Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • FTMDave
      G24 anpr PCN - Double Dipping - Wigan Robin Retail Park

      By FTMDave · Posted

      Well, that's it then. Clear proof of the rubbish cameras. Clear proof of double dipping. G24 won't be getting a penny. Belt & braces, I would write to the address LFI has found, include the evidence of double dipping, and ask Fraser Group to call their dogs off.
    • RodeMan
      80k debt

      By RodeMan · Posted

      LOL. after sending Perch capital a CCA request with a stapled £1 PO attached (x2) Their lapdog Legal team TM Legal have sent me two letters today saying "due to a recent payment on the account, your account is open to legal/enforcement action" so i guess they have tried to apply that payment to the account to run the statue bar along. dirty tactics lol.
    • MANUKI12742
      Advise on debt I currently hold

      By MANUKI12742 · Posted

      I have initiated the breathing space so ill wait. from re reading everything this what i understand BS gives me 60 days break from the creditors during these 60 days they may contact me and will most likely default I need to wait until after a default notice to see whether the OC will keep the debt or sell it off If kept by the OC then i should attempt a plan or pay some token payment? If sold to DCA then don't pay and after 6 years it will leave my credit report once the DN is registered with a date. DCA may start a CCJ but unlikely, if they do come back here. last question, do you know roughly how long this will all take? in terms of defaults/default notice, potential CCJ? Would you say I have 12 months plus from when the BS ends?
    • FTMDave
      MET CCTV PNC - Starbucks closed- Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

      By FTMDave · Posted

      Well, it's up to you. Years & years & years ago the forum used to suggest appealing to POPLA, but then AFAIK POPLA's remit was changed and it became much more biased in favour of the PPCs. One of the problems with taking that route is that the onus will fall on you to prove your appeal, while if you do nothing the onus is on MET to start legal action which experience teaches they are very, very reluctant to do. If you go down the POPLA route I would think your ace would be insufficient signage.  Are you able to go back there and get photos of their rubbish, entrapping signs?
    • Hikertrash
      MET CCTV PNC - Starbucks closed- Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

      By Hikertrash · Posted

      The first clearly visible sign as you pull in to the car park states “McDonald’s Customers Only 60 minutes” The next clearly visible sign is an almost identical sign outside Starbucks which states “60 minutes free stay for customers only” There are other signs towards the rear of the car park (away from the outlets) that have the terms and conditions on them in very small print.

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Electronic Signature for Online Applications

Jonny_J
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3534 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

Jonny_J

Jonny_J

Posted
Posted

Hi All,

 

Does anybody have any information on online applications for credit cards? I know that as of 31/12/2004 a written signature is not required on a credit agreement for an online application, but how does this affect the copy of the CCA that the creditor has a duty to supply under S78?

 

Do the T&Cs still have to be within the four corners of the CCA? Vanquis and Lowell don't seem the think so. They have just supplied a screenshot titled 'Digital Signature Application Details' along with a generic copy of the T&Cs which states that it is a 'Credit Card Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'.

 

Any ideas guys?

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted
Hi All,

 

Does anybody have any information on online applications for credit cards? I know that as of 31/12/2004 a written signature is not required on a credit agreement for an online application, but how does this affect the copy of the CCA that the creditor has a duty to supply under S78?

 

Do the T&Cs still have to be within the four corners of the CCA? Vanquis and Lowell don't seem the think so. They have just supplied a screenshot titled 'Digital Signature Application Details' along with a generic copy of the T&Cs which states that it is a 'Credit Card Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'.

 

Any ideas guys?

 

The reason they havent stated that the t&c are in the four corners are due to the HSBC v Carey case where the judge tried to blur the line between a document being a single form or a collection of information delivered to the signee at the time of signing.

 

As these t&c were shown to you digitally prior to signing tho I feel you might have a difficult time convincing a judge that they didnt display them prior to you ticking the box, the judiciary are inclined to give the lenders the most leeway possible.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonny_J

Jonny_J

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Shadow,

 

Thanks for the reply. I understand that now, and thank you for the very frank advice.

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Jonny_J

Jonny_J

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi All,

I know its been a while since I posted on this thread, but I have just read on here that these electronic signatures are enforceable using a tick in a box (which I'm fully prepared to accept), but that the tick has to be shown on the CCA. I have also noticed some incorrect information on the 'screenshot' which I wouldn't have submitted (like the time at present address). I think that Vanquis have made this up from the limited information that they might have had and guessed at some of it.

 

My question is, does the tick box have to be shown? And should I contest this as I wouldn't have submitted some of the information contained in it?

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites
RoyalIrish

RoyalIrish

Posted
Posted (edited)
As these t&c were shown to you digitally prior to signing tho I feel you might have a difficult time convincing a judge that they didnt display them prior to you ticking the box, the judiciary are inclined to give the lenders the most leeway possible.

 

S.

 

How on earth could a judge honestly accept this particular document as being valid at all?

 

I think that your opinion is slightly misleading, did you actually see what Lowell's and Vanquis are trying to 'fob off' as being legal?

 

It is ridiculous!

 

Any child could get the same info and produce the same documentation if they knew where to look.

 

Surely a DCA cannot just simply 'fabricate' documents and 'insert' information that is sparse at best and often inaccurate and incorrect?

 

I can not accept that the legal system is that ridiculous!

 

If I send Lowell's a spreadsheet of imaginary payments I have made them since they started harrassing me, would this be legal?

 

The creditor has to be able to prove that the credit was applied for online, NOBODY would offer credit to ANYONE unless they provided comprehensive accurate personal information NOT the crap that is printed on these Lowell speadsheets.

 

Name one online creditor that doesn't require marital status, previous address or occupation before they approve the application?

 

Have a look the crappy document that was sent to us and give us your opinion, if it was sent to you would you accept it?

 

LowellCrap1.jpg

 

LowellCrap2.jpg

Edited by RoyalIrish
Link to post
Share on other sites
RoyalIrish

RoyalIrish

Posted
Posted

Jonny,

 

Just to let you know mate, this is most certainly NOT a computer screenshot.

 

It is a spreadsheet that was most probably manufactured by Lowell's to LOOK like a screenshot.

 

It is extremely shabby and is full of mistakes.

 

Please don't for one minute presume that this is official, it is crap made to look official.

 

RI

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonny_J

Jonny_J

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for that RI. I might SAR Vanquis and see what they come up with. If Lowells have made this up, Vanquis won't have a copy.

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonny_J

Jonny_J

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Biggeorge,

 

So you got yours straight from Vanquis then. Maybe Lowells aren't making them up then. I think that they might be questionable at best, but we need to find out more about the requirements, and why there appear to be so many mistakes on them with regard to personal data. Are there any mistakes on yours?

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites
247orbital

247orbital

Posted
Posted

Vanquish are a joke, I recently sent an SAR to them, due to the age of the account I no longer had the account number. I sent security detail, DOB, mothers Maiden name etc and a copy of recent bank statement, and a copy of a driving license. Vanquish sent it all back with a not even a covering letter, just a compliment slip stating they could do nothing without an account number. So as far as I'm concerned they have failed to supply a SAR and have admited an account does not exists in my name. So they can remove any information from my credit file.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonny_J

Jonny_J

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Vanquis are actually incompetent. I once tried to make a payment to them of £15, they took £50. When I complained they paid the £50 back, told me it was my fault and I should speak up on the phone, then gave me a late charge because by this time there wasn't a payment made by the due date.

But my problem is now with Lowells. I'm really not sure what to do about this at the present time, and the more I read about it, the muddier the waters become.

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites
RoyalIrish

RoyalIrish

Posted
Posted (edited)

Jonny,

 

I would SERIOUSLY advise you NOT to pay Lowell's ANYTHING until such times as it is 100% confirmed that you are indeed liable for the debt.

 

Lowell's are **** and throughout this forum you will see many instances of their attitude and mistreatment of decent people.

 

Take it to the wire, do everything you can to frustrate and irritate them because they will take great pleasure in doing the same to you.

 

I would think that this 'speadsheet' began it's travels at Vanquis but Lowell's seem to think that they can use it to play the 'Electronic Communications Order 2004' card.

 

Basically it is useless because of it's obvious amateurish design and the dubious data contained therein.

 

How on earth could this be a legally binding document when there are so many errors and such little factual information?

 

I doubt very much that this is enforcable due to these factors, if it was enforcable it would open the floodgates to many more DCA's producing these crappy looking spreadsheets and claiming that they are actually 'online applications'.

 

I wouldn't use it to line the hamster's cage!

 

My understanding was that there had to be a 'terms & conditions' section with an 'accept' button.

 

Remember, it's not actually taken from a web application either, it is simply a spreadsheet with some personal details filled in.

 

It would take literally 2 minutes to enter a person's details onto it.

 

There is NO WAY that this is the actual 'online application' that Vanquis used for credit card application.

 

I think that this spreadsheet has actually been designed to LOOK as if it is emphasising the 'Electronic Communications Order 2004'.

 

If you look on mine, the document seems to be less interested with accurate personal details and moreso with the emphasis being on INTERNET and DATES etc.

 

Thus this would neatly fall into their claims that the account was opened online and would fall into the 'Electronic Communications Order 2004' category.

 

If you see what I mean?

 

Shhhh, don't tell them but the date that I actually applied for a Vanquis card is different than they have got on the spreadsheet!

 

RI

Edited by RoyalIrish
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonny_J

Jonny_J

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi RI,

I might just write to Lowells then and say that because some of the information contained in this spreadsheet is incorrect, and there is no indication that I accepted the terms and conditions that the spreadsheet alludes to, I am putting the debt into dispute.

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites
RoyalIrish

RoyalIrish

Posted
Posted

As I said mate, make life particulary difficult for Lowell's!

 

Let them keep sending their stupid threatograms and only write to them if it is absolutely nessessary!

 

It costs them money for every letter they send, not much but it gives me a wee tickle knowing I'm costing them!

 

I'm going to call their bluff and see what action they take!

 

If they reckon that their stupid attempt at an electronic signature bluff is viable then let them bring it on.

 

I don't see any point in playing letter 'ping-pong' again with them again, they will ignore any complaint that I make anyway.

 

You have to remember that Lowell's are totally despicable and will NEVER admit to any wrong doing, EVER!

 

They will lie, cheat and if they could, steal money from you!

 

I have numerous letters from Lowell's regarding a CCA request and a final letter stating that my account is now closed (wait for it), DUE TO THE LENGTH OF TIME SINCE THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED WE CANNOT LOCATE THE CCA. (Classic!)

 

Now they are trying to say that I opened it in 2007, you gotta laugh at them really!

 

RI

 

RoyalIrish waves to Lowell's Losers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonny_J

Jonny_J

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Cool! I'll keep you posted

 

It shouldn't be long now I've already had the

"We have not received payment, or any valid reason for non payment" letter

 

In another letter I have from them, they're threatening an "Attached Earnings Order"

and "securing the value of the debt against your property"

1. I don't own a property. And

2. There isn't even a CCJ yet!

 

So they might have a bit of trouble on both accounts I reckon. Never mind eh?

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonny_J

Jonny_J

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Just to give you the heads up. Lowells are now using a BT service (08456021111) to send text messages by voice to your phone. If they do this to you, just call 0800 5875 252, press option 1, then option 5. This will stop the messages altogether.

Worry tends to make the smallest thing throw the largest shadow - Swedish Proverb

Link to post
Share on other sites
RoyalIrish

RoyalIrish

Posted
Posted
There are a couple of threads with the same excel file posted up - have a read...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?303275-Interesting-Development-In-Lowell-Vanquis-Debacle

 

Yeah, I know!

 

One of them is mine!

 

There are a few people needing help with this one, if it bores you or you find it annoying then please accept out humble apologies and leave the thread.

 

RI

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...