Lloyds Tsb Mastercard Cca Received Cannot Read It Help Please

[SHELBELLE]

42Man (COMES UP TRUMPS AS USUAL)

 

Thanks for the link I have posted on there as well.

 

I am wondering what other CAG'ers next move is going to be??? IF ANY.

 

Any comments gratefully received.

 

Cheers

 

S.B.

[palomino]

I think you will find that such terms can varied as they have done. Actually it looks quite reasonable to me as you can make the much reduced payments for as long as like until you are able to make a minimum payment (and then you have to keep to the minimum payments).

 

This all depends on the agreement allowing amendments of this nature, although you have raised doubts that the agreement is legible and so this cannot be determined. And there is where your dispute lies.

 

Given that the offer is reasonable you have to judge whether you take the confrontational route or not. I would suggest they are actually trying to help you possibly because you are a customer of long-standing and/or have managed your account responsibly up to recently. They haven't defaulted you or closed your account which sounds like they anticipate that one day your account will be back to normal.

 

Bear in mind that whether they are able to enforce repayment or not you still owe them the money.

[SHELBELLE]

Palomino

 

Thanks, yes I understand what you are saying.

 

I have continued to make payments to them of what I can afford which is less than the original agreement due to my mortgage increasing, they have an uptodate i/e from the CCCS.

 

I am going to continue to make these payments and if in the future they get snotty then I will reasses the situation.

 

Thnaks again, I will sit tight with this one. I wonder if I will receive something similar for my unsecured loan with them???

 

 

S.B.X

[SHELBELLE]

Hi all

 

An update...

 

I have now received the attached from LLoyds, do I hit them with the attached response (edited appropriately)???

 

Any suggestions.

 

 

Thanks

 

S.B.X

 

bump anyone??

Edited October 10, 2008 by SHELBELLE
personal details

[palomino]

You should remove your name from the bottom of your letter.

[SHELBELLE]

Dont know how to do it Helppppp!!!

 

Ok think iv'e done it now!!!

 

Thank you Palomino

 

That was very sloppy of me.

 

Was the letter ok though???

 

 

Thanks

 

S.B.

[palomino]

I'm afraid it's not my style at all, however it appears you have copied and adapted other letters on CAG. In that sense it's fine.

[SHELBELLE]

Ok Palomino

 

Have you got any tips that I may adapt??

 

Thanks

 

S.B.

[SHELBELLE]

Hi all

 

Just realised that I had 2 posts going for same Credit Card.

 

So a little update:~

 

Attached is a letter received on 09.10.08 from Lloyds and also attached is my response which I endeavour to send today if everyone thinks it is ok???

 

Thanks in advance

 

 

S.B.

[SHELBELLE]

Response sent recorded today.

 

Will update when I next hear from them......

 

 

Thanks for looking.

 

S.B.

[SHELBELLE]

Hi all

 

A long awaited update!!!

 

Been very quiet on the Lloyds CC front.

 

I SAR last month and today I have received a letter headed "YOUR REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998" It then goes on to say thanks for contacting us for details of charges on your credit card account. They say that they are enclosing a summary of those charges and fully understand their obligations to SAR, so if they have not provided me with the info that I require please let them know!!!

 

They have enclosed a 1 page document, showing just 6 late payment fees for 2006 and 1 for 2008. Now I am more than sure that they have wacked on loads of charges but will check statements tomorrow.

 

Question is am I right in thinking that they should of supplied 6 years worth of statements together with all other information including the CCA/ application form that they hold on me for this account??

 

We can assume at this stage they don't have a better CCA than the one

I received earlier on last year.

 

Any thoughts on this much appreciated, I am guessing that they can't be bothered to provide what I require at this stage as it might turn up some gems in my favour???

 

Shall I respond with a letter??

 

Many thanks

 

S.B.

[N.P]

HI Shelbelle,

 

It depends on what information you requested.

 

If you asked for 6 years of information then you should receive it. They are obliged to forward the information you requested.

 

What exactly did you ask for and what wording did you use?

 

If your not happy with their response, then yes, send them a letter stating you are missing information which you requested. Tell them they have 14 days to respond with the requested information or in writing that the information no longer exists and by which means it was destroyed.

 

After 14 days report these knob jockeys to the Information Commisoner

[SHELBELLE]

N P

 

Thank you for your post. I need to check the SAR wording tomorrow. Just thought an SAR was meant to request everything they hold on you, phone call conversations any documents etc etc.

 

I will post what I requested tomorrow and then decide on the letter.

 

thanks again

 

I have added to your reputation.

 

S.B.

[SHELBELLE]

Hi again.

 

Checked the SAR and my wording stated COMPLETE list of transactions or FULL set of statements together with any manual intervention etc etc.

 

So I have wriiten to them today stating that a mere one page document with 7 late fees on there would not suffice,and enclosed a copy of the SAR and referred them to the paragraphs.

 

 

I wonder what they come back with this time???

S.B.

[N.P]

Lloyds TSB are one of those companies who think they can do what they want and will always try it on.

 

I wouldn`t be suprised if they come back again with some crap that due to the ongoing Court case with the OFT we will be putting your claim on hold, so feel we don`t have to supply the information requested as it will be of no use to you as this present moment in time.

 

Remember, if your not happy with the response their`s always the Information Commissioner and a Court order to supply the requested information.

[SHELBELLE]

An update...

 

They have replied about my complaint that was sent in October!!

 

Letter states that they are sorry for the delay in repsonding to my request under section 78 of the CCA 1974. They have recently received a high volume of such requests but assure me that they will respond shortly to my request.

If I am unhappy with their response then I can ask the Financial Ombudsman to consider my complaint.

 

Slightly confusing info as they did send me a "CCA" that was illegible and looked like an application form..I am wondering if they really have a better copy that is a properly executed CCA.

 

Could someone advise the time span for waiting for a complaint to be answered? I think I had better take their advice and complain to the F.O.

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

S.B.

[SkemDosser]

SHELBELLE:

 

 

 

Slightly confusing info as they did send me a "CCA" that was illegible and looked like an application form..I am wondering if they really have a better copy that is a properly executed CCA.

 

 

I very very much doubt it. It sounds like you were sent a copy of a microfiche like me, which means the original would have been shredded years ago [otherwise why microfiche lol].

 

My problem is that the work experience bod doing the microfiching at the time of my application wasn't half asleep and I got a reasonably legible copy of the agreement.

 

You need to concentrate on the illegibility/ non existence of original in this; these Lloyds app form/agreements are looking enforceable, it appears mine is [see Skem vs Lloyds/Sechari] theoretically although in my case the original has probably a 99% chance of not existing anymore so there's technically no proof the t and c's are part of the executed agreement, which makes it more of a pain to contest if push came to shove but still contestable.

 

Just thank your lucky stars for bored copier slaves! lol

Edited March 9, 2009 by SkemDosser
missed a bit!

[N.P]

The arguement to that would be if they showed up with no original, then the signature on the copy must also be a copy, in which case it could have been copied from anywhere. That is why I beleive, they must show up with the original.

 

When was it taken out and is it a Loan or Credit Card?

 

Does it have PPI?

[SHELBELLE]

Hi Skem

 

Ok thanks for your comments.

 

I hope their not going to spring some ugly surprises on me!!!

 

Yes will concentrate on the illegibility aspect of the document as it is so bad that I cannot tell if T & C'S are there or not. All the appropriate letters have been sent.

 

I think the latest from them about my much earlier complaint is just too make them look like they are taking me seriously and doing what they are meant too!!

 

Oh well I will sit and wait to see what appears next!!

 

I believe they have 40 days to supply what I have asked for in the SAR?? I will also send a complaint to the Info Commisioner after 14 days have passed from my letter sent on 04th March....tick tock tick tock!!!

 

S.B.

[SHELBELLE]

NP

 

Hi again.

 

Ok all understod, thankyou.

 

It is a credit card that was taken out(I think, will check my file tomorrow) about 2004/5 so not statue barred. I don't believe that it has PPI but hopefully when they fulfill my SAR I will find out!!!

 

I will update post tomorrow.

 

Thanks again

 

S.B.

[N.P]

Well, you can bet it is a Section 18 Multiple Agreement.

 

The OFT won an appeal in the High Court a few years of so ago, and it seems the Court ruled Lloyds TSB Credit Cards are a Multiple Agreement, and their agreements should be laid out as such.

 

The reasoning behind this, is you can make purchases with the Credit Card, BUT not everywhere accepts Card payments, so what you have is Restricted Use Credit.

 

Now, you can use the same Card to withdraw cash at a cash machine, and EVERYWHERE accepts cash. So, what you have is Unrestricted Credit.

 

Also, I don`t know if it has been brought up. When you withdraw cash on the Card, the Interest Rate is HIGHER than if you made a Card purchase. So, again, Multiple Agreement and the CCA`s showed be wrote out as such

 

Of course, Lloyds will say their CCA`s are spot on, but that`s because they are a bunch of empty headed, incompetant imbeciles.

 

Check this out - Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 268 (22 March 2006)

 

Enjoy

[SkemDosser]

The arguement to that would be if they showed up with no original, then the signature on the copy must also be a copy, in which case it could have been copied from anywhere. That is why I beleive, they must show up with the original.

 

When was it taken out and is it a Loan or Credit Card?

 

Does it have PPI?

Hi NP yes under CPR procedure regs etc the original must be produced in court which is obviously a very important factor everyone should keep in mind- I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of litigation cases would fall down on this alone. If anything close to an executable agreement is produced by a creditor, I reckon it's on going to be a copy of some sort.

 

It looks like I've been caught out by the banks good luck rather than good management; a reasonable copy [but not complete, some of it hasn't been copied in its entirity] of both sides of an app form which a clause says becomes an agreement upon their signature.

 

If it ever got to litigation I would of course ask for the original to be produced to prove both copies really were the front and back of the same document, so it should technically fall down [like I said, I'd put money on the original being shredded a long time ago]. Just makes it more of a technicality 'gamble' than if the agreement was rubbish/non-existant lol

[SkemDosser]

NP:

Well, you can bet it is a Section 18 Multiple Agreement.

 

The OFT won an appeal in the High Court a few years of so ago, and it seems the Court ruled Lloyds TSB Credit Cards are a Multiple Agreement, and their agreements should be laid out as such.

 

SD: Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here I might of missed something- you say all LTSB cards are 'multiple agreements?' I can't get my head around what one of these is...haven't had a look at your link yet, I'll do that.

[N.P]

NP:

Well, you can bet it is a Section 18 Multiple Agreement.

 

The OFT won an appeal in the High Court a few years of so ago, and it seems the Court ruled Lloyds TSB Credit Cards are a Multiple Agreement, and their agreements should be laid out as such.

 

SD: Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here I might of missed something- you say all LTSB cards are 'multiple agreements?' I can't get my head around what one of these is...haven't had a look at your link yet, I'll do that.

 

 

A multiple agreement is basically two or more agreements but on the one page.

 

In which case with a Credit Card, you have Restricted, and Unrestricted use as mentioned in my earlier post.

 

Each section must have it`s own Terms and signature. If there is PPI added, that would be another Unrestricted agreement, because it is funded by the Card, restricting your use of the Credit available.

 

 

 

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 -

Section 9 -

 

Meaning of credit.

 

(1) In this Act “credit ” includes a cash loan, and any other form of financial accommodation.

 

 

(2) Where credit is provided otherwise than in sterling it shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as provided in sterling of an equivalent amount.

 

 

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the person by whom goods are bailed or (in Scotland) hired to an individual under a hire-purchase agreement shall be taken to provide him with fixed-sum credit to finance the transaction of an amount equal to the total price of the goods less the aggregate of the deposit (if any) and the total charge for credit.

 

 

(4) For the purposes of this Act, an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 -

Section 11 -

 

Restricted-use credit and unrestricted-use credit.

 

(1) A restricted-use credit agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement

 

(a) to finance a transaction between the debtor and the creditor, whether forming part of that agreement or not, or

 

(b) to finance a transaction between the debtor and a person (the “supplier ”) other than the creditor, or

 

© to refinance any existing indebtedness of the debtor’s, whether to the creditor or another person,

 

 

and “restricted-use credit ” shall be construed accordingly.

 

 

(2) An unrestricted-use credit agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement not falling within subsection (1), and “unrestricted-use credit ” shall be construed accordingly.

 

 

(3) An agreement does not fall within subsection (1) if the credit is in fact provided in such a way as to leave the debtor free to use it as he chooses, even though certain uses would contravene that or any other agreement.

 

 

(4) An agreement may fall within subsection (1)(b) although the identity of the supplier is unknown at the time the agreement is made

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 -

Section 18 -

 

Multiple agreements.

 

(1) This section applies to an agreement (a “multiple agreement ”) if its terms are such as—

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

(2) Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a separate agreement.

 

 

(3) Where an agreement falls within subsection (1)(b), it shall be treated as an agreement in each of the categories in question, and this Act shall apply to it accordingly.

 

 

(4) Where under subsection (2) a part of a multiple agreement is to be treated as a separate agreement, the multiple agreement shall (with any necessary modifications) be construed accordingly; and any sum payable under the multiple agreement, if not apportioned by the parties, shall for the purposes of proceedings in any court relating to the multiple agreement be apportioned by the court as may be requisite.

 

 

(5) In the case of an agreement for running-account credit, a term of the agreement allowing the credit limit to be exceeded merely temporarily shall not be treated as a separate agreement or as providing fixed-sum credit in respect of the excess.

 

 

(6) This Act does not apply to a multiple agreement so far as the agreement relates to goods if under the agreement payments are to be made in respect of the goods in the form of rent (other than a rentcharge) issuing out of land.

 

 

 

 

Hope this helps

 

 

N.P

[SkemDosser]

The arguement to that would be if they showed up with no original, then the signature on the copy must also be a copy, in which case it could have been copied from anywhere. That is why I beleive, they must show up with the original.

 

When was it taken out and is it a Loan or Credit Card?

 

Does it have PPI?

Sorry forgot to answer last bit!

 

Mastercard credit card, 1999, no PPI