Just Recieved A Signed Capital One Agreement

[the_shadow]

Hi Fangioof thenineties!

Dont worry! you can asks whateveer you like on my thread!I like to think my thread is somewhere where people can go for help advice and friendship!

 

 

Crap-one haters unite!!!!!!! :-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

[sunflower99]

Hi sunflower that happend to my account:???: cap one deleted from my credit file then after a few weeks was sold to lowell now lowell have put a default on my file:mad:

Hi Dorabell

The things crap one get away with!i thought you could only be defaulted on the same debt once but i suppose these DCAs think they are above the law:mad:

[sunflower99]

Crap-one haters unite!!!!!!! :-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

Well said pmw1971!:D:D:D:D:D:D

CRAP ONE HATERS UNITE:D

[Dorabell]

Hi Dorabell

The things crap one get away with!i thought you could only be defaulted on the same debt once but i suppose these DCAs think they are above the law:mad:

 

thanks:) i thought so to:mad:

[sunflower99]

If someone has pointed this out already then I'm sorry for repetition but Debitas and Capital One are one and the same (as the very faint pastel writing at the bottom of their letters confirms). What they mean is that they are fed up paying for international calls from their Indian call centre and will harass you from Nottingham again.

 

Apologies for the cynicism!

Hi Viscount stair

Yes it is a strange game they play! They try and make out Debitarse are a seperate company!LOLThough i suspect its still the same people ringing! but just calling themselves Debitarse instead of Crapital one! One person even said on a thread that when Debitarse were on their case and they got phone call the DCA said crapital one by mistake! and then added eh Debitarse! quickly afterwards! LOL

[sunflower99]

thanks:) i thought so to:mad:

I wonder if you can complain about this?

[cashins]

I wonder if you can complain about this?

 

Yes an account can, by definition, only default once.

 

Compalin to whoever originated the default and the CRA's, (even they know you can't have 2 defaults).

 

David

[The GodMother]

I think there has been a mix up with Dora comment here.

 

C1 put a deafult on her CRA then removed it Now lowell ave put a deafult on for the same debt...Now from what i understand the holder of the debt can mark ur file but there cant be 2 marks for the same thing.

[pelham9]

Sunflower99

 

I have read your thread with interest and I am as sure as anyone can be that you have not received a copy of a an enforceable CCA agreement but a 'cut and paste' job. I am sure also that Cap 1 know this too as if they thought their CCA 'agreement' would stand up in court you would have received court papers long ago.

 

There is one thing you have not done and that is to check the figures in the Ts & Cs. I have found that with these USA imports particularly Amex. MBNA and CAP 1. they are often inaccurate. As they are saying that the Ts & Cs contain the prescribed terms the interest rates need to be checked.

 

Unfortunately I cannot read the interest table in the almost illegible Ts & Cs. Presumably you can read them so would it be possible to type these up and post them? The copy of the agreement must be easily readable. If they are not you are enttled to reject the whole document(s).

 

I have to say that in your situation I would be saying 'cut the cackle and take me to court'

[sunflower99]

Sunflower99

 

I have read your thread with interest and I am as sure as anyone can be that you have not received a copy of a an enforceable CCA agreement but a 'cut and paste' job. I am sure also that Cap 1 know this too as if they thought their CCA 'agreement' would stand up in court you would have received court papers long ago.

 

There is one thing you have not done and that is to check the figures in the Ts & Cs. I have found that with these USA imports particularly Amex. MBNA and CAP 1. they are often inaccurate. As they are saying that the Ts & Cs contain the prescribed terms the interest rates need to be checked.

 

Unfortunately I cannot read the interest table in the almost illegible Ts & Cs. Presumably you can read them so would it be possible to type these up and post them? The copy of the agreement must be easily readable. If they are not you are enttled to reject the whole document(s).

 

I have to say that in your situation I would be saying 'cut the cackle and take me to court'

Hi Pelham9

Thanks for your help and interest in my Crap One alleged CCA!The second page they are allegeding is on back of application form does not i beleive have all the prescribed terms such as number of repayments ,amount of repayments frequency of repayments or date of repayments in order to discharge debt of specified sums of money!just this rather complicated table of interest rates you mention which does not make any sense to an ordinary person like me who is not a maths whizz kid!.I will get that page out tommorrow get my strong reading glases and try and type out table with percentages tommorrow like you suggested ,so you can take a look at it!Thanks i am very grateful for any fresh input and opinions about this alleged agreement they sent me:)

[pelham9]

For revolving credit (credit cards) the prescibed terms are

 

a) The interest rate to be charged (this is not the APR)

b) the amount and frequency of payments. (the amount could be a % of the amount owed).

c) the credit limit, a statement that there is no credit limit or how the credit limit will be communicated. to you before the card is activated..

 

NB the number of repayments is not required. ( if you think about it abviously not!)

 

These must be shown within the four corners of the document. They might get away with a separate document if that document was properly sent and referred to on the signature page before the signature. This last is not strictly correct according to the CCA but because judges tend to bend over backwards to protect the banks they may let it pass.

 

If they or a judge is saying that the Ts & Cs are part of the agreemnt whether on th back of the aqreement or sent separately it follows that any terms that are claimed to be prescribed terms must be accurate and there accuracy should be checked. I will do that for you but I cannot read much of the document (Ts & Cs) that you have scanned and posted.

 

Can you easily read the copy documents they sent? This means that the document as it stands must be easilly readable by normally corrected vision. I you have to use a magnifying glass or blow it up electronically it is not easily readible and you should request one that is. They are fudging the issue of a proper CCA because they probably do not have any documents and are copyimg from a rather poor microfilm (microfiche). If these microfilms are are not easily readable they do not have anything.

[beachcomber60]

Sunflower, I think your T&C's are exactly the same as mine - probably photocopied at the same time

 

Can't add the link at the moment but my thread is capital one cca

 

Beachy

[sunflower99]

For revolving credit (credit cards) the prescibed terms are

 

a) The interest rate to be charged (this is not the APR)

b) the amount and frequency of payments. (the amount could be a % of the amount owed).

c) the credit limit, a statement that there is no credit limit or how the credit limit will be communicated. to you before the card is activated..

 

NB the number of repayments is not required. ( if you think about it abviously not!)

 

These must be shown within the four corners of the document. They might get away with a separate document if that document was properly sent and referred to on the signature page before the signature. This last is not strictly correct according to the CCA but because judges tend to bend over backwards to protect the banks they may let it pass.

 

If they or a judge is saying that the Ts & Cs are part of the agreemnt whether on th back of the aqreement or sent separately it follows that any terms that are claimed to be prescribed terms must be accurate and there accuracy should be checked. I will do that for you but I cannot read much of the document (Ts & Cs) that you have scanned and posted.

 

Can you easily read the copy documents they sent? This means that the document as it stands must be easilly readable by normally corrected vision. I you have to use a magnifying glass or blow it up electronically it is not easily readible and you should request one that is. They are fudging the issue of a proper CCA because they probably do not have any documents and are copyimg from a rather poor microfilm (microfiche). If these microfilms are are not easily readable they do not have anything.

Hi Pelham!

Thanks for help and i will try and type out the percentage table and the terms Crap one arealledging is on back.I can read the cca with reading glasses so dont think i can get away in this case in saying it is illegible im afraid!:(However you did say that sometimes judges banks or courts try and enforce an agreement which has terms in seperate document even though this not correct and some judges bend over backwards to help banks.However my Crap one card was taken out in 2003 and according to what i learnt on this forum any improperly executed agreements made prior to 2006 courts are more limited to what they can enforce!A law made in 2006 did change consumer credit act for agreements made after 2006 and made it so that --the enforceability of an agreement that is not properly executed signed in 2006 or later and not having a debthe debtors signature and the prescribed terms in the same document may not be enforceable but its enforceability has to be argued on a case-by -case basis(you cannot use section 127(3).So people who have agreements made in 2006 or after 2006 are not is such a good position as a unsymphathetic judge can as you say have things made easier to bend over backwards to enforce an imporperly executed agreement under section 65.However though section 127(3) was repealed in the Consumer Credit Act 2006 and therefore then enforceability of any agrement entered into after 2006 cannot be challenged by Section 127.This dosent mean that such an agreement is neccesarily unenforceable but it does mean the enforceability must be argued on its own merits.However the courts powers to enforce an agreement that is not properly executedand was entered into before 2006 are limited by section 127(3) of the Act Quote-127-(1)In the case of an application for an enforcement order under (a)section 65(1)(improperly executed agreeements)

(3)The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements ) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer(whether or not in the prescribed manor)

This section says that an agreement that is not properly executed can only be enforced if it consist of a single document

(a)signed by the debtor and

(b)has the prescribed terms

so as my Crapital One card was taken out before 2006 the court is a lot more limited to what it can enforce and if my signature not on same paper as the prescribed terms in four corners so to speak i understand that this would unenforceable and hopefully if well defended this would be pointed out to court ,I would hope quoting this law would be a good defence?

[sunflower99]

Hi Gazza!

How are you! I feel like ive just swallowed a law book! LOL.Ive been learning this law in above post of by heart while on bus to worK! LOl

[sunflower99]

Also Crap One cannot rely on just microfilm if that is all they have.They have to have original!:Di saw this quote on a thread _Quite often ,credit card companies in particular do not appear to keep copies of the executed agreeements but rely on the 1983 regulations allowing them to reconstruct the agreement .If a case based on such an agreement comes to Court the defence should point out strongly the requirement of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 says

Quote-

7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement

(1) a copy of the contract or documents consiituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original (s) should be available at the hearing

 

Another Practice Direction says that a copy of the contract document does not need to be attached if the claim is made via MCOL.However the requirement to produce the original in court is still valid

[sunflower99]

Sunflower, I think your T&C's are exactly the same as mine - probably photocopied at the same time

 

Can't add the link at the moment but my thread is capital one cca

 

Beachy

Hi Beachy!

Yes ! LOl i wouldent be surprised! probably were copied at same time! Shame these documents dont come up all that clearwhen copied onto forum! It looks like i am going be doing a bit of typing! Just hope i can get that table of percentages in allright.I was going to do it tonight but think i will fast lose the will to live if i take another look at that dratted crapital one bog roll agreement anymore tonight! :eek:and i feel tired out!I am going to turn in and have another go at looking at it and typing it out tommorrow It is great that Pelham is going to look at my alleged agreement as i would never have though of looking at percentages and working them out!

[beachcomber60]

Yeap, going to be very interested in that myself, have to admit I've never looked at those tables.

 

My tc's is identical to OH's - probably photocopied hundreds in one go, although they say different, both our copies have the same photocopy roller marks on them (two black marks top centre).

 

Beachy

[sunflower99]

Yeap, going to be very interested in that myself, have to admit I've never looked at those tables.

 

My tc's is identical to OH's - probably photocopied hundreds in one go, although they say different, both our copies have the same photocopy roller marks on them (two black marks top centre).

 

Beachy

HI Beachy!and other people interested in this thread!, Only thing i found of concern was that Pelham said that some judges bent over backwards to enforce incorrectly executed and fudged up aggreements even when some banks clearly trying it on but surely as our alleged CCAs are before 2006 those laws i quoted in earlier post should be protection for us as court have limitations imposed on them in enforceing pre 2006 ad agreements as quoted in one of my above posts and also the fact that you can use CPR rule quoted in my other above post to make sure they are obliged to bring original to court! plus as has been said on several threads a debtor can use the CPR31.16 rule to require bank to show them original! If they ignore our requests to make arrangements to view originals through both informal or formal CPR 31.16 requests it is their look out and can be brought to the attention of court and judge that DCA has failed to comply and surely a fair judge who applies the law correctly would insist that the correct original aggreement is shown and it be put aside if bank is unwilling or unable to produce original .Any debtor who has a pre 2006 agreement surely it is a very good defence to quote all the laws in court ive mentioned in the above posts?I knw people who had agreements made after 2006 not in such a good position as the law was changed in 2006 when bankes put pressure on goverment to change things and repeal s127 but the law still makes it clear that although this applies to agreements made after 2006 any agreements made prior to 2006 s127 still applies!

[beachcomber60]

If they ignore our requests to make arrangements to view originals through both informal or formal CPR 31.16 requests it is their look out and can be brought to the attention of court and judge that DCA has failed to comply

 

Morning Sunflower,

 

Think I have already mentioned this somewhere, in response to Debitarse threat-o-grams of court action, I made requests under CPR 31.6 for a TRUE copy of the agreement, both requests went without being acknowledged (let alone being provided) thank goodness it was done using recorded delivery !

 

UNITED WE STAND

 

Beachy

[Gazza112]

Hi Sunflower

 

Pleased your learning the law lol.

Not a lot's happening at my end, going to get a few letters off to them this week just going to use another tack. Weather it will work with companies i don't know, probably end up with the same result.

But hay let's give these companies some worries, as they've been dishing out to all of us. Will let you know on the outcome of these letters if any get replied.

 

Gaz

[pelham9]

I would hope quoting this law would be a good defence?

 

Certaimly it should be. However a fair number of judges in the small claims court do not know the law and even if they do they do not apply it in every case. If you read posts extensively on CAG you will find such cases - fortunately not many. The defendant then has to appeal which is a fairly daunting process. They would almost certainly win the appeal and this would reinforce the law and make it much more difficult for ignorant or arrogant judges to get it wrong.

 

Nevertheless in your shoes I would be saying to to Cap1 and MBNA. "You maintain that the documents you have sent me are copies of a properly executed agreement. I say they are not, The only way we can settle this is to ask a judge so please take me to court or 'shut up". The fact that these cases have not yet gone to court makes me think that these people are not at all certain that a court will find for them. Their inaction really makes your case.

[lexis200]

Just a thought...

 

If they do go along the court lines, could you then start saying you'll also be claiming illegal charges back and asking them for a complete breakdown of the costs involved for them?

 

Seeing as they are so reluctant to disclose this - to the point of losing millions of pounds in refunds - would this help to get them to f off rather than hound you, as if they go to court for one thing, the other will have to be addressed too?

[pelham9]

Yes you could but only if the charges claim is greater thn the debt outstanding.

 

If there are unlawful charges it will mean that any default notice they claim to have sent will show the wrong amount outstanding and this alone is enough to make the 'agreement' unenforceable.

[lexis200]

Sorry if it's a daft question, but why only if it's greater than the balance?

 

Also, am I right in thinking that if they issued a default with arrears showing even though the account has been frozen then it's incorrect?

 

I've been on a payment plan for a couple of years now, and the account including interest/charges has been frozen since the beginning. However, in the DN they sent me they have listed the arrears as around 2 and a bit k! This can only be the minimums that I would have been paying had I not been on the plan, so how can they be arrears if I've been paying the amended amount and the account was frozen - surely no arrears should have built up?

 

Hope that's clear enough to understand:)

 

Lexis:)

 

ps - sorry for the hijack Sunflower:oops:

[sunflower99]

Hi Sunflower

 

Pleased your learning the law lol.

Not a lot's happening at my end, going to get a few letters off to them this week just going to use another tack. Weather it will work with companies i don't know, probably end up with the same result.

But hay let's give these companies some worries, as they've been dishing out to all of us. Will let you know on the outcome of these letters if any get replied.

 

Gaz

Hi Gazza

yes being on this site certainly keeps my brain active and gives it some work to do!LOL.ive never done so much learning annd studying since leaving school! LOL, I feel like ive swallowed a law book!I constantly print of little gems and snippets of information of this site and take them everwhere i go even on the bus and atwork breaks so i jnow them of by heart!so my new year resolution is to learn everything of this site so those banks got quite a fight on their hands :grin: