Cap1 & CCA return

[Guest Battleaxe]

I wonder how Ms MBNA will respond? LOL....

 

This just get better and better. Tam and I have a real axe to grind with A & L/MBNA. I think Tam wont be too heartbroken if they end up having to close up shop.

[un1boy]

I think Tam wont be too heartbroken if they end up having to close up shop.

 

 

Do you actually think this will happen though?

[tamadus]

I'm about to send a few sec 85 default letters myself. Just as soon as I finish catching up on my other cases that have been allowed to slide over the last couple of weeks.

 

Just put together more evidence for the ICO regarding GE Money and Asset link, will post more details in that thread when reply received, but they have acknowledged the complaint and transferred it to a case worker for investigation.

 

Now I need to get my court pack ready for Abbey in March

[tamadus]

I wonder how Ms MBNA will respond? LOL....

 

This just get better and better. Tam and I have a real axe to grind with A & L/MBNA. I think Tam wont be too heartbroken if they end up having to close up shop.

 

LMAO

 

They are paying the claim on that credit card in bits and pieces lol. Latest payment leaves almost 200 outstanding and the cheque arrived with nothing but a compliment slip for A&L so I am guessing its another part payment.

 

They obviously dont want her spending it all in one go lol

[tamadus]

Do you actually think this will happen though?

 

Its very possible Un1.

 

Consider that they cannot enforce the agreement whilst in default. Getting out of default in a sec 85 is not as simple as supplying the agreement retrospectively. as they would still need to consolidate charges and interest in the intervening period.

 

Now imagine that I do not know of a single instance where a copy of the executed agreement has been sent with a replacement card. There is estimated at something in excess of 60 Million cards in circulation in the UK, all of which are in theory in default. so If we assume a card is replaced every 2 years then it means they should refund at least 2 years of charges to every card out there. Then we should also consider the 2500 fine for each offence if everyone reported it.

 

This is why I keep saying they will argue this as much as possible as every individual case could be valued at up to about 5000. 60 Million x £5000 is a lot of cash to find when their actual cashflow is limited.

[un1boy]

Yeah I see....talk about the consumer revolution, lol!!

 

I'll have to get my sec 85 written off then eh?

[Guest Battleaxe]

Un1boy,

 

You might as help apply the pressure to these erstwhile institutions.

[joneshousehold]

Right then folks. I am wallowing in CCA sections right up to my neck. I get the impression that there is more going on behind the scenes that is stated on the forum. However I think I am interested in

 

S59 - (not 100% sure about this one but wonder if it covers application forms not being a binding agreement)

 

S61

 

S63

 

S85

 

If I am on the right track I am appalled at just how much of a pickle the credit industry has got itself into!

[Guest Battleaxe]

I am sure this why they can't claim an application form is the Credit Agreement, even though they try it on, thinking people do not know the difference.

[e28bigalbexley]

HI All

Sorry if i missed this but if they are commiting an offence on Sec 85 for say 3 years, actually almost 4 on one card, we can claim back interest paid, compound contractual Interest at their cash advance rate ,and the normal monthly payments, how about card protection ins....

AL:)

[elizabeth1]

Right then folks. I am wallowing in CCA sections right up to my neck. I get the impression that there is more going on behind the scenes that is stated on the forum. However I think I am interested in

 

S59 - (not 100% sure about this one but wonder if it covers application forms not being a binding agreement)

 

S61

 

S63

 

S85

 

If I am on the right track I am appalled at just how much of a pickle the credit industry has got itself into!

 

Hiya Jones - I spotted this stuff back in November and have read and read this stuff and YES - it's appalling. I had read this stuff and kind of "knew" I had the answers and kept thinking "Nah!! this can't be this simple" I PM'd some others as I really doubted what I was seeing - like you say it's appaling for these companies to be in this mess!!!

[bill-k]

how about card protection ins....

AL:)

PPI? Have a look here, AL:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/ppi/

[un1boy]

Un1boy,

 

You might as help apply the pressure to these erstwhile institutions.

 

I might as well - most of the banks I've been with have asked me to close my accounts anyway!! Even though I haven't even been charged by them, let alone claimed any back!!

 

I've got nothing else to lose!

[Guest The Terminator]

The banks are going to be on the backfoot from now on. S85 cannot be interprated any other way and the terminator has a few other aces up his sleeve. To all and sundry if you think that this is the way to avoid debt then forget it.This is bringing the banks back into line.They are not above the law like any individual on this site,The only thing is that we've done our homework they haven't.

[Guest The Terminator]

he is very uncomfortable about the Section 85, he did ask how much was it going to cost them, so when I told him the figure, and the compund contractual interest. I think they are going to have some uncomfortable discussions in the ensuing weeks, seeing they have been in breach since November 2003. He also asked how I found out about Section 85 and I told him that I have a copy of the Consumer Credit Act and have plenty of time to read then spoke to some very wise men. I am going to get a pimple on my tongue for that fib.

I wonder why he is uncomfortable about S85( that tells you something) most proberly because this has opened the floodgates. As for saying the bank can't be defaulted his just proved himself wrong.

[noomill060]

Soryy this is off thread- could someone help this guy out. He has gone for a Judgement by Default and the bank is trying for a set aside. He semms to be floundering. Cheers.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/12055-help-aggressive-response-northern-2.html#post519521

[baileyboy]

The banks are going to be on the backfoot from now on. S85 cannot be interprated any other way and the terminator has a few other aces up his sleeve. To all and sundry if you think that this is the way to avoid debt then forget it.This is bringing the banks back into line.They are not above the law like any individual on this site,The only thing is that we've done our homework they haven't.

 

I haven't contributed to this thread a great deal, but I have followed it for a good many weeks now and it makes excellent reading. This S85 debate is a whole new can of worms, and I can see a vision of the Bank / Credit Card Executives starting to run around like headless chickens in shear panic. I agree that if you want to walk away from your debts then this isn't for you, but by the same token, if the card companies are indeed in default over S85, as they appear to be, then any return of interest / penalty charges over 4 years for instance will have the effect in most cases of wiping out the amount owed I would think.

 

Tamadus, Terminator, Uniboy and others, I take my hat off to you guys, your doing a great job for the consumer.

[JonCris]

Hi all could I just mention that you are already in the process of recovering their unlawful charges.

 

After that is accomplished is the time to invoke section 85 when you can tell them that their agreement is unenforcable so they can now go take a running jump for any outstanding monies.

 

Remember THEY wouldn't hesitate to use any breaches by YOU to THEIR advantage

[Guest The Terminator]

I

Tamadus, Terminator, Uniboy and others, I take my hat off to you guys, your doing a great job for the consumer.

 

Thanks for the compliment.S85 has taken a lot of reaserch from not only me but tamadus and the rest of the guys.We are in constant communication amongst us and when the time is right we will unleash it.If we can help just one person it will be an acheivement.

[Guest The Terminator]

Hi all could I just mention that you are already in the process of recovering their unlawful charges.

 

After that is accomplished is the time to invoke section 85 when you can tell them that their agreement is unenforcable so they can now go take a running jump for any outstanding monies.

 

Remember THEY wouldn't hesitate to use any breaches by YOU to THEIR advantage

 

Agree with everything you say there Jon but there is another chapter after S85 should I let it out or wait.....

[joneshousehold]

The question of what constitutes a copy agreement has been discussed in the past but I can't seem to find it. I remember there was a lot said about a copy doesn't have to show certain information such as signatures but that if anyone is challenging the validity of the agreement then we should ask for the signed one.

 

I am trying to find out what is an accepted copy for other parts of the Act such as S63 and S85 ie what did they have to send us at the time. Per the Act a copy is one defined by Section 180 but all that says is that regulations may be issued stipulating what a copy may or may not include. Can anyone remember where those regulations are?

[JonCris]

It does have to be a 'true' properly executed copy on which your signature must be present if they want to enforce the debt.

 

The copy agreement without signature is meant to be sent to you at the outset & the none-inclusion of a signature was for security reasons in case it got lost in the post

[JonCris]

Hi Terminator

 

I think so have been re-reading the CCA & I have to say there are a number of other sections we can invoke which will drive the money lenders potty as, like their failure on agreements, I suspect they will not be able to pit up a counter argument.

 

I beginning to hear the pips squeek

[tamadus]

Hiya Jones - I spotted this stuff back in November and have read and read this stuff and YES - it's appalling. I had read this stuff and kind of "knew" I had the answers and kept thinking "Nah!! this can't be this simple" I PM'd some others as I really doubted what I was seeing - like you say it's appaling for these companies to be in this mess!!!

 

I had the same feelings when I realised the implications in sec 85 Lizzy. It just seems to keep running through your head. NO WAY have I got this right and How can they be so stupid and blase.

 

Sad to say I now firmly believe we have got it right and they are in for some big shocks

[tamadus]

It does have to be a 'true' properly executed copy on which your signature must be present if they want to enforce the debt.

 

The copy agreement without signature is meant to be sent to you at the outset & the none-inclusion of a signature was for security reasons in case it got lost in the post

 

Jon,

The more I think about SI1983/1557 the more convinced I am that it was brought in because of sec 85, so that new cards did not get lost in the mail along with a copy of the agreement with signature. That really would be a security nightmare.