why you shouldnt use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agreement

[tortilla]

What a fantastic thread, thanks guys.

[Muffintop]

Hiya tifo:)

 

Thank you for your help. I havent downloaded yet. Is the megaupload ok as it says something about spyware on mcafee site advisor:confused:

 

 

MillY X

hya tried to download the letter too but do you have to join megaupload to download it? is it on the oft site originally?

[Alphageek]

If anyone wants the OFT 786a.pdf and can't be doing with Megaupload, send me a PM and i'll fix you up... I grabbed a copy for reference from the OFT site a while back.

[diddydicky]

ive been reading these interesting threads for hours andone theme crops up time and again DONT SIGN THE CCA REQUEST

 

is this because there is a possibility that the creditor would copy it and affix it to an agreement?

 

if this is so then how about a friend signing the request in something of s similar way to your signature.

 

if this appears on a response from the creditor as an alleged signed agreement from way back it seems to me that fraud, conspiraccy to defraud would be the least of the creditors problems and would certainly blow any claim thy might have right out of the water- in fact i suggest they would back off any claim like lightneing

 

if however it is for some other reason that letters ar enot signed i'd love to know why

 

thanks

[foolishgirl]

ive been reading these interesting threads for hours andone theme crops up time and again DONT SIGN THE CCA REQUEST

 

is this because there is a possibility that the creditor would copy it and affix it to an agreement?

 

/quote]

 

Got it in one dd!

 

You don't have to ask a friend to 'forge' your signature, just print it or use a digital signature. There are lots of free sites for this - I use this one:

Online Personal Signature Maker - MyLiveSignature - Free Personal Signature Generator

[angel_1]

Hiya all

 

i only use the one below arial in the word document, just for ease when i do my letters and signature,

 

not sure if i now should use the digital signature ?

 

thanks angel x

[fiftypence]

If you really feel the urge to sign it just use any old squiggle that's not your 'real' signature. If they lift it and put it on a document they are going to be in quite a serious amount of trouble. I have 2 signatures anyway, one for cheques/legal docs and another for other general correspondence, always have done and I haven't been jailed for it...yet!

[davey77]

Digital signature is just a fancy name really. You can use a font from the computer.. just something swiggly

 

[Kraken1]

See here:

Electronic signatures - FAQs | OUT-LAW.COM

[diddydicky]

thats that sorted - thanks

[BlueSquirrel]

Why not keep a photocopy of the signature you use, if they lift it and use it on something, they would be bad, huh?

[ajs444]

Following this thread with great interest, do you know if it is the same procedure in Scotland with regards to sending out CPR3.16 and 3.14 letters?

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Following this thread with great interest, do you know if it is the same procedure in Scotland with regards to sending out CPR3.16 and 3.14 letters?

 

 

the piranhas (i can't spell it either) on this site

 

seem very worried about the scottish angle

 

Credit Today online

 

 

 

to quote them

"Litigation through the Scottish court system - is it worthwhile?"

[foolishgirl]

 

Credit Today online

 

 

Any nominations for the 'Corporate Social Responsibility of the Year Award' in May or the ‘DCA Panel Manager of the Year’ in November then??

 

Funny, can't think of even one!

[andrew1]

Any nominations for the 'Corporate Social Responsibility of the Year Award' in May or the ‘DCA Panel Manager of the Year’ in November then??

 

Funny, can't think of even one!

 

Think that one would go to someone called 'Crosby' - some distant relative called Bing was also a bit of a comedian too - hear he, Bob Hope & Dorothy Lamour are all in their new movie - ' Road to Jail ' !

[JonCris]

Why not keep a photocopy of the signature you use, if they lift it and use it on something, they would be bad, huh?

 

 

Better still get someone else to sign in your name. As they won't have an original & if they cut & paste you'll know immediately;)

[WayneBrannan]

Hi guys,

 

It seems to be a fool's errand trying to get an answer to my question on my own thread, so I thought I'd ask on here, since it is mentioned in the very earliest posts between the knowledgable original poster & the equally knowledgable x20...

 

What implications do the 'changes' to the CCA that apparently came into play in April 2007 have on the enforcability of improperly executed Agreements? This is very important to me because my personal loan was taken out in July 2007 and I don't want to pursue this if it's going to be a complete waste of time!

 

Pleeeeaaaaaaaaaase can somebody help me here?! I've tried searching for an answer before bumping my own thread but all I find is posts alluding to "as long as it was made prior to April 2007" but not explaining why!

 

Cheers

[simon the poet]

Hi

 

Section 127(3-5) of the cca 1974 was repealed by the 2006 act on aggreements dated on or after the 6th of April 2007.

On agreements before that date the section still applies.

This section states that if an agreement does not contain the prescribed terms and the signature of the debtor the court may not enforce.

 

So if your agreement is after this date you will not be able to use section 127(3-5)

 

This does not mean that you canot challenge your agreement however. If the terms of the agreement are not stated in accordance with the act then it will still be improperly executed under section 65, thus making it enforceable only by order of the court.

If your agreement was missleading or did not contain sufficiant information for you to make an informed purchasing decision or otherwise prejudiced your rights under the act the court may still refuse to enforce or may alter the terms of the agrements in your favour.

 

Simon

[WayneBrannan]

Hi

 

Section 127(3-5) of the cca 1974 was repealed by the 2006 act on aggreements dated on or after the 6th of April 2007.

On agreements before that date the section still applies.

This section states that if an agreement does not contain the prescribed terms and the signature of the debtor the court may not enforce.

 

So if your agreement is after this date you will not be able to use section 127(3-5)

 

This does not mean that you canot challenge your agreement however. If the terms of the agreement are not stated in accordance with the act then it will still be improperly executed under section 65, thus making it enforceable only by order of the court.

If your agreement was missleading or did not contain sufficiant information for you to make an informed purchasing decision or otherwise prejudiced your rights under the act the court may still refuse to enforce or may alter the terms of the agrements in your favour.

 

Simon

 

 

Cheers Simon,

 

I've been trying for daaaays to get a response to that question!

 

So, in layman's terms, what you're saying is that a Court CAN enforce my Agreement (made after April 2007), even where it is improperly executed, unless I can prove that I was mis-sold the Loan, etc?

 

Does this include the Agreement being signed by me in the first place then? In other words, I'm assuming that to get the Court to enforce the Agreement, they would still need to produce to the Court an Agreement signed by me, whether it contains all the pther prescribed terms, on the right pages, in the correct format, etc? So it's still worth pursuing to ascertain whether they hold a copy of the Agreement with my signature on?

[Kraken1]

pre 2007 - the court was not allowed to enforce an agreement, although sometimes they still did.

 

Post 2007 - they are allowed to enforce it, even if it is wrong, if they want to. Alternatively, they might just change it if there had been some mis-selling or something. All depends on whether a) the judge had a decent breakfast, and b) whether he (or she) got laid the night before.

 

they would still need to produce to the Court an Agreement signed by me

 

Or prove that you entered into the agreement some other way, subject to a) and b) above.

[WayneBrannan]

pre 2007 - the court was not allowed to enforce an agreement, although sometimes they still did.

 

Post 2007 - they are allowed to enforce it, even if it is wrong, if they want to. Alternatively, they might just change it if there had been some mis-selling or something. All depends on whether a) the judge had a decent breakfast, and b) whether he (or she) got laid the night before.

 

 

 

Or prove that you entered into the agreement some other way, subject to a) and b) above.

 

 

Haha!! Cheers Kraken!

 

I can't believe that the Agreement can be enforced if it was never signed (mine was not an internet application and there was no e-signature involved)...

 

As I'm not in default and have kept my payments up to date, there really seems little point in pursuing my case for a signed copy then if it's entirely enforcable whether it contains prescribed terms, has a signature or not!!

[Kraken1]

There is quite a gap between what should happen, what could happen and what might happen. You need only remember that there can be no certainty that something will happen.

 

Except death and taxes of course.

[blind-as-a-bat]

There is quite a gap between what should happen, what could happen and what might happen. You need only remember that there can be no certainty that something will happen.

 

Except death and taxes of course.

 

And being shafted by the so called legal system in this country:mad:

 

Most of whom play golf with the directors of the credit industry on a weekend alegadly

[JonCris]

Yes I'm afraid justice for the litigant in person will now be even more of a lottery than it was before

 

We have a labour government (ably assisted by the Tories) to thank for the repeal of sec 127............ all done at the behest of the lenders when they lost in the matter of Wilson v County. They claimed sec127 was an infringment of their human rights to which the court responded by stating, quite correctly, that firms do not have human rights only individuals

 

Make no mistake & despite what they claim the 74 Act has been decimated by this lot

[simon the poet]

Hi

Yes toallthe above

However it is still worth loking at your agreement.

so i would press them for a copy under section 77-78 of the act and the DPA.

 

Are you paying an extortionate amount of interest if so ther are avenues you can go down to get these reduced, if no agreement is forthcoming or is improperly executed, even if the juge agrees to enforce.

Also the unfairness test outlained in the 2006 is still very much in its infancy and really no one totally knows what kind of teeth it has on unscrupulous creditors. I would personally include an action under ther new unfairness legislation on any active account that was in dispute even if signed before 2007.

Simon

 

Simon