Cap1 & CCA return

[Peterbard]

if this were so surely peter would see the bit in red

 

78.—(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within

the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor

and payment of a fee of 15 new pence, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed etc etc etc

 

if this were so wouldn't peter see the 15 new pence bit ???

 

I still get a shock when i get charged over 25p for a pint so i would't notice.

Funilly i have found the Si for the fee increase but not for the secton 74 thing.

 

peter

[pudsters14]

Righto, I'm very new to all this but have been reading this site with interest and have recently sent off CCA requests (thanx again Pam) to both mine and my husband's cards etc. I may be covering old ground, plus I have read this site for quite some time and some has been retained in the old brain...but unfortunately due to me working virtually full time and being full time at University some has managed to float straight out of the strained grey matter.

 

I understand the Section 85 (I think!) and I would also like to clarify that the whole time both me and my husband have had cards we have never been sent copies of the executed agreements when the cards have been renewed.

 

But my question is...i believe that some of my husbands (and maybe mine) may have basic flaws on the original agreement/application forms we signed therefore does that put them in default from the start of the agreement and if so can you then look to claim the interest/charges etc from the very start if that is the case?

 

Oh and is it right that when your debt is passed to a DCA they also have to send you a copy of the e.agreement when they take it over?

 

I am not doing this exercise as a debt avoidance but am completely dumfounded by the ways that these companies just do not follow the rules and as a result are completely unfair to consumers... I also think that they bend the rules to their benefit with little or no care for the mess they are getting consumers into

 

I am also following the complaint route over a loan with LTSB which I feel was completely missold to me and my husband , was incorrectly put in my name alone despite the fact the clerk knew I was going to be a full time student and asked her not to put me on at all!, they claimed that the full amount was used for consol and therefore did not change our overall lending even though it upped it by some £8k... the clerk also made us sign on the day and wouldn't let us go away to think about it... it's a long story and these are just some of the reasons for my complaint just wondering if there was somewhere on this site where I could find out about that/chat to someone more knowledgable than myself?!?

 

Anyway rant over... help would be very much appreciated

 

[InKogneeToh]

Righto, I'm very new to all this but have been reading this site with interest and have recently sent off CCA requests (thanx again Pam) to both mine and my husband's cards etc. I may be covering old ground, plus I have read this site for quite some time and some has been retained in the old brain...but unfortunately due to me working virtually full time and being full time at University some has managed to float straight out of the strained grey matter.

 

I understand the Section 85 (I think!) and I would also like to clarify that the whole time both me and my husband have had cards we have never been sent copies of the executed agreements when the cards have been renewed.

 

But my question is...i believe that some of my husbands (and maybe mine) may have basic flaws on the original agreement/application forms we signed therefore does that put them in default from the start of the agreement and if so can you then look to claim the interest/charges etc from the very start if that is the case? Well this refund of interest is just theory on our part at the moment because we have not yet found any case law etc. to back it up but PaulW has just had interest refunded on a s78 issue so there's hope yet!

 

Oh and is it right that when your debt is passed to a DCA they also have to send you a copy of the e.agreement when they take it over? No, but they (or the original creditor) ARE supposed to send you notice of assignment but many don't!

 

I am not doing this exercise as a debt avoidance but am completely dumfounded by the ways that these companies just do not follow the rules and as a result are completely unfair to consumers... I also think that they bend the rules to their benefit with little or no care for the mess they are getting consumers into

 

I am also following the complaint route over a loan with LTSB which I feel was completely missold to me and my husband , was incorrectly put in my name alone despite the fact the clerk knew I was going to be a full time student and asked her not to put me on at all!, they claimed that the full amount was used for consol and therefore did not change our overall lending even though it upped it by some £8k... the clerk also made us sign on the day and wouldn't let us go away to think about it... it's a long story and these are just some of the reasons for my complaint just wondering if there was somewhere on this site where I could find out about that/chat to someone more knowledgable than myself?!? Can't help there I'm afraid. I think the bank's argument might be that you must have seen that only your name was on the agreement when you signed it and also would have seen the full amount of the loan. if there are other issues that are more contentious then I hope someone will be able to give you some advice soon.

 

Anyway rant over... help would be very much appreciated

 

 

Regards, Pam

[Guest The Terminator]

I think the problem is that the banking industry in this country has so many skeletons in its closet that the banks will do anything to make sure they stay there. The difference between this and the charges claims being that we already have well-established case law.

 

I agree and there is a large amount of smugness with the banks.Example Barclays writing to their customers saying they are going to introduce penalties and interest before the OFT's report comes out.Now if that isn't being smug then what is.

[paulwlton]

Hi

 

Well done you!!

 

It's just occurred to me that the uncertainty we are feeling about this s85 issue is bound to be also the same for the lenders.

 

If we make these claims for refunds of interest, how do they challenge it and more importantly are they going to want yet more court cases to defend?

 

They are always insisting that they are meeting unlawful charge claims purely because of commercial/financial reasons (yeah right!) so it will be interesting to see how many lenders actually let these s85 claims go to full court hearing.

 

The words 'Flood' and 'Gates' spring to mind and I'm sure they won't want that!

 

Regards, Pam

 

My plan of attack now is as follows the debt remains in dispute under sec 85 this means BC are still in default, the options are, they either refund what they shouldn't have taken or enforce the debt in court , if they decide on court action i dispute the debt with a defence under sec 85.

 

Paul

[pudsters14]

Hiya - there are many issues with the whole Lloys TSB complaint, ive taken some free legal advice who did think that I had a good claim for mis-selling as they had both me and my husband sign on the day so I was under the impression it was in joint names but seem to have only put me on the account. Again they were very sneaky and particularly agressive with their sales tactics so am currently looking into lots of different avenues with this one. They also said that we were not allowed to borrow a smaller amount only the higher amount so forced us into taking more than we actually wanted... very long story to be honest and not really on thread, think I may need to get some more legal advice..perhaps Citz Advice too... have written LTSB a seven page complaint letter tho...

 

I also advised the Clerk of my University place and the fact that my income would be more than less what it was then, think it's very irresponsible that they then assigned all that debt into my name alone based on that information..

 

Think she has also lied on the application form about what we were using the loan for....

 

As you can see there is absolutely loads of things, got a huge list so if anyone who reads this thinks they can help/advise... im quite happy to pm or email you the whole query for perusal...

 

In the meantime... I will get back on thread! lol.. oh and just want to say that this site is fantastic... have learnt so many things! Thanx!

[pudsters14]

I also advised the Clerk of my University place and the fact that my income would be more than less what it was then, think it's very irresponsible that they then assigned all that debt into my name alone based on that information..

 

The above should have said less than half of my wages at that point

 

 

I try to make sense! Sorry!

[zubo]

Hi

 

VERY good question!

 

I am still looking for some evidence/case law/common law or even sod's law that shows that a creditor may not profit when in default.

 

All that the CCA says is that he may not enforce, i.e. take any action to force payment.

 

Answers on a postcard please.....

 

Regards, Pam

 

Hi all,

 

Dyslexia rules ko, see if you can spot the deliferate mistale (quote from Bert Fegg's Nasty Book for Boys & Girls - includes some lovely stories eg Famous Five go Pillaging... I digress.. pardon me its an age thing...)

 

There is a mistake in the quote I made - should have been S85 not S38...

it also reads as if it refers to limitation - that IS interesting but not only that look at references it makes to discovering an error - isnt the S77-79/S85 discovering an error??

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-174.html

 

post 3470

 

In my opinion its not only S95 where Consolidation should occur, IF the agreement is NOT a fully executed agreement then by definition there is NO agreement and NO Contract. If there is NO agreement then Consolidation must occur from the date when it was believed there was an agreement. The lack of compliance with S85 simply supports and underpins this argument. If there is NO agreement and NO contract then there is no consent proven, which is denied anyway which means that data may not be shared and defaults must be removed as also any reference to the non agreement.

[Professor Fate]

I am also following the complaint route over a loan with LTSB which I feel was completely missold to me and my husband , was incorrectly put in my name alone despite the fact the clerk knew I was going to be a full time student and asked her not to put me on at all!, they claimed that the full amount was used for consol and therefore did not change our overall lending even though it upped it by some £8k... the clerk also made us sign on the day and wouldn't let us go away to think about it... it's a long story and these are just some of the reasons for my complaint just wondering if there was somewhere on this site where I could find out about that/chat to someone more knowledgable than myself?!? Can't help there I'm afraid. I think the bank's argument might be that you must have seen that only your name was on the agreement when you signed it and also would have seen the full amount of the loan. if there are other issues that are more contentious then I hope someone will be able to give you some advice soon.

Your best line of attack over this is to send the report you mentioned to LLoydsTSB. Go to the FOS Financial Ombudsmen Serive website and download their complaints form. Fill it in and send if off AFTER you have received a response from LLoydsTSB. The FOS are heavy hitters and investigate on your behalf, it also costs the bank 360 quid for the FOS to investigate on your behalf ;-)

I would also advise angainst any litigation at this point until the FOS has investigated. Their ruling on the bank, the bank MUST comply. If you disagree with the ruling you are still then free to go for litigation but hopefully armed with at least some kind of assessment by the FOS that will carry weight should yo uneed it in court.

[zubo]

Exactly what I was thinking!

 

So when they send you a renewed card and no CCA, (whooooaaaa 1995 was that???) they defaulted on Sec 85. So could I ask for all interest and payments back from then?

 

FS

 

That is the nub of my post a few minutes ago re Consolidation.

and to confirm what corn says ... there are a number of us preparing Consolidation cases ... I have certainly issued S78 Default notices seeking Consolidation from the start of the non-agreement.

But, I suspect like my fellow caggers, I want to make my poc as tight as a ducks.... I want to leave no opportunity for counter claim.

 

Z

[pudsters14]

 

Your best line of attack over this is to send the report you mentioned to LLoydsTSB. Go to the FOS Financial Ombudsmen Serive website and download their complaints form. Fill it in and send if off AFTER you have received a response from LLoydsTSB. The FOS are heavy hitters and investigate on your behalf, it also costs the bank 360 quid for the FOS to investigate on your behalf ;-)

 

I would also advise angainst any litigation at this point until the FOS has investigated. Their ruling on the bank, the bank MUST comply. If you disagree with the ruling you are still then free to go for litigation but hopefully armed with at least some kind of assessment by the FOS that will carry weight should yo uneed it in court.

 

Thanks... I've got my letter together.. it's almost ready, just looking through some relevant different documents to add some knowledge to my argument too.. did get some advice off the ombusdsmen service and they have sent me some forms and told LTSB about my complaint... am just going through the process of advising the people of LTSB my exact complaint as they have sent me a standardised fobb off letter as usual with lots of assumed responses...GRRRRRR The ombudsmen were very helpful as I didn't have much idea where to start and what to do etc as it was only recently that I found that LTSB had put the loan in my sole name.

 

Thanx for your reposnse... I will update everyone with my progress...

 

And will let everyone know how I get on with those pesky CCA requests!

[Cornucopia]

Can I be a cheeky cow and link this thread for any MBNA'ers out there......

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/74790-vital-fsa-mass-complaint.html

 

Thank you and sorry for hijack (well, not really sorry, it was worth the risk!!!)

 

Corn x:)

[InKogneeToh]

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-174.html

 

 

 

In my opinion its not only S95 where Consolidation should occur, IF the agreement is NOT a fully executed agreement then by definition there is NO agreement and NO Contract. If there is NO agreement then Consolidation must occur from the date when it was believed there was an agreement. The lack of compliance with S85 simply supports and underpins this argument. If there is NO agreement and NO contract then there is no consent proven, which is denied anyway which means that data may not be shared and defaults must be removed as also any reference to the non agreement.

 

Hi

 

I think you are confusing an 'unexecuted agreement', i.e. one that is not fully executed, with an 'improperly executed' one.

 

An agreement will only be 'unexecuted' if it has not been signed by both the parties.

 

An 'improperly executed' agreement is one that has been correctly signed but does not conform to all the requirements of the CCA. In this case it may be totally unenforceable or enforceable only with a court order, depending on the particular errors.

 

But unenforceable does NOT mean void! An unenforceable agreement is still lawful and valid (see Wilson v FCT) and the debt still exists.

 

So if a creditor defaults on his duties under one of the CCA sections or if the agreement is defective, the debt still remains but he is not permitted to enforce it.

 

The issue about consent to process/share data goes back to the ICO's position that if a creditor can show 'legitimate interest' in a debt then he is entitled to process the related data without your consent.

 

Regards, Pam

[Professor Fate]

Happy to help.

 

LloydsTSb seem to be at home to Mr Cockup as my and my wifes joint mortage mysteriously transferred just to her name. Also, they are sending mail to her that should be for me for monies owed in a seperate agreement for a credit card which should be in my sole name ONLY.

[InKogneeToh]

Happy to help.

 

LloydsTSb seem to be at home to Mr Cockup as my and my wifes joint mortage mysteriously transferred just to her name. Also, they are sending mail to her that should be for me for monies owed in a seperate agreement for a credit card which should be in my sole name ONLY.

 

Perhaps the barrage of charges claims has finally tipped them over the edge!

 

Should we send the 'white coats' in?

[ladybird17]

Professor Fate -appreciate you have only just joined, but the FOS has been discussed thousands of times over in this and other threads - they are not always the miracle workers some seem to think they are.

[Professor Fate]

I dont think they are miracle workers either but from the information supplied about the issues suffered by Pudsters then I would use this as the first cause of action because its free and any information/investigation by an official body would at least highlight anything she could use as ammunition later. If they cant find anything to pick up on, Pudsters is no worse off.

 

Other than that, it looks exceptionally complex, easily deniable and you need legal help or spend a massive amount of time on it yourself to move it forward.

[pudsters14]

Perhaps the barrage of charges claims has finally tipped them over the edge!

 

Should we send the 'white coats' in?

 

LOL I would like nothing more... been reading a lot abt LTSB and there are loads of reports about their irresponsible lending and misinformation... some good sources of info on BBC News website about their agressive sales etc... was just like what happened to me... couldn't believe it!

[Professor Fate]

LloydsTSb are the biggest unsecured lender in the Uk, their sales tactics are legendary and their staff are under a lot of pressure to meet their hefty monthly sales quota. I know someone who works in there ;-)

[Peterbard]

Join Date: Mar 2007

Posts: 20

 

 

Re: Consumer Credit Act Agreements

I am also following the complaint route over a loan with LTSB which I feel was completely missold to me and my husband , was incorrectly put in my name alone despite the fact the clerk knew I was going to be a full time student and asked her not to put me on at all!, they claimed that the full amount was used for consol and therefore did not change our overall lending even though it upped it by some £8k... the clerk also made us sign on the day and wouldn't let us go away to think about it... it's a long story and these are just some of the reasons for my complaint just wondering if there was somewhere on this site where I could find out about that/chat to someone more knowledgable than myself?!?

 

 

 

Was this a secured loan

 

Peter

[pudsters14]

Hi Peter, no this was an unsecured loan

[zubo]

Pam

 

Thank you for the clarification - my mistake in terminology re improperly executed and unexecuted. However that as it may be, I would still be interested in the argument that the definition of an agreement is exactly that - an agreement and whether it is missing prescribed terms or signatures could be argued that there is NO agreement (by my definition of agreement).

 

As for consent - the statement came from an ICO caseworker and even if ICO himself declared it that would still not make it law. DPA regulations make that clear as also your right to withdraw consent regardless of the interest a CRA may express. You have principled rights.

 

Z

[ncf355]

Hi all,

 

can anyone help on this one -

 

I'm going after a CCP fgor PPI that was missold but want firm legal grounds

 

The now famous OFT 786a pdf document on the content of agreements has the following in it:

 

"In the OFT’s view, where PPI is to be financed by credit under the principal agreement, and falls within Reg 2(8)(a) there will generally be a ‘unitary multi-part’ agreement. This is irrespective of whether the PPI is mandatory or optional. "

(Thats at 9.4 of the PDF)

Cant work out what its referring to for Reg 2(8)(a) as it states at the start 'Regulations' is CCA1974, but I've looked in there plus the 1983 and all SI's I have to hand, cant find a Reg2(8)?

I need something thats staes categroically they must details the PPI cost within the prescribed terms AND get a seperate sig agreement to it (I just have a tick box to confirm, but its also on an agreement that doesnt meet the prescribed terms!(literally NONE!)

Any help greatly appreciated

[tamadus]

Hi

 

VERY good question!

 

I am still looking for some evidence/case law/common law or even sod's law that shows that a creditor may not profit when in default.

 

All that the CCA says is that he may not enforce, i.e. take any action to force payment.

 

Answers on a postcard please.....

 

Regards, Pam

 

I'm only using your post to allow continuity on this subject InKogneeToh.

 

This idea of not being able to add interest applies to sections 77-79 as well as sec 85. It's primarily based on 2 things.

 

1. In all the above sections they are not allowed to enforce the agreement whilst in default. This part of those sections is not IMHO about enforcing payment but about enforcing the 'agreement. If we read the words carefully each section is refering in detail to the agreement and nothing is said at all about payments. Whoever drafted the original CCA picked his words VERY carefully, as has been noted in past court cases.

 

2. It's accepted (and I believe there is provision in law) that nobody can profit whilst commiting a criminal act, which they do once they exceed the month deadline.

[carderuk]

I'm only using your post to allow continuity on this subject InKogneeToh.

 

This idea of not being able to add interest applies to sections 77-79 as well as sec 85. It's primarily based on 2 things.

 

1. In all the above sections they are not allowed to enforce the agreement whilst in default. This part of those sections is not IMHO about enforcing payment but about enforcing the 'agreement. If we read the words carefully each section is refering in detail to the agreement and nothing is said at all about payments. Whoever drafted the original CCA picked his words VERY carefully, as has been noted in past court cases.

 

2. It's accepted (and I believe there is provision in law) that nobody can profit whilst commiting a criminal act, which they do once they exceed the month deadline.

nice you still come up with the facts when needed