Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I left Dubai 8 years ago and intended to return. However a job prospect fell through. I’d been there for 15 years. Anyway I decided to pay my credit card and the bank had frozen my account. There is no means to pay the CC so completely unable to pay when I wanted to other than the bank advising me to ask a friend in the UAE to pay it on my behalf!  fast forward bank informs there is a police case against me for non payment. Years later IDR chased me and after months/ years they stopped. Now Judge & Priestley are trying their luck. Now I have received an email in English and Arabic from JP saying the bank has authorised them to collect debts. Is this the same as IDR although I didn’t receive anything like this from them. Just says they are authorised?
    • The neighbour's house is built right on the boundary so the side of their house is effectively the 'wall' in our garden separating the two properties. It's a three storey house and so the mortar poses a potential danger to us. Because of the danger, we have put up an interior fence in our garden to ensure we don't risk mortar dropping on us. That reduces the garden by 25% which is not only an inconvenience, but it's the part of the garden where we had lined up contractors to install a patio and gazebo which we will use for our wedding reception in less than 2 months. We have spoken to the neighbour's caretaker who is on the case, has spoken with a roofer and possibly a scaffolding company, but there are several issues. They don't seem to understand the urgency. As long as there is a risk of falling mortar, we can't carry out any work in the garden, and unless they hurry up, we're looking at cancelling our wedding as it's not viable to book a venue because we can't use our own garden! Also, they want to put the scaffolding up in our garden which would be ok with us if it was a matter of a few days and they hurried up, but there is a tree (most likely protected by the conservation area), so most likely they can only reach part of the roof with the scaffolding if they put it up in our garden. We suggested a roofer with a cherry picker but they seem to want to use a company they've used before. Any and all comments, suggestions, advice is more than welcome.  PS. does it make any difference that the neighbour is a business (ltd) and not a private dwelling?
    • No apology needed, thank you for what you do I am glad to hear they paid. well done on getting back what is yours
    • Apologies all for the late reply and info, i have been away with the Army. They have paid I accepted the offer on the 5th of May, and they paid on the 17th of May.
  • 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

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4648 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

Agreed 100%.......................but the slimey barstewrds will still try and say that a stamp (of any kind, date or otherwise, ANYWHERE) would signify acceptance of contract and be a (for want of better words) a proxy signature.

 

I am with you 100% but I dont want to raise false hopes in people for a fruitless exercise.

 

I have 2 CC agreements that have neither ANY prescribed terms or creditor signatures, and I am goading and pushing them to take me to court....no joy so far.

 

Dave

 

I think this can be traced back to my post #429 above, where, on having a read through Manchester (again :-|) I came across this at para 177 and reads (quote)

 

  1. According to HSBC, p197 is a reconstituted application form. I referred to it above in the context of Issues 1 and 2. The assumed facts here are as follows:

    (1) Ms Carey signed a form which contained, among other things, the entries at p197 including the specific reference to being bound by "the terms and conditions attached"; that form did not itself have the Prescribed Terms stated on the front or the reverse;

    (2) The form (referred to as "a signature page" in the WS from Alan Burden dated 3 December 2009) would have been produced with Ms Carey's details already on, for her to sign once her application, already made, had been approved;

    (3) At the same time as the form was produced electronically, the relevant terms and conditions (including the Prescribed Terms and information) would have been printed off and physically attached to the form by a staple;"


This says to me that there are three stages - or should be three.

The first is for the prospective debtor to send off the first form ("a form" - para 1). This is received by the prospective creditor who does due diligence (or not) and decides if a card is going to be issued. If a card is to be issued then another form ("the form" - see para 2) is issued "with (IN THIS CASE) Ms Carey's details already on". Given that the prospective debtor's details would be on this form, how could it be the first one (unless its one of these "you have been pre-selected" jobs). This is signed by the creditor and sent to the debtor for their signature, along with a copy of the T&Cs (including prescribed terms - see para 3).

All of that seems fine to me - indeed in my understanding of contract law and also reading the relevant regs of the CCA, its always seemed to me that this is how it was meant to be. But how many of us have ever gone through this two stage process for a credit card? I honestly dont remember doing it one time. You fill out "a form" and if they like you a credit card arrives. Is this not everyone's experience. Or am i getting this wrong somewhere?

Put another way, have the banks foreshortened a procedure set out in statutory law and are now reaping the whirlwind? :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I think this can be traced back to my post #429 above, where, on having a read through Manchester (again :-|) I came across this at para 177 and reads (quote)

 

  1. According to HSBC, p197 is a reconstituted application form. I referred to it above in the context of Issues 1 and 2. The assumed facts here are as follows:

    (1) Ms Carey signed a form which contained, among other things, the entries at p197 including the specific reference to being bound by "the terms and conditions attached"; that form did not itself have the Prescribed Terms stated on the front or the reverse;

    (2) The form (referred to as "a signature page" in the WS from Alan Burden dated 3 December 2009) would have been produced with Ms Carey's details already on, for her to sign once her application, already made, had been approved;

    (3) At the same time as the form was produced electronically, the relevant terms and conditions (including the Prescribed Terms and information) would have been printed off and physically attached to the form by a staple;"


This says to me that there are three stages - or should be three.

The first is for the prospective debtor to send off the first form ("a form" - para 1). This is received by the prospective creditor who does due diligence (or not) and decides if a card is going to be issued. If a card is to be issued then another form ("the form" - see para 2) is issued "with (IN THIS CASE) Ms Carey's details already on". Given that the prospective debtor's details would be on this form, how could it be the first one (unless its one of these "you have been pre-selected" jobs). This is signed by the creditor and sent to the debtor for their signature, along with a copy of the T&Cs (including prescribed terms - see para 3).

All of that seems fine to me - indeed in my understanding of contract law and also reading the relevant regs of the CCA, its always seemed to me that this is how it was meant to be. But how many of us have ever gone through this two stage process for a credit card? I honestly dont remember doing it one time. You fill out "a form" and if they like you a credit card arrives. Is this not everyone's experience. Or am i getting this wrong somewhere?

Put another way, have the banks foreshortened a procedure set out in statutory law and are now reaping the whirlwind? :confused:

 

 

Part of the assumed facts for HSBC was that Ms Carey signed the application form in the bank branch. so all documentation was allegedly together.

 

I would remind you that this case is proceeding to trial as the assumed facts bear little resemblance to the true facts. Ms Carey never signed any application form at all.

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

As George Woodcock (former General Secy of the TUC) once said "never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

My point is not whether or not Ms Carey signed anything. My point IS that Waksman seems to me to be referring to a three stage process for the issue of a card, which seems to me to be consistent with the law of contract and the processes described in the 1983 regs. I THINK I am right in saying that personally I have never experienced this, and my question is or questions are

 

  1. have the banks foreshortened the procedure that should have been followed?
  2. what are the consequences of this if they have?

Does anyone have any views on this? Or is this the wrong tree I am barking up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As George Woodcock (former General Secy of the TUC) once said "never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

My point is not whether or not Ms Carey signed anything. My point IS that Waksman seems to me to be referring to a three stage process for the issue of a card, which seems to me to be consistent with the law of contract and the processes described in the 1983 regs. I THINK I am right in saying that personally I have never experienced this, and my question is or questions are

 

  1. have the banks foreshortened the procedure that should have been followed?
  2. what are the consequences of this if they have?

Does anyone have any views on this? Or is this the wrong tree I am barking up?

 

 

Yes your interpretation is wrong.

 

The assumed facts in Carey were that the Prescibed terms were in the Terms andConditions which were physically arttached to the form at the time of signature.

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

so, according to the assumed facts, she signed only ONE form. So Para 1 and 2 are referring to the same form? In that case why does it say in para 2 "The form (referred to as "a signature page" in the WS from Alan Burden dated 3 December 2009) would have been produced with Ms Carey's details already on, for her to sign once her application, already made, had been approved;"

If her application "already made" had already been approved, how can there only be one form? There has to be two, doesnt there?

Please understand, I am not entering into whether Ms Carey signed anything at all - I dont know. Its that Waksman seems to me to be describing a process involving two forms - and application form (para 1) and an agreement form (para 2). If this is the case, then it would seem to me that the banks have foreshortened a legal process and I am interested, if this is the case, in what the consequences of this might be? Moreover, its a process that reminds of the 1983 regs

Link to post
Share on other sites

so, according to the assumed facts, she signed only ONE form. So Para 1 and 2 are referring to the same form? In that case why does it say in para 2 "The form (referred to as "a signature page" in the WS from Alan Burden dated 3 December 2009) would have been produced with Ms Carey's details already on, for her to sign once her application, already made, had been approved;"

If her application "already made" had already been approved, how can there only be one form? There has to be two, doesnt there?

Please understand, I am not entering into whether Ms Carey signed anything at all - I dont know. Its that Waksman seems to me to be describing a process involving two forms - and application form (para 1) and an agreement form (para 2). If this is the case, then it would seem to me that the banks have foreshortened a legal process and I am interested, if this is the case, in what the consequences of this might be? Moreover, its a process that reminds of the 1983 regs

 

Becuase it was allegedly signed by her in the branch with the bank manager who was printing off the form in front of her at the time.

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important that you try and understand that the ruling in relation to the assumed facts relates pureely to those assumed facts only

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Josie, while my sympathy is with Ms Carey, my interest for the purpose of this discussion is not. Her case seems to me to illustrate another, wider point, which is the process the banks should have followed for a properly executed agreement. It was particularly interesting because it seemed to be an example of a process I had set out in an earlier thread I had tried to start back in July (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/211210-consumer-credit-act-regs.html).This was so interesting that no one replied. But basically, what I was suggesting there were two things

 

  1. the 1983 regs set out a very defined format for a binding credit agreement - many terms defined that should PRECEDE the debtor's sig
  2. it seemed to me on reading this, that no way was a standard application form going to satisfy this - for one thing the sig precedes almost all the terms that it is supposed to follow. Therefore the application form was exactly that - it was an application. If the application was accepted then the agreement - with the t&cs set out as required by the regs attached (eg stapled) and signed by the creditor - would be sent out to the debtor for them to sign.

why would they not do this - well it would extend the process/ some potential cardholders might not send back the second form etc - ie just greed.

But my point was that this section of theWaksman's judgement recalled this point for me, and seemed to be consistent with that point of view of (1) an application, to be followed by (2) an executed agreement with all the T&Cs etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Josie, while my sympathy is with Ms Carey, my interest for the purpose of this discussion is not. Her case seems to me to illustrate another, wider point, which is the process the banks should have followed for a properly executed agreement. It was particularly interesting because it seemed to be an example of a process I had set out in an earlier thread I had tried to start back in July (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/211210-consumer-credit-act-regs.html).This was so interesting that no one replied. But basically, what I was suggesting there were two things

 

  1. the 1983 regs set out a very defined format for a binding credit agreement - many terms defined that should PRECEDE the debtor's sig
  2. it seemed to me on reading this, that no way was a standard application form going to satisfy this - for one thing the sig precedes almost all the terms that it is supposed to follow. Therefore the application form was exactly that - it was an application. If the application was accepted then the agreement - with the t&cs set out as required by the regs attached (eg stapled) and signed by the creditor - would be sent out to the debtor for them to sign.

why would they not do this - well it would extend the process/ some potential cardholders might not send back the second form etc - ie just greed.

But my point was that this section of theWaksman's judgement recalled this point for me, and seemed to be consistent with that point of view of (1) an application, to be followed by (2) an executed agreement with all the T&Cs etc

 

i do agreed.

 

in general terms we send the application they do not send the CCA for us to sign.

 

that is in the main the problem/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being legally minded, but when you take out an agreement are you not supposed to receive a copy? My ex has just remortgaged, she applied, they did the checks required, they sent the agreement to for her to sign and then returned a copy to her, job done. This does seem to be the way it should be, all mine are app forms that say at the top of the form "credit card agreement regulated by the CCA 1974", but no prescribed terms on any of them.

 

There was no copy for me to keep as they were application forms.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know from personal experience what happens.

 

I applied for a credit card in 2000 and was accepted but what they did was to send me the card along with two copies of the agreement. One for me to keep and one to sign and send back. Unfortunately (:)) I forgot to sign and send it back.

This has now bitten the OC in the bum as they cannot supply me an agreement as I didn't sign one. Will they admit it? (rhetorical question)

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes yes we are right

 

1 the application 2 the cca.

 

however the banks just want you used to them and make their profits.

 

 

do not forget the mark up in credit cards is big money also they charge the suppliers.

 

win win for them however they just do not understand the cca 1974, or want to, as most judges do not.

 

lilly

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All very true, however if there was no place for the OC to sign it, rather than a missing signature, then it can be argued that that document was never intended to become a regulated agreement owing to the omision of the creditor signature box. That puts it firmly as a pre contract document.

 

 

HI

Unfortunately unexecuted hs the sme meaning as improperly executed onthe CCA it is only a default under section65. lookup definitions under unexecuted agreementer

 

Pet

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading this and other forums with interest regarding the Manchester Test Cases and the matter of a reconstituted agreement. I have a situation with BOS whereby they eventually produced a digitised copy of the alleged signed agreement but unable to produce a copy of the original T's & Cs. To cut a long story short having been been messed around by a CMC I have a solicitor dealing with this matter due to defects in some of the prescribed terms and in the meantime BOS have at long last replied to my various letters-having issued a default notice first stating "Have as yet been unable to supply details of the reconstituted agreement" and "While we try to locate the full original agreement we will not be seeking to enforce the agreement"-having stated to FOS several months ago that they could not produce the original terms and conditions-The alleged agreement was made in 1986. My solicitor told me the following and this is reinforced by extracts from the rulings in the Manchester test cases that "if an agreement has been subsequently varied by the lender, then the lender is obliged to supply a copy of both the original agreement as well as the current one"-there is no reference here to any "reconstituted agreement"-In my particular case the agreement has been varied on numerous occaisions. I imagine most credit card agreements have been varied, hence the lender must produce a copy of the original. I would welcome any comments of my understanding of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So has anyone tried this one in court? Or with lenders? I would guess you have Silverfox.

 

Not tried it in court but the lender (CAP1) are long over the horizon

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading this and other forums with interest regarding the Manchester Test Cases and the matter of a reconstituted agreement. I have a situation with BOS whereby they eventually produced a digitised copy of the alleged signed agreement but unable to produce a copy of the original T's & Cs. To cut a long story short having been been messed around by a CMC I have a solicitor dealing with this matter due to defects in some of the prescribed terms and in the meantime BOS have at long last replied to my various letters-having issued a default notice first stating "Have as yet been unable to supply details of the reconstituted agreement" and "While we try to locate the full original agreement we will not be seeking to enforce the agreement"-having stated to FOS several months ago that they could not produce the original terms and conditions-The alleged agreement was made in 1986. My solicitor told me the following and this is reinforced by extracts from the rulings in the Manchester test cases that "if an agreement has been subsequently varied by the lender, then the lender is obliged to supply a copy of both the original agreement as well as the current one"-there is no reference here to any "reconstituted agreement"-In my particular case the agreement has been varied on numerous occaisions. I imagine most credit card agreements have been varied, hence the lender must produce a copy of the original. I would welcome any comments of my understanding of this.

 

Reg 7 of the Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents Regulations 1983.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can u guys kindly advise me on my case :

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/239030-mbna-reston-threating-court-5.html

 

At present both MBNA and Restons asking for my signature to honour my CCA request and Subject access request. I am scared to give them my signature as these guys have spohisticated IT gadgets which can easily copy my signature and paste it on their dodgy agreements.. Please advise what should I do...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested what RBS are going to do in my case.

 

I have a CCJ against them for a small sum (under £500) which was issued Aug 2009. I haven't chased payment, but recently I wrote too them threatening a warrant and they have passed it to their legal dept for 'attention'.

 

Methinks they might be a bit late for a set aside.:smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can u guys kindly advise me on my case :

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/239030-mbna-reston-threating-court-5.html

 

At present both MBNA and Restons asking for my signature to honour my CCA request and Subject access request. I am scared to give them my signature as these guys have spohisticated IT gadgets which can easily copy my signature and paste it on their dodgy agreements.. Please advise what should I do...

 

I normally used a 'modified' sig. - one you can identify but also prove is not your usual. I also usually sign over the date, just to make it even more difficult.;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...