Jump to content


clairemp

WY Trading Standards don't agree with CAG - help!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3622 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

Hey

 

Could do with some advice please, chaps and chapettes. Following the CCA route with a number of my creditors, all of which have done the blank reconstituted thing with new unsigned (and previously not shared with me!) terms and conditions. Using the CAG templates, thought I'd got my head round it. Because they've not given me proper copies, refusing to pay any of them without them providing properly executed CCA. And now MBNA and AA have both sold the disputed debts on, despite these being disputed and despite no enforceable CCA being provided. The Ombudsman has already said in the case of MBNA that a court must rule on enforceability.

 

The issue is that, as per the guidance, I reported MBNA to Trading Standards for unfair trading. As I've previously posted on another thread, WY Trading Standards have a different take on the whole unfair trading thing to what other CAGers seem to be getting from their local Trading Standards, and it'd be useful if people could post their responses from their Trading Standards which DO agree with the CAG templates.

 

The gist of WY Trading Standards final response in refusing to take up unfair trading with MBNA is;

- creditor not prevented from enforcing a debt for which they've not provided the original executed agreement even when the account is clearly in dispute, when MBNA have been told the debt is in dispute and should not according to the Banking Code and ICO be taking enforcement action on a disputed debt.

- CCA 1974 repealed, so MBNA don't need to provide a properly executed agreement and don't need to have both signatures nor prescribed terms on a CCA for it to be regarded as properly executed - even though the agreement was before the repeal and so should have been properly executed with signatures and prescribed terms at the time.

- say that I appear to be disputing the collection methods, not that I owe the money; when I'm disputing what's owed because the agreement is unenforceable.

- don't seem to understand that what I'm complaining about is the fact that they're taking enforcement action on disputed accounts when the companies have subscribed to the Banking Code which means they've breached this Code which is contractual.

 

Any guidance? Seems ridiculous to me that other Trading Standards are wholly supportive when WY Trading Standards don't agree at all with CAG's position.

 

Thanks and cheers,

Claire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... because they're not all up on CCA law, that's why.

 

Don't expect any joy from TS.... they're often a waste of time. I've learned not to bother with mine.... or most of the other "regulatory" bodies over the years.

 

The joy of having unenforceable debts however is priceless

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey

 

Cheers, they are indeed a waste of space and time; won't be bothering with them for any of the others, that's for sure.

 

Oh yeah yeah yeah, when you open that agreement and see it's unsigned/doesn't have prescribed terms in, you just wanna dance...

 

Ta

Claire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did trading standards put that in writing?

 

Perhaps a complaint to the local government ombudsman about them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey

 

Yep, that's all in writing. I don't want to complain to the Ombudsman about them without being sure of my ground really, what other TStandards say/do differently, in case it's them that's right!

 

Cheers though

Claire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I think you will find that Trading Standards differ from office to office and with how they have been trained. Below is a copy of an e-mail I received from my local Trading Standards

 

Edited to remove personal details.

 

Dear Mr Dpick

 

Following our appointment I have discussed your case with my supervisor and specailist support team, who state that we cannot take any action on your behalf but can advise you on how to take the next steps.

 

With regard to the PPI on your wife's Littlewoods account, I would advise that you write to littlewoods stating that you feel the policy was mis sold under section 8.6 of the banking code, as the company did not take necessary checks to ensure the poilcy was of use to your wife. I recommend that you request in writing to littlewoods that they compensate you for their mistake. I would also recommend you report this to the FSA and use the complaints procedure set out by them. This can be found on the FSA website.

 

With regards to MBNA and Capital One it appears that the agreements are unenforceable as they have been improperly executed. They do not contain the prescribed terms set out in the Consumer Credit Act namely, The agreements do not state the credit limit, the rate of interest, details of any power to vary the agreement or debtors repayment obligations. Although this is difficult to determine when referring to the MBNA agreement as it is impossible to read. I would advise that you write to both stating you believe the agreement is improperly executed, and as a consequence is irredeemably unenforceable (See Wilson v First County Trust CA).

 

The charges added to the accounts by Capital One and MBNA in excess of £12 may be reclaimed by following the same process as you did for the bank charges. Should they not settle before court action, you can make a claim in the small claims court. There is a fact sheet on hmcourts service web site EX302 which details steps to take when considering court action.

 

Should you wish to discuss this further please do not hesitate to contact me on

 

Regards

XXXXXXX XXXXXXX

FIF Debt caseworker.

 

 

Dpick


cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi I think you will find that Trading Standards differ from office to office and with how they have been trained. Below is a copy of an e-mail I received from my local Trading Standards

 

Edited to remove personal details.

 

Dear Mr Dpick

 

Following our appointment I have discussed your case with my supervisor and specailist support team, who state that we cannot take any action on your behalf but can advise you on how to take the next steps.

 

With regard to the PPI on your wife's Littlewoods account, I would advise that you write to littlewoods stating that you feel the policy was mis sold under section 8.6 of the banking code, as the company did not take necessary checks to ensure the poilcy was of use to your wife. I recommend that you request in writing to littlewoods that they compensate you for their mistake. I would also recommend you report this to the FSA and use the complaints procedure set out by them. This can be found on the FSA website.

 

With regards to MBNA and Capital One it appears that the agreements are unenforceable as they have been improperly executed. They do not contain the prescribed terms set out in the Consumer Credit Act namely, The agreements do not state the credit limit, the rate of interest, details of any power to vary the agreement or debtors repayment obligations. Although this is difficult to determine when referring to the MBNA agreement as it is impossible to read. I would advise that you write to both stating you believe the agreement is improperly executed, and as a consequence is irredeemably unenforceable (See Wilson v First County Trust CA).

 

The charges added to the accounts by Capital One and MBNA in excess of £12 may be reclaimed by following the same process as you did for the bank charges. Should they not settle before court action, you can make a claim in the small claims court. There is a fact sheet on hmcourts service web site EX302 which details steps to take when considering court action.

 

Should you wish to discuss this further please do not hesitate to contact me on

 

Regards

XXXXXXX XXXXXXX

FIF Debt caseworker.

 

 

Dpick

 

It it does differ through offices, some know what they are talking about but others know jack...

 

I can say that because I've trained with them. I funded myself but they were paid to do the courses and exams. Most of them failed, defaulted or walked.

 

Only 3 in a group of 30 + passed the DCA and you can see what the requirement was on the Trading Standards Institute website. It's a con that we are paying for. Look at the fees that are charged to your local authority! It tallies to thousands and most of the candidates don't pass so they have changed it to suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...