CoOp defaults invalid?

[nks22]

See http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/221741-cab-egg-dlc.html

here for summary of my situation.

 

As mentioned there, I had default notices served on my two CoOp credit card accounts followed by termination. After reading some of the other threads I checked the two DNs and it appears to me they are invalid because there isn't a full 14 days between the serving and the remedy date.

 

The two DNs are dated 20 June, 2009 (a Saturday) and the remedy date is 14 days later - 4 July, 2009. However even assuming first class delivery the 14 days should run from 24 June, i.e no earlier than 8 July. Am I correct in this?

 

Both accounts were terminated on 15 July. No further action has been taken as they are now in discussion with CAB. Where should I go from here?

 

Thanks.

 

">

 

">

[silverfox1961]

Oh Dear

 

As they have now teminated, they can only claim the arrears as the DN was invalid.

 

Shucks

 

fox

[42man]

You could possibly write to them outlining their error/s and asking how they expect to compensate you for an unlawful recssion of contract !!

[Artie44]

You could possibly write to them outlining their error/s and asking how they expect to compensate you for an unlawful recssion of contract !!

 

I got a letter following a faulty DN which says the account is closed and demands the full balance to be paid within 7 days, but it does not say it is a Termination Notice.

 

I am unclear about this because S87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 says that service of a DN in accordance with S88 is necessary before the creditor can become entitled,

 

a) to terminate the agreement, or

b) to demand earlier payment of any sum

 

So, is demanding the full balance after a faulty DN the same as a termination, or in this case an unlawful termination?

Edited September 25, 2009 by Artie44

[nks22]

You could possibly write to them outlining their error/s and asking how they expect to compensate you for an unlawful recssion of contract !!

I will be writing to them but should I request compensation? They haven't yet registered the defaults on my credit record (just late payments) and I already have two defaults from Egg so can't really claim to have suffered much harm.

 

It'd be useful to know what responses others have had to challenges based on time limit error (but I suppose I'll have to trawl the forum for that!).

[nks22]

I shall be challenging the Co-Op on the basis of faulty DNs anyway so this is possibly of only academic interest. The Co-Op terminated both the CC accounts I held with them on 15 July but have continued to send me monthly statements complete with new late fees and interest. What's the legal position with these?

[nks22]

Received this today for a credit card taken out in 1998. Came with two barely legible pages of generic and unsigned T&Cs. As it stands it seems unenforceable to me - any thoughts on that?

 

It refers to 'the credit agreement overleaf'. If that does exist (could their failure to include it mean they don't have it?) and it does contain the prescribed terms might this become an enforceable agreement? Has anyone received an example of what might be on the reverse?

 

 

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Bump

[lexis200]

Is it really that blurry?

 

From what I can see, IF it was legible and IF they could turn up with the back of that page and IF they could link the two pages together with some sort of reference, then yes it could be compliant and enforceable.

 

So

 

1) is it legible?

2) do the two extra pages they sent have any reference numbers or similar on them that can be linked to the signature page?

3) are the extra two pages they sent from the same time period as the signature page?

4) have they sent you historic terms and current terms?

5) do the two extra pages contain all the prescribed terms?

6) are they claiming that the two extra pages are part of the signature page, or merely that they are the terms and conditions that contain the prescribed terms?

 

As far as I can see at the moment they have not complied and have not sent you an enforceable document.

 

Hopefully you'll get some more opinions soon though:)

[nks22]

Thanks for your response.

 

1) is it legible?

It is legible, although only just.

2) do the two extra pages they sent have any reference numbers or similar on them that can be linked to the signature page?

Two pages of very small print (a photocopy of a fax, for some reason) headed 'General - conditions applying to all credit cards'. the only reference is mostly illegible but ends in either 03/00 or 03/08. No date, signature or link to the 'agreement'.

3) are the extra two pages they sent from the same time period as the signature page?

Almost certainly not.

4) have they sent you historic terms and current terms?

That may be what these are supposed to be but they're the only ones sent.

5) do the two extra pages contain all the prescribed terms?

Difficult to say but they're certainly a separate document to the 'agreement' (which is also a different size).

6) are they claiming that the two extra pages are part of the signature page, or merely that they are the terms and conditions that contain the prescribed terms?

They don't claim anything. The covering letter just says 'am pleased to enclose the information requested in relation to your account'.

 

I'll be sending the 'account in dispute letter' and see what comes from that.

 

I've already, incidentally, had this account terminated on the back of a defective DN.

[amber]

Send them this:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Ref: Consumer Credit Card Agreement Request

ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

Thank you for the reply to my letter dated XXXXXXXX, which I made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I have the following concerns. The document entitled “Credit Card Agreement Regulated By The Consumer Credit Act 1974” which appears to bear my signature, fails to comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557). In particular section 2 of the Regulations.

 

As you will be no doubt aware, the Copy Document Regulations requires that documents are easily legible and clearly the terms of the agreement are not easily legible, in fact far from it. Many of the terms are blurred and cannot be interpreted and I am further unable to make out the prescribed terms as required by schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553). After taking advice on this matter, I am of the belief that this agreement that you have presented before me, as it stands would be unenforceable even by court order. Therefore, I require that you provide me a clearly legible copy of the agreement, where all the terms are clearly legible. This agreement does not conform to sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and would therefore only be enforceable by a court under s65. However, the absence of any (prescribed terms / signature) means that a court would be prevented from enforcing it under s127(3).

 

Should you not be able to supply a clearly legible copy containing the necessary prescribed terms, I would suggest that you give consideration to cancelling this account and reducing the balance to zero. Of course the alternative would be to seek a declaration of my rights under Section 142(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I am advised that with the documents that you have supplied there would be an extremely good prospect of success with such a declaration. However, I am mindful of additional costs that such action could incur both on my part and on yours so I trust you will give consideration to this request.

 

I am granting to you a further 7 days to produce a copy of an executable agreement along with the terms & conditions pertainable at the time of the accounts inception and NOT your current terms & conditions.

 

After that I will consider that the above account is closed and that you will no longer pursue the alleged debt.

 

After this period you should close the file and cease processing any personal data relating to me on this matter.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter and look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

 

Yours Sincerely

[lexis200]

Thanks for your response.

 

 

It is legible, although only just.

Two pages of very small print (a photocopy of a fax, for some reason) headed 'General - conditions applying to all credit cards'. the only reference is mostly illegible but ends in either 03/00 or 03/08. No date, signature or link to the 'agreement'.

Almost certainly not.

That may be what these are supposed to be but they're the only ones sent.

Difficult to say but they're certainly a separate document to the 'agreement' (which is also a different size).

They don't claim anything. The covering letter just says 'am pleased to enclose the information requested in relation to your account'.

 

I'll be sending the 'account in dispute letter' and see what comes from that.

 

I've already, incidentally, had this account terminated on the back of a defective DN.

 

Ok, I'd say the good news is that they appear to have diddly squat, but just in case they did manage to find an enforceable agreement they decided to really scupper themselves by defaulting and terminating unlawfully.

 

The bad news is that this is exactly the position I've been in for the last year or so (only they've also defaulting and terminated incorrectly a second time, and not complied with a SAR), and they are obstinate, rude, patronising, happy to ignore the law, happy to ignore you, and will tell you that black is white to further their argument.

 

I have recently made a complete timeline of events - which does not paint a pretty picture of them - sticking purely to the facts and remaining unemotional about it, and sent that along with a covering letter to the CEO. I'm crossing fingers that it might knock a bit of sense into them, but if it doesn't it at least gives me a cracking letter to send to the FOS and TS which gives every bit of detail they need. I'll let you know if I get anywhere - don't hold your breath though:)