BARCLAYCARD-No CCa? Any action Group?

[slick132]

Hi RGB,

 

Apart from CAG, No !

 

Users have complained to the OFT, the FOS, TS and anyone else who'll listen. But BC continue to avoid sending out credit agreements as their standard policy.

Edited December 14, 2010 by slick132
typo

[slick132]

Hi Roy,

 

They did not send it with my section 78 request

They won't, and will maintain they are right to continue to seek payment.

 

This impasse will only be sorted if and when they take it to court, which they are unlikely to do.

 

8-)

[slick132]

Hi RGB,

 

Send the letter if you want. Whether Wescotts read it or believe what you say .......... that's another matter.

 

It's a bit long TBH and I would suggest you make it much shorter. Perhaps mention the section of Waksman's Judgement which requires multiple T&C's where they have been varied.

 

8-)

[slick132]

Hi RGB,

 

With the Application form and their T&C's, you will have a tough job persuading BC, Mercers, Westcott, Trading Standards or the FOS that BC have failed to comply with the requirements of s.78 CCA 1974. I know the argument remains that T&C's could be needed for each occasion when they were altered but I don't think this will enable you to convince anyone that the a/c remains in dispute.

 

BC or their DCA's will now pursue payments.

 

My comments in post #5 above still apply - the only way you're likely to find out if BC have a valid credit agreement is if they take you to court to enforce the a/c.

 

Remember, even if they don't have the original agreement with all the Prescribed Terms, there's a chance that a judge may side with the bank and make a CCJ against you.

 

It may therefore be prudent to consider making arrangements to pay something that you can afford monthly.

 

I assume you've reclaimed all penalty charges and PPI, both with compound interest in restitution.

 

8)

[slick132]

Hi RGB,

 

BC probably HAVE fulfilled their requirements enough to satisfy those who are involved, even though the OFT Guidance says they should provide more. But there's nothing to stop you taking the matter up with the FOS complaining that BC haven't fully complied according to the OFT Guidance on s.78 CCA 1974 compliance - http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT1272.pdf - Sections 2.20 to 2.28 are probably the most relevant.

 

If BC took you to court using the Application, their case should fail on the basis of legibility and the document lacking the Prescribed Terms required by CCA 1974. See the Guide to Checking your Credit Agreement at Link No2 in my signature.

 

Not sure what you mean about the Data Protection Act. That's only relevant to a SAR request.

 

8)

[slick132]

As I said in my last post, read Link No2 on how to check your credit agreement, which covers all aspects of agreements.

 

8-)

[slick132]

HI RGB,

 

The Microfiche copy of the Application does not contain the Prescribed Terms as required.

 

The T&C's which they also sent to you appear to NOT be part of the Application, or even related to the Application.

 

You could therefore reasonably say the 2 documents were never part of the same single document. Thus, the Application form should not be enough for BC to get the debt enforced by a court.

 

However, we have seen some judgements in favour of banks, even when we think it incorrect. It is down to the "Judge Lottery".

 

As said before, you will only get to find out if you allow a case to go that far, and the bank takes you to court.

 

In the meantime, the CCA response will be considered to be sufficient for the bank and DCA's to pursue the debt by normal means of collection, default notice, bad credit markers, etc.

 

8-)

Edited December 18, 2010 by slick132
typo

[slick132]

I am having trouble trying to see what would be wrong.

The Application doesn't contain all the Prescribed Terms as required by CCA1974.

 

You could write to BC setting out your reasons for why they have failed to comply with your CCA request. You can also say the Application form will not stand up in court as an enforceable credit agreement as it does not contain the Prescribed Terms set out in CCA 1974.

 

You could therefore offer to make a Without Prejudice F&F Settlement to close the matter.

 

I doubt whether they'll entertain this just now, but no harm in trying.

 

8)

[slick132]

Thanks Rebel.

 

RGB this info is set out in detail in the Guide to Checking Credit Agreements in my signature as I have said before.

 

If you want to take on BC and show there is merit in the arguments you make, you will have to identify and be able to argue these points yourself, so you can put them effectively into writing.

 

[slick132]

Hi RGB,

 

Another point that Rebel has reminded me of - at the end of the OFT Guidance publication that I linked for you on post #13 on page #1 of your thread, there's a Plain English guide which sets things out very clearly.

 

It may help with the points you want to make with BC.

 

8-)

[slick132]

Hi RGB,

 

An interesting approach but I'm not sure it'll work the way you want.

 

If the a/c has been sold (as confirmed by the letter of Assignment), it has nothing to do with BC now.

 

Send Red a CCA request as this may shut them up for a while. If Red see that you're not a push-over, they may be more prepared to consider a F&F Settl't in due course.

 

[slick132]

Hi RGB,

 

The reality here is that what you think is right and/or fair is not the same as what BC or Red think.

 

Even if you complain to the FOS, they are unlikely to agree with you and will say that BC produced enough to comply with the CCA request and that BC had the right to sell the a/c to Red.

 

You can now tell Red that you'll pay nothing until you receive a copy of the executed credit agreement. See if that stalls them or enables them to discuss a F&F with you.

 

If Red try to take court action without the credit agreement, you should have a good chance of defending.

 

[slick132]

Hi RGB,

 

Will you SAR them or did you mean you'd send Red a CCA request ?

 

Looking at this objectively, your opinion that BC were wrong to sell the a/c and that Red should not be chasing for payments, is based on the assumption that the a/c is in dispute. But this argument may not be sustainable.

 

The issues you raise above would be valid if you were defending in court but, until that stage, you have your opinions and BC and Red have theirs.

 

[slick132]

If you think Red are overstepping the mark in contacting you the way they are, use the harassment letters from the library.

 

Take the initial steps to warn them off and, if they continue to harass in ways that are unacceptable, then take further action.

 

The trouble is that you have to do this over and over, each time the debt is passed on. You can only hope that, now that BC have sold the debt, it won't continue to be passed around as much.

 

[slick132]

So do Lowells now own the debt and Red are seeking payment as a DCA acting for Lowells ?

 

See what comes back in response to the SAR.

 

The situation regarding legal enforcement remains the same - without the credit agreement, you should be able to defend against court action.

 

[slick132]

Hi RGB,

 

Not sure if you're right on this.

 

There's nothing to stop them taking court action if they wish - that's their prerogative. Whether such action succeeds is, of course, up to the court.

 

Re the processing of your data and the continued use of your phone number, this hinges on whether they have the right to continue to seek payment without the original credit agreement. The bank and/or DCA will say that they have that right.

 

If you want to try the ICO anyway, there's no harm in trying.

 

[slick132]

Hi RGB,

 

I still don't agree with you.

 

If BC or any other bank or DCA believe they have a chance of getting a CCJ, even though they don't have the original executed credit agreement, they can take court action. It is then up to the judge to decide who should win. Hence, I don't agree that point (2) above would necessarily apply.

 

I do hope the business trading style Guidance helps cut down on the banks using multiple guises to pursue debts. Could this really be an end to BC morphing into Mercers, the Calders, etc, etc..........

 

Are Hamiltons contacting you as a legal firm of solicitors looking to take court action, or do you think they are just another DCA.

 

[slick132]

What should I do? In dispute letter plus request a copy of my credit agreement which complies with the 1974 act? Also to ask if they have the original copy??

 

Yes, you could do this.

 

If they have no copy of the credit agreement, that should reduce their chance of any success with a court claim.