Signature demands -- fight back possible ! ?

[Revenant]

Good morning

 

All this rubbish from DCA's etc demanding a signature before they will deal with CCA requests or what ever really pee'd me off

 

I've been having a dig around and found the following . .

 

Select committee on Trade and Industry minutes of evidence

(1996 Legislative working party)

 

2. The working party looked at the legal issues regarding the terms document, writing, signature, instrument, and records of transactions and originality. The Government's current proposed legislation focuses particularly upon the issue of signature. The working party considered the leading case in English law on signature methods, Goodman -v- J Eban Limited. That decision established that:

 

2.1 mechanical signatures using rubber stamps, printing or typewriting were valid in english law;

2.2 a signature can be by a mark rather than a name as long as evidence can be given to indentify the placer of the mark and the intention to sign; and

2.3 words other than a name can amount to a signature if the necessary intention to sign can be proven

 

Now although this working party was looking into the Electronics Commerce Bill it points to . .

 

Goodman v J Eban Ltd (1954)

 

A solicitor signed a solicitors bill with a rubber stamp which contained the name of the law firm. In the judgment it was determined that the rubber stamp was a valid signature, even though the Solicitors Act of 1932 required a solicitors bill to be signed; it was established that it is enough to demonstrate that the rubber stamp was affixed by the solicitor with the intention to sign the solicitor's bill.

 

So now taking the highlights above I go to:

 

Interpretations act 1978

 

Schedule 1

 

1973 c.37.

 

"Writing" includes typing, lithograpgy, photography or other modes of representing or reproducing words in a visible form and expressions refering to writing can be construed accordingly

 

I don't know what others will think but I feel that there's at least something within that little lot to make the DCA's realise that we are NOT under any obligation to provide our signatures despite what they say and even if I get loads of disagreements it was an enjoyable exercise and helped a quiet afternoon at work fly by ;-)

 

Regards

 

R

 

( I have kept the pages I found the info on )

Edited February 24, 2010 by Revenant

[Revenant]

Well done Revenant - good thread.

Thanks pinky

The thing is these DCA's are so stupid that they don't realise that the more the push the more we dig in :grin:

Rx

[Revenant]

There is also the ico guidelines which state that if a creditor/DCA has already been in previous contact it can safely be assumed that the person making a SAR/CCA request is in fact that person.

 

I'd not seen that before but I have seen that Creditors/DCA's don't seem take take any notice of it then . . like OFT/CSA Guidelines as well

Thanks Cerb

R

[Revenant]

The fact is whatever they say, it they can't or won't produce a CCA they get nothibng, signature or not. Also if they don't know who you are they have already breached the very act they using to try and get a copy of your signature. I had this argument with Citi a while back.

 

 

That's all true c o but it's nice to think that there's some "Legalese" to chuck at them too . . they chuck enough stuff at us ;-)

R

[Revenant]

Thanks for this, it will come in very useful:D

 

Your welcome cB

Every little helps

R

[Revenant]

The following is downloadable at BAILLI:

 

What is a Signature? (C Reed) [2000] JILT 48 (2000)

 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/JILT/2000/reed_3.rtf

 

Kry10

 

Thanks for that Kry10

More ammunicition to fire back at them

R