Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • J&P Credit Solutions are specialists on debt recovery. Either way they seem to be swapping between the JandP and IDR whatever their exact definitions are.
    • Primary and secondary teachers are supporting pupils with their own money, buying food and warm clothing. Eight in 10 primary teachers in England spending own money to help pupils | Education | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Increasing numbers of children hungry and lack adequate clothing, with two-thirds of secondary teachers also supporting pupils  
    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
  • 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

Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4974 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 Peter,

 

with regards to the Regs and the omissions allowed under 3(2) it also says they are applicable to executed agreements. Does this mean then that for unexecuted ones the Creditors cannot hide behind it?

 

regards,

shane

____________________________________________

All advice is offered freely & without prejudice

 

 

If my post has been useful to you please click the scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi Paul

Accorfdng to the regulations the only things that can be ommited from a copy document are .

 

1

INformation which would be soley for the use of the creditor,I presume this means corporate info or reference numbers etc,with the proviso that the afore mentioned are not part of the requirements of the regulations ie address etc.

 

2

The signature box of the debtor, these conditions apply to all copy docs whether they be precontract secton 62 63 or secton 77 78 post contract.

 

3

Adress of debtor on agreements sent via precontractual section 62 only

 

Best regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

]Hi

 

Got this reponce from T/S regarding a RBS agreemeent with all the prescribed terms on but is computer stored/scanned. IMOA they do not have the original agreement. Also had no T&C with the agreement.

 

I have been in touch with the T/S in Edinburgh and we believe that the scanned copy is a sufficent copy of the agreement and therefore we will not be pursuing any criminal offences in relation to this as we do not feel it will be in the publics intrest to persue the matter formally

 

 

This is what we are up against. No mention about the lack of T&C.

 

Hi all

 

Sending this to T/S, could do with some feedback and a good ending.

 

Cheers

 

HAK

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

 

Re: Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I am writing regarding your letter dated xxth October 2007.

 

The original complaint was regarding a breach of Section 78 of the CCA 1974 by the RBS.

 

The RBS have not supplied me with a true copy of my credit agreement but a computer stored image 5”x 4”. The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 section 3-(1) are very clear and state that every copy should be a true copy. There is no mention of computer stored documents that can be digitally altered.

 

I also informed you that the original terms and conditions were not enclosed with my request. Section 78(1) states that a credit agreement and all other documents referred to it must be supplied. As the terms and conditions where not supplied the account remains in default and the RBS have committed an offence again this is clearly stated in section 78(6).

 

I feel personally insulted the way you have stated in your letter that it is not in the publics interest to pursue this matter formally. RBS have committed an offence from an act of Parliament therefore it is Trading Standards job to get involved.

 

I find your attitude and knowledge of this offence very poor and I will be reporting you to my MP for not addressing the law as government instructed you to. I also would like you to explain to me “why it is not in the public interest” to deal with my case.

 

My request under section 78(1) still remains outstanding and RBS have committed an offence.

 

 

Yours faithfully

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fancy a laff?

 

Read this response:

 

mum-cap1page1.jpg

 

Aww, well aren't you just lovely giving me a copy of the agreement when you don't have to? - do you really think I'm that thick?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

And:

 

mum-cap1page2.jpg

 

You don't think it's unreasonable to contact me by phone? Hmmmm.....what rights do you have to contact me at all? for a start, I have asked you not to - a complete right under the Human Rights Act - secondly, you don't have ana enforcable agreement and any attempts to call me for collection are attempts to enforce it, are they not?

 

Thanks for confirming this- I'm sure the Judge will love this!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the agreement:

 

mum-cap1page3.jpg

 

No prescribed terms, no required terms, nothing - unenforcable as doesn't comply with section 60(1)?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol Ellie Renshaw! I have a stack of letters from her!

 

''so tell me Ellie, how is it that you've complied with your obligations by providing me with t&c's that are curent now and not when i opened the acount?

 

response: ''well I, um yes, i see what you;re saying but.....''

 

''Because it does clearly say i am entitled to any document that is referred to in the alleged agreement does it not? And also the Regs do stipulate all the terms themselves must be within the agreement? In fact the form and content requirements are quite clear in these matters are they not?''

 

response: ........ ...... .......

 

''sorry, didn't catch that?''

 

response.... ..... ...

 

 

 

 

lol!!

____________________________________________

All advice is offered freely & without prejudice

 

 

If my post has been useful to you please click the scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

mum-cap1page4.jpg

 

Hmm, the T&C's? All prescribed on here NOT sig doc, so I'm afraid they are irrelevant Ellie!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

mum-cap1page5.jpg

 

Ah yes, the "agreement" you sent me when the law changed, telling me that I was now bound by this one: I don't think so - where's my signature for a start?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

mum-cap1page6.jpg

 

I am right in thinking this is completely unenforcable by virtue of section 127(3) and section 60(1), aren't I?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol Ellie Renshaw! I have a stack of letters from her!

 

''so tell me Ellie, how is it that you've complied with your obligations by providing me with t&c's that are curent now and not when i opened the acount?

 

response: ''well I, um yes, i see what you;re saying but.....''

 

''Because it does clearly say i am entitled to any document that is referred to in the alleged agreement does it not? And also the Regs do stipulate all the terms themselves must be within the agreement? In fact the form and content requirements are quite clear in these matters are they not?''

 

response: ........ ...... .......

 

''sorry, didn't catch that?''

 

response.... ..... ...

 

 

 

 

lol!!

 

 

I know, I've had similar responses from Egg - apparently they "have to advise me that my complaint is not accepted"

 

WHAT???? This is a criminal matter now, nothing to do with complaints -and certainly something you don't have the right to "not accept"

 

Oh, it does make me chuckle.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uni

 

I cant se the agreement

 

 

Sorry HAK, was having trouble uploading it!

 

Think i was using the wrong link, lol!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uni I have to admit i'm not sure on this one. With regard to prescribed terms not being on signature document i think this is only applicable after 2005 when the statuatory instruments ammendment to the Agreement Regs came into force. It also looks like it has been reconstructed.

 

regards,

shane

____________________________________________

All advice is offered freely & without prejudice

 

 

If my post has been useful to you please click the scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments Shane.

 

What makes you think it has been reconstructed?

 

I'm going to take them to court anyway, so they'll have to produce it.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

the document in post # 9976 is either a new style of agreement they've drawn up or a reconstruction in which they tried to pack as many applicable terms as they possibly can! Do they have your signature anywhere on these documents?

 

regards,

shane

____________________________________________

All advice is offered freely & without prejudice

 

 

If my post has been useful to you please click the scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, nooo nooo mate. That one they just sent out of the blue, saying that the law had changed and this was my new agreement!!!!!!

 

It's the previous agreement that is the one that applies to this account.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, nooo nooo mate. That one they just sent out of the blue, saying that the law had changed and this was my new agreement!!!!!!

 

It's the previous agreement that is the one that applies to this account.

 

aha! Well that makes it a lot simpler then! I was afraid they had your signature on that new agreement!

 

The old agreement is a precontractual application form. From what i can make out it has no prescribed terms. (can't read all the txt so correct me if i'm wrong).

 

With regard to the t&c's the regulations are clear in that the terms stipulated in schedule 1 and the prescribed terms should be contained with the agreement itself and not found in another document. Nowhere does it state they can be in a separate document titled T&c's. It also ays they must be shown together as a whole and not interspersed with other information. This is clearly not the case

 

Also, the t&c's they provided you should be current from the time you opened the account, not current now. The regs state if there has been any variation in the terms then the new ones must be provided AS WELL AS the old ones, not in place of.

 

S59(1) also applies ofcourse!

 

regards,

shane

  • Haha 2

____________________________________________

All advice is offered freely & without prejudice

 

 

If my post has been useful to you please click the scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

aha! Well that makes it a lot simpler then! I was afraid they had your signature on that new agreement!

 

The old agreement is a precontractual application form. From what i can make out it has no prescribed terms. (can't read all the txt so correct me if i'm wrong).

 

With regard to the t&c's the regulations are clear in that the terms stipulated in schedule 1 and the prescribed terms should be contained with the agreement itself and not found in another document. Nowhere does it state they can be in a separate document titled T&c's. It also ays they must be shown together as a whole and not interspersed with other information. This is clearly not the case

 

Also, the t&c's they provided you should be current from the time you opened the account, not current now. The regs state if there has been any variation in the terms then the new ones must be provided AS WELL AS the old ones, not in place of.

 

S59(1) also applies ofcourse!

 

regards,

shane

 

Great mate, thanks a lot. I'll issue the N1 end of week!! :)

 

I would not put my sig on that at all!!

  • Haha 1

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shane, thanks for reminding me about section 59(1).

 

I'll get the reply written to them asap.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

And:

secondly, you don't have ana enforcable agreement and any attempts to call me for collection are attempts to enforce it, are they not?

 

Thanks for confirming this- I'm sure the Judge will love this!!

 

I don't think this is right - if the agreement is unenforceable that doesn't mean that the debt doesn't exist? If you haven't drawn on the card, or used the credit, or even applied for the card yourself you may be able to use that argument against enforceability.

 

Remember - "no CCA=unenforceable debt", not "no CCA=no debt"

 

If you're in dispute with them, they shoudn't be hounding you like that - company policy or not!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul

Accorfdng to the regulations the only things that can be ommited from a copy document are .

 

1

INformation which would be soley for the use of the creditor,I presume this means corporate info or reference numbers etc,with the proviso that the afore mentioned are not part of the requirements of the regulations ie address etc.

 

2

The signature box of the debtor, these conditions apply to all copy docs whether they be precontract secton 62 63 or secton 77 78 post contract.

 

3

Adress of debtor on agreements sent via precontractual section 62 only

 

Best regards

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks Peter,

 

In light of this am i right in saying that this statement from RBS is intended to miss-lead.

 

A "true copy" does not need to contain any personal information relating to you as the debtor ( including your name and address- although we often include this for convenience.

 

Paul

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

Sending this to T/S, could do with some feedback and a good ending.

 

Cheers

 

HAK

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

 

Re: Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I am writing regarding your letter dated xxth October 2007.

 

The original complaint was regarding a breach of Section 78 of the CCA 1974 by the RBS.

 

The RBS have not supplied me with a true copy of my credit agreement but a computer stored image 5”x 4”. The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 section 3-(1) are very clear and state that every copy should be a true copy. There is no mention of computer stored documents that can be digitally altered.

 

I also informed you that the original terms and conditions were not enclosed with my request. Section 78(1) states that a credit agreement and all other documents referred to it must be supplied. As the terms and conditions where not supplied the account remains in default and the RBS have committed an offence again this is clearly stated in section 78(6).

 

I feel personally insulted the way you have stated in your letter that it is not in the publics interest to pursue this matter formally. RBS have committed an offence from an act of Parliament therefore it is Trading Standards job to get involved.

 

I find your attitude and knowledge of this offence very poor and I will be reporting you to my MP for not addressing the law as government instructed you to. I also would like you to explain to me “why it is not in the public interest” to deal with my case.

 

My request under section 78(1) still remains outstanding and RBS have committed an offence.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

Hi

 

I am afraid that "the not in the public interst to pusrue", is a fact that we are going to have to live with in regards to section 77 requests i have just recieved a lettere from the undersecretary on state regardsing this after a long drawn out debate which i argued strenuously to the contrarry.

He also says within the letter that creditors are allowed to to pusrsue a debt whilst the default continues but they are not allowd to threaten action which they cannot take (through the courts) i am seeking clarification that this means they cannot enter defaults or use the permission granted under the agreement to share data with credit agencies,which would seem to be the logical conclusion.

With regards to your letter to the TS have you considered using my letter of a few posts back

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-498.html

 

it states the regulations that point to the requirements that the creditor must meet in ordr to comply with the request and especialluy in sending sepperate terms and conditions.

 

Best regards

peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks Peter,

 

In light of this am i right in saying that this statement from RBS is intended to miss-lead.

 

A "true copy" does not need to contain any personal information relating to you as the debtor ( including your name and address- although we often include this for convenience.

 

Paul

 

Hi Paul

 

The relavant bit is

 

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instru­ment or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

Firstly your address is not for the use of the creditor only and secondly it is required by the regulations in schedule 1(2).

The next paragraph lust says that they are allowed to leave out signature boxes nothing about your name and address.

If this was not the case then why would the make a point of mentioning the exclussion in the case of a section 62 copy.

Best regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4974 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...