Capone/cabot v OH (disputed Acc)

[lexis200]

Yes, it does mention "application for credit" but it is also clearly marked as an Agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is a 2nd photocopied page also marked as an Agreement which contains the prescribed terms. I have the exact same two documents sent to me by Cap1. I have posted here already that if the 2nd photocopied page is on the back of the original signature page (or the creditor can prove to the Court that it somehow clearly links to the signature page) then it is likely to be enforceable.

 

IF, that's the important bit. IF the back of the page is the second page of Beachcombers application. Are there any reference numbers on the pages to link them? I can't find any mention of it in the thread if there are?

 

Is there anything to suggest it's a copy of the same document - crease lines, fonts used etc?

 

If not, then who's to say it's the back of your 'agreement' and not just some standard one they have lying around?

 

I think emma's point regarding charges may have been that banks often send new t's and c's out rather than the originals, which technically is what should be sent. The charges for late payments etc are likely to be different to what you agreed to, after the OFT's ruling made them all reduce to £12, so this is a handy way to check if they've sent the right ones.

[lexis200]

That sounds pretty iffy to me.

 

I'm having an issue with MBNA at the moment as they've sent what looks like an enforceable agreement with all prescribed terms, but a couple of posters have niggles with it and are wondering if it's a Blue Peter job. Trouble with mine is that the terms are shown on the page that OH signed. Now they've also sent current t's and c's, which according to the regs plainly need to be the originals, but for my specific one as the prescribed terms are shown in the correct place, I can't really argue on the back of that alone.

 

For you though, you've got an 'agreement' that sounds like 2 different documents photocopied onto one page, plus current terms. If it's an application which can be used as an agreement, I'd really want to know how they can use it as an agreement if they can't prove the two sides came from the same piece of paper.

 

If you're up for it, I'd suggest sending off an SAR request. This was suggested to me by another poster, who ended up with 2 different 'copies' of her agreement, thus putting the bank in a bit of an awkward position. If you do though, make sure you specifically request the CCA to be included as otherwise they may well leave it out. I have a good template (again from another poster - thank you!) if you would like it.

 

I should also point out that I'm in no way an expert on this, and anything I've said is picked up from the superb advice given throughout these forums, so please don't take anything I say as gospel; I'm just giving another opinion for you to think about:)

[lexis200]

Well that's no good! Have you got anywhere with getting them to send those bits, as they know full well they have to?

 

If not I'd get a complaint in and slip in that the CCA should have been provided within it too.

 

If you've done that and they're still not complying, I think you need to complain to TS/OFT/FOS (sorry don't know which one it would be:confused:).

 

As it stands at the moment though you could still write and tell them you want to see a copy of the original along with the original terms, not 2 separate pages and current terms - see what they say to that?

[lexis200]

:lol:

[lexis200]

It always makes me feel better when I vent! Especially if I've got my proper letter writing head on and can make it hugely sarcastic but also polite at the same time so they can't complain:D

[lexis200]

Sorry to butt in Beachcomber:oops:

 

Steven, on one of my other DN's (and obviously Cap1), they have the 28 days to remedy rather than a date. I'm a bit wary of this and feel a decent solicitor would not find it hard to persuade a Judge that this was ok (hadn't disadvantaged me etc). Other people on my thread though seem sure that as it's not to the letter of the Act that it's cut and dried (well, as much as it ever could be).

 

Do you have any opinions on this, as I can't shake the feeling that if I ended up in a courtroom offering only that as a fault, that I'd be on very thin ice?

 

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

Lexis:)

[lexis200]

Thanks for the reply BC:)

 

Don't get disheartened - just because you can't claim the account is in dispute (as they have supplied a CCA, albeit a bit naff), doesn't mean you're set back.

 

You still hold an unenforceable agreement - that's what's got rid of every DCA we've had so far (touch wood!). I see you've already said that to them, but maybe also saying the account was in dispute when technically it wasn't has muddied the waters a little. If you just get back to them and say the agreement is a dead duck, pass it back to Cap1 as you have no legal way of getting anything from me, end of discussion, you may get a different response?

 

Also, if you've not received notification just tell them you won't correspond any more until Cap1 have clarified matters for you, as you refuse to talk about personal matters with random companies claiming to know your details.

 

Now go and have that coffee:)

[lexis200]

This is a hot topic at the moment I think. It seems to be a 50/50 split, with one set thinking it's catastrophic for them, and the others thinking it's a bit of a pain, but they'll end up being ok.

 

Although I can see the Act does very clearly state several times 'a date not less than..', which would imply to me they should put an actual date down, I just can't shake the feeling that a judge would simply say that as they have dated the letter and said something like '28 days from the date on this letter', that they have given ample time.

 

It would be different if the Act said 'a date shown as a day, month and year', as that would be indisputable. Unfortuanetely although we tend to feel that's exactly what it means, it seems to me that it is still too open to interpretation.

 

In short I would be very dubious about going into court if that was my only defence.

 

However, Pinky69 is doing just that, and I hope she screws them to the wall with it!! Not least because mine has the 28 days too, and I was really miffed when I saw that:(

 

Hey ho, I've got goodun's as well, so it's not all bad:D

[lexis200]

Personally I think it's nice of Ellie to keep writing to you when she's on maternity leave.

 

They must send her piles of mail every day just so that she can personally hit the 'template number 5' button to respond to it.

[lexis200]

Nothing to add beachy, but just wanted to say how sorry I am you're having to deal with so much in such a short time.

 

I hope things pick up for you soon.