Lloyds Asset card - is this enforceable and common practice?

[workaholic duck]

I have a copy of my Asset Application Form and Agreement from Feb 2001. It consists of my personal details, no prescribed terms and PPI box ticked. I signed it along with the bank manager in branch.

About 10 days later I received a letter saying it had been successful etc. credit limit and a separate copy of T & C's attached, with a cancellation tear-off portion and showing APR.

It instructed me to sign the card after reading the T&C's. That was it.

Surely this can't be enforceable? Thought the prescribed terms had to be on the Agreement and T&C's on the back??

There must be loads of people who accepted this as Lloyds' policy at the time, without question. Or is it lawful?

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Bump

[dx100uk]

why not?

the rules you refer to did not apply in 2001.

 

why are you dispting it?

 

if you have ppi i'd reclaim it under a mis-sell though, i bet you were 'enticed' to agree?

 

dx

[workaholic duck]

Thanks, dx. I'm not actually disputing it...just rather hoping that I could go after this one, too! Thought I'd read that prescribed terms had to be on the signed agreement. It's rather like they get you to sign, then tell you the conditions, interest rates and limit after you get the card.

The PPI was agreed on a 'well, you might break your leg and be unable to work...best have it, yeah??' basis. In fact, I was paying this off in full each month, so it was only 4 years down the line (when the balance got too high to pay off!) that I began to notice these huge sums of 'extra interest'. When I queried it I was furious and cancelled immediately. In 2007, I tried to claim it back but they stubbornly insisted it covered me even though I was self-employed etc. Didn't know my rights fully then and backed off.

Now I do and yes, I will try again, I think.

So, the agreement is correct then??

Edited September 7, 2009 by workaholic duck

[hammyhound]

Hi,

 

I have also got an application form similar to yours from 1989 and was told it was not enforceable as no prescribed terms - so now I am confused.

 

HH

[workaholic duck]

That makes 2 of us HH! Perhaps someone will explain!