Cap1 & CCA return

[Peterbard]

I am surprised at the ICO - they seem to actually be acting lately on these issues.....

 

Hi Don't supose they give you this in writing did they i would love to waive it at

Wescot

 

Petr

[bfb]

The K-Zone: statutory interpretation

 

([1844] 11 Cl;Fin 85): "... the only rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is, that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such case, best declare the intention of the lawgiver."

 

Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 1: "... the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity ... in which case the ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency but no farther."

 

The days have long passed when the courts adopted a strict constructionist view of interpretation which required them to adopt the literal meaning of the language. The courts now adopt a purposive approach which seeks to give effect to the true purpose of legislation and are prepared to look at much extraneous material that bears upon the background against which the legislation was enacted.''

 

The regulations can only clarify and expand not contradict the clear words of tte statute

[m55dlc]

I've been listening in on all of the discussion all weekend, and I'm still rock steady on my s85 stance. Hmmm, I'm waiting on a response from MBNA and the temptation to use BA's DL for WW is V Strong!

[zubo]

If this does become law there is an alternative which is in S9 of the Enterprise Act(2002).Now for arguement's sake if every debtor was to take that route could you imagine the effect that would have on the Banking,cc,dca's industries.

 

Term

 

Apologies - could you clarify please?

 

S9

Repeal of certain powers of direction

Section 12 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (c. 41) (in this Act referred to as "the 1973 Act") and section 13 of the Competition Act 1980 (c. 21) (powers of Secretary of State to give directions) shall cease to have effect.

[zubo]

missed that

 

to use BA's DL for WW is V Strong!

 

where is that m55 please??

 

thanks

[mamatemi1]

I apologise if I am posting in the wrong thread.

 

In response to my SAR, Creation Finance sent me my statements. I also recieved separately an unsigned 'Default Notice' for £0.00. My account has been in a DMP for 16 months and they stopped charging interest 4 months ago. Any advice anyone?

[m55dlc]

BA posted a DL for WW way back on this thread. We thought the MIB may change the DL for WW as WW may not want the CAG who had sent an SAR to MBNA to contact WW on his DL. You could ask BA to put the DL for WW back on the thread, but you could also search through to get the DL already listed. You could PM BA for the DL of WW, up to you.

[zubo]

I apologise if I am posting in the wrong thread.

 

In response to my SAR, Creation Finance sent me my statements. I also recieved separately an unsigned 'Default Notice' for £0.00. My account has been in a DMP for 16 months and they stopped charging interest 4 months ago. Any advice anyone?

 

mamatemi1

 

yes you are probably in the wrong thread:

 

not sure what you expected from the SAR - statements are usual...

 

start a new thread in this section here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/

 

and read the instructions and faq here

 

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

 

if it doesnt make sense pm me....

[zubo]

BA posted a DL for WW way back on this thread. We thought the MIB may change the DL for WW as WW may not want the CAG who had sent an SAR to MBNA to contact WW on his DL. You could ask BA to put the DL for WW back on the thread, but you could also search through to get the DL already listed. You could PM BA for the DL of WW, up to you.

 

cheers mate, I'll pm her...

[Peterbard]

The K-Zone: statutory interpretation

 

([1844] 11 Cl;Fin 85): "... the only rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is, that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such case, best declare the intention of the lawgiver."

 

Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 1: "... the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity ... in which case the ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency but no farther."

 

The days have long passed when the courts adopted a strict constructionist view of interpretation which required them to adopt the literal meaning of the language. The courts now adopt a purposive approach which seeks to give effect to the true purpose of legislation and are prepared to look at much extraneous material that bears upon the background against which the legislation was enacted.''

 

The regulations can only clarify and expand not contradict the clear words of tte statute

 

The one we all know section 77 shall produce an executed copy.

section61 a copy shall not be executed untill signed.

Reg 3.1 1983/1557 does not have to have signature

 

Regulation overiding clear legislation.

reason si's are legislation they are passed by the lords and can suppliment replace or revoke statue.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

cheers mate, I'll pm her...

Originally Posted by m55dlc

BA posted a DL for WW way back on this thread. We thought the MIB may change the DL for WW as WW may not want the CAG who had sent an SAR to MBNA to contact WW on his DL. You could ask BA to put the DL for WW back on the thread, but you could also search through to get the DL already listed. You could PM BA for the DL of WW, up to you.

U what where when who hey pardon.

Peter

[bfb]

Regulations cannot revoke or override statute;- when there is conflict then the primary legislation takes precedence.

 

On another note any current terms and conditions containing a right to vary are incomplete unless accompanied by the original signed document demonstrating the right to vary as a proper part of the agreement. I would suggest that the right to vary clause must always be accompanied by the original

[Seahorse]

Which WW? I can give you my WW's DL if U like.

[Guest The Terminator]

Term

 

Apologies - could you clarify please?

 

S9

Repeal of certain powers of direction

Section 12 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (c. 41) (in this Act referred to as "the 1973 Act") and section 13 of the Competition Act 1980 (c. 21) (powers of Secretary of State to give directions) shall cease to have effect.

 

Sorry: Wrong section of the Act it should be:Part 10 S248 - S272

[Guest Battleaxe]

DL? what is that short for? I must be having a senior moment

[Seahorse]

Direct Line. What does WW stand for?

[Peterbard]

Regulations cannot revoke or override statute;- when there is conflict then the primary legislation takes precedence.

 

On another note any current terms and conditions containing a right to vary are incomplete unless accompanied by the original signed document demonstrating the right to vary as a proper part of the agreement. I would suggest that the right to vary clause must always be accompanied by the original

ineresting

 

does this mean that we can demand that our section77 requests are signd orriginals as stated in section 77 and section 61 of the act?

 

Peter

[Guest Battleaxe]

Ahhh.... Got it 01244672348 William Wareing Senior Legal Assistant MBNA

[Seahorse]

Oh, not my pal WW from Cabot then.

[bfb]

 

On another note any current terms and conditions containing a right to vary are incomplete unless accompanied by the original signed document demonstrating the right to vary as a proper part of the agreement. I would suggest that the right to vary clause must always be accompanied by the original

 

Forgot to say that the above is my take on it but the only proof of the right to vary is in the original agreement. the generic mailer without that is the allegation of one party -the act becomes a shyster's charter

[Peterbard]

Hi

for what it is worth the electronic distance marketing alters sections 61(a) 63(3) 64 69 176 189

 

Now i would say these wes alfered but i supose you could say they were ammended whats is a word

[m55dlc]

Ahhh.... Got it 01244672348 William Wareing Senior Legal Assistant MBNA

 

And I thought it was straightforward BA

[Vulture_Bank]

 

the above is the first terms and conditions that was sent to me when i joined with this credit card issuer . please note that they also imply that the terms and conditions are also a "copy of your agreement for you to keep . It includes a notice about your cancellation rights which you should read "

 

it appears to my goodself that right at the beginning when i had the pleasure of joining they sent me this instead of the executed agreement -

 

do you not agree so i honestly think the contract is inenforceable.

[m55dlc]

I have a question. If you have an agreement in a store for a store card, there is an agreement sheet you can fill in with your details, but there is nothing that states there is another page of the agreement. You then have a secondary page which states interest and has the sigs on it (both them and us!). What would the signature document have to have on it to link it to the agreement page? In the example I'm looking at, it is relatively illegible, but there doesn't appear to be anything linking the signature page to the agreement page.

 

Where would the law stand on this then?

[m55dlc]

Right, I've got an application form style agreement, filled in in a shop, with a bad copy of a faxed microfiche. This is not an executed agreement. How am I going to convice a judge that this does not constitute what is required under s78. The DCA is progressing this....

 

The signature of the person executing the agreement is the same as the person who authorised the 'in store credit' of £130.00 There is a statement above the signature box headed Instant Credit that states 'your right to cancel in the box below will not apply to this agreement'. The cancellation box states 'once you have signed this agreement you will have for a short period of time a right to cancel it. Exact details of how and when you can cancel it will be sent to you by post by us.

 

Is it cancellable or not? Doesn't this indicate that the application is not guaranteed and therefore the issue of card is not certain? It also goes on to state that 'if you do receive a card from us this agreement shall continue from the date shown on your card carrier.'

 

The dates on this then are irrelevant are they not? If the agreement continues from the date on the card carrier, is that not the date the agreement started then, by all accounts?

 

How does this instant credit stuff affect the agreement / application arguement?