Please help with CA and CCA confusion

[onegoodlad]

I recently wrote off cca letters to cabot for a copy of my credit agreement.

 

What they have sent me back is a photocopy of my application form from 1999, is this the credit agreement as below it has the data protection act box on it with credit agreement regulated by the consumber credit act 1974 which has my signature on it

 

They have also sent me a copy of the credit card statements and a copy of the credit agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 between me and the bank of scotland which is about 6 pages in length and at the end it says sign if you wish to cancel, but this has my current address on it at the start where it says PARTIES, when the application has my old address from 1999.

 

Which is the credit agreement? is the application form also a credit agreement or are cabot trying to confuse me as the debt will be six years old in april next year, and should i still send of the cca letter for 30+2 days.

 

Thankyou

[kurvaface]

If you can post copies of the documents up on here without your personal info on then some one clever will let you know:)

[lilly white]

ok posted it when you can

 

however.

 

 

Any charges any ppi who was Oc,

 

Where you given a NOA.

 

 

REGARDS LILLY WHITE

[clemma]

Sounds to me like they are pulling a fast one. An application form that contains no prescribed terms is unenforceable. The terms and conditions you have described have no bearing on this (as you stated, they have the wrong address and are not signed). Also, it's 12+2 working days for CCA requests, not 30+2

 

To be honest, you could probably play with this one until April so that it becomes statue barred......just never EVER admit to owing them anything in writing or agree to make any kind of payments

 

Send them the following letter:

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

RE: Agreement/Account number

 

Thank you for your response to my letter dated xxxxxx 2009, 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

[onegoodlad]

This is the copy of the application i was sent, i have blacked out my details and a copy of the first page of the credit agreement which is my address now, not when i applied for the card. thankyou

application amed.zip

credit agreement amend.zip

Edited June 28, 2009 by onegoodlad

[onegoodlad]

If any one can have a look at the above zip files for me and tell me if they are a credit agreement or not would be very helpfull thankyou

[Monty2007]

Dear OGL

 

What they have sent you is a pre-contractual application form which is not enforceable. The second document appears to be some T&C's but they are not complete, did they send you anything else?

 

Do you think that the T&C's were on the reverse of this Application? An application can be an Agreement if the prescribed terms are present which does not appear to be the case for you.

 

You can stop paying and let them litigate or try to see if you can negotiate a settlement, best to read around the various threads associated with this creditor on CAG and get a fee for how they may respond.

[onegoodlad]

Thankyou for replying, not sure if the T&C's were on the back, if i can remember rightly it was an application from out of a magazine.

That is all they sent me with a 6page A4 copy of the T&C's which have my address where i am living now on it. They also sent me photocopies of my cc statements from 2003-2006, also a representation letter from 2006 from bank of scotland giving assignment of the debt to cabot

[diddydicky]

Sounds to me like they are pulling a fast one. An application form that contains no prescribed terms is unenforceable. The terms and conditions you have described have no bearing on this (as you stated, they have the wrong address and are not signed). Also, it's 12+2 working days for CCA requests, not 30+2

 

To be honest, you could probably play with this one until April so that it becomes statue barred......just never EVER admit to owing them anything in writing or agree to make any kind of payments

 

Send them the following letter:

 

if you tell them that the account is "in dispute with immediate effect" are you not by inference then admitting it was not in dispute until this time and effectively acknowledging the debt? just a thought

[diddydicky]

if it is statute barred next april i think id be inclined to lie low

[clemma]

if you tell them that the account is "in dispute with immediate effect" are you not by inference then admitting it was not in dispute until this time and effectively acknowledging the debt? just a thought

 

No. That's like saying all previous payments made towards an unenforceable agreement proves the debt exists - it doesn't. If there is no CCA, then how are you supposed to know a) how much you pay in interest b) your payment schedule c) your credit limit........?? Without these terms, the CCA is unenforceable. Also, until they send the signed, executed agreement, they are in default of your LEGAL request......this is what puts the whole thing into dispute.

 

I do agree about waiting on until April though for SB - however, put the account firmly into dispute first. They will then pass it from pillar to post - giving much time to send either the bemused letter (to any DCA that rocks up) or play about asking for another CCA - we all know how long it can take for them to arrive.

[diddydicky]

No. That's like saying all previous payments made towards an unenforceable agreement proves the debt exists - it doesn't. If there is no CCA, then how are you supposed to know a) how much you pay in interest b) your payment schedule c) your credit limit........?? Without these terms, the CCA is unenforceable. Also, until they send the signed, executed agreement, they are in default of your LEGAL request......this is what puts the whole thing into dispute.

 

I do agree about waiting on until April though for SB - however, put the account firmly into dispute first. They will then pass it from pillar to post - giving much time to send either the bemused letter (to any DCA that rocks up) or play about asking for another CCA - we all know how long it can take for them to arrive.

 

my comment was based on the fact that the 6 year statute barred time clock is broken and re starts if at any time you make a payment OR ACKNOWLEDGE the debt in writing

 

as i understand this , (i too am not legally trained so open to be corrected)

acknowledging the debt is not the same as disputing whether it is valid or not

 

 

Whether a debt is enforceable or not by virtue of failings on the part of the creditor in getting the documentation right- the debt still EXISTS, and is taken surely to be valid UNTIL such time as it is determined in court that the debt cannot be legally enforced

 

therefore by stating in writing that you are going to stop adherring to one or other clause in the agreement from such and such a date, then you are admitting that up until that date you WERE adhereing to and therefore recognising the validity of the agreement!!

[diddydicky]

with regard to the term "In dispute"

 

Whilst i note that many caggers use the term when a creditor has failed to comply with s 77/79 it is legally incorrect IMO

 

the creditor is IN DEFAULT of his obligations under the CCA.

 

A " dispute" , in terms of a consumer credit agreement IMO would refer to specific disagreements over the rate of interest payments etc being calculated or charged, or the way a particular clause was being interpreted by one party or the other.

[clemma]

my comment was based on the fact that the 6 year statute barred time clock is broken and re starts if at any time you make a payment OR ACKNOWLEDGE the debt in writing

 

as i understand this , (i too am not legally trained so open to be corrected)

acknowledging the debt is not the same as disputing whether it is valid or not

 

Whether a debt is enforceable or not by virtue of failings on the part of the creditor in getting the documentation right- the debt still EXISTS, and is taken surely to be valid UNTIL such time as it is determined in court that the debt cannot be legally enforced

 

therefore by stating in writing that you are going to stop adherring to one or other clause in the agreement from such and such a date, then you are admitting that up until that date you WERE adhereing to and therefore recognising the validity of the agreement!!

 

Putting an agreement into dispute wouldn't re-start the clock.......by disputing the debt you are in no way acknowledging the debt exists - quite the opposite.

 

The only way to re-start the clock is to make a payment OR put in writing that you admit liabilty and will make payments.......the dispute letter does neither

 

 

with regard to the term "In dispute"

 

Whilst i note that many caggers use the term when a creditor has failed to comply with s 77/79 it is legally incorrect IMO

 

the creditor is IN DEFAULT of his obligations under the CCA.

 

A " dispute" , in terms of a consumer credit agreement IMO would refer to specific disagreements over the rate of interest payments etc being calculated or charged, or the way a particular clause was being interpreted by one party or the other.

 

The creditor/DCA is in default of a CCA request if they do not comply - that is your dispute with them therefore your disagreement. In all of this falls the disagreement about any T&C's they have imposed on you (such as payments, interest etc.) as they have nothing, signed by you, showing you agree or understand said conditions.

[diddydicky]

Putting an agreement into dispute wouldn't re-start the clock.......by disputing the debt you are in no way acknowledging the debt exists - quite the opposite.

 

The only way to re-start the clock is to make a payment OR put in writing that you admit liabilty and will make payments.......the dispute letter does neither

 

 

 

 

The creditor/DCA is in default of a CCA request if they do not comply - that is your dispute with them therefore your disagreement. In all of this falls the disagreement about any T&C's they have imposed on you (such as payments, interest etc.) as they have nothing, signed by you, showing you agree or understand said conditions.

 

The only way to re-start the clock is to make a payment OR put in writing that you admit liabilty and will make payments.......the dispute letter does neither

 

 

I understand your comment but my point is that for instance if you "put the debt in dispute on say 11th February 2009 then you are firstly acknowldeging that then debt exists and secondly and more importantly by inference admitting that until that date it was NOT in dispute

[diddydicky]

Putting an agreement into dispute wouldn't re-start the clock.......by disputing the debt you are in no way acknowledging the debt exists - quite the opposite.

 

 

i see your point but if you write and say that you are "putting the debt in dispute" as from say 11 february 2009" you are by inference:-

 

a/ acknowldeging the existence of the debt

 

b/ acknowledging that until 11 februrary the debt was NOT in dispute

[clemma]

Putting an agreement into dispute wouldn't re-start the clock.......by disputing the debt you are in no way acknowledging the debt exists - quite the opposite.

 

 

i see your point but if you write and say that you are "putting the debt in dispute" as from say 11 february 2009" you are by inference:-

 

a/ acknowldeging the existence of the debt

 

b/ acknowledging that until 11 februrary the debt was NOT in dispute

 

No, and No......

 

As I have already stated, you only re-start the clock by making payment or acknowledging, in writing that you DO owe the money.

 

By placing it into dispute, you state at the top of your letter "I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOU OR ANY COMPANY YOU REPRESENT"

 

I can argue with you until I am blue in the face with this one......

 

Again, only 2 things can re-start the clock - payment, or acknowledgement that you DO owe the money and intend to pay.

[diddydicky]

No, and No......

 

As I have already stated, you only re-start the clock by making payment or acknowledging, in writing that you DO owe the money.

 

By placing it into dispute, you state at the top of your letter "I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOU OR ANY COMPANY YOU REPRESENT"

 

I can argue with you until I am blue in the face with this one......

 

Again, only 2 things can re-start the clock - payment, or acknowledgement that you DO owe the money and intend to pay.

 

and in my example above you are acknowledging that before 11 february 2009 there was a debt which was not in dispute

 

agree we can go round in circles with this one

[clemma]

But it does NOT re-set the clock......if before the dispute you were making payments anyway, then there was no Statute Barred issue to deal with. If you were not making payments, then the clock will continue ticking from the first month you missed a payment.

 

You are NOT acknowledging the fact you owe them money, nor are you saying you will make payments and neither are you making a payment......can you tell me which part of the dispute letter confirms you agree to the liabilty of any debt, when in fact it is the total opposite.

 

The Limitations Act comes into force the moment YOU miss the next months payment (i.e. March 09 paid, April 09 missed - SB clock starts ticking Apr 09). You request a CCA, they fail, you put it into dispute - the clock continues to run from April 2009 as long as no payment or admission is put into writing. Why is this so difficult to understand? I'm sorry, but I feel like I am going in circles. I have stated the only two reasons that exist to re-start the clock.

 

If you can point out to me the part of the dispute letter which admits to there being an agreement in force before the dispute, or in fact any part of the letter which admits liability or offer of payment I would be most appreciative.

 

I will then have to start all over again with my debts, as will loads of other CAGgers on this site........

[diddydicky]

But it does NOT re-set the clock......if before the dispute you were making payments anyway, then there was no Statute Barred issue to deal with. If you were not making payments, then the clock will continue ticking from the first month you missed a payment.

 

You are NOT acknowledging the fact you owe them money, nor are you saying you will make payments and neither are you making a payment......can you tell me which part of the dispute letter confirms you agree to the liabilty of any debt, when in fact it is the total opposite.

 

The Limitations Act comes into force the moment YOU miss the next months payment (i.e. March 09 paid, April 09 missed - SB clock starts ticking Apr 09). You request a CCA, they fail, you put it into dispute - the clock continues to run from April 2009 as long as no payment or admission is put into writing. Why is this so difficult to understand? I'm sorry, but I feel like I am going in circles. I have stated the only two reasons that exist to re-start the clock.

 

If you can point out to me the part of the dispute letter which admits to there being an agreement in force before the dispute, or in fact any part of the letter which admits liability or offer of payment I would be most appreciative.

 

I will then have to start all over again with my debts, as will loads of other CAGgers on this site........

 

don't go round in circles- you'll get a headache!!

 

it is only my opinion after all but i still believe that a creditor could argue to a court that the above statement admits that there is an undisputed debt before the time at which they then start to dispute it.

 

not making payments clearly starts the clock ticking- but acknowledging that you have an undisputed debt and simply not making payments will "not do it"

 

on that basis every debtor in the country could simply stop making payments on a debt for 6 years and ignore all contact with the creditor

 

furthermore just "telling" the creditor that you dispute the debt does not cut it either since again we could all SAY that

 

i certainly wouldn't put myself in the position of giving even the slightest hint of acknowledging the debt if i was that close to the 6 year limit

 

lets agree to disagree on this one

[clemma]

on that basis every debtor in the country could simply stop making payments on a debt for 6 years and ignore all contact with the creditor

 

Yep

 

i certainly wouldn't put myself in the position of giving even the slightest hint of acknowledging the debt if i was that close to the 6 year limit

 

lets agree to disagree on this one

 

It's called giving them the run around - best example is sam and his delay tactics with Lowells - he managed it and it's now SB