New tack on supplying CCA-Discussion

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Vint,

Good thread, and some good points being made here.

I have received one of the generic printouts in response to a CCA request.

They said "This is what your agreement would have looked like.... a "true copy" is not necessarily a signed copy...as you've used the account we WILL have had your signature etc etc."

 

I wrote back on the lines of:

I am disgusted that you have chosen to hide behind the obscure wording of an archaic law drafted when legal contracts were written and signed by quill and ink.

At that time a true copy of any such document involved rewriting by hand, until the happy advent of the photocopier.

As a large and profitable business I feel safe in assuming that you do now possess photocopying equipment or equivalent.

I therefore request that if you DO hold a signed copy of this alleged agreement, you kindly photocopy it and send it to me.

If you fail to do so I can only assume that your statement that you hold a signed copy is incorrect and misleading.

Until you fulfill my request this account remains, very firmly, in dispute.

 

That was five months ago..not heard a dickybird since..no CCA, no threats, no statements. I think they must have filed it under "WTF do we do with this one"

Elsa x

Edited July 29, 2009 by Undercover-Elsa

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Vint,

As I've other stuff (bigger fish) going on with them I have to keep the finer details to myself for now ...just in case..but ultimately will tell all!

Elsa x

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi DD

Reads to me to refer to the date, as the date is included in the brackets, meaning the signature can be omitted, unfortunately.

This is such an archaic and unnecessary statute in view of current sophisticated copying techniques..it should be amended by law as the only purpose it serves is to allow the banks to deceive and procrastinate.

 

Here's a nice bit from the OFT's proposed guidelines on Irresponsible Lending though, due for finalising in October:

 

Re Unsatisfactory Business Practices:

4.26 Providing credit to a borrower prior to having received from him, or in the absence of ever having received from him, a completed application for credit.

(The OFT would not consider an application to be complete if the creditor had not received a copy of the credit agreement that had been signed by the borrower)

 

Elsa x

[Undercover-Elsa]

Brilliant work Vint

Elsa xx

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Vint & Haggis,

I have a question though. Ive been looking for ages for the source of this guidance:

 

 

While The account remains in Lawful dispute, the relevant main points of the Law and OFT regulations while the account is in this state and the Original creditor remains in default are:

• They may not ask for payment against this account.
  
• You are not obliged to offer any payment against this account.
  
• They cannot register any data or information with a third party such as a credit reference agency.
  
• (To register information with a credit reference agency, They must have written consent from the customer to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until they produce such an agreement, They may not do this.
  The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. any such attempts to share your data without consent should be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office)
  
• They cannot take any enforcement action, including registering Defaults.
  
• They cannot pass the account on to a third party for collection.
  
• You cannot sell the account.
  

Can someone point me in the direction of the legislation or guidance this info originated from?

 

This question has been driving me nuts!

I've mooched around t'internet this morning and tbh I don't think it's written in its entirety anywhere..it just seems to be a clarification of the main points of the effects of being "unable to enforce the agreement" collected from various sources.

In reality, I believe that simple statement from the CCA covers it all, but banks and DCA's being what they are, they need a little Xtra help in understanding the implications!

 

Nonetheless, here's a few more snippets with refs which support it:

 

OFT Debt Guidance

2.6

h. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt.

 

2.12 Examples of unfair practices are:

f. visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the

debt is deadlocked or disputed1

 

Banking Code 2008

13.6 We may give information to credit reference agencies

about the personal debts you owe us if:

• you have fallen behind with your payments;

• the amount owed is not being disputed; and

• you have not made proposals we are satisfied with

for repaying your debt, following our formal demand

 

Hope this might proof useful,

Elsa x

Edited September 22, 2009 by Undercover-Elsa
clarification

[Undercover-Elsa]

Good points Shadow, thanks for that.

On the bright (?) side I suppose most CCA requests are made as a response to or following being defaulted..ie at the DCA harrassment stage.

[Undercover-Elsa]

It would be interesting to find out how CMC's get around this problem.

Or do the banks take their requests more seriously?

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Rhood,

If you go to court, yes, and that is what we're all hoping to see whenever we send a CCA Request under Section 77/78.

Unfortunately some banks are avoiding sending them under what they perceive as a loophole in the definition of the term "true copy".

They assert that a true copy can omit the signature, based on archaic legal definitions of "true copy".

Their reasoning behind resorting to this can be various:

Possibly

a) they didn't retain a legible copy of the original signed document, or have lost it

b) no agreement exists

c) they have it but are fully aware that it is invalid because of not having the prescribed terms

d) they are indundated by requests and have a backlog so send out a generic printout asap in order to shut the debtor up and remove the "account in dispute" status so that enforcement can continue (in this case they may still have a copy but not had time to locate it)

e) just being bleddy awkward to put you off

[Undercover-Elsa]

Without rereading all through this thread again, (fascinating as it is dear Vint ) I'm not sure if this has come up before, so apologise in advance if it has..

However, whilst looking through someones reconstructed "credit agreement" on here, which purported to be the agreement for a Hx credit card taken out in 1988, I noticed that it refers to Acts in 2004.

How TF then can this represent a 1988 agreement?

Caught out in such a blatant and obvious untruth, doesn't that cast doubt on the integrity of the entire document?

Fuelled by this, I've looked at some of my own reconstructions and found similar date discrepancies. Time to have some fun?

Or did they perhaps have a Tardis?

Elsa Who? x

Edited February 21, 2010 by Undercover-Elsa

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Shadow- supposedly the original.

 

To quote:

"All terms included in the enclosed agreement are an abbreviated version of the historic terms and conditions when you opened the account"

Edited February 21, 2010 by Undercover-Elsa
added quote

[Undercover-Elsa]

I think the many people who've had these reconstructions need to re-read the small print? I have 2 CC's, same company, sent 2 CCA requests, one per account, and got ONE reconstruction for both, saying this is what they would have contained. It refers to Acts that weren't brought in until several years later

[Undercover-Elsa]

Oops indeed

If nothing else it'll put egg on their face in response to their holier than thou, we're never wrong, supercilious attitude.

Can't wait to draft the letter

[Undercover-Elsa]

But apart from "the lie" if they don't provide one with the relevant original T&C's they haven't complied with the Section 77/78 request..which they've taken an A4 page to pedantically justify that they HAVE complied with... hehehehehehehe

(And have just had their DCA lie again stating "contact us immediately on security issues as there has been unusual activity on your account" when the account is very very provably static...)

Knowing they lie is one thing, proving it is priceless

[Undercover-Elsa]

Just shows how they don't expect people to read the small print, much less understand it. No excuse for such deception. Stating that this is a true copy of the original terms is key..so check your reconstructions for date anomolies in conjunction with this