Jump to content



Lloyds CCA - is it enforceable?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4040 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

however i have to disagree about a "signature document" consisting solely of ONE page

 

for instance IMO if there was a document which was a four fold four page A4 document - to me that would constitute a single document and if a signature appeared at the bottom of the fourth page and the text flowed naturally from one page to the other - I would say that that signature is within the "signature document"]

 

i think we have to be careful not to re write to our own ends- what a "signature document" would consist of lest we lead others astray

 

You make a convincing case... almost.

 

Ok... the Consumer Credit Act is a tool for the protection of creditors. If a 6 page document contained the prescribed terms and then a completely separate signature page... what would link that signature to the credit agreement? Forget the page 1 of 6 etc... that is not what the author of the CCA intended. It is legislation for the protection of consumers; if large, and very rich, organisations with expensive legal teams cannot produce the terms on a single document then this is to the detriment of the consumer.

 

Now... suppose we consider you are right... just for a few moments... you would have to explain why ALL consumer credit agreements now have ALL of the prescribed terms on a single page between the header "Consumer Credit Agreement regulated under ...." and the signature box...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now... suppose we consider you are right... just for a few moments... you would have to explain why ALL consumer credit agreements now have ALL of the prescribed terms on a single page

 

They don't..this is a loan agreement fixed credit and they are often over multiple pages

 

I suggest you read SI 2004 1482...then get the step ladder out the shed....

 

Its been commonly agreed that the agreement can be over more than one page as long as the pages are linked

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

Replied on other thread....

 

I think you may be getting confused between the prescribed terms being embodied in the agreement and the layout of a credit agreement which are two different things

 

The PTs are a given they must be there...the layout isn't prescriptive to stop enforcement

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites
You make a convincing case... almost.

 

Ok... the Consumer Credit Act is a tool for the protection of creditors. If a 6 page document contained the prescribed terms and then a completely separate signature page... what would link that signature to the credit agreement? Forget the page 1 of 6 etc... that is not what the author of the CCA intended. It is legislation for the protection of consumers; if large, and very rich, organisations with expensive legal teams cannot produce the terms on a single document then this is to the detriment of the consumer.

 

Now... suppose we consider you are right... just for a few moments... you would have to explain why ALL consumer credit agreements now have ALL of the prescribed terms on a single page between the header "Consumer Credit Agreement regulated under ...." and the signature box...

 

dont think we disagree there vjohn- they do so to MAKE sure they have a valid agreement- but we are discussing agreements that are often at least 2 years old.

 

i made a specific point of referring to a document (of however many pages) CLEARLy being one document (by the fact that the document is BOUND in some way and the text clearly flows from one page to the other

 

thus for instance a "contract" or "agreement" can in theory consist of many pages and still be signed "within the signature document

 

for example if you did indeed have a 4 page folded document which clearly has not been separated and it contains all of the prescribed terms and the signature of the debtor- i would suggest that a court WILL rule that document to be one document and that the signature is within the signature document

 

 

where we are in disagreement of course with creditors is when you are asked to sign at the foot of page one- ANYTHING could be pasted on to the back of the document after the signature which is clearly not right

 

however, if your signature is at the bottom of page two (or twenty two) and the document clearly flows from start to finish and is clearly bound as one document and signed at the end then it is IMO a signature within a signature document.

 

however in the case of the CCA (which is a consumer PROTECTION act)

it would not for instance be acceptable for the prescribed terms to be embedded within the general terms in such a way that they were not easily identifiable by the signator at the time of signing.

 

on the other hand (not that there are any i know of) if the terms and conditions on a CCA stretched to 22 pages and started with the names of parties to the agreement at the front and all the prescribed headings etc BUT all of the prescribed terms were repeated or were clearly on the final (signature ) page and clearly visible to the signator then IMO that would qualify as a signature within the four corners of the signature document- even if it were 22 pages long

 

i

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look the acid test is would you want to stand up in court and defend this agreement...I wouldn't as its all there and the only argument you could put forward would be how are the pages linked....

 

The 1 to 6 doesn't help

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites
You make a convincing case... almost.

 

Ok... the Consumer Credit Act is a tool for the protection of creditors. If a 6 page document contained the prescribed terms and then a completely separate signature page... what would link that signature to the credit agreement? Forget the page 1 of 6 etc... that is not what the author of the CCA intended. It is legislation for the protection of consumers; if large, and very rich, organisations with expensive legal teams cannot produce the terms on a single document then this is to the detriment of the consumer.

 

Now... suppose we consider you are right... just for a few moments... you would have to explain why ALL consumer credit agreements now have ALL of the prescribed terms on a single page between the header "Consumer Credit Agreement regulated under ...." and the signature box...

 

i have no knowledge of the author of the consumer credit act (benion) ever giving any advice as to how many pages form a "signature document"

 

If you are referring to the well viewed "thoughts of chairman benion" i think you may be "interpreting" it as something that is not there

Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't..this is a loan agreement fixed credit and they are often over multiple pages

 

I suggest you read SI 2004 1482...then get the step ladder out the shed....

 

Its been commonly agreed that the agreement can be over more than one page as long as the pages are linked

 

I have read them... did you read the bottom which states the following:

 

"These Regulations amend the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 ("the 1983 Regulations") with effect from the 31st May 2005"

 

It's not restrospective either ;-)

 

Commonly accepted? If this is the case then why are all modern credit agreements structured with ALL of the prescribed terms/mandatory information on one single page (regardless of the terms and conditions contained elsewhere).

 

You still haven't provided case law to back up your assertion.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look the acid test is would you want to stand up in court and defend this agreement...I wouldn't as its all there and the only argument you could put forward would be how are the pages linked....

 

The 1 to 6 doesn't help

 

quite right barty

 

in reality for us caggers the main issue is

 

were the terms now on the back of the copy agreements sent to us there originally

 

and in the case where the document is signed at the foot of page one it is often going to be NO or very dubious for the reasons i explained earlier

 

it could help to take a variety of agreements on different legal issues such as mortgage applications, wills powers of attorney etc as evidence to show that it is not "natural" to sign legal documents half way through the terms and conditions- and to point out to the court the obvious concerns that would arise from such a practice

Link to post
Share on other sites
i have no knowledge of the author of the consumer credit act (benion) ever giving any advice as to how many pages form a "signature document"

 

If you are referring to the well viewed "thoughts of chairman benion" i think you may be "interpreting" it as something that is not there

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear... what I am saying is that the CCA is not there so that lenders can decide what information should be written down and which information is omitted. Benion made this clear in his well published statement in that he was only concerned with what lenders could not be bothered to produce with their vast resources (hence inserting section 127).

Link to post
Share on other sites

thus for instance a "contract" or "agreement" can in theory consist of many pages and still be signed "within the signature document

 

for example if you did indeed have a 4 page folded document which clearly has not been separated and it contains all of the prescribed terms and the signature of the debtor- i would suggest that a court WILL rule that document to be one document and that the signature is within the signature document

 

however, if your signature is at the bottom of page two (or twenty two) and the document clearly flows from start to finish and is clearly bound as one document and signed at the end then it is IMO a signature within a signature document.

 

I would have to disagree for the following reasons...

 

1) Could pages 1 to 5 be definitively linked to one another in order for the signature on page 6 to be a valid acceptance of those terms?

 

2) The current CCA's are produced in a single document which would infer lenders knew they were getting it wrong in the first place... otherwise there would be no need to cram so much information within one single document.

 

however in the case of the CCA (which is a consumer PROTECTION act)

it would not for instance be acceptable for the prescribed terms to be embedded within the general terms in such a way that they were not easily identifiable by the signator at the time of signing.

 

 

Which is why they are now all included on one document. I cannot see the lenders doing this for any reason other than to comply properly with the CCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Replied on other thread....

 

I think you may be getting confused between the prescribed terms being embodied in the agreement and the layout of a credit agreement which are two different things

 

The PTs are a given they must be there...the layout isn't prescriptive to stop enforcement

 

As I said... case law would be more than helpful obviously as the case law I offered proves that the terms must be within a single document.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the PTs must be in a single document...in fact I have been to court and won using this exact defence...you will find the term four corners of an agreement is more than one page

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I wasn't clear... what I am saying is that the CCA is not there so that lenders can decide what information should be written down and which information is omitted. Benion made this clear in his well published statement in that he was only concerned with what lenders could not be bothered to produce with their vast resources (hence inserting section 127).

 

yes i understand your point john. what i am saying is that benion did NOT say (anywhere that i know of) that the executed agreement had to consist of ONE PAGE, OR that the signature and prescribed terms had to be on the SAME page

 

Nor does he say that "Within the four corners of a signature document" meant that the signature document could only have "four corners"

 

the "four corners of a signature document " is a legal euphemism to describe a what is contained within the document that contains the signatures to the agreement or whatever it is that is signed

 

anything pertaining to the said signed document which is contained in another document or anything referred to in the signature document as to be found in another document is then regarded as "not being within the four corners of the signature document

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now... suppose we consider you are right... just for a few moments... you would have to explain why ALL consumer credit agreements now have ALL of the prescribed terms on a single page between the header "Consumer Credit Agreement regulated under ...." and the signature box...

__________________u

 

.........and then contain the wrong figures/calculations/include front loaded PPI

 

i see where you are coming from but this is a weak argument

 

one could just as easily say

 

so why do creditors still send out default notices with only 14 days from the date of the letter to rectify the breach when they know full well this is defective

 

the(same) answer to both questions on the back of a postage stamp please!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that the PTs must be in a single document...in fact I have been to court and won using this exact defence...you will find the term four corners of an agreement is more than one page

 

If this is the case... then I have yet to see case law for it.

 

The regs are quite clear what has to be between the heading "Credit Agreement Regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974" and the signature box.

 

I think that's all that needs to be said... I'll let the 1983/1553 regs speak for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now... suppose we consider you are right... just for a few moments... you would have to explain why ALL consumer credit agreements now have ALL of the prescribed terms on a single page between the header "Consumer Credit Agreement regulated under ...." and the signature box...

__________________u

 

.........and then contain the wrong figures/calculations/include front loaded PPI

 

i see where you are coming from but this is a weak argument

 

one could just as easily say

 

so why do creditors still send out default notices with only 14 days from the date of the letter to rectify the breach when they know full well this is defective

 

the(same) answer to both questions on the back of a postage stamp please!!

 

I don't see how it is a weak argument by stating that all creditors are now in compliance whereas they weren't before.

 

If I may use your own argument against you... why did creditors get it wrong in the first place (as you claim they are getting it wrong with default notices)

 

They got it wrong because they thought they could get away with it... and in the vast number of cases they did.

 

They send out dodgy defaults because more often than not they can get away with it. It is also a point of fact I have 6 default notices I just glanced over which allow well over 18 days from the date of service for arrears to be recitified which only strengthens my point more...

 

If lenders were happy sending out defaults in contradiction to the regulations then why do I now have defaults being sent out in the proper form?

 

It's clear they have been getting things wrong for some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
yes i understand your point john. what i am saying is that benion did NOT say (anywhere that i know of) that the executed agreement had to consist of ONE PAGE, OR that the signature and prescribed terms had to be on the SAME page

 

Nor does he say that "Within the four corners of a signature document" meant that the signature document could only have "four corners"

 

the "four corners of a signature document " is a legal euphemism to describe a what is contained within the document that contains the signatures to the agreement or whatever it is that is signed

 

anything pertaining to the said signed document which is contained in another document or anything referred to in the signature document as to be found in another document is then regarded as "not being within the four corners of the signature document

 

I was more clarifying my point than disagreeing with you... I didn't anyone misunderstanding me.

 

I know what you mean... there is nothing from Bennion regarding the form of agreements. But there isn't anything from him stating that agreements can be multiple pages either. So we have to refer to the regulations (1983/1553) which demonstrates the proper form of credit agreements. The fact that companies have amended their agreements to comply is the smoking gun as far as I can tell. The fact so many claims never make it to the court stage is also another indictment of the credit industry getting this wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for all of your comments folk, a lot of information to take in here.

 

I would be very nervous defending any agreement in court unless I was 100% sure it was unenforceable (and even then I’d be very nervous).

 

The agreement is signed on page 2 but it wasn’t bound, just stapled. If I’m completely honest I think I accepted a long time ago that the barcode (with the loan agreement number on) links the document.

 

I was going to resume the £1pm payments to Lloyds but they have now written asking for the full amount immediately (termination?). I have no idea what they are going to do now.

 

Any advice going forward would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks very much for all of your comments folk, a lot of information to take in here.

 

I would be very nervous defending any agreement in court unless I was 100% sure it was unenforceable (and even then I’d be very nervous).

 

The agreement is signed on page 2 but it wasn’t bound, just stapled. If I’m completely honest I think I accepted a long time ago that the barcode (with the loan agreement number on) links the document.

 

I was going to resume the £1pm payments to Lloyds but they have now written asking for the full amount immediately (termination?). I have no idea what they are going to do now.

 

Any advice going forward would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

I think people are foolish going into court under the premise that they will be successful. Philosophically speaking, nothing I know of is 100% certain.

 

You will have to post the letter they have sent you for us to pass comment. I would chance my arm in court with this unless it will cause you significant distress of course... I mean do you have anything to lose?

 

I take a renegade position because I have nothing a creditor could take away and no wages to be docked... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try and upload the letter now, but it can take ages on my comp.

 

I would be very distressed as I have very little legal knowledge. I have nothing to lose from a stress point of view and but materially I have my house.

 

Just off to try and upload the letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how it is a weak argument by stating that all creditors are now in compliance whereas they weren't before.

 

If I may use your own argument against you... why did creditors get it wrong in the first place (as you claim they are getting it wrong with default notices)

 

They got it wrong because they thought they could get away with it... and in the vast number of cases they did.

 

They send out dodgy defaults because more often than not they can get away with it. It is also a point of fact I have 6 default notices I just glanced over which allow well over 18 days from the date of service for arrears to be recitified which only strengthens my point more...

 

If lenders were happy sending out defaults in contradiction to the regulations then why do I now have defaults being sent out in the proper form?

 

It's clear they have been getting things wrong for some time.

 

the argument is weak because instead of using cases stated or legal authority for your arguments, you are using the creditors who by your own admission still get things wrong

 

BTW with reference to your "18 days! - this is not necessarily compliant (you see - they are STILL not right and have NOT learned from their mistakes- yet you use them as legal authority for your arguments)

 

the creditor hits a button on the computer and asks it to generate a Dfeault Notice.

 

the creditor (thinking he is a clever clogs) has amended the time intercval from 14 - 18 days wrongly thinking that this makes the DN legal

 

the VAST majority of DN's are sent out second class post

 

The computer- simply dates the DN from 18 days from the day that the operator tells it to issue the DN

 

therefore if the idiot on the computer tells it to issue a DN on a friday and sends it second class post it STILL will not be an effective DN as it will NOT allow sufficient time from service of the DN to rectify the breach

 

sometimes if he tells it to do so on a weekday and there is a bank holiday tacked onto a weekend the computer will generate yet another cocked up DN!!

 

ps not many creditors use 18 days the majority still use 14 or 17 and some use 28

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think people are foolish going into court under the premise that they will be successful. Philosophically speaking, nothing I know of is 100% certain.

 

You will have to post the letter they have sent you for us to pass comment. I would chance my arm in court with this unless it will cause you significant distress of course... I mean do you have anything to lose?

 

I take a renegade position because I have nothing a creditor could take away and no wages to be docked... :-)

 

nice position to be in- you can excercise your two fingers better from that position!!:D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks very much for all of your comments folk, a lot of information to take in here.

 

I would be very nervous defending any agreement in court unless I was 100% sure it was unenforceable (and even then I’d be very nervous).

 

The agreement is signed on page 2 but it wasn’t bound, just stapled. If I’m completely honest I think I accepted a long time ago that the barcode (with the loan agreement number on) links the document.

 

I was going to resume the £1pm payments to Lloyds but they have now written asking for the full amount immediately (termination?). I have no idea what they are going to do now.

 

Any advice going forward would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

dont forget that you can take a "buddy" to court and in most cases if you ask the court and tell them you are nervous they will allow your buddy to speak for you

 

there are buddies on this forum who will go with you to court (including myself) if you are nearby=- click on the buddies link

Edited by diddydicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
the argument is weak because instead of using cases stated or legal authority for your arguments, you are using the creditors who by your own admission still get things wrong

 

It would have been a weak argument if I had said that because all credit agreements are now properly executed that all agreements in the past were improperly executed. A total logical fallacy.

 

However, if in court a lender states that the OP's 6 page agreement is enforceable... but they decided to change their format recently which means all their agreements now contain all of the PT's on one page with the signature box etc... it looks VERY suspect.

 

Again... the CCA is there for consumer protection and not for lenders to hide behind. I suppose we could agree to disagree considering each should be judged on its merits.

 

I would feel comfortable scanning the page with the barcode on... copy and pasting the barcode to another document within the bundle sent to me with a picture of Hitler on it...

 

Could the lender prove this wasn't part of the "document" purporting to be a regulated credit agreement? ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...