Nasty West cca response - not good enough?

[Nomore Baloney]

Hi folks, after a cca request to Nat West I recieved the following documents.

 

A letter telling me thatthey had complied with the cca request, page 3 of 12 of the terms and conditions of a credit agreement which as far as I can tell doesn't have the prescribed info on it, and an un numbered sheet (clearly therefore not part of the 12 sheets as above) with some more terms and conditions on.

 

I think therefore that tis agreement is not valid.

 

Any expert opinions please and what do I do next.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS I have just had a letter back from Fentons/TSB ( not the nat west which is this thread) telling me that as they were unable to locate the required info, they have closed their files!

 

Thanks CAG and everyone for all your help. I think thats whats known as a RESULT.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Nomore Baloney

[lickthewallfatboy]

result is the word!!

 

yee haaa

 

another one!

[Nomore Baloney]

Any help on this nat west issue though?

[lickthewallfatboy]

result means.....it is not a viable CCA

 

no prescribed terms within the 4 corners of the "agreement"

[rory32]

What they have supplied is unenforceable as the prescribed terms are not within the four corners of the agreement. They must be contained in the agreement - they can not just be stated in another document.

[Nomore Baloney]

Is there a letter I can send back ro them then? My wife has a similair agreement with them, so I could kill 2 birds with one stone. Which would be nice.

[Nomore Baloney]

Not a bump, more of a slight nudge actually...

[Nomore Baloney]

Help! I've got Moorcroft back on my case now as they think the Nastywest have complied.

 

Want to put my payments up from £3 per month to £50. Bit of a jump that.

[fuzzybobble]

What I usually is send them a letter pointing out that the agreement that was sent is unenforceable, point out why, enclosing a photocopy of it and hilight the parts that make it unenforceable. Just so there's no doubt as to why, then tell them no payments will be made until you're sent an enforceable CCA for the account.

 

Once Moorcroft know you've rumbled them and you can point out why the CCA is unenforceable, Mrs K Dyde will send you the "Closing your file" template. (of which I have a nice collection of 4 so far.)

[Nomore Baloney]

Sorry to be thick here, but I can't find the bit that says the prescribed terms have to be within '...the four corners of the agreement'.

 

Also, in the letter I recieved from the Nastywest, last sentence of paragraph one, it says that:

'... the true copy requirement can be satisfied by providing a copy agreement at the date the card agreement was made and providing that plus a copy of the current terms of the card agreement.'

 

How have they arrived at that conclusion.

 

Its quite important I can get this right folks as I my wife and I have 4 cards, (Mint, RBS, Nat wets x2) all coming back with the same argument.

[fuzzybobble]

They can supply a blank copy of an agreement to satify your CCA request. But in court they would have to supply one that had all the pescribed terms in the signature document that was actually signed by you.

 

As they have sent a blank copy, it means they don't have an agreement for your account, so they're stuffed to win any court action.

 

If they had a signed agreement they would have sent a copy of it.

 

It's more bluff and hot air, hoping you think what they sent is enforceable and then send them some money.

 

These companies love to prey on the fact that most people aren't aware of their legal rights.

[rory32]

Sorry to be thick here, but I can't find the bit that says the prescribed terms have to be within '...the four corners of the agreement'.

 

A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor.

 

Further, s.127(3) CCA 1974 makes the account unenforceable if it is not in the proper form and content or improperly executed.

 

In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement”.

 

Also, in the letter I recieved from the Nastywest, last sentence of paragraph one, it says that:

'... the true copy requirement can be satisfied by providing a copy agreement at the date the card agreement was made and providing that plus a copy of the current terms of the card agreement.'

They are correct, however they can not enforce the agreement without an executed copy. It is also worth noting that without an executed copy of the agreement it would be difficult to show with any certainty what a 'true' copy of the agreement would be.

[volvo]

Well said Rory

 

VOLVO

[Nomore Baloney]

On the third paragraph from the bottom in the signed credit agreement sheet, (MY POST #1, 3RD PAGE DOWN - or link below)

 

http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo4/NomoreBaloney/natwestsignedcreditagreement-1.jpg

 

it states 'I confirm that i have read and understood the conditions of use.(Including the abridged conditions set out on the previous page).

 

Am I correct in thinking that any terms etc. on the 'previous page' would need to be signed as well?

Edited February 25, 2009 by Nomore Baloney
spelin

[fuzzybobble]

nother thing I noticed about your agreement.

In the unsigned page that has the interest rates etc. (basically the bits that should be within the signature document.)

It says, "Balance Transfrers from 1st April 2004"

But the signed page with a few T&C's on is dated October 2003

They are both different documents not connected in any way.

The page with the pescribed terms on it doesn't contain your name or anything that could connect that document as yours.

 

I read somewhere on here that an agreement made before May 2005 has to have the pescribed term on the page that is signed and cannot be reffered to in another document.

 

The signature document says page 3 of 12. If that is the case, where are the other 11 pages? They should have them. But somehow I doubt it.

 

Looks like they're well and truely stuffed anyway.

 

Time to send the DCA a letter with photocopies of the agreement, and an explaination as to why it's unenforceable.

[Nomore Baloney]

Thats what I thought. Sent them such a letter earlier today.

 

See what happens and will keep everyone posted.

 

Thanks for the 2nd opinion.

 

Nomore.

[cadencealex]

Subscribing

[Nomore Baloney]

Hi,

 

Just got this letter back from the NastWest in response to an 'account in dispute' letter I sent them telling that the info they sent me was not compliant with the cca request.

 

 

 

 

Help!

 

What should I do now folks?

[fuzzybobble]

If you don't mind messing up your credit file, you could wait for them to issue the Default Notice.

 

Chances are they'll mess that one up too, and the DN will be improperly served.

 

So as well as an unenforceable CCA, you may have the DN to also stuff them with.

[Nomore Baloney]

Well I don't particularly want to mess my file up even more than it is at present, but would like to generate a response demonstrating that clearly the info they have sent doesn't comply, despite what they say.

 

I would think the third paragraph is the one I need to argue about.

 

Any ideas?

[fuzzybobble]

Well they have complied with your request for a copy of the CCA.

 

Just a shame the CCA isn't enforceable. So, I would write to them and explain why it's unenforceable. And if they think it is, then invite them to let a judge decide, once and for all.

[abbacus]

They won't go anywhere near a Court with this.

[Abby25]

Hi there,

 

I have the same problem with Mint, and posted on this yesterday .. they have sent a generic agreement from 2002, when I presume RBS Advanta changed to Mint - but this doesn't relate to me because my agreement predated this .....

 

Anyhoo .... a kind Cagger posted this letter to get them to produce a signed agreement .... check my thread if you want ... but I have posted the copy letter below ......

 

Not sure if this will help you, but I'm going to have a tinker with it and send it off .... alternate action could be a SAR request ... not sure which is best though ...

 

Good luck, will be subbing to check how you're getting on (if thats ok?)

 

Quote---

 

Dear Sirs

 

Account number

 

I write with regards to the above account with your organisation.

 

I respectfully request that you provide me by return a copy of the credit agreement which bears my signature. I require this as i have reason to believe that there may be discrepancies within the agreement which may leave it improperly executed.Additionally i require the underwriting sheet or other document showing any commissions paid to you by the broker or by you to the broker

 

(If you have any other reasons why you need the agreement such as misselling of PPI Add it here)

 

obviously if the agreement is improperly executed i would be entitled to ask the court to consider the agreement and make a declaration of the rights of parties to the agreement.

 

I must stress this request is NOT made pursuant to section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 but is made pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules ( Pre action protocols and Part 31.16) and therefore unsigned copy will not suffice, only a copy of the original contract in its unaltered form will suffice in these circumstances

 

Please confirm if you still hold a copy of my signed agreement and that you will provide me with this document.

 

I do not view this as an unreasonable request given that by supplying the document which i have asked for it will allow me to assess if my case has merit and will help to resolve matters possibly without the need to involve the court and will undoubtedly save costs on both sides

 

I look forward to your reply and wouyld ask for a response by 4pm on XXXX Date ( Give 21 days to respond)

 

 

Regards

---End Quote---

 

***************

 

[fuzzybobble]

Hi there,

 

I have the same problem with Mint, and posted on this yesterday .. they have sent a generic agreement from 2002, when I presume RBS Advanta changed to Mint - but this doesn't relate to me because my agreement predated this .....

 

Anyhoo .... a kind Cagger posted this letter to get them to produce a signed agreement .... check my thread if you want ...

 

Have you got a link to your thead Abby25?

[Abby25]

Of course here it is....http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/188785-mint-what-load-rubbish.html

 

Just to let you know, I sent off the CPR letter today to them, and they have until 5 April to reply.

 

Clocks ticking ..... !!!!