Cap1 & CCA return

[m55dlc]

I've just been re-reading s60-s65 as directed by Zubo, and I spotted this. You've all probably seen it loads of times, but I think it is complimentary to s85.

 

 

63 Duty to supply copy of executed agreement

 

(1) If the unexecuted agreement is presented personally to the debtor or hirer for his signature, and on the occasion when he signs it the document becomes an executed agreement, a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, must be there and then delivered to him.

 

(2) A copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, must be given to the debtor or hirer within the seven days following the making of the agreement unless—

 

(a) subsection (1) applies, or

 

(b) the unexecuted agreement was sent to the debtor or hirer for his signature and, on the occasion of his signing it, the document became an executed agreement.

 

 

(3) In the case of a cancellable agreement, a copy under subsection (2) must be sent by post.

 

(4) In the case of a credit-token agreement, a copy under subsection (2) need not be given within the seven days following the making of the agreement if it is given before or at the time when the credit-token is given to the debtor.

 

(5) A regulated agreement is not properly executed if the requirements of this section are not observed.

 

 

This means that ANY card issued, not just subsequent cards (s85) need to contain an executed copy of the agreement, doesn't it? All credit cards, not just subsequent cards (a la s85) are affected?

[InKogneeToh]

Sorry Pam, didn't mean to be such aggressive... I just am a bit nervous about people thinking these are agreements... I know we are singing from the same hymn sheet and I completely missed your tongue in cheek reference...

 

sincere apologies!

 

No problem Zubo.

[zubo]

I've just been re-reading s60-s65 as directed by Zubo, and I spotted this. You've all probably seen it loads of times, but I think it is complimentary to s85.

 

 

This means that ANY card issued, not just subsequent cards (s85) need to contain an executed copy of the agreement, doesn't it? All credit cards, not just subsequent cards (a la s85) are affected?

 

Exactly correct - right from day one.

 

THIS and S85 are the two pieces of legislation which provides the CC companies so many problems.

 

because they make the agreement completely unenforceable... unless a court rules otherwise. But the Court has to implement the letter of the law and there would need to be very good reason to challenge CCA.

[InKogneeToh]

I've just been re-reading s60-s65 as directed by Zubo, and I spotted this. You've all probably seen it loads of times, but I think it is complimentary to s85.

 

 

63 Duty to supply copy of executed agreement

 

(1) If the unexecuted agreement is presented personally to the debtor or hirer for his signature, and on the occasion when he signs it the document becomes an executed agreement, a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, must be there and then delivered to him.

 

(2) A copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, must be given to the debtor or hirer within the seven days following the making of the agreement unless—

 

(a) subsection (1) applies, or

 

(b) the unexecuted agreement was sent to the debtor or hirer for his signature and, on the occasion of his signing it, the document became an executed agreement.

 

 

(3) In the case of a cancellable agreement, a copy under subsection (2) must be sent by post.

 

(4) In the case of a credit-token agreement, a copy under subsection (2) need not be given within the seven days following the making of the agreement if it is given before or at the time when the credit-token is given to the debtor.

 

(5) A regulated agreement is not properly executed if the requirements of this section are not observed.

 

 

This means that ANY card issued, not just subsequent cards (s85) need to contain an executed copy of the agreement, doesn't it? All credit cards, not just subsequent cards (a la s85) are affected?

 

Hi

 

This section of the Act relates to copies given at the time the agreement is taken out and has different requirements according to where and how the agreement is signed. It is to ensure that the debtor recieves a copy of the agreement he has just entered into.

 

With a credit card application signed at home the debtor should be sent a copy within 7 days, either before, or with the card. Of course this should be a copy of a credit. agreement so in practice it would appear that many of us are not receiving copies of properly executed agreements

Regards, Pam

[InKogneeToh]

duplicate post

[TANZARELLI]

My Barclaycard Application Form has a bit which says Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, it then has a couple of paragraphs of text which they have convieniently stuck a barcoded sticker over (it is illegable text anyway due to the state of the copy), then theres a box which has my signiture in and the date.

[InKogneeToh]

WHAT'S GOING ON - I SEEM TO BE TRIPLE POSTING!!

[m55dlc]

Or three times eh PAM?

 

(Oh, so she edit's her messages and it makes this post look stupid!)

[InKogneeToh]

duplicate post 4!

[m55dlc]

InKogneeToh - please reboot your PC before doing ANYTHING else!

[TANZARELLI]

Oh no whats happening to incog, I just had my motherboard replaced so I am back up and running properly.

 

Hope its not serious pc pulavers.

[zubo]

Oh no whats happening to incog, I just had my motherboard replaced so I am back up and running properly.

 

Hope its not serious pc pulavers.

 

oh no.....

 

I just realized... because they cannot produce agreements they have hacked into our computers and making us post many times hoping to swamp our servers....:D:D

[InKogneeToh]

Hi folks

 

I have just rebooted - sorry about that, there must be a gremlin in my PC!

 

I will try to remove my many surplus posts!

 

Regards, Pam

[Guest The Terminator]

First Personal Bank Plc v Sim [1998] EWCA Civ 1194 (10 July 1998)

 

I don't think i've posted this piece of case law so why I'm recovering from flu this afternoon have a good read there are some very interesting observations especially with deeds of assignments.

[Peterbard]

Hi PPPPam

 

Just thought i would say hello and point out that the credit card agreemnts you are discussing are regulated by the distance marketing regulations and the precontractual requirements and regulations are quite different.

 

PPPeter

[Acerfan]

Hi TANZARELLI,

Mine's exactly the same

 

Acerfan

[alanfromderby]

I'm aware of that Alan....I'm refering to the point at which it becomes criminal

 

I certainly accept that the permanent unenforceability issue is not spelt out clearly in the wording of the section, and that in absence of such ambiguity then there is precedent to suggest that the court should err toward the consumer.

 

However, we are back to the problem that we are dealing with District Judge's who seem to have leeway to look at things on balance - rather than in black and white.

 

If we had unlimited resources to argue our claims to appeal, then we would be able to prove these points unequivocally. Whilst we are facing potential cost exposure I would rather err on the side of caution unless I am 100% sure that my case is watertight.

[InKogneeToh]

Hi PPPPam

 

Just thought i would say hello and point out that the credit card agreemnts you are discussing are regulated by the distance marketing regulations and the precontractual requirements and regulations are quite different.

 

PPPeter

 

Hi PPPPeter (yes, most amusing )

 

I have read those regulations and they appear to be extra protection for contracts concluded at a distance, not instead of the statutory requirements of the CCA in relation to credit card agreements.

 

They do not change or override the CCA regs. relating to these agreements. From what is contained in the Distance Marketing regs. it seems to be that this is now being covered by those lovely little T&C leaflets we get with cards - BUT I think the providers may be interpreting these regs. as you seem to be - i.e.that they have replaced the CCA requirements!

 

They are now putting some of the prescribed terms into

those leaflets with the rest of the blurb, whereas they SHOULD be in the signature document!

 

Regards, Pam

[m55dlc]

Oh, here we go! Peter and Pam at it (Argueing!) again!

[InKogneeToh]

First Personal Bank Plc v Sim [1998] EWCA Civ 1194 (10 July 1998)

 

I don't think i've posted this piece of case law so why I'm recovering from flu this afternoon have a good read there are some very interesting observations especially with deeds of assignments.

 

Hi

 

Very interesting case that demonstrates that we are so right to challenge any DCA that claims to own our 'alleged' debt or indeed any situation where our credit agreement has been taken over by another body - MBNA springs to mind, where they have apparently acquired accounts from different card issuers!

 

Regards, Pam

[m55dlc]

Hi

 

Very interesting case that demonstrates that we are so right to challenge any DCA that claims to own our 'alleged' debt or indeed any situation where our credit agreement has been taken over by another body - MBNA springs to mind, where they have apparently acquired accounts from different card issuers!

 

Regards, Pam

 

Yes, it does. The two firms listed in this case (not Harrods or the card operators, but the DCA and their solicitor) are the very two firms involved in 'GE Capital vs wife of M55DLC' - who haven't responded to my s78 & SAR! The (store) card in question was taken over by GE Capital in the early nineties.

[Peterbard]

Hi Pam

I supose your going to get the rest of the sewing circle on me but here goes. The regulations work by modifying the legislation by virtue of section 60.

 

Peter

[InKogneeToh]

Oh, here we go! Peter and Pam at it (Argueing!) again!

 

I don't know what you mean!! :o :o :lol:

[Peterbard]

Hi Alanfromderby

 

The CCa is quite clear on the sublect of the continued unenforceability of a request as is the OFT once the default is remedied the default is removed and the agreement can be enforced the criiminal offence ellement is an entirely different matter.

 

Peter

[Guest DEATHLORD]

the REAL question should be does ,

a. the company have the right to tansfere any agreemnets witout your say so.

b. If they can not surpply a signed copy of the agreement then theres nothing they can do

so which is it?