Invalid Default Notices

[patrickq1]

"THIS IS AN AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974"

my agreement is excactly the same this agreement etc:

[diddydicky]

patrick, i am not against you- i am trying to point you to then difficulties you may face

 

my passport says it has been issued by the crown and i am a lawful british subject and gives me vital overseas protections

 

but it ASSUMES that the details contained about me are accurate and not a forgery or mis- represented- and if they are - then the protection offered by the passport to the bearer may well not apply

 

your agreement may well be headed as regulated by the consumer credit act but this issue will (may) arise where you are challenged that contrary to the regulations - you used part of the loan made to you under that agreement for business purposes and that as such funds issued for that purpose do not come under the CCA.

[cab1ne]

patrick, i am not against you- i am trying to point you to then difficulties you may face

 

my passport says it has been issued by the crown and i am a lawful british subject and gives me vital overseas protections

 

but it ASSUMES that the details contained about me are accurate and not a forgery or mis- represented- and if they are - then the protection offered by the passport to the bearer may well not apply

 

your agreement may well be headed as regulated by the consumer credit act but this issue will (may) arise where you are challenged that contrary to the regulations - you used part of the loan made to you under that agreement for business purposes and that as such funds issued for that purpose do not come under the CCA.

 

good point "but" (theres always a but) if the agreement is regulated and you have less than 3 people in your business (3 max) you are fully protected by the cca 1974.

 

cab

[diddydicky]

good point "but" (theres always a but) if the agreement is regulated and you have less than 3 people in your business (3 max) you are fully protected by the cca 1974.

 

cab

 

novel proposition-(part of) these funds were diverted into a limited company and on the face of it the borrower (as he initially stated) was raising funds for the business

 

notwithstanding that above- i have quoted the part of the act dealing with loans to businesses

 

where is the authority for your proposition- which i find a little fanciful:)

[cab1ne]

novel proposition-(part of) these funds were diverted into a limited company and on the face of it the borrower (as he initially stated) was raising funds for the business

 

notwithstanding that above- i have quoted the part of the act dealing with loans to businesses

 

where is the authority for your proposition- which i find a little fanciful:)

 

i am in business (my agreement was for business use) and "THIS IS AN AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974" but not having more than 3 employees i am classed as a consumer, and i got that info off BRW (give him a shout he will be able to give you more detail)

 

"fanciful";-)

[diddydicky]

i am in business (my agreement was for business use) and "THIS IS AN AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974" but not having more than 3 employees i am classed as a consumer, and i got that info off BRW (give him a shout he will be able to give you more detail)

 

"fanciful";-)

 

i am happy to be proved wrong on this- but i suggest you ask BRW for authority (the part of the CCA that contains that little nugget or overrides that part that i stated earlier in the thread with regard to business loans)

 

I am not perfect- have read the act back to front several times- still don't understand half of it- but i am sure that would have jumped up and bitten my nose

[lookinforinfo]

Under S.189 of the CCA 1974

“ individual “ includes a partnership or other unincorporated body of persons not consisting entirely of bodies corporate;

 

not sure where 3 employees specifically would come into it but as you can see the Act is not limited to one person.

[diddydicky]

Under S.189 of the CCA 1974

“ individual “ includes a partnership or other unincorporated body of persons not consisting entirely of bodies corporate;

 

not sure where 3 employees specifically would come into it but as you can see the Act is not limited to one person.

 

thanks for that- the company to which the funds refer was indeed incorporated- it was a limited company

[cab1ne]

Mmm more research

 

cab

[diddydicky]

Mmm more research

 

cab

 

trouble is cab - it never ends..............drives you up the bleedin wall some days

you think you've got a handle on something - then something else pops up!

[cab1ne]

trouble is cab - it never ends..............drives you up the bleedin wall some days

you think you've got a handle on something - then something else pops up!

 

drives you up the bleedin wall some days "only some" god your jammy.

 

cab

[banker_rhymes_with]

thanks for that- the company to which the funds refer was indeed incorporated- it was a limited company

I'm coming in a bit late here, but as lookingforinfo has said, small businesses are indeed classed as Consumers under both The Consumer Credit Act 1974 and The Consumer Credit Act 2006.

 

But it seems to cover only Sole Traders and Small Partnerships of three or fewer people.

 

Sadly, I read that as not including Limited Companies at all, even ones that have just one Director. That's because a Company is a Legal Entity, and a Director is technically both an Employer and an Employee.

 

I think a Limited Company can be a Partner in a small Partnership, but it's the Partnership that is the Consumer, not the Limited Company, so it can't do a lot that is protected by the Act, whereas the Partnership can and is.

 

But it's blurdy good news for Sole Traders and Small Partnerships, and I think this gives new hope on bank charges for such small businesses, i.e. using the CCA rather than trying to use UTCCR. That damned nice Scottish Judge has reminded many to look elsewhere for salvation.

 

Anyway, I'm heading off topic as usual! So, yes, check out the CCAs and you will find some small business are Consumers!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[cab1ne]

But it's blurdy good news for Sole Traders

 

"PHEWWWWWWW"

 

cab

[diddydicky]

But it's blurdy good news for Sole Traders

 

"PHEWWWWWWW"

 

cab

 

ok if you make shoes then - or are a fishmonger:D

[diddydicky]

I'm coming in a bit late here, but as lookingforinfo has said, small businesses are indeed classed as Consumers under both The Consumer Credit Act 1974 and The Consumer Credit Act 2006.

 

But it seems to cover only Sole Traders and Small Partnerships of three or fewer people.

 

Sadly, I read that as not including Limited Companies at all, even ones that have just one Director. That's because a Company is a Legal Entity, and a Director is technically both an Employer and an Employee.

 

I think a Limited Company can be a Partner in a small Partnership, but it's the Partnership that is the Consumer, not the Limited Company, so it can't do a lot that is protected by the Act, whereas the Partnership can and is.

 

But it's blurdy good news for Sole Traders and Small Partnerships, and I think this gives new hope on bank charges for such small businesses, i.e. using the CCA rather than trying to use UTCCR. That damned nice Scottish Judge has reminded many to look elsewhere for salvation.

 

Anyway, I'm heading off topic as usual! So, yes, check out the CCAs and you will find some small business are Consumers!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

before you tuck up for the night- can you give your opinion on my proposed AQ submission and directions here:-

 

MBNA/Restons for Diddydicky case

thanks

 

dick

[cab1ne]

ok if you make shoes then - or are a fishmonger:D

 

DD you get worse :D:lol:

[InformedSearcher]

I think with everything here there's still the thing about 'action'. As has been seen, taking on a bank is the can of worms minefield. Now them taking you on is more concise and something to work on.

 

I continue to go back to the issue of DN's which the banks know are faulty but refuse to remove them from CRA files. The hardest decision is do you 'hope' they take you for a CCJ or take them or simply accept that for 6 years that DN will sit there causing you problems?

 

I have a good example of the most 'bizarre' DN. Totally incorrect and I mean that to the extent it shows 'they' owe me money! I've stived off Westcot's who sent the account back to the original creditor. They've now passed this to Gothia where even a simple call to the number has you listening to some foreign sounding lady who was so rude and I'd only asked a simple question making me just put the phone down.

 

Michael

[oilyrag]

I would like to just come back a little on this please. This is the nub of the problem with all of the Statute really.

 

In our own case, let us be absolutely clear. The earlier post I made referred to company credit cards. The company has been incorporated since the very early nineties. We do NOT bank personally with the issuing bank at all. ONLY the limited company banks with the bank concerned and has done since its date of incorporation. Hence there can be NO misconception whatsoever on anyones part that these cards were issued as company cards in the company's name and were for business use!

 

Yet ALL of the paperwork is headed as stated that the agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Not once but many times over.

 

 

I am not saying anyone on CAG is wrong but I feel that there is a case to be examined in depth particularly with the compliance aspects. I know what the Statute says about companies, I also know what our paperwork actually says. Hence should the stategy be in these circumstances rather more serious allegations against the issuing banks? Deliberate mis-selling and misrepresentation for example?

 

Look forward to reading the groups analysis.

regards

oilyrag.

[Bigdebtor]

trouble is cab - it never ends..............drives you up the bleedin wall some days

you think you've got a handle on something - then something else pops up!

 

DD - You think you've got troubles! I am a keen astonomer and not so long ago I lost an ENTIRE PLANET - when Pluto was demoted!

 

Even our million pound bonus earning banking "friends" haven't had losses on such a scale.

 

I am just wondering how to best to claim this loss on my next tax return.

 

Sorry to digress!

[cashins]

DD - You think you've got troubles! I am a keen astonomer and not so long ago I lost an ENTIRE PLANET - when Pluto was demoted!

 

 

Look on the bright side.

 

You've lost a planet but gained over 1000 Kuiper Belt Objects (KBO's), with the potential for another 69,000 to go

 

David

[diddydicky]

I would like to just come back a little on this please. This is the nub of the problem with all of the Statute really.

 

In our own case, let us be absolutely clear. The earlier post I made referred to company credit cards. The company has been incorporated since the very early nineties. We do NOT bank personally with the issuing bank at all. ONLY the limited company banks with the bank concerned and has done since its date of incorporation. Hence there can be NO misconception whatsoever on anyones part that these cards were issued as company cards in the company's name and were for business use!

 

Yet ALL of the paperwork is headed as stated that the agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Not once but many times over.

 

 

I am not saying anyone on CAG is wrong but I feel that there is a case to be examined in depth particularly with the compliance aspects. I know what the Statute says about companies, I also know what our paperwork actually says. Hence should the stategy be in these circumstances rather more serious allegations against the issuing banks? Deliberate mis-selling and misrepresentation for example?

 

Look forward to reading the groups analysis.

regards

oilyrag.

 

the problem i am having oilyrag is that i thought my posts were answering patricks problems not yours so i apologise if you think my posts are answering yours

 

one of the problems of multiple questions on one thread!!

[diddydicky]

DD - You think you've got troubles! I am a keen astonomer and not so long ago I lost an ENTIRE PLANET - when Pluto was demoted!

 

Even our million pound bonus earning banking "friends" haven't had losses on such a scale.

 

I am just wondering how to best to claim this loss on my next tax return.

 

Sorry to digress!

 

i think the taxman will accept that it is a universal problem!

 

its enough to give you asteroids- but you can get a cream for that

[Bigdebtor]

Asteroids is piles better as a name for it - at least it points you in the right direction of the seat of the problem!

[oilyrag]

Hi DD,

 

No apology needed, point taken. Perhaps at a more convenient break in the thread, if there is any interest we can return to what seems to be a somewhat grey area. In the mean time I will keep looking through various reference sources to see if anything turns up and post again if it does.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[diddydicky]

Asteroids is piles better as a name for it - at least it points you in the right direction of the seat of the problem!

 

i had them once and the doctor gave me some big pills for it- shaped like torpedoes

 

but i might as well have stuck the up my ar*e for all the good they did me!!