Be warned!! And help please

[Dinkjames]

I CCA'd Tesco Personal Finance for my Fixed Sum Loan Agreement at the beginning of May. Today I received a photocopy of that agreement in the post. My heart sank into my shoes as it had all the prescribed terms and conditions and I was resigned to having to pay them what I could afford.

 

I found it interesting though, that the letterhead from Tesco (based in Glasgow) was headed with an address in Telford. Turns out the address is that of Triton, who have been chasing me for the balance.

 

At first glance, the CCA looks fine, other than the greyed area where I am to have signed. I didn't think much of it. Keep in mind that I am using the digital signature guide when communicating with DCA's. I sign my name on a shaded lined grey background. Before I found this site, I was signing my signature as normal.

 

Then I looked at the dates on the agreement. I allegedly signed the document on 12 Feb 06. However the document was executed by Tesco nearly a year earlier on 16 Feb 05. Furthermore, I signed the document apparently without dating it. As you can see the '2' has a curl at the bottom and would have been written by the same person. I don't loop or curl my '2's. Putting that all aside, how could Tesco have inserted the date if I mistakenly sent the document back without a date, as they would not have known when I actually signed it.

 

If this is not a clear case of a DCA creating a CCA, then I don't know what it? What should my response be? I know it is difficult to prove fraud.

 

I have uploaded the document with the dates in place. User Media - TinyPic - Free Image Hosting, Photo Sharing & Video Hosting

Edited June 12, 2009 by Dinkjames
grammar

[badboybill]

Well, it doesn't look enforceable to me. Whoever signed this document from Tesco must learn to pay attention. You pay for your mistakes in this world.

Suggest you write a thank you letter with a question. How did Tesco know you were going to be a customer of theirs a year earlier?

Tescos clairvoyants have some explaining to do, lol

[izzitme101]

personally i owuld hold it, then argue it in court, or send it to hmrc finacial crimes branch, as its clearly fraud.

[Nagasis]

I'm not sure that the lack of a signature or corresponding date of that signature of a creditor is a bar to enforcement as its not part of the prescibed terms. (stand corrected if i'm wrong)

[Dinkjames]

Thanks for the comments

 

I don't think that HMRC would be particularly interested in this, but I will keep it in mind.

 

Nagasis, I am not disputing what they sent me is enforceable. As far as my knowledge goes, all the prescribed terms are there and a court would enforce it. I think that is what they were hoping for, is that I would think that and now roll over and play their game. Wrong.

 

I am going to let this one rest until they take me to court. Then I can place them to strict proof and they will have to produce the original document in court. I am willing to bet that the original document (if it exists) will look nothing like the one sent to me.

 

I will then pose the question as to why the document was executed a year before I allegedly signed it among other issues I have with their process.

[miss muppet]

Yours is a tricky one isen't it? However not sure you are right about HMRC not being interested after all they are supposed to keep documents such as these - I think there is a link on fairy's post to something which I have only just used i.e. British Standards Institute Code of Practice on Information stored electronically - I am not suggesting you inform HMRC only that you can use this against them. Let me know by pm if you want a copy of the quote I used, it was provided to me by my excellent local Trading Standards, I can send it to you by email if you want, don't know whether there is a copy on site already but I have found it a tremendous help. You are quite right, let them prove it in court, I wouldn't go down the fraud avenue either, just that it is unenforceable due to the discrepancies mentioned. Off to my bed now - cheers!

[Dinkjames]

Tricky indeed. After a good night's sleep, I have calmed down and looked at the 'alleged' CCA again. There are a few other things amiss with it outside of the date.

 

All the boxes have black lines around them. The 'shaded' signature box only has a line at the top and left. That could be down to faxing, but as the other lines are quite clear, unlikely.

 

The other area is the 'Keeping you informed' box. It actually runs through the registered address for Tesco.

 

I would love to see the real, true document in court. Guess I am going to have to wait awhile for that to happen. I would if they would be stupid enough to issue summons with the CCA?

[miss muppet]

Hi Dinkjames, have posted up the information you wanted if you look at my thread - by the way I've got two now, she says all importantly, one in the legal successes and one in the legal issues, look at the latter. Sounds like you are putting a good case together, what about the default notice as well - any issues with that?

[Dinkjames]

Thanks, I spotted the information and have subcribed to read it after a good night's sleep.

 

The DN is flawed. They forgot to date the DN, so I don't know when they wrote it, could have been the day the account was opened. And I don't know when I got it other than from the date to rectify the breach.

 

But I seriously doubt it will go to court. I don't believe the CCA will stand up to scrutiny. Even the covering letter was a cut and paste job. The Tesco logo has been dropped onto a piece of paper with Triton's address.

 

I am expecting Triton to start chasing me again. I have never had a response from Tesco.