Is this Mint/RBS Advanta CCA enforceable?

[citizenB]

Hi Guys,

This is my first attempt at joining the forums. I hope I'm not intruding on this thread, but can anyone tell me if my CCA with Mint/RBS Avanta is enforceable please? Mine is from 1997 and they have sent me a copy of the application form, which was to RBS Avanta at the time. Is there any mileage in the fact that they haven't sent the reverse page which is where they are referring to various terms & conditions? I need to go home & check out if it's a cut and paste job, cos they only just made it within the time limit! Thanks so far...

 

If you can put a copy on the forum so we can see it saracens, we might be able to :D If they are referring to other documents / overleaf on application they have sent you.. then they should provide that information to you now.

[Series3]

Hello Milly

 

I have just received a CCA from Mint relating to a card that my wife took out in 2004 that is similar to yours in that the image is also miniscule. I have managed to blow it up and the agreement looks fine but what strikes me as odd is that enclosed with this agreement was an up-to-date copy of the cards T&Cs as opposed to those that existed at the time that the agreement was signed...this got me thinking. It seems to me that maybe Mint do not have the actual original copies of the signed agreements anymore and are having to rely solely on microfiche images to fulfill their CCA request obligations. Surely if they had the originals RBS/Mint would be supplying full sized copies of that original rather than the postage stamp versions taken from microfiche. If this is the case how do they stand legally? If they are not able to produce the original agreement in court is that agreement unenforceable?

 

Could someone clear this question up for me?

If they didn't have the original agreement and were relying on the microfish copy. Would it be enforceble or not?

[danson79]

If they swear in court that it is an exact copy of the original, they can get away with it.

 

Any chance of a scan of your 'agreement' being posted up here? RBS are very good at what they call 'thinking under pressure' and getting creative, so to speak.

[Series3]

sure, it looks like my sig, more or less the same as Molies.

they sent current terms and conditions

sorry if the pics are not up to much, no scanner.

I think it was an internet application.

date of experin search and sig on cca same date?

(not sure how that works)

they stamped it 4 days later.

Now my question is, how, when things can be digitally edited can they say it is the true agreement.

Another thing I find confusing is about the terms and conditions.

The agreement states they are "accompanying" terms and conditions."

Would they not have to be part of the agreement?

One last thing, On the agreement under Declaration and Autherisation

it is " I Apply for an RBS Advanta Card"

If this was an agreement why apply?

 

Pictures by series110 - Photobucket

 

 

 

Oh, I also got the "replacement card" letter. in the pack.

 

They sent them late and I had already sent an account in dispute letter.

They just started calling (4 times yesterday) and I would like to know what to do next?

Should I ask for T&C from date of alleged agreement i.e. none complience or SAR .

I can't understand how RBS have so many different looking documents.

Makes me feel a bit suspect....

Edited March 27, 2009 by Series3

[millymollymoo]

Hi all:)

 

I really am more and more suspicious of mine as I said I have seen not one agreement on here that has no rbs advanta logo at the top and is instead just a typed name and address for them and me, no credit limit anount and the words CAN instaed of CANNOT under the IMPORTANT-RIGHTS section.

 

There is me and o/h's sigs on there though............however I DO NOT believe that this is the ORIGINAL agreement allegedly signed and its because of a few errors I have seen when comparing some others I have seen at more or less similar time of issue/application on internet. There is certain bits of text omitted and this definitley leads me to believe some cutting and pasting of 'prescribed terms' have been going on here to try and make it compliant;)

 

I DO NOT believe that my agreement had the word CAN on it, I think it originally did have CANNOT but the recreator of mine got too carried away with the cutting and pasting and that is why they have TOTALLY ignored my request or a more legible A4 copy or a viewing at a branch near to my home.

 

I have a question as the agreement is the size of a CREDIT CARD would the judge find this acceptable?? He would still have to rule on the improperly executed bit in the RIGHTS section and this CLEARLY is a predudice against me as I HAVE NO RIGHTS according to the alleged agreement so unilaterally one sided.

 

 

Milly XX

[car2403]

The Judge probably would accept the copy if they are prepared to swear on oath that it is a true copy of the original.

 

If it has the prescribed terms, you'd find it very difficult to convince the Court that they shouldn't enforce due to improper execution, as you would "appear" to be trying to avoid the debt. That's not my view, it's just what I'd expect would happen.

 

Finally, the Court would probably see the "errors" in formatting, (the word CAN instead of CANNOT) as minor, IMHO - yes it makes it improperly executed, but the above still applies.

[millymollymoo]

The Judge probably would accept the copy if they are prepared to swear on oath that it is a true copy of the original.

 

If it has the prescribed terms, you'd find it very difficult to convince the Court that they shouldn't enforce due to improper execution, as you would "appear" to be trying to avoid the debt. That's not my view, it's just what I'd expect would happen.

 

Finally, the Court would probably see the "errors" in formatting, (the word CAN instead of CANNOT) as minor, IMHO - yes it makes it improperly executed, but the above still applies.

 

 

 

Hi there Car!

 

 

whilst I agree with what you are saying . I cannot understand how this could be confirmed as the original agreement just because RBS swear it is to a judge.

 

what happened to innocent until proven guilty and in this instance ONLY the original could prove that. I have read so much conflicting advised I am totally confused now:confused:

 

If this was okay then surely I could produce any old compliant agreement if I was after enforcement just by cutting and pasting the signatures onto a sudden compliant one.

 

funny why they have ignored ALL my reasonable requests and what happened to the Copy Document regulations here then as regard to font size of copy produced.:confused:

 

Well time to do the S.A.R then as I want to see the FULL SIZED signed copy.

 

milly XX

[car2403]

Hi there Car!

 

 

whilst I agree with what you are saying . I cannot understand how this could be confirmed as the original agreement just because RBS swear it is to a judge.

 

what happened to innocent until proven guilty and in this instance ONLY the original could prove that. I have read so much conflicting advised I am totally confused now:confused:

 

If this was okay then surely I could produce any old compliant agreement if I was after enforcement just by cutting and pasting the signatures onto a sudden compliant one.

 

funny why they have ignored ALL my reasonable requests and what happened to the Copy Document regulations here then as regard to font size of copy produced.:confused:

 

Well time to do the S.A.R then as I want to see the FULL SIZED signed copy.

 

milly XX

 

Oh no, there are definately issues with them using this to enforce, as you've mentioned - what I said was that, IMHO, a Judge would enforce it anyway. I didn't say that it was my opinion it should be enforced, nor did I say that was right - I just think that is what will happen.

 

Of course you'll have to defend to the highest standards, putting all these issues in question and giving the Judge room to move on the issues you've highlighted, but doing that without appearing to be trying to "avoid" the debt would be difficult to even the most experienced.

 

This is, also, good grounds for appeal, should enforcement take place on this basis, but then that become very expensive. If you need any evidence of that happening - numpty Judges enforcing debts and asking CAG members to risk bankruptcy to appeal their decision, with no guarantee on the outcome - just check this thread out;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hfc-household/130898-hfc-agreement-turned-up.html

[millymollymoo]

Hiya car:)

 

Thanks for that.

 

I am not trying to avoid paying the debt and mint are aware of that.

 

I had another thread that I will add a link maybe you could merge it please as I was happily paying them the FULL minimum payment when they defaulted me and terminated my account. I will post up all the letters I sent and you will see.

 

 

I then asked for my CCA via section 78 request and I received the tiny agreement, I asked for a more legible copy so that I could check what my liabilities would be, they did NOT sent any historic t&c's, just the tiny agreement and cureent t&c's. what has happened since is they have IGNORED me completely and refused to acknowledge any letters which when I post up you will see I was being reasonable.

 

They have just sent template letters say waht they MAY do.

 

I think that if they take me to court, how they are going to show that they complied with pre action protocols . I have shown quite clearly that I have been trying to act responsible.

 

It is farcical if a judge agrees with their behaviour, when all I want is a legible copy of the alleged agreement and answers to why my account was terminated whilst in arepayment plan with them and not for less than the MONTHLY minimum payment.

 

 

here is the other thread could you merge for me??

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/172137-mint-terminated-my-agreement.html

 

 

 

milly XX

Edited March 28, 2009 by millymollymoo
added aother thread

[Abby25]

Hi there ... had a quick read and wanted to add the following ..

 

If Creditor produce only copies in court, and the Judge asks them to swear on oath regarding the authenticity of the copies, it could be contested that for the individual to state on oath that the copy provided, is an exact replica of the original, that unless THEY were the individual to scan, or had examined and were in the presence of the original whilst it was scanned, that they couldn't possibly state on oath and beyond doubt, that what you are looking at is an EXACT AND TRUE copy of the original document. Its simly impossible .... and could be argued as simply hearsay.

 

A Judge however, may argue that its reasonable to assume that there would be no reason for the company to have scanned anything other than original unadulterated copies of docs - and therefore what's been presented, is more than likely as per the original at the time ...

 

BUT in the absence of the original doc, how can that be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, again it could be argued that this is pure conjecture and hearsay, as without the original there is simply no evidence to support and prove this.

 

Legal principal of law "he who asserts must prove" - if the creditor is asserting that they've presented a true copy of the original - simple .. prove it - provide the original so this can be justified.

 

Also, as another possible point to argue, under the Data Protection Act, don't they legally have to keep a copy of any paper docs for 6 yrs post completion of the arrangement (i.e after last payment made, account closed ). With the hard copy of the file retained until post completion destruction could legally be performed .

 

In my opinion, the retention of paper docs is not counteracted by them having been scanned, meaning once scanned they could be destroyed.

 

Scanning procedures are officially for ease of storage and accessibility of documents, without (when needed for reference) having to order and wait for them to come back from document storage, which due to the sheer volume of documentation held, is often off site.

 

So another point is, are they in breach of that act too, if they admit to no original being held - as they are admiting that they have also disregarded the terms of the DPA, in destroying your docs pre completion & 6 yr cut off.

 

I have to agree with you, I did think, and having read from other threads, that when dealing with credit/loan agreements, only the original of any agreement could be produced to a Judge/in court for their consideration - but happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood this.

 

Don't know if my ramblings are of any help, but thought I'd just add a different view to the mix, and maybe a little more ammunition to your arguements ....

[car2403]

BUT in the absence of the original doc, how can that be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, again it could be argued that this is pure conjecture and hearsay, as without the original there is simply no evidence to support and prove this.

 

This isn't a criminal case, so the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

 

Legal principal of law "he who asserts must prove" - if the creditor is asserting that they've presented a true copy of the original - simple .. prove it - provide the original so this can be justified.

 

Correct, which is why you have to be clever in your defence and put them to proof of enforceability.

 

It's worth noting a true certified copy of the original would be enforceable, though.

 

Also, as another possible point to argue, under the Data Protection Act, don't they legally have to keep a copy of any paper docs for 6 yrs post completion of the arrangement (i.e after last payment made, account closed ). With the hard copy of the file retained until post completion destruction could legally be performed .

 

Not really. There's an underlying current in the DPA suggesting that as a good practice for Data Controllers, however it isn't stated categorically.

 

There is Company legislation that requires them to store documentary evidence for 6 years after the account is closed, however.

 

In my opinion, the retention of paper docs is not counteracted by them having been scanned, meaning once scanned they could be destroyed.

 

It would be enforceable if the Court allows it to be enforced - whether that is right or not is irrelevant to the fact they may enforce it either way, which is why I've mentioned routes of appeal, etc, etc.

 

So another point is, are they in breach of that act too, if they admit to no original being held - as they are admiting that they have also disregarded the terms of the DPA, in destroying your docs pre completion & 6 yr cut off.

 

Not when they only need a true certified copy, no.

 

I have to agree with you, I did think, and having read from other threads, that when dealing with credit/loan agreements, only the original of any agreement could be produced to a Judge/in court for their consideration - but happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood this.

 

See above. The Court may require the original, under CPR they can ask for it, but the numpty Judge situation crops it's head again.

[questioning]

Hi Milly,

I see you have received lots of help here.

I think Joan's thread linked below, and in particular POST 242 would be of assistance to you,it sums up Joans first day in an open court dealing with issues that you are discussing here. It is well worth a read. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/157069-court-claim-lloyds-tsb-13.html

Kind regards Q. x.

[pussycatdoll]

[Also it is worth noting that, Paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations requires that the agreement details the default charges payable and Egg Agreements DO NOT

/QUOTE]

 

The above may be of interest to you as I notice from my own Mint CCA that there are NO DEFAULT CHARGES listed in the agreement.

 

The quote was taken from PT2537's thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/64936-pt2537-egg.html

 

Just adds ammunition I think

 

PCD

[millymollymoo]

Well thankyou all:) I am all with numpty judges:rolleyes: I do not however believe that they can agree that not complying with pre action protocols in regard to all the letters I have sent {with proof] of delivery is acceptable. I only asked for a blerdy legible copy of the agreement and if THEY are demanding money which i might add I am TOTALLY willing to pay if the agreement is in order { i only stopped because they have IGNORED me!!] then Quite happily I will pay. No doubt about that.

 

 

I am atonished at their complete LACK of fairness in dealing with my reasonable dispute, all I want is the blerdy agreement anmd T&C's.

 

 

Why are they ignoring me????

 

 

 

milly XXX

[millymollymoo]

Are from the thread ' questioning referred me to..many thanks. It said this

We referred to CPR PD 16 part 7.3 and said they should produce the original in court

 

 

so the bit about swearing on oath could be challenged if there was no audited trail.

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_part16.htm

 

There is also something I am looking into as I have been advised by a n extremely helpful lady that RBS probably do not own this credit card account to do with securitisation way back which was started in 2000 and is held by Arran Funding Limitid and therefore excludes them from taking me or others to court as they do not own the debt.

Edited March 30, 2009 by millymollymoo

[steven4064]

This is a quote from pt2537

...the major lenders are securitising cards through SPVs

 

if a card is securitised then the lender doesnt own it anymore, the SPV does, therefore the lender can't sue you, but they have to as they dont tell you that they have securitised it, so this gives them a ... huge problem

 

asking for the agreement will give you all the terms of agreement thus confirming if the agreement states that your account can be sold without your knowledge, notwithstanding the LOPA 1925 re assignments,

 

so the Banks are in a wee bit of trouble:

 

Barclays.com - Gracechurch Card Funding

 

Bank of America | Investor Relations | Securitization

 

Things are really going to hit the fan in the short term and this is why many lenders drop the cases before trial as they would not be able to show that they have Locus Standi in the case

[millymollymoo]

This is a quote from pt2537

 

 

Wow thanks steven:) PT is excellent isnt he.

 

Milly XX

[millymollymoo]

This is what I was after:

 

http://www.investors.rbs.com/investor_relations/securitisation/creditcards/Creditcardsbaseprospectus.pdf

 

and

 

http://www.investors.rbs.com/investor_relations/securitisation/creditcard.cfm

 

http://www.investors.rbs.com/investor_relations/securitisation/creditcards/MonthlyInvestorReport-Mar09.pdf

 

 

and when you look here:

 

CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details

 

 

Application / Licence Details

 

 

 

 

Licence Number:0484154

Licence Status:Current

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

 

Business NameCompany Registration NumberRBS Cards Securitisation Funding Limited76199

 

Categories:

 

Consumer credit Consumer hire Credit brokerage Credit reference agency Debt adjusting/counselling Debt collecting

 

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:Yes

 

 

Issued Date: 23-Mar-2000

Expiry Date: 23-Apr-2010

 

 

Legal Formation:

 

Body Corporate (incorporated outside UK)

 

Authorised To Receive Documents:

 

NameMr Hew Campbell

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

 

NamePositionHelen Grant Mark HansfordOFFICERRichard Lyndon Le Breton

 

Historic Individuals that run the organisation:

 

NamePositionJulian Anne Jennifer ChapmanOFFICERKathryn Anne WinupOFFICERLynn Anne Cleary Michael Alan GardnerOFFICERPaul Nayar Robert Niall DouglasOFFICER

 

Current Organisations that run the organisation:

 

NameCompany Registration NumberPositionThe Royal Bank of Scotland International Limited OFFICER

 

Historic Organisations that run the organisation:

 

NameCompany Registration NumberPositionThe Royal Bank of Scotland International Plc OFFICER

 

Nature of Business:

 

Investment/Financial Advisers

 

Current Address(es):

 

Address TypeAddressAccept Notices/Documents42, St Andrew Square, RBS Group Secretariat, Edinburgh, EH2 2YEPrincipal Place Of BusinessRoyal Bank House, 71, Bath Street, St. Helier, Jersey, JE4 8PJRegistered OfficeRoyal Bank House, 71, Bath Street, St. Helier, Jersey, JE4 8PJ

 

Historic Address(es):

 

Address TypeAddressPrincipal Place Of BusinessRoyal Bank House, 71, Bath Street, St. Helier, Jersey, JE4 8PD

 

 

and looking here:

 

SOUTH GYLE RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LTD - Securities Registration Statement (simplified form) (S-3/A) USE OF PROCEEDS

 

and all mentioned here,

 

SEC Info - South Gyle Receivables Trustee Ltd, et al. - 8-K - For 12/15/05 - EX-4

 

will have to do a bit more digging.

 

Milly X

Edited March 29, 2009 by millymollymoo

[underdog13]

Excellent news, MMM - why do I just feel as if a huge weight has been lifted from my shoulders?

 

What's the best way to use this? Do we confront them with it before it gets to court or wait untli they begin legal proceedings?

[Series3]

I will read through that lot....might take a while, can anyont give a brief outline of what this/that means..?

[millymollymoo]

Excellent news, MMM - why do I just feel as if a huge weight has been lifted from my shoulders?

 

What's the best way to use this? Do we confront them with it before it gets to court or wait untli they begin legal proceedings?

 

 

Hi I found out about securitisation from a lady who was suggesting what i should do in regards to Green & co.

 

The purposes are really to help me in proving that if they are capable of confirming a notarised certificate saying that my credit card is non-securitised countersigned by their company secretary, then if they are prepared to swear on OATH that the CCA [tiny] is the copy of the original to a numpty judge and a judge accepts this[which has been known and extremely unfair!], then I would be able to show that they are very capable of telling untruths.

 

I was told to do a 4.6© request now as I have already done a 4.6(b) concerning the original CCA and they have until 1st april to send it.

 

Apparently as steven has said PT has been raising the issue of securitisation.

 

I am just digging at the moment as it seems that all credit card debts since 2000 have been securitised.

 

I am just learning myself about this myseldf, like you and PT is the expert!

 

See the thread that Steven has posted a few posts up.

 

I hope this helps:)

 

milly XXX

[saracens]

Sorry for the delay in replying - it's taking me a while to work out the technology!! Hopefully the mint agreement will be attached and I've also blown up the small print re: the stuff 'overleaf'. Any opinions would be welcome.

[millymollymoo]

Sorry for the delay in replying - it's taking me a while to work out the technology!! Hopefully the mint agreement will be attached and I've also blown up the small print re: the stuff 'overleaf'. Any opinions would be welcome.

 

 

Hi saracen:)

 

 

I can see this is an application form. It has only 1 prescribed term that I can see and thas the 9.9% APR.

 

 

Did they not send you the conditions overleaf as these are what you need to ask for as they have not fully complied with your request, therefore the debt would be unenforceable until they complied.

 

milly X

[millymollymoo]

This isn't a criminal case, so the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

 

 

 

Correct, which is why you have to be clever in your defence and put them to proof of enforceability.

 

It's worth noting a true certified copy of the original would be enforceable, though.

 

 

 

Not really. There's an underlying current in the DPA suggesting that as a good practice for Data Controllers, however it isn't stated categorically.

 

There is Company legislation that requires them to store documentary evidence for 6 years after the account is closed, however.

 

 

 

It would be enforceable if the Court allows it to be enforced - whether that is right or not is irrelevant to the fact they may enforce it either way, which is why I've mentioned routes of appeal, etc, etc.

 

 

 

Not when they only need a true certified copy, no.

 

 

 

See above. The Court may require the original, under CPR they can ask for it, but the numpty Judge situation crops it's head again.

 

 

Hi Car:)

 

 

Concerning numpty judges accepting their sworn oath. that is why I am following the notarised non-securitisation certificate signed by the Company secretary route:cool:

 

 

Would disprove that they are trustworthy.

 

 

milly XX

[underdog13]

Hi I found out about securitisation from a lady who was suggesting what i should do in regards to Green & co.

 

The purposes are really to help me in proving that if they are capable of confirming a notarised certificate saying that my credit card is non-securitised countersigned by their company secretary, then if they are prepared to swear on OATH that the CCA [tiny] is the copy of the original to a numpty judge and a judge accepts this[which has been known and extremely unfair!], then I would be able to show that they are very capable of telling untruths.

 

I was told to do a 4.6© request now as I have already done a 4.6(b) concerning the original CCA and they have until 1st april to send it.

 

Apparently as steven has said PT has been raising the issue of securitisation.

 

I am just digging at the moment as it seems that all credit card debts since 2000 have been securitised.

 

I am just learning myself about this myseldf, like you and PT is the expert!

 

See the thread that Steven has posted a few posts up.

 

I hope this helps:)

 

milly XXX

 

Thanks, MMM:)