Cap1 & CCA return

[hellhasnofury]

Sorry to disagree with everyone, but then again thats what this forum is all about people putting forward different views and the making our minds up.

 

But ask any good solictor who has knowledge of the CCA and he will tell you that The Consumer Credit Act was enacted with the INTENT of protecting both the creditor and debtor BUT the way it is written it is heavily loaded AGAINST the Consumer, and that is its problem, no matter what section you look at ...you will find another section that completely contradicts that section and that is why its a minefield to even tread lightly into its liable to blow up inyour face , and one of the main reasons the TS and OFT are reluctant to take action under it.

 

Because these CCA barristers will rip it apart.

 

 

If folks really want to find out that what I say is pretty true and can afford Professor Goode and Guest's book on " Problems arising from Consumer Credit Agreements ......its about £60 but your local TS office will have a copy go and read it I did ( I knew a guy in our TS office who lent it me) took me a week to even get 25% understanding of it.

 

sparkie

So what do we do??????

 

not try to make these FI take notice? and get their act together??

Might as well throw the towel in!!!!!!!!

[Fullyskinted]

See my thread after a chat with MBNA legal dept...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/99086-interesting-convo-mbna-legal.html

 

the whole crux of 'our' argument is fully counterable by them by what he was saying...

[ian1969uk]

See my thread after a chat with MBNA legal dept...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/99086-interesting-convo-mbna-legal.html

 

the whole crux of 'our' argument is fully counterable by them by what he was saying...

 

All I saw in your thread was a load of bluster and no facts from MBNA.

[volvo]

Hi

 

Can some kind person have a look at an agreement Bryan Carter & Co

Solicitors sent me in response to my CCA request and advise if it conforms

please.

 

Thanks

[Sparkie1723]

Volvo

Can you post the full address of this Bryan Carter & Co Solicitors, because at first search, these solicitors are not registered as a Data Processor with the Information Commissioners Office if that is so ....then Bryan Carter & CO are committing an offence under the Data Protection Act obtaining and further processing information anad Data about you, but I need their full address.

below is copy of initial search of Information Commissioners Office register

 

 

sparkie

 

* There are no entries that match your search criteria.

 

Registration Number

Name Bryan Carter & Co Solicitors

Address

Postcode

Organisation sub-division

[un1boy]

So what do we do??????

 

not try to make these FI take notice? and get their act together??

Might as well throw the towel in!!!!!!!!

 

No, don't throw the towel in - it just means that we hae to take action ourselves through the courts, rather than relying on TS etc!!

 

At the end of the day, like bank charges, I don't think any of these lenders would ever want this to even go into a court room!!

[iconoclash]

Hi guys - just to add to this discussion: I have in front of me a piece of paper........

it's meant to be a copy agreement and it has so many cut and paste marks all over it, looks like its been photocopied a million times! - has no date, signatures, sig. dates, or full cost of loan, it includes a statement that the interest rate may be varied but gives no valid reason for doing so, and therefore may be subject to the Unfair Terms rules, among other things. The company sending state in their letter: "s77 of the CCA imposes an obligation to supply...s180 provides for the making of regulations governing the form and content of copy agreements (1983).... Reg 3 (2) provides that a copy need not be an exact copy...blah blah, but where oh where, does it state that you may exclude the date of the agreement itself? how can you defend a document that may be 5,10,15 yrs old and under what pertinent Regs without a date??

[dpick]

Hi guys - just to add to this discussion: I have in front of me a piece of paper........

it's meant to be a copy agreement and it has so many cut and paste marks all over it, looks like its been photocopied a million times! - has no date, signatures, sig. dates, or full cost of loan, it includes a statement that the interest rate may be varied but gives no valid reason for doing so, and therefore may be subject to the Unfair Terms rules, among other things. The company sending state in their letter: "s77 of the CCA imposes an obligation to supply...s180 provides for the making of regulations governing the form and content of copy agreements (1983).... Reg 3 (2) provides that a copy need not be an exact copy...blah blah, but where oh where, does it state that you may exclude the date of the agreement itself? how can you defend a document that may be 5,10,15 yrs old and under what pertinent Regs without a date??

 

Hi maybe copy need not be an exact copy but in court they would have to produce the agreement so why are they wasting time on a cut and past job, me thinks do they have an agreement.

 

all the best dpick:p

[Cornucopia]

Hi guys - just to add to this discussion: I have in front of me a piece of paper........

it's meant to be a copy agreement and it has so many cut and paste marks all over it, looks like its been photocopied a million times! - has no date, signatures, sig. dates, or full cost of loan, it includes a statement that the interest rate may be varied but gives no valid reason for doing so, and therefore may be subject to the Unfair Terms rules, among other things. The company sending state in their letter: "s77 of the CCA imposes an obligation to supply...s180 provides for the making of regulations governing the form and content of copy agreements (1983).... Reg 3 (2) provides that a copy need not be an exact copy...blah blah, but where oh where, does it state that you may exclude the date of the agreement itself? how can you defend a document that may be 5,10,15 yrs old and under what pertinent Regs without a date??

 

Is this MBNA by any chance?

[ian1969uk]

So which sections contradict Sections 77, 78 and 127, as those are the ones we are most interested in?

 

Sparkie?

[un1boy]

Hi guys - just to add to this discussion: I have in front of me a piece of paper........

it's meant to be a copy agreement and it has so many cut and paste marks all over it, looks like its been photocopied a million times! - has no date, signatures, sig. dates, or full cost of loan, it includes a statement that the interest rate may be varied but gives no valid reason for doing so, and therefore may be subject to the Unfair Terms rules, among other things. The company sending state in their letter: "s77 of the CCA imposes an obligation to supply...s180 provides for the making of regulations governing the form and content of copy agreements (1983).... Reg 3 (2) provides that a copy need not be an exact copy...blah blah, but where oh where, does it state that you may exclude the date of the agreement itself? how can you defend a document that may be 5,10,15 yrs old and under what pertinent Regs without a date??

 

It does have to be an exact copy - secs 77-79 clearly state that any copy must be a TRUE copy.

 

The only thing they can do is omit the signatures but even then it has to be an exacct copy of the original.

[angry cat]

Do you know that for a fact AC?

 

Yes

 

AC

[monopoly23]

A friend has given me an agreement from Direct Auto Finance (Yes Car Credit) to check is enforceability. From first look, I can see that it is a true copy of the original.

 

1)The signatures are on the first page but no date. They have also signed the second page, along with DAF who dated it 21/04/05. The two DAF sigs on the two pages are signed by different people.

 

2)It is two agreements on one page, both signed under each

 

3)The car sale part is called "CONDITIONAL SALE AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974"

 

4) The 'optional' insurance part is called "CREDIT AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974"

 

5) The car part has the termination rights, but the insurance has a specific note saying that "the right of termination mentioned in 2.2 only applies to that part of the agreement which related to the purchase of the vehicle. The exercise of your right of termination will have no effect on your obligation to pay the Insurance Installments."

 

6)Even though it's headed 'Additional Optional Insurances', she was told at the time that she wouldn't get the car if she didn't take insurance.

 

DAF of YYC whatever you want to call them, are trying to claw back as much money as they can get. They have already told her a year or so ago, that if she payed £4000, she would owe no more for the car. So she did and now owns the car outright.

 

They have now written to say they will accept £500 to clear a balance of £1976.40, but only if it's paid in full and by the 21st June.

It also says that "If you fail to comply with the settlement terms, the discount offer will be revoked and the full balance will become immediately due and payable".

She has been paying £75 a month for this insurance since she paid off the car, so why would the full balance become payable?

 

Can someone please comment on the points I've mentioned?

I think that as there was no cancellation rights, this is unenforceable and she should be able to claim from them for it being mis-sold, not pay them £500, but I'm not sure.

 

Sorry for massive post....

[un1boy]

Hiya

 

I have just Egg's response to my CCA request.

 

They have provided an agreement signed April 2004 although the two pages have nothing to link them together.

 

They have also supplied a load of pages which are a printout of their terms and conditions online. The first sentence says:

 

Small Print. Legal information you need to be aware of.

 

Applicable to customers who applied from 01 October 2001

 

Now, is this a non-cancellable, right?

 

It has no default charge info on the sig doc, so that's makes it unenforcable, is that right?

 

Also, are the "terms and conditions" supplied correct? Would it not have to be in the format which was attached to the agreeement as these "online" ones could have been changed.

 

I have just noticed that the second page with my sig on it, I signed it after them.

 

All comments welcome.

[dpick]

Hiya

 

I have just Egg's response to my CCA request.

 

THey have provided an agreement signed october 2007 although the two pages have nothing to link them together.

 

They have also supplied a load of pages which are printout of their terms and conditions online. The first sentence says:

 

 

 

Now, is this non-cancellable? It has no default charge info on the sig doc, so that's makes it unenforcable, is that right?

 

Also, are the "terms and conditions" supplied correct? Would it not have to be in the format which was attached to the agreeement as these "online" ones couls have been changed.

 

I have just noticed that the second page with my sig on it, I signed it after them and the first page of the agreement says, "This was sent you on xx April 2004" So, why was it sent ot me 6 moths later? I'm confused. How can the second page have a different date on it?

 

All comments welcome.

 

Is October 2007 just a typo or are they mad

 

dpick

[SteveH2508]

Is "october 2007" a typo?

 

Otherwise...

[un1boy]

Is October 2007 just a typo or are they mad

 

dpick

 

Sorry, it's a typo!!!

[un1boy]

Their covering letter makes reference to a copy of the default notice I have requested and to a deed of assignment. It tells me that they have prooduced a screenshot confirming that it was defaulted.

 

Now, this is worrying as I didn't mention anything at all about a defualt notice, nor a deed of assignement - my account has never been defaulted!!!

 

What are they on?

[un1boy]

Just checked the OFT regs and this agreement has no mention at all of any default charges in the sig document - they are only in the terms and conditions.

 

That makes this agreement unenforcable, even with a court order, doesn't it?

 

Ok, letter being written now!!

[zubo]

Just checked the OFT regs and this agreement has no mention at all of any default charges in the sig document - they are only in the terms and conditions.

 

That makes this agreement unenforcable, even with a court order, doesn't it?

 

Ok, letter being written now!!

 

un1,

 

Can you quote the OFT regs reference and extract please - I'm not doubting you - I happen to need that too.

 

Z

[ncf355]

Default charges are a required term, not a prescribed term - this would make it improperly executed, and open to enforcement with the courts leave

 

See CCR 1983, SI 1553, Schedule 3 (10)

[un1boy]

un1,

 

Can you quote the OFT regs reference and extract please - I'm not doubting you - I happen to need that too.

 

Z

 

Do you want it quoted or emailed to you mate?

[un1boy]

Default charges are a required term, not a prescribed term - this would make it improperly executed, and open to enforcement with the courts leave

 

See CCR 1983, SI 1553, Schedule 3 (10)

 

Damn it....have you got a link so I can make sure I check them in future?

 

So, should I write back and advise that I'm not making anymore payments until a Judge has ruled?

 

Also, what about the format of the terms and conditions? They have provided a printout of the online terms and conditions which states: "applicable to agreements after 01 October 2004" surely, it should be a copy of the actual ones that were on the agreement?

[zubo]

Damn it....have you got a link so I can make sure I check them in future?

 

So, should I write back and advise that I'm not making anymore payments until a Judge has ruled?

 

Also, what about the format of the terms and conditions? They have provided a printout of the online terms and conditions which states: "applicable to agreements after 01 October 2004" surely, it should be a copy of the actual ones that were on the agreement?

 

This fails the test and must be

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 , 1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed

agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it

 

So, the T&C cannot be current, and they must not only be those issued at the time of the alleged agreement they must also be proven to relate to the agreement. I have issued a default notice to a Creditor using that exact argument, details elsewhere.

 

Z

[angry cat]

OOH, now the eggy thing is starting to come up to the boil!

 

I will reiterate what I have already stated-

In response to my Egg CCA S78 request, I was sent two pages as the alledged agreement. Now this would be the front and reverse of the doc.

However, I was not sent the full T&C's that were applicable in July 2001.

Interestingly enough, I 'know' that the Egg full T&C's were incorporated into the alledged Egg agreement. Therefore why were the full T&C's not provided?

 

Obviously, as no T&C's have been provided then no Default charges have been provided either, which I understand are a required term.

 

Love AC