughts on the following:

 

 

Should a credit card be classed for the sake of the CCA 1974 as a "mutiple agreement" and therefore require seperate documentation for the purchase, balance transfer and cash withdrawal elements?

 

That is to say, each and every part should have a seperate signature document each with its own prescribed terms?

 

The point of this is that if the lot is grouped together, it doesnt take into account the different requirements between the types of documents

 

This is detailed within S18(2):

 

"Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the pruposes of this act as if it were a seperate agreement"

 

 

S18(1):

 

"This section applies to an agreement (a "multiple agreement") if its terms are such as:

 

(a) to place it within one category of an agreement mentioned in this act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category not so mentioned, or

 

(b) to place it, or part of it, within two or more categories of agreement so mentioned"

 

 

 

Now, my thinking is :

 

 

Credit card purchases:

 

(14) Credit token agreements

 

Cash withdrawals:

 

(12) Debtor-Creditor-Supplier agreement

 

Balance Transfer:

 

(12) Debtor-Creditor-Supplier agreement

 

Thus, agreement falls into:

 

"(a) to place it within one category of an agreement mentioned in this act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category not so mentioned, or"

 

 

This (to my interpretation) appears to be backed up by Goode in his "Consumer credit law and practice" loose leeaf publication -

 

"Unitary agreement

 

On the other hand, an agreement providing a single facility covering both restricted use debtor creditor supplier credit and unrestricted debtor creditor supplier credit - e.g a credit card which can be used to pay for goods and services or to draw cash where the interest and repayment provision do not differentiate between one use and another - would seem to epitomise the unitary agreement"

 

 

If we take that and the bold text into the argument that most credit cards have higher interest for cash than purchases and further, different rates for balance transfers it would seem to back the argument?

 

 

Thoughts please?

Problem we all face with S 18 is that the Judges are in disarray, eg, in Meadows court of appeal stated. "We were shown passages from Goode on Consumer Credit and an article by Mr Francis Bennion on the application of section 18 from which it is apparent that the matter is far from clear and open to some controversy. It is unnecessary for the purposes of dealing with this appeal to enter into that debate, which would only arise if Mr Palmer were right on the question of the insurance premium being part of the credit rather than the total charge for credit. In those circumstances we say nothing more about section 18".

Well, that's alright then !

John Story

first defendant Natwest V Story & Pallister - leading test on S 18.

see www.ruinedbynatwest.com

[Krackerjaxx]

Hi there

 

I am quite interested in the multiple agreements...... I have a secured loan with GE Money and have noted on my copy of the agreement the PPI and the loan is added together ie;

 

Amount of Credit to be released to customer £24,500.00

Amount of Credit for Protected Payment Plan £3,941.25

Total amount of Credit £28441.25

Duration of Agreement 180 months

 

 

 

The interest rate, monthly repayment amount etc is all on as well but am I right in believing the PPI should have been done seperately?

 

Your advice would be most grateful

Thanx Krackerjaxx

[ruinedbynatwest]

Hi Krackerjax !

I'm not an expert in the minutiae of the secondary legislation - ie the detailed form of the agreement. It's best to have this checked out by the CAB or similar - because, it's important to remember that the CCA was (and supposedly, still is) intended to be a 'catch-all' to protect the weaker party against the trader who obscures the "truth in lending" as it was termed (ie motive doesn't feature - it's the "red light" syndrome -"if the light's red, you're nicked !" ). IE - Were you misled or misinformed as to the true cost of the agreement (all of its components), etc, in any way ?

Any doubts at all - Go see the CAB or trading standards dept.

Best Wishes

John Story

See

www.ruinedbynatwest.com for what can happen with dodgy traders !!!

Edited September 28, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos