Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What type of finance is it?   HP, PCP, Loan? They want her to ring so they can bully her into making payments she can't afford...unless she can record her calls then IMHO, I'd keep everything in writing. Is £400 SSP her only income? There's no chance they will justify taking half of that.   Lodge a formal complaint with them ASAP, exhaust it, and then you can escalate it sooner rather than later, ruddy sharks!  
    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;     I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
  • 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

Electronic Signature for Online Applications


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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...