CCA Response from Mint - doesnt look enforceable - yey!

[TheScaryOne]

Wow – I’ve received a reply from Mint regarding a CCA request I sent at the end of December and from my initial inspection I’d say it’s unenforceable. I’d like to outline my views regarding this correspondence to make sure I’m understanding what’s going on, I’d be very grateful if I’ve not grasped the concept for someone to put me right (I’m still waiting for replies from Barclaycard for 3 CC’s and a loan).

I sent off a CCA request on 30/12/08 and it was signed for on 31/12/08. The 12+2 days was 22/01/09 and I sent off a CCA default letter on 23/01/09 which was signed for on 27/01/09. I received the attached document today 30/01/08.

1 – It’s late.

2 – They’ve said that the £1 postal order has been applied to my account accordingly. I asked for it not to be used for any other purpose than to pay for the statutory fee.

3 – They’ve sent;

* A copy of the application form – this looks legit, complete with a signature.

* A copy of a credit agreement, there is no indication that this agreement relates to the application form, it’s not dated, the pages aren’t numbered and it seems to be detailing a Bank of Scotland Airmiles Scheme – it’s a Mint card, there’s never been any Airmiles linked to this card.

* A copy of a letter (not dated) which looks like it came with a new card for this account. It does have the most recent card number on it. Attached to this letter is a credit card agreement, which says it’s correct as at the last statement date.

* A copy of the latest statement which’s looks legit.

* A Mint general conditions leaflet

So the reasons I believe this documentation does not fulfil my CCA request and does not fulfil s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are;

* They haven’t supplied a signed credit agreement – just a signed application form, there is also no signature from Mint and of the two credit agreements they have provided neither are signed by anyone and neither are dated.

* I’d be very grateful if someone could take a look at the attached documentation and my notes above and let me know your thoughts. If I’m correct I think I’ll need help with a go forth and multiply letter back to Mint.

Many thanks,

[TheScaryOne]

Bump - maybe i've posted this in the wrong place?

[cerberusalert]

They have sent you an application form which does not contain the 'prescribed terms' thus rendering it unenforcable. The rest is pure Izal too!

[dpick]

Totally agree unenforceable application (no prescribed terms) though they will never admit it is unenforceable.

 

dpick

[barns66]

Scary,you have left the balance amounts in the summary of balances,on the last page.

 

barns66

[supasnooper]

Hi there,

 

I haven't seen the CCA you posted up as you've removed it.

 

One thing to bear in mind that if this does go the distance with Mint and go to court, you must be sure that MINT will not turn up with the original agreement for production to the judge.

 

In the true CAG tradition of the belt and braces approach; get a Subject Access Request off as soon as possible to try to flush out if they do have the original document.

[TheScaryOne]

Hi Supasnooper,

 

Here is the attachment back again, just had a bit of personal data i needed to blank out.

 

An SAR sounds like a good belt and braces way to go, at least i'll know for sure what information/data they hold and they obviously must disclose everything they have, so i suppose one of two things will happen;

 

1) They supply a true copy of an enforceable CCA or

2) They supply exactly what they're already supplied regarding a CCA

 

Either way i'll know where i stand and they wont be able to keep back an enforceable CCA, to produce in court as they should have already disclosed to me via the CCA request and the the SAR.

[TheScaryOne]

Forgot to do the attachment - doh!

[underdog13]

I would definately send a Subject Access Request, Scaryone; there is a piece in the small print that mentions 'details of the card as set out overleaf' - hope for your sake they don't have the original. I would have thought that if they had a scan of the back of the application form or the original they would have sent it, rather than the typed up reconstituted second page that they did send. Best of luck.

[supasnooper]

Hi TSO,

 

Firstly, please delete the scans immediately. Read my PM as to why.

 

Having looked at the CCA, the validity rests on the ability of MINT to connect the scanned page no.2 with scanned page no.4 (I think they would be very unwise to use page 10).

 

Page no.4 appears to be a reconstruction of the T&C's in force at the time of your application.

 

However, a judge may decide it's enforceable and that's why I would advise an SAR to flush out exactly what they have.

[barns66]

Hi Scary

I do know that before Mint took over the RBS Advanta card,that card did run a airmiles scheme.

 

barns66

Edited February 1, 2009 by barns66
add text

[freakyleaky]

I have unapproved the attachment until personal details are removed.

[TheScaryOne]

Many thanks for spotting the personal details showing in the attachment, i've also deleted my other attachments from other threads as i created these in the same way - very odd.

 

Further to barns66 suggestion, it has always been a Mint card and by the looks of older statements it started as a cashback card. In fact it does say it's an application for a Mint gold card.

 

I was of the impression that the prescribed terms (including a signature of behalf of the bank) had to be on one page or that the pages had to show they were linked.

 

Bingo - i've just found the letter you get with a new card attached and the credit limits dont match whats on page 4. I'm more than certain that it's the first card received as the card numbers seem to have changed 3 times since the account was opened and this is for the very first card. So theoretically i could cast doubt on the validity of the terms supplied because of a) it mentions an airmiles scheme which the card wasnt part of and b) the credit limits are different (they're dated).

[TheScaryOne]

A bump, with the original scanned document back again.

MINT CCA Reply 300109.pdf

[cerberusalert]

The terms and conditions they have sent have no bearing on your CCA which is in fact an application.

 

The application does not have the prescibed terms within it's four corners, there is no reference to them being on seperate sheets & what they have sent wouldn't fit on it anyway:rolleyes:

 

Send them this;

 

Thank you for your response to my letter dated xxxxxx 2008, making a formal request for a true copy of the original credit agreement for the above account under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Sections 77-79).

 

The documents you supplied me appear to be no more than an application form, and as such are not a satisfactory response to my request. Nowhere on the front of the document is there any reference to the prescribed terms and conditions that such an agreement must contain. I must assume that these are unconnected documents and once again inadequate to satisfy your obligations.

 

As you are aware you are obliged to provide me with a true copy of my agreement as defined under Section 189 of the CCA 1974. and I consider that you have failed to comply with my request for these documents

 

 

Under the terms of the above Act, a creditor has 12 working days to provide the requested documents. This deadline has now passed and I have not received the requested documents from you.

 

As I am sure you are aware, an agreement that does not contain all of the prescribed terms, and/or is not signed by the debtor, is completely unenforceable & I therefore consider that this account is in dispute with immediate effect & it follows that all payments to this account are suspended forthwith.

 

I draw your attention to the legal requirement that a creditor is not permitted to take any action against an account whilst it remains in dispute. The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and therefore the following applies:

You must not demand any payment on this account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

You must not add any further interest or charges to this account.

You must not pass this account to any third party.

You must not register any information in respect of this account with any of the credit reference agencies.

You must not issue a default notice on this account

I hereby give you notice that if you proceed with any of the above actions, I will file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

Yours faithfully

[millymollymoo]

Hi, It mentions 'I accept and agree to be bound by the general conditions to the card as set out seperately....'

 

That would NOT be EMBODIED within the four corners of the agreement [which can run to many pages, but must be linked in some way]and this bit is against what is acceptable as a fully executed enforceable agreement as they could send anything {as it seems they have!!] and say that these were what was sent with your credit agreement for signing.

 

However this i note comes after on the cca: '...and the details of the card as set out overleaf.'

 

Now its this bit that is the important it as there is NO WAY all them pages you have would fit on one page as the way I see it 'overleaf' means exactly that over the one page.

 

 

You need to get them to confirm what is printed overleaf as they cannot lie as it would be fraud and you need this in writing.

 

Milly X

[wilko999]

subbing as I have received the exact identical set of documents as yourself today from Mint.

 

Mine is in the hands of a nice threatening DCA so time ot have some fun with them.

[underdog13]

Congratulations on managing to get anything other than T&Cs from them - it's more than I achieved!

[langtonhighway]

This is very interesting - I have just sent off my CCA letter to mint, so I'll see what they send. What I can't understand is why all the agreements aren't exactly the same (with different personal details of course) - why would some people get a different agreement for the same credit card? Also, if you've been paying the card for years, how can you dispute it now and say it isn't yours??

 

If you've entered into negotiations with them to try to reduce payments, ask for extra time etc, does that not constitute an admission of the debt, which they could point to in Court?

 

Thanks

[TheScaryOne]

Just thought i'd give you a laugh - well it made my chuckle!

 

In the last week i've received a DN from Mint (dated 09/04/09) and they've also kindly sent me a new card (valid from 03/09)!

 

Looks like left hand and right hand are playing silly beggers!

[peter1234]

did you send a sar if so when are the 40 days up