Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Its a case of the template response didn't quite fit your request but with the added bonus of throwing in a request to supply your Financial details.    .
    • Thanks for the prompt reply, I believe I was reading it differently to you then - So what you are stating is that Lowell have to prove the documents they filed with the court on the 29.Nov.2019 were indeed also served on me?   I would also ask - do they have to do this within a period of time? I read back this post ( I am still looking for my paperwork that I archived on this matter). It seems we did complete an AQ and that's why it went to mediation initially.    What should I do at this stage?
    • Hi again.....   You cant kinda give them a Letter Before Claim....it must be the correct format and headed same to comply with the Pre Action Protocol guidance.   It would be helpful if you could scan redact and upload a copy of this last letter/email  you sent with their response.   With regards to your last post its obvious that you dont know the process..which is understandable as most never want to get involved in this process. There is no such thing as Big Court as opposed to Small Claims Court ...should you decide to litigate you will be issuing your claim through the Small Claims Court...which can be don on line.   Have a look at MCOL and get a feel of the web portal   https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome   Embarking on this action is not for everyone...but you will be surprised how simple it is without any legal knowledge.   Have a good read of the link I provided above re our other User facing the same dilemma as yourself and see how it runs step by step..in particular look at her Letter Before Claim...that will be your starting point should you wish to challenge this unfair and unjust consumer treatment.   .  
    • Might be worth a try   Lying in a hot bath at min and still struggling    On verge of ringing 111
    • Is this car park local to you?  If so, it would be good if you could go back and take photos of the signage.   The last time someone did so we discovered that Simple Simon had been so stupid as to put details of two different companies on the signs, which would make it impossible for the motorist to know which company they were entering into a contract with.   It would be useful to know if the signage is still pants.
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

CCA 1974 - Question


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4078 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

If certain terms have been omitted form CCA's then why is it just unenforcable? why isn't it a fraudulant document?

 

If I printed off a £50 note and presented it to a bank for a transaction that would be fraud, is it not the same case with these CCA's printed

off by the banks, credit card companies and others.

 

The CCA 1974 has been around for over 30 years. The banks, credit card companies and others have had many years to get it right, yet they continue to hoodwink consumers, thus disadvantaging them.

 

The Act is there to protect 'consumers'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If certain terms have been omitted form CCA's then why is it just unenforcable? why isn't it a fraudulant document?

 

If I printed off a £50 note and presented it to a bank for a transaction that would be fraud, is it not the same case with these CCA's printed

off by the banks, credit card companies and others.Well not really because you'd be trying to pass off money that wasn't real, whereas they are trying to lend you money, they just haven't given you all the details about it.

 

The CCA 1974 has been around for over 30 years. The banks, credit card companies and others have had many years to get it right, yet they continue to hoodwink consumers, thus disadvantaging them.

 

The Act is there to protect 'consumers'.

 

I see what you're getting at, but I don't think omitting terms can really amount to fraud. If they try to imply you've signed up for something you haven't by sticking your signature on a previously unsigned document, that's fraud. If they've just lent you money without telling you that your credit limit is x amount, that's just bad documentation.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've had 30 years to get it right, they've done it on hundreds of thousands of agreements, the scale of it gets you thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I asked every Bank, Credit Company, loan company in the land for every

CCA application they have produced in the last 30 years. That would be very telling indeed. You might see a pattern of years of embracing the CCA 1974, followed by years when the cca 1974 hasn't been embraced,

probably down to commercial reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with the fact they are clearly ignoring the legalities on these documents - generally so that they have more space for advertising their other products as it goes - I just don't think it amounts to fraud.

 

It's certainly disgraceful that they a) are still getting it wrong 30 years on and b) that it's not an automatic release from your contract if they haven't got the basic requirements there, but I don't think you'd get far accusing them of fraud for it:(

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did spend a few minutes thinking for a word to replace fraud and I haven't sent any documention to any companies as yet. It's just my thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sent off 5 Subject Access Requests yesterday. 3 envolpes which all weighed the same, same size. The lady at the counter, first letter went threw her measuring device, but she pretended she couldn't get the other

two letters threw. But by magic I told her to push harder. She wanted to charge me more for recoreded delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is briefly whats happened with one MBNA account.

MBNA VISA OPENED ACCOUNT 1996 (contract looks unenforceable)

Didn't ask for PPI added then - refunded.

Last statement received 1999. (asked account to be closed)

no statements received between 1999 - Dec 2004

no Credit Card's received between 1999 - to present day

 

Received new statement in Dec 2004 with new account number

I wrote a Credit card Cheque PPI added then refunded

 

They told me the account was dormant although I'd asked for it to be closed in 1999. The only CCA was signed back in 1996. I asked for 70+ statements for the account in 2005, they told me it would cost £185,

£2.50 each. Although statements between 1999 - Nov 2004 don't exist.

This account has had 3 account numbers. They've come up with one

excuse, an update of account numbers in may 2004. I went to the FOS,

in 2005, they didn't want to tell me about CCA.

 

Any thoughts?

Edited by rebel11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if the account is, as they say, only dormant, then get an SAR into them. At the same time write a complaint about them wanting to charge you nearly £200 for statements, when what they should have told you is that an SAR would get you them (and a load of other info) for a tenner.

 

If they turn round and say it was closed in '99, then get straight back to them with why they issued a statement for a new number in '04.

 

If there were 3 account numbers then they should have 3 CCA's, technically speaking. Now I know this doesn't always happen as my OH had a BOS card change from visa to mc with a new number and nothing more than a note on one of his statements to explain it, but I'm fairly sure this is really not right. If they change the account, the agreement you originally signed is kaput and they need to you agree to the new account with the new number.

 

You might find it useful to pose this question on the large CCA thread as I'm sure it's been covered there before - something about new tokens being issued.

 

Also, if they came up with £185 as a cost to you, they must have had 74 statements available to send to you. This means one of two things. Either -

 

They didn't ever close the account and the 74 statements relate to the 6 odd years you thought the account was out of action for. This is very interesting to you as they have completely disregarded your request.

 

Or

 

They have kept statements right from the opening of the account up to about '02. If it's this one it's very very interesting, as they quote time and again that they destroy statements after six years (which according to the Tax Man puts them in a bit of a pickle if they have to prove a bought-forward balance, but I've put this to them more than once and they just hedge the issue)

 

The FOS don't really like to get involved unless you really push them into it, so suggesting a way you can help yourself is massively unlikely to come from them. Superb for a government body that's in place to help the consumer really isn't it:rolleyes:

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lexis200,

 

Where abouts is the 'large CCA thread'?

 

Thanks for your comments, it looks like there are facts, but they have rearranged them to hoodwink me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is briefly whats happened with one MBNA account.

MBNA VISA OPENED ACCOUNT 1996 (contract looks unenforceable)

Didn't ask for PPI added then - refunded.

Last statement received 1999. (asked account to be closed)

no statements received between 1999 - Dec 2004

no Credit Card's received between 1999 - to present day

 

Received new statement in Dec 2004 with new account number

I wrote a Credit card Cheque PPI added then refunded

 

Has this been paid off or is there still a ballance on the account.

 

They told me the account was dormant although I'd asked for it to be closed in 1999. The only CCA was signed back in 1996. I asked for 70+ statements for the account in 2005, they told me it would cost £185,

£2.50 each. Although statements between 1999 - Nov 2004 don't exist.

This account has had 3 account numbers.

 

As Lexis has said, they need to keep account documents for 6 years for Tax purposes, but 6 years past the closeure of the account for money laundering regulations.

 

They've come up with one

excuse, an update of account numbers in may 2004. I went to the FOS,

in 2005, they didn't want to tell me about CCA.

 

Any thoughts?

Vint

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rebel

If I was you I would definately get a SAR sent off to them, you should get your statements together with their computerised data reports for all the accounts they have, plus computer printous of any letters they have sent you.

 

I've a similar saga going on with B/C. Information about my two accounts came to light when I sent them a SAR and got data printouts for both accounts. Turns out they closed my original account when I reported my card stolen in 07. They opened a new one using out of date info from a 4 year old application form. Ironic really - If I'd opened an account using this info I would have been guilty of fraud. I've asked them to explain why they didn't open new accounts when previous cards were lost/stolen in the post, , if this is standard proceedure. B/C went very quiet and then passed the account to a DCA who asked for payment in full in 7 days - I told them to go forth and multiply - so far they have.:rolleyes:

 

I'll be subbing your thread with interest - I'm looking for inspiration on how to handle B/C. They won't take me to court as they know they don't have a credit agreement, but that hasn't stopped them trashing my credit file.

 

cheers

Wils

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is important as highlighted by lexus, hopefully someone knows a bit about this.

 

'You might find it useful to pose this question on the large CCA thread as I'm sure it's been covered there before - something about new tokens being issued.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, if there saying it's the same account. They should of sent continuous statements, there was a gap of five years.

 

 

The 1974 Act includes requirements in respect of:

  • periodic statements for running-account credit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi rebel 11

 

Whether you have a fixed sum agreement or a running account facility.either way it doesnt matter at the early stage.

 

First logical step is request a copy of the original agreement for either, under section 77 subsection 1 and check out subsection 4 paras (a) and (b)...keep in mind section 168 and then at the proper time bang in a section 142 CCA 1974

 

Rgds

Means2anend

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a copy of the original agreement, it's the second one in the MBNA

Library. MBNA sent it to me in 2005 to back up there stance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that I signed an agreement in 1996. The account existed up to 1999. Nothing for 5 years until they restarted it, no statements, no credit cards, no new agreements to sign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan of action I think is:-

 

a) Send SAR - to see what statements they send.

b) S85 - they should have sent me a new agreement to sign as they allocated a new account number in 2004.

 

My knowledge is limited. But I think thats what I need to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...