Just Recieved A Signed Capital One Agreement

[sunflower99]

She also goes on to say that my alleged agreement was clearly headed CREDIT AGREEMENT! but that is still the incorrect heading for CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT!according to 1983 Credit agreement regulations._

A HEADING IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM GIVING THE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT (Schedule 1)

FOR example Quote _ CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER ACT 1974

Crapital one have missed out the word CREDIT CARD and just used the title Credit!On the page they are trying to imply is on back of my application form they describe it as a Credit Agreement regulated by consumer credit act 1974 which is incorrect as it should read Credit CARD Agreement regulated by consumer credit act 1974!Although on front they have attempted to insert the word Credit Card above the title which i suspect may have been inserted as a copy paste job! The Heading is still incorrect that it states Credit agreement regulated by consumer Credit act 1974.If it is a Credit Card agreement it should read Credit Card Agreement regulated by consumer credit act 1974!If it was just a bank loan for a set amount then Credit Agreement Regulated by consumer credit act 1974 would be correct! but it is not it is a Credit Card agreement so should have the word CREDIT CARD in title not just CREDIT Agreement if you get my drift!so that makes this alleged agreement improperly executed!so Ellie Renshaw does not know what she talking about saying it is clearly marked Credit Agreement!

[sunflower99]

she goes on to say she is unsure why i feel i have been sent an application form and Credit Agreement in one!It is them trying to imply that it is a credit agreement and application form in one by sending that page with application form!I am disputing it and just throwing more spanners in their works saying if by some remote chance that second page was on back of application form the document is still not properly executed!

[version302003]

Hi sunflower and all !

 

today I recieved the same as you did, both front and back from good old ellie. (love the pic, it made me chuckle).

 

The thing is I do believe the front is genuine but I dont think the back is. I believe it has been cut and shut. It refers to section 23 etc when it clearly aint there. I dont believe that the terms and conditions that they say were on the back were.

 

I suspect that red boomarang in their logo means they keep coming back lol

[pelham9]

Ask Elle whether she thinks the documents she has sent you comply with the 1983 regulations of the CCA 1974.

 

If she says yes you can tell her different and I will help you with that.

[beachcomber60]

Hi Version302003,

 

It appears that none of us who have these dodgy 'alledged' agreements have section 23 in the T&C's.

 

Beachy.

[citizenB]

Hi Pelham!

Thanks for looking at my agreement and finding their sums dont add up and that i can claim that their table does not reflect correct prescribed terms!:DAnother little thing to throw at them in my next letter! As old Ellie wants me to be to be more specific! in why i dont think the prescribed terms are there!

 

I think I would be a little bit wary of giving too much information over to Capital 1. If they are indeed, producing dodgy documents.. this will give them ample opportunity to produce one that is correct:confused:

 

They have a whole legal department who should KNOW what is wrong with the paperwork.

[version302003]

Hi, would it be right to assume that the only way to actually tell if they are sending genuine or dodgy cca's is by going to their place and seeing the original or by having them ordered to produce it in court under cpr rules?

[sunflower99]

Hi sunflower and all !

 

today I recieved the same as you did, both front and back from good old ellie. (love the pic, it made me chuckle).

 

The thing is I do believe the front is genuine but I dont think the back is. I believe it has been cut and shut. It refers to section 23 etc when it clearly aint there. I dont believe that the terms and conditions that they say were on the back were.

 

I suspect that red boomarang in their logo means they keep coming back lol

Hi Version!

I am glad you liked the pic of Ellie! LOL.i am sure like you and most people who got these agreements that they do not have prescribed terms on back like they imply and they do not acually say it but just imply it by sending those two pages together and saying that the 1983 regulations allow them to reconstruct agreement but whatevere they say to take a person to court and get debt enforced they have to produce an original signed document with all prescribed terms on four corners of signed page,Alright if they are on back and were correct the agreement may be enforced but on all agreements made before 2007 a court can not if they appply law correctly enforce an agreement made before 2007 that has seperate terms and conditions on different page from signed page we are all sure that there is nothing on back and i am sure front signed application form has been altered from original form as people like Zazen warrior has to ours but has not got any terms alledged overleaf! I reckon alll our forms were identical to zazen warriors but that crapital one inserted some cut and paste words on there as well!when they got wise to the fact that people were challegenging their agreements in earlier days!

[sunflower99]

Hi, would it be right to assume that the only way to actually tell if they are sending genuine or dodgy cca's is by going to their place and seeing the original or by having them ordered to produce it in court under cpr rules?

I beleive that is the only way to be sure! as anything they send through post can be altered now thanks to computers and the ability to cut and paste things!I did ask crapital one to arrange for me to go and see my agreement but Ellie conviently forgot about that request! Which to me speaks volumes!

[sunflower99]

Hi Citizen B and Pelham!

Now a bit confused what to do next?Citasen B says i should not mention those dodgy sums to Crap one and you think i ought to ask about them conforming to 1985 regulations.When i wrote to Crap one i though that there was a clear cut case of there being no prescribed terms but according to pelham they can get away with quoting percentages of amounts .So not sure what to write mow.I think it a good idea to ask again about an appointment to view their original agreement they beleive so enforceable!and Pelham seems to think it a good idea to ask if they think they have conformed to 1985 regulations! but citizen B does not think it a good idea to point out their wrong sums so not sure what to do now?

[sunflower99]

Hi Version302003,

 

It appears that none of us who have these dodgy 'alledged' agreements have section 23 in the T&C's.

 

Beachy.

Hi Beachy !

this battle with the banks gets quite confusing! LOL

[version302003]

Hi all, I am going to reply to the cca i recieved.

Jan 30, 2009

 

 

Capital One Services

Trent House,

Station Street,

Nottingham,

NG2 3HX

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re:− Account/Reference Number xxxxxxxx

 

Account In Dispute

 

Important - You should read this carefully - Confirmation Required

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Thank you for your letter dated xx Jan 2009 in which you have sent a copy of the credit agreement in which you claim it is compliant under section 78 of the consumer credit act 1974. As I am sure you are aware, your statement is now binding under the same act.

However I have concerns as to the authenticity in relation of the document which was sent with your letter dated xx Jan 2009.

My concern is specifically related to the front and back parts of the agreement in question. Whilst I donot disagree these two parts may exist as seperate documents my concern is that the front part of the agreement refers to a section of the back that does not exist. It is therefore reasonable under these circumstances to possibly assume that the single document (both front and back parts) sent as the agreement is possibly two seperate documents photocopied onto 1 sheet of paper.

 

As the document supplied by Capital One on xx Jan 2007 is an important legal document I would be grateful if you could confirm that the front and back is a single document and reflects the original exactly on both sides or two seperate documents photocopied onto on sheet of paper, for example to save on paper costs or postage costs which would not be considered unreasonable.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

is this ok to send? Edited January 31, 2009 by version302003

[Pinky69]

There is nothing wrong with the letter but all you are doing is baffling them with science - there is no one there who will have a clue what you are talking about. I sent 3 copies of the same letter to 3 different people who had written to me at Crapone - and got 3 different replies back, none of which made any sense, when the pressed Button B for the template! Luckily I had told them I would have no further correspondence on the matter - they are in a worst state than scrambled egg. The telephone operators are now manning these desks, Ellie Renshaw probably doesn't exist and no one has any idea what they are doing. If you are sure the agreement is unenforceable, ignore them. They will then pass it on and you can send whoever gets it the Account in Dispute letter then forget about them too.

[Desperate Daniella]

Pinky,

 

You may have missed Sunflower's posting No. 298. There is a picture of Ellie - she does exist.

 

Well done, Sunflower. You have found her!! I wouldn't call her a "looker" though. :eek: Maybe why this is why she is so reluctant for any of us to go and visit our agreements? (They can do wonders with cosmetic surgery these days though.)

 

DD

[sunflower99]

Hi Version !

That is a brilliant letter! Thanks very much for your help!You are a life saver!

[sunflower99]

There is nothing wrong with the letter but all you are doing is baffling them with science - there is no one there who will have a clue what you are talking about. I sent 3 copies of the same letter to 3 different people who had written to me at Crapone - and got 3 different replies back, none of which made any sense, when the pressed Button B for the template! Luckily I had told them I would have no further correspondence on the matter - they are in a worst state than scrambled egg. The telephone operators are now manning these desks, Ellie Renshaw probably doesn't exist and no one has any idea what they are doing. If you are sure the agreement is unenforceable, ignore them. They will then pass it on and you can send whoever gets it the Account in Dispute letter then forget about them too.

HI pinky!

Just thought it a god idea to send them one or two more letters making it clear that i dont think their CCA is enforceable and keeps them on their toes! i know what you and Scabhunter mean as well though as i suppose it will get a bit silly if i keep exchanging letters with Crapital One every month! LOL and as you say i will probably get no sense ! as they will probably as you say press buttom A or B! as they dont have much of a clue!but it does make me feel better sending this letter !and will leave a bit of a paper trail! should they or one of their low pondfeeder DCAs attempt to take it further!:DI suppose i ought to stop sending letters after this one though as as you say i will be living at the post office! LOL .I am nearly on first name terms with all the post office staff!

[sunflower99]

Pinky,

 

You may have missed Sunflower's posting No. 298. There is a picture of Ellie - she does exist.

 

Well done, Sunflower. You have found her!! I wouldn't call her a "looker" though. :eek: Maybe why this is why she is so reluctant for any of us to go and visit our agreements? (They can do wonders with cosmetic surgery these days though.)

 

DD

Hi DD!

I am glad you like Ellies picture! LOL.Yes as you say it is no wonder she is so reluctant to take up our requests for us to visit her at the office to view our alleged Agreements!Does not look like you me and Beachy will be going on that picnic!

[version302003]

Hi sunflower, I was going to add in the letter Im going to send on monday if ellie renshaw actually exists or is a concocted name for business reasons. Do you think i can ask this, im pretty sure i can as it is only a question not a statement.

 

but with that pic you posted she might hide .

 

but every time i think of it i start laughing and my ot thinks im mad as i start laughing for no reason

[Desperate Daniella]

Version,

 

I'm falling about laughing too.

 

I haven't had an "Ellie" yet, but intend to phone capone and ask to speak to her if and when I do. You could always try to call her and see what they say.

 

Sunflower, I really think you have a duty to go on to all the other capone threads and post Ellie's picture.

 

DD

 

DD

[pelham9]

Sunflower

 

You appear to be doing a lot of research on the CCA 1974 and hopefully the 1983 regs.

 

One word of warning.

 

You will find lots of things in the Act which tells lenders how things should be done but by and large most lenders have ignored the Act.

 

For instance the 1983 Regs lay down three things that must be shown for credit card interest.

 

The annual rate

 

The way that rate is to be applied (which implies the monthly rate and how it is calculated.)

 

The %APR if it is different from the annual rate by a fairly large amount.( this acknowledeges that the %APR is not the annual rate and can be very different from the annual rate)

 

Most credit card agreements do not contain one or other of these items so are defective - they are improperly executed. Now improperly executed agreements can be enforced in court if a judge thinks it just . I have said before that judges tend to bend over backwards to enforce almost any old rubbish and will almost always enforce an improperly executed agreement.

 

However the Statute says that certain terms are so important that if they are absent or stated incorrectly the judge cannot as a matter of law enforce the agreement. These are the prescribed terms and most of CAG lawyers will agree that only the prescribed terms matter in practice.

 

I think the situation in our courts is very wrong but that is how things stood before the 2006 Act, This Act has repealed the prescribed terms section (fortunately not retrospectively so you are OK) so now the banks can do almost as they please. Now who were the government in 2006? - a party who looks after the unfortunates in our society!!. The banks have great power but that is another story.

[sunflower99]

Version,

 

I'm falling about laughing too.

 

I haven't had an "Ellie" yet, but intend to phone capone and ask to speak to her if and when I do. You could always try to call her and see what they say.

 

Sunflower, I really think you have a duty to go on to all the other capone threads and post Ellie's picture.

 

DD

 

DD

Hi Version and desperate Daniella!

Im glad you liked my pic of Ellie! and it gave you both a laugh!I know now everytime i open a crap one letter that pic i posted of Ellie will be in my head and give me a fit of giggles!As you say no wonder she is so relucant to let people see her !LOL

[sunflower99]

Hi all, I am going to reply to the cca i recieved.

is this ok to send?

That letter is brilliant and thanks again for sharing it with us!When i get round to replying to Ellies last letter i will use your letter though i might add another paragraph repeating to her that if Crap One does indeed hold a correctly executed original signed agreement which has prescribed terms overleaf that the only way that this situation can be resolved is to make an arrangement for me to see the original!:DAt least then if it gets take further in future i can tell any judge that i had made resonable attempts to resolve matter by asking to see original! and save on court time If they have a correctly executed original complying with consumer credit Act applicable to all pre 2007 agreements you would think they would jump up the chance for the matter to be resolved and at least i would know where i stood!Still i can understand Ellies reluctance to show herself!

[sunflower99]

Sunflower

 

You appear to be doing a lot of research on the CCA 1974 and hopefully the 1983 regs.

 

One word of warning.

 

You will find lots of things in the Act which tells lenders how things should be done but by and large most lenders have ignored the Act.

 

For instance the 1983 Regs lay down three things that must be shown for credit card interest.

 

The annual rate

 

The way that rate is to be applied (which implies the monthly rate and how it is calculated.)

 

The %APR if it is different from the annual rate by a fairly large amount.( this acknowledeges that the %APR is not the annual rate and can be very different from the annual rate)

 

Most credit card agreements do not contain one or other of these items so are defective - they are improperly executed. Now improperly executed agreements can be enforced in court if a judge thinks it just . I have said before that judges tend to bend over backwards to enforce almost any old rubbish and will almost always enforce an improperly executed agreement.

 

However the Statute says that certain terms are so important that if they are absent or stated incorrectly the judge cannot as a matter of law enforce the agreement. These are the prescribed terms and most of CAG lawyers will agree that only the prescribed terms matter in practice.

 

I think the situation in our courts is very wrong but that is how things stood before the 2006 Act, This Act has repealed the prescribed terms section (fortunately not retrospectively so you are OK) so now the banks can do almost as they please. Now who were the government in 2006? - a party who looks after the unfortunates in our society!!. The banks have great power but that is another story.

Hi Pelham!

One thing i am learning fron this site is knowledge is power!My new year resolution is to learn as much as i can of this site to defend me and hubby from these DCAs.I think knowing the consumer act 1974 and 1983 and 2006 and how they affect my pre 2007 agreements is an important weapon and there will be a colossal fight if any of those **** DCA try and enforce action against us!I am grateful though that all but one of my and hubbies alleged agreements are all pre 2007 and a lot of them before 2004 they got a battle! I will make sure that i make it clear that i know all rulings on pre 2007 alleged CCAs are not affected by that clause in 2006 makeing it easier for Judges to enforce incorrectly executed agreements As you say Pelham what a disgrace of a goverment who let banks win in that 2006 law and made it even more difficult for people in debt and trying to make sure they have no hope.New labour is a disgrace and will never get a vote from me now ive learnt soo much on this site!I did at first when i first joined site feel a bit strange about trying to dispute my debts over dodgy agreements but seeing how these banks behave i now do not feel guilty about what i do to fight against these banks now!i bet the majority of these awful banks do not feel guilty about poor people who they have driven to suicide over their debts.through their harrasement and threats

[Desperate Daniella]

Sunflower,

 

I am with you 100% about how the bank/card companies treat us. Last year when someone suggested I should try and get out of paying by an IVA, etc., I told them I really did want to pay everything and would do my utmost to do that. Then when I had real problems and was being terrified by AIC and Mercers, I was absolutely desperate. These horrible DCAs really don't care what they do to us, and remember they are instructed by the banks who have already had SO MUCH MONEY in interest payments from us already. I have been so shocked at the tactics of the DCAs - and they try to talk to us about morals.

 

I started this because I saw the Panorama programme and subsequently discovered CGA, thank God. I feel so sorry for all those people out there who are frightened, desperate, suicidal and feeling completely alone tonight.

 

DD

[sunflower99]

Hi Version and desperate Daniella!

Im glad you liked my pic of Ellie! and it gave you both a laugh!I know now everytime i open a crap one letter that pic i posted of Ellie will be in my head and give me a fit of giggles!As you say no wonder she is so relucant to let people see her !LOL

Hi Version and Desperate Daniella!

Oh dear i think ive had my first experience of being Cagbooted! Apparently people on my site did not like the pic of Ellie and removed her!:(so looks like i am in trouble!