Cap1 & CCA return

[patch666]

Wow patch, Would you mind if I pinched a few bits from this brilliant letter???

 

 

feel free, we are all here to help each other:D

[elsinore]

First class letter, patch. Stick it to 'em.

 

Something at the back of my mind says that the Statutory Notice should be on a separate piece of paper, as it is a legal document.

 

Maybe somebody could confirm this or otherwise.

 

Els

[maybelline]

yes, excellent letter, covers all the arguments that get thrown back in one go, thus saving all the backwards and forward many of us have experienced with letters!? but yes I think you dont want a statutory notice getting lost, maybe you could state that you will be sending a stat notice also in bold.

 

impressed!

[patch666]

thanks for the comments guys, they are all noted

 

I will re-type and omit the Statuary notice, but I will send it at the same time but in a different envelope.

 

Unfortunately I cant send this out till the 25th as I'm stuck in the middle of the north sea on a gas rig

 

Oh well,

 

patch..............................

[out of cash]

hi,

 

i thought this section was if noy signed by the creditor/bank etc? i could be wrong can someone reconfirm the sigs bit.

 

regards

 

out of cash

[ian1969uk]

Received two letters this morning:

 

One from the FOS saying they are allocating a caseworker to look at my complaint against Egg. This made me smile as I know it will now cost Egg £400.

 

The second was from MBNA, offering me a discount of 40% to settle my debt with them. This made me smile too. MBNA wrote to me a couple of weeks ago stating that their credit agreement was 100% watertight and they could easily secure a CCJ and a charging order on my house. I wrote back telling them to go ahead and try and listing all that was wrong with their so called agreement.

 

Do you think it is now a coincidence that this letter has come, dated 4 days after they would have received my previous letter?

 

I certainly don't! I love to watch them squirm.

[wednesday1867]

Iam whats your goal with MBNA? Are you going for interest paid etc or just clear balance?

[ian1969uk]

I am not going for any money back as long as they don't push me. I will happily settle for not having to pay them anything else, but if they push it I will go for all interest paid under Section 85 & flawed credit agreement, which would clear the debt and leave me plenty left over.

 

It's their call.

[Jeff2000]

I am not going for any money back as long as they don't push me. I will happily settle for not having to pay them anything else, but if they push it I will go for all interest paid under Section 85 & flawed credit agreement, which would clear the debt and leave me plenty left over.

 

It's their call.

 

 

Hello ian,

 

 

Yes the ball is certainly in their court on this one. I would be tempted to sit tight and see what their next move is. Then take it from there!

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

[rich2568]

One from the FOS saying they are allocating a caseworker to look at my complaint against Egg. This made me smile as I know it will now cost Egg £400.

Ian

Could you expand exactly?

[ian1969uk]

I complained about Egg:

 

1. Initially raising my interest rate arbitrarily.

2. Terminating my agreement whilst the account was in dispute.

3. Issuing a default.

4. Sending me a credit agreement that was missing required terms.

5. Not sending the required terms and conditions in response to S78.

6. Passing an account in dispute to a DCA.

7. Lack of compliance with S85.

8. Applying interest and charges whilst in default.

9. Penalty charges in general.

 

Probably more, but that's the gist of it.

[minky93]

Hi! can someone pop over to AC thread and give their opinion on the repeal of s127 of 1974 consumer credit Act...ss 3,4,5?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/4267-angry-cat-egg-egg-11.html

 

many thanks

minky xxx

[ian1969uk]

Hi! can someone pop over to AC thread and give their opinion on the repeal of s127 of 1974 consumer credit Act...ss 3,4,5?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/4267-angry-cat-egg-egg-11.html

 

many thanks

minky xxx

 

I did.

 

What do you want an opinion on? It's been repealed for agreements from 6th April 2007, that's fact.

 

It's not retrospective, so older agreements are still covered by S127...that's fact too.

 

I'm puzzled as to what else you expect anyone to say?

[Maggiebroom]

HI ALL

 

I have been asked to put this copy of a letter Nat West sent me regarding an application they are claiming is an agreement and the remarks they make which are completely irrelevant to my original letter.

 

Dear Mrs maggiebroom,

re account no: 00000000000000000

 

Thank you for your letter dated 7th july 2007

 

Regarding your recent letter concerning the Banks alleged breach of the CCA Act, I would advise you of the following.

 

Any request for a copy of an executed agreement under s78(1), states that the company must meet it's statuary requirements by providing a 'true copy' of the agreement relevant to the card product at the date the card agreement was made and providing that plus a copy of the current terms of the card product. These copies must be accompanied by the statement of financial information relevant to the account - the state of the account, amount currently due and due dates of future payments that will be required to be made.

 

The provision of the 'true copy' in this form is made in reliance of Regulations 3(2) and 7(1)(b) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983. Particularly 3(2) which permits the copy agreement not to show signatures or personal details that may have appeared on the application part of the document.(aren't the 1983 part of the regulations superseded by the 2004 amendments??) There is no statuary requirement under the Act for us to ever give a copy to a customer with a signature on it. (Surely this can't be right??)

As we have supplied a copy of the application form that you signed, copy of the Terms ans conditions of the card product, a most recent statement showing the outstanding balance and advised you who to contact to discuss amounts due and owing, and future payments that must be made. We have therefore met our obligations under s78(1) to provide a copy of that executed agreement and again we are satisfied that what was provided complied with the Regulations expressly made for what is a 'true copy'. We suggest that you take advice from your local Citizen's Advice Bureau ( patronising B****** ) or other similar organisation (such as the Consumer action group:grin:) if you continue to doubt the veracity of what we have told you about our having complied with our obligations under s78(1).

 

We consider that our processing of your personal date is fair, lawful and warranted in the circumstances. Details of these procedures were contained in the credit agreement/application form you would have signed in June 2000 when you applied for the card (after which the card was issued to you) and amended versions that accompanied subsequent Notice of Variations (which will have been sent to you when your card was in use and you didn't, at any time, signify your refusal to consent by repaying the debt and terminating the agreement), and have been notified to the Information Commissioners Office. We are satisfied that information of your account was properly notified to the Credit Reference Agencies and you would have recieved the appropriate Data Protection Act notifications on the reporting of defaults. If you disagree, you have the right to apply to the court to have innacurate perrsoanl data rectified, blocked, erased or destroyed. Further information is available from the Information Commissioners website: www Information Commissioners Office.gov.uk. (Surely if the account is in dispute they cannot claim or do this?)

 

I would inform you that, given the processing of your personal data was consented by you (in the way described above), you cannot retrospectively withdraw your consent after the processing was carried out. We do not accept your notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and do not intend to comply with it.

 

I must therefore inform you that we see no reason to enter into further correspondence with you about the alleged CCA and Data Protection Act breaches you lay at our door. If you are not satisfied with this final response, you may seek whatever legal redress you consider is open to you or you may refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service within six months of the date of this letter. I enclose a copy of the Financial Ombudsman's Leaflet. which explains the scope of the service and how a referral can be made.

 

Your indebtedness on this account remains due and payable and we will be pursuing for the full repayment.

 

I trust this clarifys matters for you.

 

Yours sincerely (are they kidding?)

 

Blue lettering is their actual wording. The red comments are my own.

I would welcome anyones thoughts on this. I have no idea how to respond or what to do next. I really think they are trying to blind me with science, so to speak.

I must admit it does worry me a bit, and I would be interested if anyone can supply a copy of the 1983 regulations as I can't trace one on line. Particularly the sections they are referring to.

 

Anyone Please?

 

maggiebroom

 

 

This was in reply to a letter I sent them. (post #48 in the thread below)

 

 

anyones comments would be gratefully accepted. The whole thread is in the PPI Forum

entitled NAT WEST WILL NOT RETURN MY PPI.

Please have a look and tell me your opinins. I am at a slight loss as to where to go from here.

 

maggiebroom

[minky93]

I did.

 

What do you want an opinion on? It's been repealed for agreements from 6th April 2007, that's fact.

 

It's not retrospective, so older agreements are still covered by S127...that's fact too.

 

I'm puzzled as to what else you expect anyone to say?

 

Sorry ian1969uk

 

I didn't read it correctly! I thought it was retrospective and it was refering to older agreements....... thanks for clearing that up! she says mopping her forehead with relief.....

 

thanks again ian

 

minky xxx

[Maggiebroom]

I complained about Egg:

 

1. Initially raising my interest rate arbitrarily.

2. Terminating my agreement whilst the account was in dispute.

3. Issuing a default.

4. Sending me a credit agreement that was missing required terms.

5. Not sending the required terms and agreements in response to S78.

6. Passing an account in dispute to a DCA.

7. Lack of compliance with S85.

8. Applying interest and charges whilst in default.

9. Penalty charges in general.

 

Probably more, but that's the gist of it.

 

Exactly my points with Nat West except point 6 (see the above post with letter returned from them and quoted) post #8104

 

They insist they are correct.

 

maggiebroom

[ian1969uk]

Hi,

 

Out of interest, and I have asked this before and Peter replied, but this was the response from TS when I quoted section 172 after a card provider sent me a dodgy application after the allowed time limits for a CCA request.

 

 

"Peculiarly because statements given under s77-78 are said to bind the lender, it is generally held that a statement provided after the prescribed period (12 working days) is not given under s77-78 and therefore a statement given late does not bind the creditor This may sound bizarre but it is the way that the act is currently interpreted by Professor Goode of the Queens Bench. You would have to look to common law and estoppel to gain relief."

 

Any thoughts?

 

I've been mulling this over today and a thought occurred to me. If, as TS state here, statements given after 12 working days are not given under S77/78, then the creditor has still not complied with the S77/78 request and we can still hold them to be in default.

 

Theoretically, then, if they get to 12 working days and haven't complied, they can never actually comply until we issue a new request and start the 12 working day countdown again.

 

Therefore, we don't have to pay them as their default will continue forever

[noomill060]

And even if they do comply with the second request, they still remain in default of the first!

[ian1969uk]

And even if they do comply with the second request, they still remain in default of the first!

 

Or we just never make the second request ;-)

[noomill060]

Doesnt work like this- once they do provide an agreement, they can enforce,

[ian1969uk]

But they haven't complied with S77/78 according to TS, as anything given after the 12 working days isn't given under S77/78. So, according to TS, regardless of the existence of an agreement, they cannot enforce it as their default continues.

 

I know I'm being a bit facetious, but it does demonstrate how ridiculous that statement from TS is.

[monopoly23]

I am very interested in this also. The way these creditors treat their customers is apalling. But just because TS have said that in one response, how could you get that across to the lenders? If there is no actual regs or guidelines?

 

Id still like to know more about the fact that MBNA didn't provide any proof of the digital signature for my online application too, and that what they sent me is binding.

 

Are they actually required to provide the proof that it was signed by me, either from the IP address or any other means?

I don't know what's next on this one.

[Maggiebroom]

Hi All

 

Please can someone have a look at post #8104 in this thread and make some comments and offer advice urgently

 

thanks in advance

 

maggiebroom

[davefirewalker]

Hi All

 

Please can someone have a look at post #8104 in this thread and make some comments and offer advice urgently

 

thanks in advance

 

maggiebroom

 

I'm on my way out now....but will have a look later.

 

int he meantime i don't know if you have seen this posted a while back

it was a response to a query

 

.....................

 

 

Thank you for your email received on 31 March about your enquiry into the Consumer Credit Act Sect 77 & 78.I apologise for the delayed response.

 

The general effects of sections 77-79 requires the creditor/owner (in the case of a hire agreement) under an agreement for (fixed-sum credit, running account credit and hire agreement) to provide the debtor/hirer with a copy of the executed agreement and a statement of account on request.

 

If a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid request within a period of 12 days (not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all. This prevents enforcement with or without a court order. If a default lasts for a month (for example a calendar month) it constitutes an offence. We understand your concerns in this matter but please do remember however that once the creditor/owner complies with the request albeit out of time, he may once again enforce the agreement.

 

A ‘true copy’ of an agreement principally consists of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the statutory content of the agreement. The name, address and signature of the debtor do not have to be provided. Additionally, the creditor must supply the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor; the total sum which has become payable under the agreement but remains unpaid; and the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor (the latter two must include the various amounts comprised in that total sum and the date when each is/was due). However, the copy must be a copy. It need not be exact on immaterial points, but it cannot be a conjectured reconstruction. If the trader has no original copy, the trader will have difficulty showing that he has complied with the regulation by supplying a ‘true copy’, since nobody would know what was in the original. When the trader comes to enforce the debt in court, he needs to have a signed copy of the agreement in order to enforce. As the law stands currently he cannot otherwise.

 

We note your concerns that in the absence of a copy of the original agreement someone's liability for a debt can only lead to further query. However in circumstances like this we would view it is as unfair practice under section 25(2) (d) of the Act and relevant to licence fitness if a trader failed to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate when a debt is queried or disputed.

 

If you would like to make a formal complaint. Please fill in the attached complaint form.

 

Thank you again for writing to us.

 

Yours sincerely

 

........................

 

rgds

 

Dave

[the main man]

ian1969uk

 

 

"But they haven't complied with S77/78 according to TS, as anything given after the 12 working days isn't given under S77/78. So, according to TS, regardless of the existence of an agreement, they cannot enforce it as their default continues.

 

I know I'm being a bit facetious, but it does demonstrate how ridiculous that statement from TS is."

 

 

 

I think it's a great testament to the people on this site that many more people are more aware and educated in the Consumer Credit Act than the so called experts who are supposed to be policing it,this is shown by the non action of any of the relevant bodies who have allowed credit providers to run riot with their own rules.

 

The blind are definitely leading the blind, unless of course you use CAG