mbna cca ?????

[fergal71]

I have just recieved my cca back it is basically a new printed set of sheets with no signatures there is a tick box. I assume because it was online application. If this is the case are these agreements enforceable...????

 

can anyone help who has had similar agreements sent?

[angel_1]

hello and welcome

 

are you able to scan what you have received and so we can take a look for you,

 

i didnt want you to think no one was bothering with your post, so just wanted to say hi and im sure others will come along too by tomorrow

 

when do you think you took the card out? if its after 2006 maybe online,

 

take care and keep posting on this thread for any other questions you have

 

ciao for now MAZ

[fergal71]

hi maz sorry it is about 10 sheets of terms and conditions and i have no scanner but no agreement as such and no signatures of any kind just boxes and the date they were ticked???

 

any ideas?????

[angel_1]

to tell you the truth im having the same same dilemma with my alliance/leic i believe was a 2006 online application but within my SARS request all i got that indicated it was an online application was a sheet saying online but am awaiting on anything to suggest a tick box,

 

ive read a bit about online applications but i dont understand too well as yet if the tick box is the executed agreement,

 

by me responding today it should bump your thread up for others to view and hopefully comment on

 

if i can get any more info myself i will post on here for you

 

ciao for now maz

[lotsofdebt]

I have just recieved my cca back it is basically a new printed set of sheets with no signatures there is a tick box. I assume because it was online application. If this is the case are these agreements enforceable...????

 

can anyone help who has had similar agreements sent?

 

As far as I'm aware, online CCA's entered into post Dec 2004 don't require an actual signature under the Consumer Credit Act Electronic Communications Order 2004. The tick in the box is valid as long as it's accompanied by a statement compliant with the Electronic Communications Act 2000 S7 stating that it's a 'a valid means of establishing the authenticity of the communication or data, the integrity of the communication or data, or both.'

 

The rest of the agreement still needs to be properly executed. But the signature argument is pretty much defunct I think.

 

I hope someone here can state to the contrary though and prove me wrong - I'm in a similar position with a few credit cards.

[angel_1]

hiya lots of debt and fergal

 

thanks for the last posting, in my sars i never had any info other than an internal document to say online, but now what you are saying about the tick box, and also the rest of the agreement needs to be properley exectuted, seems that this is what im lacking in information being given to me, just because it was say done online, surely there must be documentation to back up the proper agreement??

 

those are my thoughts anyway hoping others will come along and help us all on this thread

 

keep happy ciao for now MAZ

[lotsofdebt]

hiya lots of debt and fergal

 

thanks for the last posting, in my sars i never had any info other than an internal document to say online, but now what you are saying about the tick box, and also the rest of the agreement needs to be properley exectuted, seems that this is what im lacking in information being given to me, just because it was say done online, surely there must be documentation to back up the proper agreement??

 

those are my thoughts anyway hoping others will come along and help us all on this thread

 

keep happy ciao for now MAZ

 

Hey Maz,

 

Yeah, the tick box may be valid under the Electronic Communications Order 2004, but that doesn't negate the need for a properly executed agreement as per the requirements of the CCA 1974. That tick must still be in the same document as all prescribed terms etc and of course under a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) you're entitled to see a copy of that original document. If they haven't got that documentation it would seem to me that's their problem. They can't with any credibility turn around and say 'sorry, you don't have a properly executed agreement under the CCA 1974 because you took the card out online - but tough, we still want your money'. No properly executed CCA (tick or not) = no enforceable debt.

Edited November 18, 2008 by lotsofdebt

[angel_1]

thanks lotsofdebt

 

that was in my thoughts to tell you the truth, the card is a mbna and originally on all/leic online, so the sars req was from mbna, but now am going after all/leics under sars, im also wanting to query this in my complaint to fos, so you see my concerns..

 

however you have posted good info for me and i want to see the whole document which would make it a properly executed agreement - that is my legal right isnt it?

 

i think im getting it,,,,?

 

Going back to fergal,, you say fergal that you have had about 10 sheets of terms and conditions, are they relevant and connected to what your tick box document or are they actually as Current terms and conditions, - surely you should be sent the terms and conditions at the time of the agreement and also what the current ones are too?

 

if you can reply loadsofdebt that would be fab , thank you ciao for now MAZ

[lotsofdebt]

Hey Maz,

 

I don't want to come across as a self proclaimed expert here - because it's only in the last few months that I've had to deal with this stuff myself.

 

But without a doubt:

 

1. Under a Data Protection Act 1998 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) you're entitled to see an actual copy of the agreement.

2. Any prescribed terms must be contained within in the original document or must be specifically and verifiably referenced in that document - for example 'refer to page 3 section xx of this agreement'

3. Current terms and conditions in no way constitute a copy of your original agreement under the meaning of the CCA 1974. You are entitled to the terms and conditions as they were prescribed when the agreement was entered into - not any old tosh they decide to send out to you i.e. current t&c pamphlets.

 

I've written the above in defence to one county court claim and I never heard a peep out of that particular company (not MBNA) since.

Edited November 18, 2008 by lotsofdebt

[angel_1]

thank you for replying loadsofdebt

 

i understand what you say about not being an expert, i truely wanted to hear your story of the information you gained, so many thanks,

 

me i was a nervous wreck at the beginning of the year, and now with knowledge gained here mainly im becoming more aware of stuff

 

so i take on board your last posting and so will continue as ive thought, you have just cemented in my mind clearer understanding which is what i needed to hear

 

I hope its of help to fergal too

 

can i pls pinch your post and reword it slighly if i should need to defend a court action?

 

again many thanks for your input, i will let you know as further developments occur

 

ciao for now MAZ

[lotsofdebt]

Yeah, No problem Maz. Glad to be of help.

 

Like you, I'd have been in a right mess without this forum. Now, I don't worry all that much about the debt, but my blood seriously boils when OC's and DCA continue to flout their obligations and do anything to be obstructive and/or to mislead.

 

They feed on their debtor's core emotion of feeling guilty due to the debt owed and use that as an excuse to run rough shot over debtor rights; using intimidation and harrassment along the way.

 

My ethos has certainly changed since I've had to put up with their antics - I have nothing but contempt for the lot of 'em now.