Cap1 & CCA return

[zosaphine]

When was the agreement taken out?

 

Last summertime.. not come across this question having been posted before.

[car2403]

Last summertime.. not come across this question having been posted before.

 

Since the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came in to force, there is no longer a requirement to have a signed agreement, so this will be enforceable with a Court order at least.

[MAVERICKMAN]

Since the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came in to force, there is no longer a requirement to have a signed agreement, so this will be enforceable with a Court order at least.

 

The CCA 2006 only repealed subsections (3) to (5) of section 127 of the 1974 Act; you still need a signed agreement to enforce it, IMO.

[car2403]

The CCA 2006 only repealed subsections (3) to (5) of section 127 of the 1974 Act; you still need a signed agreement to enforce it, IMO.

 

Ok;

 

11 The repeal by this Act of—

(a) the words “(subject to subsections (3) and (4))” in subsection (1) of

section 127 of the 1974 Act,

(b) subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

© the words “or 127(3)” in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act

 

(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner)

 

So, where an agreement isn't signed, the Court can allow enforcement by Court order, subject to s.127(1);

 

the court shall dismiss the application if, but (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) only if, it considers it just to do so having regard to—

(i) prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and

the degree of culpability for it; ...

 

So, the automatic unenforceability under s.127(3) doesn't apply to agreements after April 2007 - the Court can order enforcement regardless of this, unless s.127(1) applies, which is at the Courts discretion.

 

My post, quoted below, is accurate, therefore?

 

Since the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came in to force, there is no longer a requirement to have a signed agreement, so this will be enforceable with a Court order at least.

[andrewman]

I have got copies of my agreements,arrived today from cabot. unfortunatly i am unable to read the majority of it because it is in small print, and copy is poor. I can print or copy better than cabot can ever do.

 

from what i understand agreements must be provided in a legible form,also any details sent must give details of any codes used. i do not know what to do about such a poor copy of documents. or codes like CHRGOFF. please help.

[B3rty]

Why not start a thread and post it up for feedback?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello All!

 

Is there any way that you can ask a banker if they actually have the Original Hard Copy of a Consumer Credit Agreement (CCA)?

 

By that, I don't mean the usual s77-79 Consumer Credit Act 1974 request for a True Copy, but something much more direct, along the lines of...

 

BRW: "Look, banker, to save messing around, do you actually have the Paper Document? You know, the real, actual, physical thing that you claim I have signed and that binds me to your nasty Loan/Card."

 

Banker: "Yes."

 

BRW: "What, the real thing, with my actual Signature, the bit of Paper that you say has all of that micro-Font Prescribed Terms on the back as well?

 

Banker: "Yes."

 

BRW: "Can I come and see it then?"

 

Banker: "No."

 

But, seriously, this seems to be a simple enough request.

 

I get the feeling that a lot of horse trading could be avoided if we could get that simple answer out of them at a much earlier stage.

 

At the moment, we send off s77-79 requests, they send us back anything from a black photo-copied smudge, to an Application form, to something the Office Duty Baldrick made up with Photoshop, Scissors and Glue, to some Poison Pill Document that appears to stitch us up like a Kipper (even though we've never seen it before).

 

We argue over that Copy of a Document for a while, agonise if that blob is a Tea Stain or a Prescribed Term, call each others Bluff, sometimes fight Debt Collectors along the way, sometimes agree to disagree, sometimes Pay, sometimes get Paid or, if none of that works out, we do sometimes end up in our very best Dancing Gear standing in front of a Judge...when we finally get to see what they really have (leaving Court with either a Fat Cheque or a booking at the Centre for the Homeless)!

 

Sorry to ask something obvious that may've been asked before, but it would help us all I'm sure to know if they really still have the actual Document in the first place.

 

Has anyone asked this, and been given a sensible answer?

 

Or, put another way, asked them to please confirm if they still have the Physical Document and, if required, would they be able to produce this for inspection.

 

I suspect this would be too easy, and too obvious, and would just spoil all the fun!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[car2403]

If you ask the question and they answer "yes", when they don't, that is tantamount to fraud.

 

If they don't say "yes", they will hide behind the regulations, claiming they don't have to comply, here is a blank agreement with the details blocked out, etc. For me, they may as well have answered "no" anyway!

 

If they answer "no", you've won the lottery, as the debt is unenforceable. (Providing you're covered by the 1974 Act, or where you can show prejudice, if a Judge agrees, under the 2006 Act)

 

We've seen all 3 scenarios, so yes, it is worth asking the question, BRW...

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Chris!

 

Yes, I thought it might be worth asking this. I think this issue is mainly one that affects two-sided Consumer Credit Agreement (CCA) Documents (or any two-sided thing a banker is trying to say is a CCA), but it is also important for one-sided Documents where the quality is suspect and/or the Document looks "made up" with odd crease lines and Text alignment issues.

 

I like to be direct, and it just made me wonder if this question should not be added by all when submitting s77-79 requests anyway. Or, better still, wait to see what the bankers produce from your s77-79 request and only THEN ask them if they still have the Original.

 

Indeed, almost certainly better to wait until they produce something, as then you can ask if what they have produced is based on an actual Copy taken within the last few Days from the Original, or how exactly was it produced.

 

From Microfiche?

 

From a PDF Scan?

 

From a Photocopy?

 

From a Fax Copy?

 

In my view, if they say anything other than it's a recent Copy taken from the Original, then that raises a big doubt that the Document is valid. Where is the proof that this is really a Copy of the original (you know, the one that I signed in real ink).

 

If it's a two-sided Document, then how can they prove the two sides are Scans/Copies of the two sides of the Original? I'm certainly not interested in taking a bankers word for this.

 

I do appreciate asking this Question is not covered by any Legislation, so the bankers can ignore it, fudge the answer, or hide behind the limit of their obligations. But, it cannot do any harm to ask.

 

If they respond at all in any way that tells you what they have got in terms of a Copy of Original or the Original, then press them further to explain the nature of the Copy or ask where the Original is kept...is it hole-punched?...(remember to look for signs of filing holes in the Copy)! Is it kept in a nice Plastic A4 Pouch? Where exactly are you keeping my fine Agreement?

 

Then, if/when it is time to get the Dancing Shoes on for the Judge, you'll have that all in Writing and it may be very useful if they then fail to bring the Original CCA along.

 

I think this is a vital issue when any Terms are supposed to be on the back of the Document. There has to be some proof that a two-sided Copy is the same as the Original two-sided CCA.

 

There are too many pre-2006 two-sided Credit/Card Application Forms being considered as CCAs under s127 just because they are supposed to have the Prescribed Terms on the back.

 

Without the Original, then how can anyone know the "Back" they produce is the "Back" that was on the Original? Where are the References Numbers that link the two Sides? Matching Date Codes? Printers/Press Printing Codes?

 

Failing that, can they produce Evidence from their Printers who carried out the Press Run that produced this two-sided Document. When was the Press Run carried out? Date? Purchase Order with Press? Who Designed the Document? Can the bankers produce their Artwork Files? Show us the evidence of the Printing Films or Printing Plates...that sort of thing.

 

If a CCA appears in Court that is a Copy, then I feel that has to be a serious flaw in the bankers case. Especially in terms of two-sided Application Forms that are being considered as Agreements just because the banker says the Prescribed Terms on the back were there on the Original.

 

Prove it banker.

 

Only the Original will do, a Copy will need additional evidence to confirm the two sides match the Original CCA if that is no longer available. If it is available, then why have you not brought it along in Court, and why did you not send a Crisp Copy of that in response to the s77-79 CCA request?

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[pt2537]

Hello Chris!

 

Yes, I thought it might be worth asking this. I think this issue is mainly one that affects two-sided Consumer Credit Agreement (CCA) Documents (or any two-sided thing a banker is trying to say is a CCA), but it is also important for one-sided Documents where the quality is suspect and/or the Document looks "made up" with odd crease lines and Text alignment issues.

 

I like to be direct, and it just made me wonder if this question should not be added by all when submitting s77-79 requests anyway. Or, better still, wait to see what the bankers produce from your s77-79 request and only THEN ask them if they still have the Original.

 

Indeed, almost certainly better to wait until they produce something, as then you can ask if what they have produced is based on an actual Copy taken within the last few Days from the Original, or how exactly was it produced.

 

From Microfiche?

 

From a PDF Scan?

 

From a Photocopy?

 

From a Fax Copy?

 

In my view, if they say anything other than it's a recent Copy taken from the Original, then that raises a big doubt that the Document is valid. Where is the proof that this is really a Copy of the original (you know, the one that I signed in real ink).

 

If it's a two-sided Document, then how can they prove the two sides are Scans/Copies of the two sides of the Original? I'm certainly not interested in taking a bankers word for this.

 

I do appreciate asking this Question is not covered by any Legislation, so the bankers can ignore it, fudge the answer, or hide behind the limit of their obligations. But, it cannot do any harm to ask. Erm yeah it is, its covered by the Civil Evidence Act 1995 for starters and further to this , document retention is covered extensively in the Law of Evidence. i am currently carrying out research in this area and its certainly eye opening

If they respond at all in any way that tells you what they have got in terms of a Copy of Original or the Original, then press them further to explain the nature of the Copy or ask where the Original is kept...is it hole-punched?...(remember to look for signs of filing holes in the Copy)! Is it kept in a nice Plastic A4 Pouch? Where exactly are you keeping my fine Agreement?

 

Then, if/when it is time to get the Dancing Shoes on for the Judge, you'll have that all in Writing and it may be very useful if they then fail to bring the Original CCA along.

 

I think this is a vital issue when any Terms are supposed to be on the back of the Document. There has to be some proof that a two-sided Copy is the same as the Original two-sided CCA.

 

There are too many pre-2006 two-sided Credit/Card Application Forms being considered as CCAs under s127 just because they are supposed to have the Prescribed Terms on the back.

 

Without the Original, then how can anyone know the "Back" they produce is the "Back" that was on the Original? Where are the References Numbers that link the two Sides? Matching Date Codes? Printers/Press Printing Codes?

 

Failing that, can they produce Evidence from their Printers who carried out the Press Run that produced this two-sided Document. When was the Press Run carried out? Date? Purchase Order with Press? Who Designed the Document? Can the bankers produce their Artwork Files? Show us the evidence of the Printing Films or Printing Plates...that sort of thing.

 

If a CCA appears in Court that is a Copy, then I feel that has to be a serious flaw in the bankers case. Especially in terms of two-sided Application Forms that are being considered as Agreements just because the banker says the Prescribed Terms on the back were there on the Original.

 

Prove it banker.

 

Only the Original will do, a Copy will need additional evidence to confirm the two sides match the Original CCA if that is no longer available. If it is available, then why have you not brought it along in Court, and why did you not send a Crisp Copy of that in response to the s77-79 CCA request?

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

......

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello pt2537!

 

Erm yeah it is, its covered by the Civil Evidence Act 1995 for starters and further to this, document retention is covered extensively in the Law of Evidence. I am currently carrying out research in this area and its certainly eye opening

 

Very interested to read this, as I felt there had to be something more in this.

 

Put it this way, any banker trying to fob me off with some nasty Copy will be asked to explain this Copy in full detail from a Physical Document point of view.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[MAVERICKMAN]

Ok;

 

 

 

 

 

So, where an agreement isn't signed, the Court can allow enforcement by Court order, subject to s.127(1);

 

 

 

So, the automatic unenforceability under s.127(3) doesn't apply to agreements after April 2007 - the Court can order enforcement regardless of this, unless s.127(1) applies, which is at the Courts discretion.

 

My post, quoted below, is accurate, therefore?

 

I disagree. Section 127(1) of CCA 1974 refers to s.65(1) of the Act which states: "An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only".

 

So, what is the definition of an "executed agreement"?

 

Section 189 (definitions) of CCA 1974 states:

"'executed agreement' means a document, signed by or on behalf of the parties, embodying the terms of a regulated agreement, or such of them as have been reduced to writing".

 

Therefore, IMO, if a document was not signed by both parties, then there is no agreement...period.

[paulwlton]

A court can only enforce an improperly executed agreement. If there is no agreement in place by way of a signed contract then a court has no power to enforce the contract. Therefore ,the borrowers signature is a prerequisite for enforcement, otherwise the rouges in the finance industry will have a field day.

 

PW

[star_scream]

I disagree. Section 127(1) of CCA 1974 refers to s.65(1) of the Act which states: "An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only".

 

So, what is the definition of an "executed agreement"?

 

Section 189 (definitions) of CCA 1974 states:

"'executed agreement' means a document, signed by or on behalf of the parties, embodying the terms of a regulated agreement, or such of them as have been reduced to writing".

 

Therefore, IMO, if a document was not signed by both parties, then there is no agreement...period.

I agree with that so how can a court enforce it when there is only one signature?

[tifo]

The CCA 2006 only repealed subsections (3) to (5) of section 127 of the 1974 Act; you still need a signed agreement to enforce it, IMO.

 

I've read that this is not retrospective so CCA 1974 s.127(3) still applies to agreements regulated under that Act.

[paulwlton]

I agree with that so how can a court enforce it when there is only one signature?

 

By signing the agreement the borrower agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the contract, if it's not signed by the borrower there is no consent.

 

A court will more than likely enforce an agreement even if the creditors sig is missing because the borrower hasn't been prejudiced.

 

PW

[rosierose]

I have a similar situation. I know for a fact that I have not signed an agreement. I signed, to all intents and purposes, a blank sheet of paper. It was, I suppose, a very, very faint print.

 

Certainly my copy was just a blank sheet of paper. The only writing on it, my signature.

 

When I recently CCA'd the creditor I was sent a print out (not a facsimile) including all the terms and conditions and signatures omitted.

 

Is this fraud?

[rosierose]

Agreement entered into around June 2007

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello All!

 

What is the position when an initial pre-Contractual Consumer Credit Agreement (CCA) arrives that is already Signed by the Creditor/Lender?

 

I feel that would make the Agreement Void under s59:

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 59

 

(1) An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement.

 

(2) Regulations may exclude from the operation of subsection (1) agreements such as are described in the regulations.

 

If I then Signed such an Agreement and sent it back, the Loan then went ahead, any Copy of that Agreement would clearly show that my Signature post-Dates that of the Creditor/Lender. In turn, that theirs pre-Dates mine. So, would s59 Void such an otherwise "executed" Agreement?

 

Or, rather, what "agreements such as are described in the regulations" would not then be covered by s59?

 

I feel that an Agreement should not arrive already Signed by a Lender, as then it is pre-executed as far as their Signature is concerned. When I send that back, what is left for them to Authorise? The moment I sign, I am bound to it, so would s59 apply here?

 

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[star_scream]

By signing the agreement the borrower agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the contract, if it's not signed by the borrower there is no consent.

 

A court will more than likely enforce an agreement even if the creditors sig is missing because the borrower hasn't been prejudiced.

 

PW

 

Thanks. So, making laws that we have to abide to are a complete waste of time ?

[andrewman]

I have received copies of my agreement under the consumer credit act, unfortunately they are substandard copies,i can not read them due to being in small print. i would post them on here but for some reason it will not allow me to do so. i woul dlike to know is there anything i can do.

 

i have added attachments but unsure if they will attach to this post.

cabot.doc

[citizenB]

andrewman, the file shows up ok. It says application form !. I think pt2537 has had a run in with Littlewoods so perhaps he can advise you

[pt2537]

I have received copies of my agreement under the consumer credit act, unfortunately they are substandard copies,i can not read them due to being in small print. i would post them on here but for some reason it will not allow me to do so. i woul dlike to know is there anything i can do.

 

i have added attachments but unsure if they will attach to this post.

 

Hi

 

That agreement sucks !!!!!!

 

its not enforceable in the slightest, and further more to add to their woes its illegible so not compliant with the copy document regulations

 

To be totally honest , you are best to start your own thread on this, i will happily help you through this as i have had great success with my battle with littlewoods

 

if you start your own thread ,let me know and i will post on there

 

regards

paul

[andrewman]

thanks for the advice much appreciated. I do not know how to start new threads, replying is easy. can you help please. thanks.

[citizenB]

thanks for the advice much appreciated. I do not know how to start new threads, replying is easy. can you help please. thanks.

 

Here you go andrewman.. you should find the answer in the link below xx

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html