Cap1 & CCA return

[InKogneeToh]

One more thing, I was told that if they satisfy your request after the statutory time by producing the agreement then they can pursue the agreement, without a court order.

 

Am i right in thinking thought that they have to sennd the T&C's and statement of account as well, otherwise they can't enforce it?

 

So, if they send the agreement a week after the timeframe allowed, they still can't enforce it unless they provide everyhting else (0r, get a court order?)

 

Hi

 

If the creditor sends a 'true' copy agreement at any time after the 12 days or even after the 12 + 30 days he can enforce it without a court order but if an offence has been committed then he would have to explain this to a judge!

 

If the agreement document itself does not contain all of the T&Cs (except for prescribed terms which MUST be on the signature document) then these can be in shown separately but if so, the original T&Cs must be sent with the signature document.

 

I think the creditor is only obliged to send a separate account under s 77/78 if you actually requested it. If you just asked for a copy of the agreement then I presume they only have to send that.

 

Regards, Pam

[InKogneeToh]

I wrote to Halifax Visa on the 14th February 2007 requesting credit agreement. It was received (Recorded Delivery) 15th February 2007.

 

This morning (8th March 2007) I have received a default notice dated the 1st March 2007, envelope kept and franked 8MAR07 by post office.

 

Now by my count 15FEB07 to 2MAR07 is 12 working days and I haven't recieved my CCA original agreement. So they shouldn't have issued the default.

 

Anyone have a template I can use to write back and tell them they are in breach of whichever clause of the CCA.?

 

Hi

 

I don't think there is a template as such. Just write and say that the account is still in dispute as you are still waiting for a 'true' copy of the original agreement and that they should not be trying to enforce the debt whilst the dispute is unresolved. Have you acknowledged this debt, either by making payment or in writing?

 

Regards, Pam

[un1boy]

Hi

 

If the creditor sends a 'true' copy agreement at any time after the 12 days or even after the 12 + 30 days he can enforce it without a court order but if an offence has been committed then he would have to explain this to a judge!

 

If the agreement document itself does not contain all of the T&Cs (except for prescribed terms which MUST be on the signature document) then these can be in shown separately but if so, the original T&Cs must be sent with the signature document.

 

I think the creditor is only obliged to send a separate account under s 77/78 if you actually requested it. If you just asked for a copy of the agreement then I presume they only have to send that.

 

Regards, Pam

 

Hi Pam,

 

thanks for that....I would just to clarfy then that, if they have committed an offence then produce the agreement they can enforce it (even if they have not sent the terms and conditions)

[InKogneeToh]

Hi Pam,

 

thanks for that....I would just to clarfy then that, if they have committed an offence then produce the agreement they can enforce it (even if they have not sent the terms and conditions)

 

 

Hi

 

No, if any of the terms and conditions (other than prescribed terms which MUST be on the signature doc.) that should have been on the signature document are not - then the agreement must refer you to the separate document where they are listed and this must be provided as part of your CCA request:

 

Quote from OFT doc. - Cancellable Agreements

 

Some terms must always be contained in the signature document as described under the heading ‘What the agreement must contain’.( i.e. prescribed terms)

But any other term of the agreement can be recorded either in the signature document or in another document referred to in it.

 

Regards, Pam

[un1boy]

Hi

 

No, if any of the terms and conditions (other than prescribed terms which MUST be on the signature doc.) that should have been on the signature document are not - then the agreement must refer you to the separate document where they are listed and this must be provided as part of your CCA request:

 

Quote from OFT doc. - Cancellable Agreements

 

Some terms must always be contained in the signature document as described under the heading ‘What the agreement must contain’.( i.e. prescribed terms)

But any other term of the agreement can be recorded either in the signature document or in another document referred to in it.

 

Regards, Pam

 

Ah ha, so just them producing agreement doesn't mean they can enforce it? They have to proved everything in order to satisfy with the request?

 

If they do provide everyhting even after ommiting an offence then they can enforce the agreement - without having to go to court.

 

If they only provide the agreement but no seperate terms and conditiond, then they can only enforce it by going to court?

 

Got it, thank you!!

[InKogneeToh]

Ah ha, so just them producing agreement doesn't mean they can enforce it? They have to proved everything in order to satisfy with the request?

Yes, every term that must be included in an agreement is

that agreement - whether it is on the signature doc. or a separate doc./leaflet - both pieces make up the complete agreement

If they do provide everyhting even after ommiting an offence then they can enforce the agreement - without having to go to court. Yes, but would they want to, having become criminals?

 

If they only provide the agreement but no seperate terms and conditiond, then they can only enforce it by going to court? No, if the signature doc. does not contain all of the required terms then if they don't send the rest of the agreement (separate T&Cs) they have not complied with the CCA request and may not enforce the agreement.

 

Got it, thank you!!

 

Regards, Pam

[elsinore]

Banks to Face MP's Probe

 

Banks are to be investigated by MR's amid allegations of profiteering, rip-offs and threats to impose annual fees on current accounts.

 

The powerful treasury select committee has announced an inquiry in the wake of figures showing the eight biggest names made more that £40 billion last year.

 

MP's are concerned the banks may be operating a complex cartel which guarantees huge profits, rather than competing on prices and value.

 

it has also emerged recently that banks have been making millions of pounds from illegal and unfair penalty charges.

 

At the moment, the banks are regulated by a voluntary code, headed by the Banking Code Standards Board.

 

However, MP's will consider whether this body should be replaced by a statuatory body with legal powers.

 

Colin Breed, a LibDem member of the committee said:'They may well rue the day when they decided to be greedy in terms of fees and charges.

 

'There seems to have been a sheer rush for profit, rather than recognising they have responsibilities to customers.'

This was buried on page 19 Daily Mail yesterday

 

OVERDRAWN, OVERCHARGED, OVER THERE!

 

Congress takes on credit cards.

Confused by multiple interest rates on your credit cards? Not sure how much your cards charge in late fees? Frustrated by credit card companies that seem to change their policies at will, putting the burden on you to opt out of the changes?

If so, there's good news--Congress appears to be on your side. On Wednesday the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations holds the first of several hearings to examine business practices of the credit card industry, focusing on how credit issuers apply interest rates and other fees. Representatives from Bank of America , Chase Bank USA and Citigroup will testify in front of the panel, chaired by U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

According to Levin, many credit lenders engage in practices that are "unfair or abusive"--such as charging interest on balances that have already been paid--that are too complex for the average consumer to understand. "We're going to do our very best to bring these abuses to the light of day," he says, noting that credit card companies have the highest profits in the commercial banking industry.

In the coming months, Levin and subcommittee ranking member Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) are expected to work closely with the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which has jurisdiction over banking legislation, to craft a bill that provides more protection to consumers. Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) has been highly critical of abusive behavior by credit lenders, saying recently that legislators in both parties are concerned about companies' "profiteering at the expense of people who can least afford it."

Levin, in particular, says he wants to see lenders end the common practice of charging consumers compound interest for average daily balances, even if those balances have been paid on time. In addition, he wants banks to stop charging repeated "over-the-limit" fees beyond the month in which a consumer charged above the card's limit.

Wednesday's hearing stems from an investigation of the credit card industry completed in September by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the auditing arm of Congress. That study found that the amount of U.S. consumers charged to their credit cards annually ballooned from about $69 billion in 1980 to $1.8 trillion in 2005. It also noted that while interest rates on cards have fallen since about 1990, in recent years major lenders' disclosures about the costs associated with their cards often "buried important information in text, failed to group and label related material, and used small typefaces"--thus vexing, often bewildering, consumers.

"A big part of the issue here is disclosure that people understand in a clear and simple way," says Coleman. "The bottom line is that there has been a lot of growth in this area, and clearly folks have stepped over the line … I think what you're going to see is a lot of [companies] stepping back, and I think that's a good thing."

At least one company, Chase, apparently already stepped back after it discovered that one of its customers, Wesley Wannemacher, will be a key witness at Wednesday's hearing. In 2001, Wannemacher charged $3,200 on his Chase card to pay for his wedding. During the next six years, he paid $4,900 in interest charges, $1,500 in over-the-limit charges, and $1,100 in late fees--for a total of $10,700. As of last month, he still owed $4,400 on the card. After finding that Wannemacher will testify Wednesday, Chase reportedly waived the remaining balance on the card.

"The fact that the company has waived the balance, it seems to me, is an indication of their embarrassment," says Levin. Chase acknowledges that it closed Wannemacher’s account after his situation was brought to the company’s attention by Senate staff. “We quickly recognized that we made a mistake, and we want to do the right thing for our customer,” says Paul Hartwick, a spokesman for Chase Card Services, in an e-mailed statement. “After analyzing the situation, we realized he had made enough payments to satisfy his settlement offer.”

The credit card industry has among the lightest regulation in the nation, and lawmakers appear ready to give federal regulators more power to tame companies' lending policies if necessary. But they are also hoping that by working with the largest credit issuers, such as Citigroup, Chase Card Services, MBNA America, Bank of America and Capital One Financial, that a change in industry practices will have a trickle down effect to smaller lenders.

Nonetheless, the industry itself seems to realize that it is under intense scrutiny. Last week, Citi, a subsidiary of Citigroup, announced that it would end a widespread industry practice of increasing interest rates on their cards for customers that have defaulted on other credit obligations, a practice known as "universal default." The company also agreed to end another common practice, increasing its customers' rates and fees at "any time for any reason." This week, Chase also launched a new initiative to help consumers better understand their accounts. It includes e-mail alerts to remind customers when their payments are due and payment calculators to show customers how their payments affect their balances.

Dodd welcomed the news but added that credit card companies' practices still need to be examined for potential abuses by lenders because "a number of practices within the credit card industry have in many cases weakened rather than strengthened consumers’ financial well being…."

And a cluster of consumer groups--including the National Consumer Law Center, U.S. PIRG and Consumer Action--earlier this year banded together to call for an end to what they describe as "deceptive and unjust terms." They want, among other things, an end to the practice of retroactive rate increases (essentially applying higher interest rates to existing balances), mandatory arbitration clauses, which prevent consumers from taking companies to court, and an end to universal default.

From a consumer's standpoint, none of these seem like unreasonable requests

I watched a CEO of a US Credit Card Company apologise to a Congressional Comittee during a report on ABC World News (BBC News 24) last night. I thought I had dreamt it until I found the above reference, the actual news item having disappeared from ABC's website.

Interesting, insofar as it refers to the usual suspects!

Els

[elsinore]

We could do worse than pick up on the recommendations proposed by our US namesake here

 

Consumer Action :: Levin hearing exposes widespread credit card abuses

 

Els

[m55dlc]

Pam

 

If you have an agreement, on two pages, where the pages are different sizes and there are discrepancies between them, and neither contain all of the prescribed items and there is nothing to link the two pages (like an ID number etc) then the agreement is surely void. Could you PM me with your email address please, I'll send it to you for an opinion.

 

Thanks

[Guest Battleaxe]

We can hope Elsinore

[FANTASY CHARGES]

OVERDRAWN, OVERCHARGED, OVER THERE!

 

Congress takes on credit cards.

 

Confused by multiple interest rates on your credit cards? Not sure how much your cards charge in late fees? Frustrated by credit card companies that seem to change their policies at will, putting the burden on you to opt out of the changes?

If so, there's good news--Congress appears to be on your side. On Wednesday the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations holds the first of several hearings to examine business practices of the credit card industry, focusing on how credit issuers apply interest rates and other fees. Representatives from Bank of America, Chase Bank USA and Citigroup will testify in front of the panel, chaired by U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

According to Levin, many credit lenders engage in practices that are "unfair or abusive"--such as charging interest on balances that have already been paid--that are too complex for the average consumer to understand. "We're going to do our very best to bring these abuses to the light of day," he says, noting that credit card companies have the highest profits in the commercial banking industry.

In the coming months, Levin and subcommittee ranking member Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) are expected to work closely with the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which has jurisdiction over banking legislation, to craft a bill that provides more protection to consumers. Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) has been highly critical of abusive behavior by credit lenders, saying recently that legislators in both parties are concerned about companies' "profiteering at the expense of people who can least afford it."

Levin, in particular, says he wants to see lenders end the common practice of charging consumers compound interest for average daily balances, even if those balances have been paid on time. In addition, he wants banks to stop charging repeated "over-the-limit" fees beyond the month in which a consumer charged above the card's limit.

Wednesday's hearing stems from an investigation of the credit card industry completed in September by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the auditing arm of Congress. That study found that the amount of U.S. consumers charged to their credit cards annually ballooned from about $69 billion in 1980 to $1.8 trillion in 2005. It also noted that while interest rates on cards have fallen since about 1990, in recent years major lenders' disclosures about the costs associated with their cards often "buried important information in text, failed to group and label related material, and used small typefaces"--thus vexing, often bewildering, consumers.

"A big part of the issue here is disclosure that people understand in a clear and simple way," says Coleman. "The bottom line is that there has been a lot of growth in this area, and clearly folks have stepped over the line … I think what you're going to see is a lot of [companies] stepping back, and I think that's a good thing."

At least one company, Chase, apparently already stepped back after it discovered that one of its customers, Wesley Wannemacher, will be a key witness at Wednesday's hearing. In 2001, Wannemacher charged $3,200 on his Chase card to pay for his wedding. During the next six years, he paid $4,900 in interest charges, $1,500 in over-the-limit charges, and $1,100 in late fees--for a total of $10,700. As of last month, he still owed $4,400 on the card. After finding that Wannemacher will testify Wednesday, Chase reportedly waived the remaining balance on the card.

"The fact that the company has waived the balance, it seems to me, is an indication of their embarrassment," says Levin. Chase acknowledges that it closed Wannemacher’s account after his situation was brought to the company’s attention by Senate staff. “We quickly recognized that we made a mistake, and we want to do the right thing for our customer,” says Paul Hartwick, a spokesman for Chase Card Services, in an e-mailed statement. “After analyzing the situation, we realized he had made enough payments to satisfy his settlement offer.”

The credit card industry has among the lightest regulation in the nation, and lawmakers appear ready to give federal regulators more power to tame companies' lending policies if necessary. But they are also hoping that by working with the largest credit issuers, such as Citigroup, Chase Card Services, MBNA America, Bank of America and Capital One Financial, that a change in industry practices will have a trickle down effect to smaller lenders.

Nonetheless, the industry itself seems to realize that it is under intense scrutiny. Last week, Citi, a subsidiary of Citigroup, announced that it would end a widespread industry practice of increasing interest rates on their cards for customers that have defaulted on other credit obligations, a practice known as "universal default." The company also agreed to end another common practice, increasing its customers' rates and fees at "any time for any reason." This week, Chase also launched a new initiative to help consumers better understand their accounts. It includes e-mail alerts to remind customers when their payments are due and payment calculators to show customers how their payments affect their balances.

Dodd welcomed the news but added that credit card companies' practices still need to be examined for potential abuses by lenders because "a number of practices within the credit card industry have in many cases weakened rather than strengthened consumers’ financial well being…."

And a cluster of consumer groups--including the National Consumer Law Center, U.S. PIRG and Consumer Action--earlier this year banded together to call for an end to what they describe as "deceptive and unjust terms." They want, among other things, an end to the practice of retroactive rate increases (essentially applying higher interest rates to existing balances), mandatory arbitration clauses, which prevent consumers from taking companies to court, and an end to universal default.

From a consumer's standpoint, none of these seem like unreasonable requests

 

I watched a CEO of a US Credit Card Company apologise to a Congressional Comittee during a report on ABC World News (BBC News 24) last night. I thought I had dreamt it until I found the above reference, the actual news item having disappeared from ABC's website.

 

Interesting, insofar as it refers to the usual suspects!

 

Els

 

 

TRUST ME THE AMERICANS GET A FAR worse deal than us scrapitall one is the best offender quite often not even sending out statements the british have a lot to learn from them WHY DO YOU THINK SCRAPITALL CAME TO THE UK

 

 

Providian Credit Card Class Action

[FANTASY CHARGES]

A PICTURE (SCAN) SAYS ONE THOUSAND WORDS

 

[zubo]

We can hope Elsinore

 

BA - there's been a couple of occasions when I wanted to pm you but you arent taking pm messages.

 

Would it be possible for you to pm me your email address?

 

ta

[FANTASY CHARGES]

 

 

CAPITAL ONE IS CONFUSING ME AS TO WHEN IT WAS FORMED

 

IT USED TO SAY ON THEIR WEBSITE "STARTED AS AN INDEPENDANT COMPANY IN 1995" - SEE ABOVE ---SEE THE SCAN FROM 2003 ---

 

PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS IS VERY CONFUSING

 

 

 

The Capital One Group is a top ten credit card issuer in both the UK and United States, with more than $146 billion in managed loans and approximately 50 million world-wide customers, serviced by approximately 32,000 employees. In 1996 Capital One launched its first overseas operation in the UK where the UK bank currently offers Visa and MasterCard credit cards to UK customers.

Focus on innovation

Capital One's culture encourages innovation and entrepreneurialism. This can be evidenced by the introduction in 1992 of 'balance transfer' concept, allowing credit cardholders to move their balances to Capital One at more favourable interest rates. The strategy revolutionised the U.S. card market and brought lower rates for millions of customers. This has helped Capital One grow from one million customers at the end of 1990 SEE ABOVE OOPSSS ) to approximately 50 million to date.

One of the best workplaces in the UK

In December 1997 Capital One indicated its long-term commitment to the UK and European markets by establishing £30m Operations Centre in Nottingham, East Midlands, creating up to 1200 jobs. The centre performs a number of business functions including application processing, customer service, product design and marketing, card issuing, collections, business development and database management. In June 2000, the company announced the creation of an additional 1,000 jobs in a new facility adjoining its European operations centre, in Nottingham. This has now brought Capital One's UK workforce to more than 2,000. The Bank has won numerous industry awards for its products and services as well as accolades for its consistent work within the communities in which it operates

 

 

Information about Capital One

[meagain]

Am I the only one noticing the references to the US and the dollar signs on that scan?

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Am I the only one noticing the references to the US and the dollar signs on that scan?

 

YES IT WAS IN THE USA ... SUDDENLY ALL TRACE OF THIS CASE ALMOST DISAPPEARED FROM THE INTERNET A FEW YEARS AGO

 

YOU FIND BITS HERE AND THERE

 

 

CAPITAL ONE: SEC Files DC Securities Suit V. Ex-CEO David Willey

----------------------------------------------------------------

The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint on July

26 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

alleging David M. Willey, former Chief Financial Officer of

Capital One Financial Corporation, engaged in insider trading in

the securities of Capital One. According to the complaint, the

examiner in charge of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors'

examination of Capital One advised Willey that the Fed was

likely to downgrade Capital One's supervisory assessment, and

that such a downgrade would result in some form of supervisory

action. Without informing other members of senior management or

the Capital One Board of Directors of this material information,

Willey engaged in a series of transactions in Capital One stock

in May 2002 and obtained profits in stock and cash through his

fraudulent trading valued at several million dollars. In

addition, the Commission's complaint alleges that Willey filed a

Form 4 disclosure statement with the Commission that failed to

report two of his May 2002 options exercises totaling 46,800

shares.

 

The Commission is seeking a permanent injunction, disgorgement

with prejudgment interest, an officer/director bar, and a civil

penalty against David M. Willey for violating Sections 10(b) and

16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and

16a-3 thereunder. The Commission's complaint also alleges that

Willey's wife, Joy S. Willey, is unjustly enriched because some

of the insider trading proceeds are in her possession.

Accordingly, the Commission is suing her as a Relief Defendant

to recover this unjust enrichment. The action is titled, SEC v.

David M. Willey and Joy S. Willey, Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-

01243, D.D.C.] (LR-18794)

[meagain]

You're losing me. What's that got to do with Capital One North America being started in 1995 and Capital One Bank in Europe starting up originally in 1988?

 

Careful with accusing multi-billion companies of lying unless you're prepared to back it up.

 

PS, if you look towards the left hand side of youre keyboard, you'll find a button labelled "CAPS LOCK". Press it, and you should notice a light go out on the keyboard. Then, and only then, start typing again.

[m55dlc]

I agree with migraine (oops sorry meagain:D ).

 

You'll find that Capital One has been around for MUCH longer than both, the Europe and North America branches sound like the results of restructuring. Oh, and when have you ever known the Americans to refer to anything they have as not 'World'? Before 1995 the US side of the pond, Cap1 was probably called 'Capital One Supreme Overlords of the Universe' Bank, and the European offshoot called Europe, therefore to stop the Americans sounding like pompus twonks, they reshuffled and renamed it. And you wonder why the yanks have such bad PR?

 

.....

 

OK, I've researched it and I can't find anything else stated earlier than 1995, so who knows? Maybe they are misleading the public with their age? But you can bet they'll be able to come up with some tenuous angle that they are allowed to quote different dates as the age of the water in the mop buckets in one of the offices out near Lake Michegan is actually from whatever period they want it to be, and therefore they can state that year quite correctly (or do I just have a cynical view of the US legal system, which is where our legal system may well end up in 10 to 20 years especially with the influence of sites like CAG - oh, don't get me wrong, not all aspects of US law are bad, only parts of it!).

 

Anyway, please accept my migraine joke in good stead, it wasn't meant to be deflamatory or derogatory or anything like that, it was meant to be a joke

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Lieff Cabraser has taken a leading role representing credit card holders in consumer protection lawsuits against several major credit card companies, including Providian, Capital One, Direct Merchants and Fleet, for unfair and deceptive business practices.

 

Lieff Cabraser: Consumer Law Newsletter Issue No. 3

 

Effect of $300 Million Settlement in

Providian Credit Card Litigation

On behalf of a group of cardholders and with co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser filed a lawsuit in 1999 against Providian Financial Corporation, and other Providian companies, concerning their credit card practices. In June 2000, Providian agreed to pay an estimated $300 million to settle charges by federal and state officials that the credit card company deceived customers about its rates and fees.After reviewing the settlement, Lieff Cabraser partner Kelly Dermody observed, "The settlement is a good start. However, it does not address the full range of Providian's aggressive sales tactics and marketing campaigns." In particular, the settlement does not address claims by Providian cardholders who have been assessed unreasonable fees on credit-line increases, charged exorbitant rates for Credit Protection or automatically enrolled in other services and programs, such as PricePro and DrivePro, without their express prior approval.Accordingly, on behalf of cardholders, Lieff Cabraser is continuing to prosecute private consumer protection lawsuits against Providian. If you would like further information on the case or have been subjected to any of the alleged misconduct by Providian that the settlement with the federal and state officials does not address, please contact Lieff Cabraser.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

You're losing me. What's that got to do with Capital One North America being started in 1995 and Capital One Bank in Europe starting up originally in 1988?

 

Careful with accusing multi-billion companies of lying unless you're prepared to back it up.

 

PS, if you look towards the left hand side of youre keyboard, you'll find a button labelled "CAPS LOCK". Press it, and you should notice a light go out on the keyboard. Then, and only then, start typing again.

 

 

THANKS these are the words that were expressed on the website of capitalone !!! they should know ??? they wrote it.

[elsinore]

therefore to stop the Americans sounding like pompus twonks, they reshuffled and renamed it.

 

Failed again!

 

Elsinore

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Failed again!

 

Elsinore

yes the dark side speaketh once more !

[FANTASY CHARGES]

You're losing me. What's that got to do with Capital One North America being started in 1995 and Capital One Bank in Europe starting up originally in 1988?

 

Careful with accusing multi-billion companies of lying unless you're prepared to back it up.

 

PS, if you look towards the left hand side of youre keyboard, you'll find a button labelled "CAPS LOCK". Press it, and you should notice a light go out on the keyboard. Then, and only then, start typing again.

 

 

caps lock off ! how come you know so much about them ???

so quick and knowledgable with the response .

[meagain]

THANKS these are the words that were expressed on the website of capitalone !!! they should know ??? they wrote it.

 

Having looked further into it, it appears that Capital One was founded in 1988, in the US. They spun off part of their operation into an independent company in 1995. This doesn't suggest to me that they are lying, but rather that their copy writers were awful. Now, for the dishwasher, what does Cap1 being almost 20 years old have to do with the CCA?

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Having looked further into it, it appears that Capital One was founded in 1988, in the US. They spun off part of their operation into an independent company in 1995. This doesn't suggest to me that they are lying, but rather that their copy writers were awful. Now, for the dishwasher, what does Cap1 being almost 20 years old have to do with the CCA?

 

 

with respect was it elsinore who quite rightly posted info regarding the american angle of tightening regulations etc ......

 

It was considered in the public interest to show practical documentation that was available freely on the internet some years ago and is recorded "formally" in "the library" we have only reproduced what was freely available. On inspecting the second document (scanned) it was considered by comparing with the current statements currently on line a "difference" accordingly it was considered in the public interest to highlight the "apparent differences" . If this has cause offence it is regretted.

 

The conclusion is that here in the UK we get a far better deal than those in our "former colonies"

 

sk

 

A big lender's credit card trap - MSN Money