Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OC 's don't do court   dx  
    • you will also need a copy of the CCJ and the particulars of claim on the claimform as... you'll need the particulars of claim as we don't know the judgement sum nor if post judgemental interest was allowed. did you defend it? did you ignore it? did you not get it?  did you know nothing about it?   its very rare on welcome debt either taken to court by welcome (doubtful in 2013) or a DCA (more likely)  i will suggest the debt was already at £18k before the CCJ so nothing bar court charges were added   please advise  i love bashing welcome and DCA but we can't help until we know our actual target and who did what and when.                
    • Janet Yellen confirmed as first female US Treasury secretary in Senate vote View the full article
    • I am sorry not to have responded in time to your thread. I have an awful lot going on.   I am hoping that you still haven't sent off your WS  as I have just seen a copy of Southend Airport  ByeLaws 2020. which will help you no end.     https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/board-approved-london-southend-airport-byelaws-100220-d14ca659.pdf   If you go to Section 5  the headline reads 5. Prohibited acts on parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply:   In other words the roads on the airport are either governed by the Road Traffic Act or the airport Byelaws- neither of which are classed as relevant land. Therefore PoFA DOES NOT APPLY throughout the airport.   Take a copy for the Court and point out that the VCS WS is somewhat lacking in accuracy. It is inconceivable that VCS have not read the Byelaws since they are operating there.    So looking at their WS it reminds me that a good few years ago it was said about the WSs of  parking companies that they and their lawyers simply do not care about the truth and are content with regularly supplying false information to the courts, happy that they will not produce a witness to defend their porkie pies, and that nothing bad will therefore happen to them.   This practice should stop since were the authors to have to appear in Court and challenged, their perjury would not only be clear to see but it would put a stop to the practice. If they don't turn up in Court they get away with their lies and are able to repeat them ad nauseam. And this WS is full of lies and misdirections -not that you can say in Court they are lies but you can point out where there is contradictions shall we say and let the Judge decide.    The WS says in point 31 that they robustly deny that their sign is prohibitive.    You could point out that  District Justice Glenn  in Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), at the High Wycombe Court said    “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach.   The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway.   It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway.   All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”   And of course VCS cannot sue for trespass as they are not the landowners.  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

CPUTR 2008 questions and advice....


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3421 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Trouble is car this is only guidance from the OFT

ans there is no mention of the might, may or could as

being unfair.

The exact quote from a DWP minister is as follows:

'' All letters issued by our private sector ''PARTNERS'' are approved for use,

although that may include the phrase''court action MAY be taken'',

they do NOT say court action will be taken, removing such phrases

is not a cost effective option.

 

Brig.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 354
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is some interesting information

in the Guidance on section 77,78 and 79 of CCA 1974,

the duty to give information to debtors and the

consequences of non- compliance on the the enforceability

of the agreement.

OFT October 2010.

This gives advice to companies and the Carey judgement

is incorporated into the guidance.

Section 2.19

Often consumers and their advisors assume that if a signed

copy it not supplied by the creditor or owner, this necessarily means

that the agreement cannot be enforced: either on the basis that

sect.77(1),78 (1) or 79 (1) (as the case maybe) has not been complied with,

or in the reliance on sect 127 (3) ( in the case of agreement to which this section still applies)

This overlooks the fact there is NO obligation on an information request

to provide a copy that includes a signature.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

All that means is that it is wrong to assume that if they supply a recon rather than a copy of the signed original it is unenforceable under s 77-79.

 

The wording is rather obtuse and shouldn't be taken to mean that it is NOT unenforceable under s 127 (1) and (3) etc

 

:-)

PLEASE NOTE... I AM MOST SORRY BUT I HAVE VERY LIMITED AVAILABILITY AT THE MOMENT DUE TO EXTREME PRESSURE OF WORK - IF YOU REQUIRE URGENT HELP ON YOUR THREAD AND ARE GETTING NO RESPONSE PLEASE HIT THE TRIANGLE FOR SITE TEAM ASSISTANCE. ELSA XXX

 

Please check out my BLOG for the quick guide to debt threats - it has all the info & letter template links you need to get started on your journey of TAKING CONTROL. :roll:

 

All opinions are my own based on research. I am not legally qualified, if in doubt please consult a legal expert.

Hope this has helped or made you smile. Keep your chin up, you're among friends now! Elsa xxx

Please click the *star* of any CAG member who has helped you .

Link to post
Share on other sites

v. Legal action

 

v-i. Describing the legal process

 

 

The OFT has seen a number of standard letters issued by DCAs which contain inaccuracies and omissions in their description of the debt recovery procedure and the legal process and which fail to mention that steps are required before enforcement action can be taken. For example:

 

 letters which set out the potential enforcement actions following non payment of a County Court Judgment (e.g. bailiffs seizing goods, employers deducting money from wages) without indicating that a further application to the court is required before enforcement action can be taken (i.e. to obtain a warrant of execution, attachment of earnings, charging order etc); or

 

 letters referring to bankruptcy and charging orders where it is not clear that a staged process is involved.

 

Sending such letters, would in the OFT‟ view, potentially be an unfair or oppressive business practice in breach of paragraphs 2.2b, 2.4b and/or 2.6g of the DCG

 

 

The above taken from the 2010 OFT Debt Collection - Letters guidance.. full pdf below.

 

[ATTACH]30044[/ATTACH]

 

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
All that means is that it is wrong to assume that if they supply a recon rather than a copy of the signed original it is unenforceable under s 77-79.

 

The wording is rather obtuse and shouldn't be taken to mean that it is NOT unenforceable under s 127 (1) and (3) etc

 

:-)

 

That's an exact quote from the guidance document.

I take the same view that agreements are enfoceable,

but this ''Guidance'' to the CCA 1974.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Phrase ''if a judgement is made against you'' the following

remedies are available to enforce the order of the court''

has cropped up on a couple of letters I've seen in recent weeks,

which I guess gets them past that guidance advice.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only they complied with their legal requirements, the OFT's guidance, the ICO's guidance, and they couldn't give misleading statements - remember that the guidance is guidance, and isn't exhaustive.

 

If only we had a legal system that didn't rely on pedantic arguments over meanings of words, or how those words should be implied.

 

If only we employed the European style of law, where the meaning of the words isn't important, and the application of it is open to interpretation - an interpretation that DOESN'T prejudice debtors...

 

I could go on with the 'if's'...

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I am of the generation brought

up to believe if you owe it pay it, don't

seek ways to avoid paying debts, yes

challenge any thing unfair/ unjust but

if yo have had the money spent it or

whatever why try to use a technicality

to not pay.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, I am of the generation brought

up to believe if you owe it pay it, don't

seek ways to avoid paying debts, yes

challenge any thing unfair/ unjust but

if yo have had the money spent it or

whatever why try to use a technicality

to not pay.

 

We have to take the game to them, though, and they don't see it this way - if you accept this, then I owe my Banks £1,000's that they settled in reclaimed charges. Alas, I played the game, and won. As did many others.

 

My point being, it's not that we get to choose how to play, some people simply can't repay the debts they have, and as long as creditors rely on technicalities, such as "may" or "might" take me to Court, they can expect me to play that particular game back at them - and at times much better than they do. They really shouldn't build business models on stupidity, as CAG will educate those that need/want it to take the game back at them in the same way.

 

Long live knowledge...

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites
We have to take the game to them, though, and they don't see it this way - if you accept this, then I owe my Banks £1,000's that they settled in reclaimed charges. Alas, I played the game, and won. As did many others.

 

My point being, it's not that we get to choose how to play, some people simply can't repay the debts they have, and as long as creditors rely on technicalities, such as "may" or "might" take me to Court, they can expect me to play that particular game back at them - and at times much better than they do. They really shouldn't build business models on stupidity, as CAG will educate those that need/want it to take the game back at them in the same way.

 

Long live knowledge...

 

Agreed, whilst the 'creditors' play games with our money and defer to a 'higher authority [them] it can only be for the benefit of the consumer to question all and argue every point on legality [de minimus or other]

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't fault your premise car one bit.

I because of my career have had to

be most careful about finances and debts,

your point o charges is pertinent and correct

these charges should not be included in

any debt recovery action, only the actual

debt and legally applied interest should

feature in any claim.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't fault your premise car one bit.

I because of my career have had to

be most careful about finances and debts,

your point o charges is pertinent and correct

these charges should not be included in

any debt recovery action, only the actual

debt and legally applied interest should

feature in any claim.

 

In my claims, the charges outweighed the debt, therefore I had nothing to "repay", and they, in their ignorance, encouraged me to take them on and recover money from them by defending myself. If they hadn't bothered, it wouldn't have cost them money in dealing with me, and then the many more £1,000's I've helped others to reclaim against them as a result of taking me on. Their system doesn't know when to let sleeping dogs lie.

 

Sorry, but the "you've used the money so you should repay it" argument doesn't fit well with the spirit of CAG, IMHO. This is about empowering folk to not accept what the instituations they have came to know and trust are saying, as it's a profit racket. These CPUTR seem to be a win for the consumer, but then we didn't really know the impact of previous regs/legislation designed to protect consumers until the caselaw came - bring it on, I say...

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess then as my post is regarded as not

in the spirit of CAG according to a member of the site

team I had best with draw.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess then as my post is regarded as not

in the spirit of CAG according to a member of the site

team I had best with draw.

 

Sod that, you stay put Brig.......... an open forum is for all positions/points of view, Car merely refers to personal experience and creditor 'habits' - don't take it personally.

 

On a more positive note, the OFT have expressed an interest in a s.140 claim being heard at Canterbury combined courts, this [unless it ends in consent :-( ] has the ability to impact post 2007 agreements.

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed that is what I feel, I came

to GAG because of a third party

who had told me of posting their

problem on the forum and was impressed

at the advice given.

I perhaps approach matters from a different

angle, my professional life requires financial

probity and so have no debts, I try to be objective

and helpful from over 40 years experience, if my

opinions and advice are unacceptable what

choice is left to me.????

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brig,

 

You have given useful advice to many and as all others, you're input is always welcome.

I think the vast majority on here are not debt avoiders, or using the cca '74 as a technicality.

 

It's usually as a last resort when all other avenues at reaching a mutually agreeable repayment plan with an OC or DCA have failed.

It then becomes a tool to give you extra bargaining power / leverage.

 

It must be remembered that the cca is there for the protection of both the creditor and debtor.

The creditor will use the cca whenever they can against you, the debtors are now doing the same when the creditor becomes unreasonable.

 

That's my take on it anyway.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess then as my post is regarded as not

in the spirit of CAG according to a member of the site

team I had best with draw.

 

Sod that, you stay put Brig.......... an open forum is for all positions/points of view, Car merely refers to personal experience and creditor 'habits' - don't take it personally.

 

On a more positive note, the OFT have expressed an interest in a s.140 claim being heard at Canterbury combined courts, this [unless it ends in consent :-( ] has the ability to impact post 2007 agreements.

 

Gez

 

Indeed. The argument is the focus, here, not the person - we're all different, with experiences that assist each other. They'd be clapping their hands if they knew we were fighting against each other, (which we're not) as we're stronger working with each other.

 

I'm bitter because I see the damage such an approach takes on people. If people were as important as profit, there would be no povety.

 

Keep them coming, Brig, as it's only when we get conflicting opinions that we get constructive discussion and results for everyone as result. :thumb:

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. The argument is the focus, here, not the person - we're all different, with experiences that assist each other. They'd be clapping their hands if they knew we were fighting against each other, (which we're not) as we're stronger working with each other.

 

I'm bitter because I see the damage such an approach takes on people. If people were as important as profit, there would be no povety.

 

Keep them coming, Brig, as it's only when we get conflicting opinions that we get constructive discussion and results for everyone as result. :thumb:

 

I am aware that perhaps I don't have as much reputation a lot of

the excellent well informed CAGGERS, and have perhaps

''an old fashioned '' view of many things, but I do have a

very good insight on the problems dealt with here.

I will of course help where ever I can:madgrin:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
We have to take the game to them, though, and they don't see it this way - if you accept this, then I owe my Banks £1,000's that they settled in reclaimed charges. Alas, I played the game, and won. As did many others.

 

My point being, it's not that we get to choose how to play, some people simply can't repay the debts they have, and as long as creditors rely on technicalities, such as "may" or "might" take me to Court, they can expect me to play that particular game back at them - and at times much better than they do. They really shouldn't build business models on stupidity, as CAG will educate those that need/want it to take the game back at them in the same way.

 

Long live knowledge...

 

Spot on! after all, we are simply relying on and utilising exactly the same legislation as the creditors / DCA's, although they would like you to believe otherwise!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a dispute ongoing for a while now and it had been 'passed' through from 1st Credit (whom I had put into dispute due to a non compliant 'agreement' to Connaught. Went through all the same rigmarole with Connaught only to get a letter from J&P sols saying they were acting for Connaught re a debt to 1st credit.

 

I wrote to 1st credit with a formal request under CPUTR that they confirm whether or not they hold an original executed CCA signed by me.

 

They wrote back advising me that the docs they had sent previously meet their required obligations and the default I had put them under was no longer was in force.

 

They confirmed that they hold an executed copy of the signed agreement and that J&P are dealing with the account.

 

So they clearly seem to have skirted round the CPUTR request and sent me another illegible microfiched application form..

 

What now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

DEMAND A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT

FROM J&P, if they have it they must provide it.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites
DEMAND A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT

FROM J&P, if they have it they must provide it.

 

They have sent me on several occasions a copy of an application form that is pretty much unreadable. See my other thread below:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?308392-MBNA-Agreement-amp-Con.%281-Viewing%29-nbsp

 

I was asking for confirmation that they held the original executed agreement under CPUTR . They have merely told me they have a copy of an executed agreement as per my post in the other thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...