Received copy of Agreement with incorrect information

[alangee]

My OH requested a copy of her Sainsbury's Agreement from Intrum Justitia back in March, and it arrived today.

 

It consists of four double sided sheets of A4 (8 pages in all), without any logo's or references. It is titled Credit Card Agreement Regulated by CCA 1974, and has Sainsbury's Bank and my OH as parties to the "agreement". It then goes on to give the prescribed terms. So far so good (if you ignore the fact that it is typed out on plain paper).

 

Now we start getting the wrong information. The agreement states that there was no special promotion rate or period. There was, it was a 5% reduction over a six month period. It also states that the APR was 18.95% (it was 14.9% after promotion period ended, and stayed at that rate for six years).

 

On the next page under Key Information, my OH is informed that their charges are £12. The card was taken out in 1999 when their charges were £20 and rose to £25.

 

There is no signature box for either the creditor or debtor to sign. The only signature boxes are for cancellation, or if PPI/Card Care is required.

 

Now I believe this purported agreement to have been manufactured, possibly by Intrum Justitia.

 

My question is, what should I write back to them? Should I inform them that there are some major "inconsistancies" in the agreement, or should I send a CPR 31.16 request, asking for a signed copy?

 

Alangee

[debt4get]

tell em that they have not complyed with your legal request and as such the account is now in dispute and will continue to be until they comply

[dcakiller]

Sounds like they have sent you plie of mince.

[2Grumpy]

The fun will start when they ask for payment based on that.

 

They can't ask for payment while the CCA is outstanding.

 

They are not allowed to ask for payment and you are not obliged to offer any.

 

If they do ask for payment, that will ba based on their passing that fabricated agreement as the real thing.

 

I believe that as far as the fraud act is concerned, an incorrectly reconstructed CCA has the same standing as a forgery. That's one thing that a DCA won't be expecting!

 

Might be worth getting further advice before visiting the boys in blue, but you would just be reporting a possible fraud.

It would have stopped being a civil matter when they asked for money ...

[alangee]

The covering letter did ask for proposals of payment.

 

At least I am now 100% sure that they do not have an agreement.

 

Alan

[dcakiller]

Report them for chasing payment while in default of a cca request and cc them in on the complaint

[alangee]

Have sent the following letter to IJ

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Thank you for your letter which I received today.

 

Mmmm, so, you believe this to be a true copy of the agreement for the above account. I have to tell you that having read through it, I can honestly say that I never signed that agreement.

 

I cannot believe that Sainsbury’s would leave themselves open to what could be criminal proceedings, by issuing that document to you. They have sold the debt, so why should they concoct an agreement? I shall be forwarding a copy of this letter, and purported agreement, to them for their comment. I shall also be sending copies to all of the regulatory bodies. Once Sainsbury’s have replied, I will know whether to take any further action.

 

Needless to say, I still do not acknowledge any debt to Intrum Justitia, and the account remains in dispute.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

Lets see what comes back

 

Alan

[dcakiller]

Good letter bet that lights a fire under them

[NitrousOxide]

Is it possible to scan it please.

[cashins]

That should do it.

 

IJ normally give up when you are firm with them

 

David

[diddydicky]

My OH requested a copy of her Sainsbury's Agreement from Intrum Justitia back in March, and it arrived today.

 

It consists of four double sided sheets of A4 (8 pages in all), without any logo's or references. It is titled Credit Card Agreement Regulated by CCA 1974, and has Sainsbury's Bank and my OH as parties to the "agreement". It then goes on to give the prescribed terms. So far so good (if you ignore the fact that it is typed out on plain paper).

 

Now we start getting the wrong information. The agreement states that there was no special promotion rate or period. There was, it was a 5% reduction over a six month period. It also states that the APR was 18.95% (it was 14.9% after promotion period ended, and stayed at that rate for six years).

 

On the next page under Key Information, my OH is informed that their charges are £12. The card was taken out in 1999 when their charges were £20 and rose to £25.

 

There is no signature box for either the creditor or debtor to sign. The only signature boxes are for cancellation, or if PPI/Card Care is required.

 

Now I believe this purported agreement to have been manufactured, possibly by Intrum Justitia.

 

My question is, what should I write back to them? Should I inform them that there are some major "inconsistancies" in the agreement, or should I send a CPR 31.16 request, asking for a signed copy?

 

Alangee

 

apart from the fact of whether it is a true copy of an agreement they ARE in fact allowed to "recreate" the terms of the agreement therefore the word manufacture (as in fraudulently knocked up) would not be appropriate.

 

of course as it is typed up there is no way of knowing whether this represents a true copy of an original agreement or whether it is the current terms and conditions they are relying on

 

they will argue that you signed an agreement which contained a clause that said they could alter the terms and conditions as and when they wished and that you are therefore bounby by whatever the current terms are

 

your response of course is "ok you say i signed a properly executed agreement with such a clause in it" - i say i did no such thing - so show it to me!!

[2Grumpy]

apart from the fact of whether it is a true copy of an agreement they ARE in fact allowed to "recreate" the terms of the agreement therefore the word manufacture (as in fraudulently knocked up) would not be appropriate.

 

of course as it is typed up there is no way of knowing whether this represents a true copy of an original agreement or whether it is the current terms and conditions they are relying on

 

they will argue that you signed an agreement which contained a clause that said they could alter the terms and conditions as and when they wished and that you are therefore bounby by whatever the current terms are

 

your response of course is "ok you say i signed a properly executed agreement with such a clause in it" - i say i did no such thing - so show it to me!!

 

I agree that they are allowed to "recreate" agreements.

 

However, they often get them completely wrong. This sounds like one of those cases.

 

When they do get them completely wrong, say that they have satisfied their obligations under the CCA & then demand money, I believe that is a different matter.

 

There has to be a point where, because of material differences between the real agreement & the recreated document, that the document ceases to be a recreation & becomes fiction. If they insist that is an accurate recreation of the original & demand money on the basis of that, I don't see why that isn't fraud.

 

In this case they are using a fictitious document to demand money.

[diddydicky]

I agree that they are allowed to "recreate" agreements.

 

However, they often get them completely wrong. This sounds like one of those cases.

 

When they do get them completely wrong, say that they have satisfied their obligations under the CCA & then demand money, I believe that is a different matter.

 

There has to be a point where, because of material differences between the real agreement & the recreated document, that the document ceases to be a recreation & becomes fiction. If they insist that is an accurate recreation of the original & demand money on the basis of that, I don't see why that isn't fraud.

 

In this case they are using a fictitious document to demand money.

 

because as i said their argument is that the document they typed up and sent you is a true copy of their CURRENT terms and conditions, as you have never seen these CURRENT terms and conditions before you cannot possibly say that they are incorrect!

 

The current terms and conditions could be 100% different from the original ones in THEIR view because their argument is that you agreed that they could change them!!

 

One of the reasons that they don't provide a true copy of the original agreement is that they have micro fiched and then either destroyed or more likely archived the original in a dusty old vault in some disused nuclear bunker in the middle of Norfolk and retrieving it is a real pain for them!

 

my comments were predicated on the possibility that you might end up in court with these cretins and like it or not judges DO NOT LIKE to see accusations of dishonesty flying around.

 

If you want (you need) the judge onside you need to follow the etiquette that they require

[diddydicky]

PS it is my understanding (could be wrong) that if they send you the current terms and conditions (ie they have changed since taking out the agreement) they are also obliged to send you a true copy of the original ones as well which is why i say that they should now be asked for the executed agreement in which you agreed for the t & Cs to be changed to what they now allege you are bound by!

[B3rty]

2grumpy......just playing devils advocate as you are advising someone about a course of action witch could impact on their credit rating

 

They are not allowed to ask for payment and you are not obliged to offer any

 

Where do you get this from i.e could you just point me to the Act or SI?

[diddydicky]

2grumpy......just playing devils advocate as you are advising someone about a course of action witch could impact on their credit rating

 

 

 

Where do you get this from i.e could you just point me to the Act or SI?

 

i think it stems from the fact that when they enter default (12 +2 days) from a s77/79 request, they then cannot "enforce the agreement" until they rectify the default

 

some people take " enforce" to mean purely debt collection activity whereas IMO it means that the agreement (if it exists) is FROZEN for that time and they they cannot enforce any of its terms and conditions (but i stand as always to be corrected) until such time as they comply and send an easily legible True copy of a properly executed original agreement

 

 

thus they can not demand and you don't have to offer any payment since the terms and conditions are at this time of default not enforceable

[B3rty]

As I said just playing devils advocate because the term enforce isn't clear and creditors will do what they like...

 

In the Rankine case the judge referred the the fact that

"enforce" is not descriptive of bringing proceedings (so a creditor can commence a court case even if they haven't responded to a s77/78 request). Doing this is merely a step taken with a view to enforcement and so is ok. The only recourse the debtor has is to seek an injunction under s170

 

Now I know what we all think about that judgement but we need to be a little careful making our own assumptions unless we are strong enough to present the legal argument to back them up in court.

Edited July 3, 2009 by B3rty
typo

[diddydicky]

As I said just playing devils advocate because the term enforce isn't clear and creditors will do what they like...

 

In the Rankine case the judge referred the the fact that

 

Now I know what we all think about that judgement but we need to be a little careful making our own assumptions unless we are strong enough to present the legal argument to back them up in court.

 

if you look at most DN's the often contain a statement whakenich says something along the lines of

 

If you fail blah blah blah then further enforcement action may be taken

 

in my view you cannot take Further enforcement action if you have not already taken some enforcement action so the statement by the creditor clear accepts that was he is doing is taking enforcement action

[I've got no money]

I think Guys the problem is that as the law currently stands they can (Rankine is on the point) and do issue proceedings whilst there is a CCA request outstanding.

 

The other thing of course is that they will argue that SS77/78 only requires them to provide the current terms and conditions which is what they have give you - that's why a CPR 31.16 request is more useful as requires the original document.

[I've got no money]

Can I suggest that you have a look at PT's thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html

[diddydicky]

I think Guys the problem is that as the law currently stands they can (Rankine is on the point) and do issue proceedings whilst there is a CCA request outstanding.

 

The other thing of course is that they will argue that SS77/78 only requires them to provide the current terms and conditions which is what they have give you - that's why a CPR 31.16 request is more useful as requires the original document.

 

i accept that

 

the way i read the ruling from the OFT act is that they must provide BOTH the current and original T & C's if th current ones are different from the originals but i accept your point that they take no notice anyway

[I've got no money]

There are separate issues - a ruling from the OFT in this context does not stop the creditor issuing proceedings what it MAY do is give the OFT grounds to go through the revocation procedure in respect of the creditors consumer credit licence.

 

Perhaps a complaint to the OFT/Trading Standards

[alangee]

Hi, all, thanks for your comments.

 

It clearly says at the top of the page Credit Card Agreement Regulated by Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

In a box just under that it says "This is a copy of your agreement for you to keep. It contains a notice about cancellation rights which you should read"

 

Under Parties, it has Sainsbury's Bank and my OH as parties to the "agreement".

 

I will admit that because it runs to eight pages, it does include T&C's - although that is not stated.

 

The only other signature box (apart from cancellation form) is to request PPI or Card Care.

 

Nowhere on the form is there a signature box for the creditor or debtor to sign.

 

Remember this came from IJ. Despite numerous requests to Sainsbury's, all

we got from them was my OH's application. Sainsbury's stated that the application form was in fact the agreement.

 

This is why I suspect that this offering cam from IJ - I do not think Sainsbury's was involved. Why should they be?

 

Alan

Edited July 3, 2009 by alangee
spelling

[diddydicky]

the prescribed terms should be on the signature page and cannot be "dispersed" amongst the other 8 pages of terms and conditions

[alangee]

IGNM

 

I have copied the "agreement" to Sainsburys asking for their comments, and whether they issued it. Depending upon their answers, I will go to OFT/Trading Standards, citing either IJ or Sainsbury's Bank.

 

Alan