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

[luckysandpiper]

...and I'm with all of you too. I have three credit card debts riding on this and so far nether of the companies concerned has come up with goodies - they have both fudged and quoted legal loopholes to justify their responses. So now I sit back and wait for one of them to take me to court and count the extra pounds I have in my pocket in the meanwhile.

 

LSP

[diddydicky]

Thanks DD.

 

I think you are probably right - but would like to know if it has happened then were the wrong decisions reversed on appeal?

 

To me it seems open and shut - no signed agreement = no enforcement - but then I was trained as a scientist where maths and logical deduction based on observed facts or events usually prevail. I have learned enough about the law to know that common sense and the law are not bed fellows.

 

This doesn't sit easy with me - but I guess we'll just need to keep taking the cream!

 

BD

 

the problem is that threads are often vacated after a court defeat so we don't always hear what happened next- and it is true that an appeal is a dauntiing prospect which causes many to throw in the towel and accept the ccj

[Bigdebtor]

LSP

 

I'm in the same position with Egg and Goldfish - which is why I am so focussed on this very point.

 

BD

[trevor33]

Hi all.

This has happened to me.

Went to court and lost due to judge finding that the agreement was enforceable, even though the T&C was obviously not part of the document. I cannot go into details but it took me a long time to come to terms with this.

t33

[pawnbrokers]

t33 - thats bad news, did yu appeal - pb

[trevor33]

t33 - thats bad news, did yu appeal - pb

Hi pb

No. I was in shock for many weeks. In hindsight, I should have had legal advice. I also think that the jp was prejudiced even before I went to court.

[willy2006]

Hi Guys just trying to get a fresh aspect on things.I am similar to Luckysandpiper by the sound of it.I have three cases for my dad(mine were dead easy but these??).We have been going round in circles since last July09.Same fob off letters like everyone else,various debt collectors ringing from 8am to 9pm constantly,i complained to ICO who have done nothing and its now with the ombudsman.I have stated that if anyone produces a document that looks like a CCA we will talk if they dont then we wont be admiting a debt and they must prove we were a customer.They all contradict themselves in their letters and a legal eagle could wipe the floor with them ie a letter going on for three paragraphs about what they actually have to produce after which it then says "in signing the credit card agreement you did give your agreement and consent to the processing of your information":confused: WHAT AGREEMENT ?PROVE IT!!Two now admit they are looking for the agreements,but i think if they had them we would have been in court before now,however a bit worried to hear judges going on the creditors side,even with no agreements:evil:

[luckysandpiper]

It may be of interest to readers of this thread that the OFT has produced a consultation document on the subject of s77/78/79 CCA1974. The document is crown copyright, but may be reproduced (excluding their logo) providing "that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context" The document is available from their website www.oft.gov.uk/publications

 

referring to requests for copy agreements under CCA 1974, section 1.15 states:

 

"At the same time, it is important to remember that the purpose of these sections" (s.77/78/79)" is to provide information to the consumer, not to provide a method for coonsumers to avoid paying their debts. Unenforceability is merely a sanction where there is a failure to provide the information. The OFT takes the view that the sections should be read in a way that allows the consumer to obtain the information he or she needs in order to be properly informed without imposing unnecessary burden on business. The OFT's view is confirmed by the recent decision in Carey v HSBC Bank plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) that the requirement to provide information under section 78 is not to establish whether or not there was a properly executed agreement in the first place and that, given the small fee and short timescale, the copy should be relatively straightforward and cheap to create."

(the portion in black was inserted by me for clarity)

 

It seems to me, that because we consumers have become knowledgeable of the Consumer Law, the financial institutions are once again looking for ways to cover up their shortfalls in the application of Consumer Law in the past.

 

LSP

[pawnbrokers]

your oh so right LSP - they dont like questioning, before they could and have been able to make up whatever they like and tell us all to "lump it".

its evolved now to an art form, im certain they have employed professional ex government spindoctors, because the arguments change so often.

 

whats really bad news is that the establishment is fully behind the banks, CC card operators, so it becomes m,ore and more diffiucult for the guy in the street to get any help whatever.

 

because of the constant barrage and change in terms and whatever can or cannot be given, the poor guy out there without any knowledge and help hasnt got a chance, and all of what we are reading and figting against, is by design, To limit collateral damage -

 

we just got to keep strong and continue to dwemand what is right and rely on the law, not misinterpretation by smaller minds who are fiddling to find ways out- pb

[basa48]

what's really bad news is that the establishment is fully behind the banks, CC card operators, so it becomes more and more difficult for the guy in the street to get any help whatever.

 

we just got to keep strong and continue to demand what is right and rely on the law, not misinterpretation by smaller minds who are fiddling to find ways out- pb

 

The worry is that over the coming months and years the establishment puts more and more pressure on the courts to adjudicate in favour of the banks.

[trevor33]

So what can we do about the banks who ignore our request for a copy of the agreement and still persist in demanding payment.

[diddydicky]

So what can we do about the banks who ignore our request for a copy of the agreement and still persist in demanding payment.

 

nothing i'm afraid- but if you have a truecall then that's 90% of the battle won- it will take them months if not years to realise that your phone is not actually ringing at your end!!

[matsinlondon]

On the same line my advice is simply ignore them.

 

Let's say they send you a series of automated ever so increasingly threatening letters - the result of some analytical research into keyword response and a bit of programming. If they are not playing ball and you do not believe you owe the money then just ignore them. Treat them like an irritating sales call from overseas.

 

What's the difference? None. It's purely your mindset that you think you ought to talk/respond to them. Threatening calls or letters are no more worthy of your time than anybody else unless proven to be so. Wait and see what they do - I'll bet it's just more letters, no more than that.

[trevor33]

Hope so. OH (whos card it is) is getting a bit jittery.

[GirlAloud]

This is tesco's idea of a CCA

 

- 2 sets of Terms and conditions - one allegedly from one I 'signed' for a credit card (in 2000) and their current terms

- a blank piece of paper with my current address on it

- my original application form.

 

We are now 10 months down the road from my original cca request and the insist the account is not in dispute - the account has been through Triton (inhouse), some pretend solicitor (inhouse debt collection) and now the fabulously entitled 'Risk Management Alternatives'. Tesco have repeatedly broken OFT guidelines on debt collection. I am sitting back and waiting.

 

Hillsden Securities (ex Vrigin Money CC) have provided NOTHING in 5 months of asking - hardly bother to open their letters anymore.

[diddydicky]

On the same line my advice is simply ignore them.

 

Let's say they send you a series of automated ever so increasingly threatening letters - the result of some analytical research into keyword response and a bit of programming. If they are not playing ball and you do not believe you owe the money then just ignore them. Treat them like an irritating sales call from overseas.

 

What's the difference? None. It's purely your mindset that you think you ought to talk/respond to them. Threatening calls or letters are no more worthy of your time than anybody else unless proven to be so. Wait and see what they do - I'll bet it's just more letters, no more than that.

 

which is not so easy if you have guests or family and they wonder why you are not answering the phone!!

[AA99]

Have to agree with the Truecall machine! It changed our telephone-harrassed lives:)

 

However, to get back to the title of this thread, the reason for it was to use CPR31.16 and then 31.14 but you had to be on a mission to the courts. What's bothered me is that they have all ignored my CPR threats and get mountains of printed template letters from various dca's and solicitors.... I have been forced to sit back and wait for them to take me to court

[MandM]

Hi DD. Read with interest your post 1865 on somebody coming up with an original agreement that looks nothing like the constructed ones that they are sending people.

 

I am going to my mums tomorrow to go through her boxes of papers that she has kept over the last 6 years and I have a feeling that I may find some of these.

 

She has a habit of just throwing things in boxes and storing them all over the house.

 

Hence why I had to CCA her creditors, but after reading your post I am going to tip all the boxes out and find something.

 

Will let you know if I find anything relevant to any of the agreements I have asked for and received from the companies that she owes money to.

 

Mrs M

[pt2537]

Have to agree with the Truecall machine! It changed our telephone-harrassed lives:)

 

However, to get back to the title of this thread, the reason for it was to use CPR31.16 and then 31.14 but you had to be on a mission to the courts. What's bothered me is that they have all ignored my CPR threats and get mountains of printed template letters from various dca's and solicitors.... I have been forced to sit back and wait for them to take me to court

have any of them taken you to court?

 

If they have then let me know

[foolishgirl]

If you do find them M&M, keep them very safe - particularly the reverse with the T&Cs so that you can compare them to anything they provide under disclosure as being a true copy of 'what would have been on the back'

[AA99]

have any of them taken you to court?

 

If they have then let me know

 

Nope, 18 months of threats so far:rolleyes: Thank you so much, you'll be the first to know:lol:

[MandM]

Will do foolishgirl.

 

I hope I find the MBNA one would love to get them after seeing what they sent back as an agreement with the CCA.

 

Mrs M

[AA99]

Will do foolishgirl.

 

I hope I find the MBNA one would love to get them after seeing what they sent back as an agreement with the CCA.

 

Mrs M

 

Don't forget to consult with that thread that CitB (?) put together with examples of all the MBNA "Contracts" and "Card Carriers".

[MandM]

Will do AA.

Mrs M

[diddydicky]

Hi DD. Read with interest your post 1865 on somebody coming up with an original agreement that looks nothing like the constructed ones that they are sending people.

 

I am going to my mums tomorrow to go through her boxes of papers that she has kept over the last 6 years and I have a feeling that I may find some of these.

 

She has a habit of just throwing things in boxes and storing them all over the house.

 

Hence why I had to CCA her creditors, but after reading your post I am going to tip all the boxes out and find something.

 

Will let you know if I find anything relevant to any of the agreements I have asked for and received from the companies that she owes money to.

 

Mrs M

 

i look forward to that!!