Electronic Signature for Online Applications

[RoyalIrish]

Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding!

 

If you have any advice/suggestions please feel free to comment.

 

This is a sticky one and I dare say there will be a lot more of these being sent out in the very near future.

 

RI

[brokebutnotbeatn]

Unfortunately I think others are much better placed to advise. As these seem to be originating from the OC, and seem to be a fabricated record being peddled as 'proof' of debt I would have thought it is an attempt to secure money under false pretenses/fraud/threats/blackmail and I wonder if this is not therefore a potential criminal act route to take. But I am not sufficiently knowledgeable enough to know and very naive and emotionally driven on this subject. As there is sufficient evidence with some of these to show that they are fabrications (wrong names etc) that would appear to me to be a strong argument that a criminal act is taking place and is widespread. As I said, I am naive. x

[Jonny_J]

Hi Brokenbutnotbeaten,

Welcome to the thread. I know what you mean though, Lowells seem to have come by these so called CCAs all of a sudden, and also seem to be trying to brow beat people into paying up using the Electronic Communications Act. There isn't much information available on the subject, and I think that they know that.

[RoyalIrish]

Hi All,

 

I got this today!

 

 

Am deciding my next steps!

[Jonny_J]

Yeah I got exactly the same letter

[RoyalIrish]

Don't worry about it mate, I'm busy as hell at the moment but I'll devise a letter and discuss it with you asap.

 

Have a crack at one and see what you come up with!

 

REMEMBER, they are trying to peddle this spreadsheet as proof of liability for debt.

 

RI

[Jonny_J]

Hi RI,

Ok I'll see what I can come up with and we can compare notes

[RoyalIrish]

Any joy yet mate?

 

RI

[Jonny_J]

Well I got a letter from Red Debt Collection just threatening more doom and gloom. But I have been as busy as anything lately. I will get a letter together in the next couple of days just saying that this "agreement" doesn't prove that I agreed to anything, and that I'm putting the debt into dispute. Then it's up to them to prove it.

 

I'll post the template as soon as.

 

I'm also going to complain to the OFT because so far, I've had Lowell Portfolio1, Lowell Financial, and Red Debt Collection all after money at the same time.

[RoyalIrish]

They are all rats in the same cellar mate!

 

They just change the letterheads to 'intimidate' the recipient!

 

I can see no possible way that this document proves that we have even heard of Vanquis let alone agreed to any credit, terms or conditions.

 

The more I study it the more I am convinced that is complete and utter rubbish.

 

It is simply a VERY recently manufactured idea to circumvent the plain fact that Vanquis probably NEVER had Consumer Credit Agreements in the first place.

 

They are basically manipulating personal details in a ludicrous attempt to deceive people into believing that these outrageous spreadsheets are actual 'bonafide' proof of debt!

 

By closer scrutiny of the documents, I am absolutely convinced that they were cobbled together for this reason only!

 

One could even argue that we never had Vanquis accounts, after all, what proof is there if there is no credit agreement?

 

I would guess that 1,000's of these have been sent out to people who have requested a CCA recently!

 

RI

[the_shadow]

If they are sending these in response to a s78 request then they need to be stating that they are sending "Reconstructions" and not a true copy, thanks to Carey vs HSBC they are allowed to reconstruct data from other sources of information if they no longer had the agreement.

 

The reconstruction part of Carey vs HSBC SHOULD be only for informational purposes and if it gets to court more substantive proof should be required but its down to the judge and arguments put in front of them at the time.

 

Carey vs HSBC does demand that the data be honest and accurate so anything you can see on the form that is incorrect ensures it doesnt even meet the s78 minimum requirement. It may be worth letting them know that they are in default of the s78 request.

 

S.

[Jonny_J]

Thank you Shadow, that is very helpful information.

 

I am going to incorporate some of this into my letter and post it on here.

[RoyalIrish]

I would like them to explain 'exactly' what these documents are supposed to represent and exactly 'how' they presume that they are proof of any alleged debt.

 

Also, how they suppose that putting a few details on a spreadsheet and posting them to the induvidual along with some photocopied 'terms & conditions' satisfy a CCA request.

 

Surely they realise that there must be a clear defined link from the induvidual to the document and the terms and conditions et al.

 

I think the 'simplicity' and content of these amateur attempts at an 'electronic signature' will be there undoing.

 

The use of the term 'signature' and 'application' in the title of the document are immediately contradictory and imply that only an 'application' exists but I fail to see what the agreement is from this spreedsheet.

 

It could be argued that the induvidual was only 'agreeing' to 'apply' for credit and nothing more.

 

Whilst it was a good attempt to cover their asses regarding a CCA request, it is way too rushed, too badly designed, too inept, too inaccurate and basically ridiculous, that will doom it to failure.

 

I know that if I was a judge and this was presented to me I would laugh them out of court!

 

Production and legitimisation of this kind of reconstucted rubbish could totally destroy the Consumer Credit Act and open the floodgates to DCA's using these to circumvent the law if they cannot produce an enforcable CCA.

 

In short, this outrageous document has been cunningly and specifically designed with the ONLY purpose being to deceive those who have made CCA requests to Vanquis/Lowell's et al where they have been unable to satisfy the request.

[the_shadow]

Royal, I would invite you to read Carey vs HSBC and the OFT guidelines on s77/s78 responses published last year, things have moved on and they do not need to show anything to substantiate the debt, they just have to give you information, that is the sole purpose of s77/s78 requests... it's just that the person thinking up the statute decided to add the option that they couldnt enforce whilst they did not give you that information in response.

 

The information they have to give you has been watered down to just the core facts about the debt, t&c and your original name and address at time of applying.

 

Enforcement action against you would require more evidence and then you would require them to substantiate the debt.

 

HTH

 

S.

[the_shadow]

OFT Guide http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT1272.pdf

[RoyalIrish]

So, in a nutshell, they can legally 'chase' the debt using this nonsense but if they ever decided to actually bring it to court etc. then they would be required to provide more evidence which would then make the spreadsheet appear ridiculous?

 

Is this correct?

 

RI

[the_shadow]

So, in a nutshell, they can legally 'chase' the debt using this nonsense but if they ever decided to actually bring it to court etc. then they would be required to provide more evidence which would then make the spreadsheet appear ridiculous?

 

Is this correct?

 

RI

 

Yes in theory although some judges have accepted reconstructions as fit for enforcement use.

 

S.

[RoyalIrish]

Surely this is 'fabrication' and not just as simple as 'reconstruction'?

 

I can grudgingly understand a CCA being reconstructed IF a signature exists on another unenforcable agreement but when there is no signature or no acknowledgement then a document such as the one above surely MUST be seen as pure fabrication?

 

RI

[brokebutnotbeatn]

I would suggest this arguement (fabrication) would hold significant weight in court if any of the details are wrong - as many appear to be. But if all the detail is correct then it becomes a tougher fight with an unsympatheitic judge I guess if the claimant can show that money was used (e.g. credit card statements)?

[the_shadow]

I repeat s77/s78 is used for INFORMATION purposes only, there is no requirement to show anything with a signature, its purpose is not to validate a debt.

 

Therefore Carey vs HSBC states that a lender can reconstruct the information from ANY source it has but it must be accurate and honest, so if they have details from statements about credit limit, address, balances, interest rates etc they can effectively reconstruct a loose agreement that will satisfy the Carey ruling and thus s77/s78. They also have to supply the t&c from that time and all variations from the original agreement.

[the_shadow]

Yes in theory although some judges have accepted reconstructions as fit for enforcement use.

 

S.

 

Just to say, whilst I have written the above I mean in general terms, i wasnt referring to the "agreement/response" you've been sent, I find it hard to think that what you have sent would be rubber stamped by a judge as constituting a proper agreement and enforceable but then again the judiciary is a gamble.

 

S.

[Jonny_J]

Well I for one am willing to give it a go with regard to disputing the enforceability of this so called Agreement.

 

There are details that are simply incorrect, and I wouldn't have given the information that they are trying to say that I did. There wouldn't be any reason for me to do this.

 

So, in my opinion, the information that Lowells have given is not accurate, and I would say, certainly not honest.

 

Letter to follow!

 

Thanks guys

[RoyalIrish]

I got an ALERT from Credit Expert to tell me that Lowell's have kindly SETTLED this account!

 

 

If they want to use 'screenshots' of supposed data then so can I!

 

RI

Edited May 23, 2011 by RoyalIrish

[brokebutnotbeatn]

RI - edit your email address out?!

[RoyalIrish]

Whoops!

 

Thanks for that!

 

RI