Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments on your post in red
    • Thanks for your reply, I have another 3 weeks before the notice ends. I'm also concerned because the property has detoriated since I've been here due to mould, damp and rusting (which I've never seen in a property before) rusty hinges and other damage to the front door caused by damp and mould, I'm concerned they could try and charge me for damages? As long as you've documented and reported this previously you'll have a right to challenge any costs. There was no inventory when I moved in, I also didn't have to pay a deposit. Do an inventory when you move out as proof of the property's condition as you leave it. I've also been told that if I leave before a possession order is given I would be deemed intentionally homeless, is this true? If you leave, yes. However, Your local council has a legal obligation to ensure you won't be left homeless as soon as you get the notice. As stated before, you don't have to leave when the notice expires if you haven't got somewhere else to go. Just keep paying your rent as normal. Your tenancy doesn't legally end until a possession warrant is executed against you or you leave and hand the keys back. My daughter doesn't live with me, I'd likely have medical priority as I have health issues and I'm on pip etc. Contact the council and make them aware then.      
    • extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject. My original CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them. Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

treblex33 CCA


treblex33
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5363 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

hi guys,

sorry to jump in; could you have a look at the attached CCA, it is a Credit Card & Loan Agreement, taken out in 2002.

one point I think is that - its not clearly legible; I did scan with hi-res but that's the quality of the copy they sent.

Secondly- I can't find it now but I read a thread here about combined agreement which claimed that unless the prescribed terms were set out separately for each account they were unenforceable. It referred to certain entries on the 74act. I'm searching for that info again to see which parts of the act applied.

http://photobucket.com/treblex33

 

thanks,

treblex

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi debt4get,

that's right it can't be read. I was going to write to the creditor to point that out, but would appeciate the opinion of members that may have have had similar experiences.

is there a paragraph of 74act ref. ilegibile CCA's??

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983

 

Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms

 

(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in

every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document

referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any

provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a

colour which is readily distinguishable from the colour of the paper.

 

Think this is what you're looking for..

 

Good luck... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Could I pls have your opinion on another CCA i received from RBS relating to a credit card agreement, account opened in 2000.

Pictures by treblex33 - Photobucket

 

Page00 - a copy of the application form; this is genuine, but does not form a CCA in itself I think.

 

Pages01 to 07 - haven’t seen / signed or agreed to these t&c's since I opened the account.

I think rbs just made those up recently to cover themselves legally. There is no date, no footnote to link the pages to form a document; I refer to the the following info i went through earlier on this site:

-------------------

“For your information and without going into too much detail here, as you will be aware of your legal obligations, a valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor.

As you will know section 180(1)(b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form”. This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.”

---------------------------

They are being clever here by typing up the t&c they used to have in 2000 but they also made a few errors, e.g. charges for going over limit or late payments shown as £15. I've got a statement where I was charged £20 on a few occasions during 2003.

so my opinion on pages01to07 - not a genuine document but don’t know if its legally acceptable though??

 

pages001 & 002:

Rbs also have included this doc which appears to be one of those papers that come with a new card issued.

Again errors here; the card they’re talking about I received in March 2003 at a previous address; they've put my current one on it.

I cant remember what paper came with the card at that time, but the 2nd page here with t&c's shows £12 charges which were introduced recently, not in 2003; clearly not a genuine document.

 

thanks in advance for your opinions. particularly interested in the info / paragraphs of 74act or other law applicable that will help to put a letter togather to write back.

 

treblex

Edited by treblex33
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...