Cap1 & CCA return

[FANTASY CHARGES]

thanks lookinforinfo, i'll take a look now:D

 

this is taken from THE WHITE PAPER

 

ISSUED BY THE DTI ENTITLED

 

the consumer credit market in the 21st century

 

presented to parliament by the secretary of state for trade and industry by command of Her Majesty 2003

 

 

 

Enforcing Credit Agreements

3.62 Importantly, any reform in this area will need to proceed in conjunction with reform of S.127 of the CCA. This is the section that governs the

enforceability of agreements and sets out the powers a court has to

enforce a regulated agreement. In cases where certain requirements of

the Act, relating to the form and content of an agreement, have not been

followed by the lender, the Court has discretion to consider whether to

make an agreement enforceable. However, in certain instances, the Court is precluded from making an enforcement order if the agreement is not properly executed – because, for example, the documents were not in a certain prescribed form or signed.

 

 

3.63 The House of Lords judgment, in July 2003, in Wilson and others v.

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant),58 confirmed that, in

these certain instances, the effect of a technical error on the part of the

lender will render the whole agreement unenforceable.

 

 

3.64 The House of Lords found that this was a proportionate outcome, even in circumstances where the lender has acted in good faith and the error had

stemmed from a mistaken understanding of the statutory requirements.

However, it is clear from the judgment that their Lordships had in mind

the current financial limit of £25,000, which confines the exposure of a

creditor. It is not clear whether they would have found such adverse

consequences to a lender acceptable on human rights grounds if there

was a much higher, or no, financial limit.

 

 

3.65 We therefore recognise that removing the financial limit could expose

lenders to greater liability where agreements are held to be

unenforceable. A more proportionate approach to enforcement will

therefore be sought which will seek to balance, on the one hand, the

objective of ensuring that particular attention is paid to the inclusion of

certain terms in documentation signed by borrowers, and on the other,

the financial consequences of unenforceability for lenders.

65

Fair, Clear and Competitive

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file23663.pdf

[maybelline]

shane5408, watching with interest, I too am looking at the prescribed terms argument as I am trying to put together, (amend a penalty charges claim )re this very issue. mine is secured on my home so need to get it right but am confident it can be challenged.

[shane5408]

this is taken from THE WHITE PAPER

 

ISSUED BY THE DTI ENTITLED

 

the consumer credit market in the 21st century

 

presented to parliament by the secretary of state for trade and industry by command of Her Majesty 2003

 

 

 

Enforcing Credit Agreements

3.62 Importantly, any reform in this area will need to proceed in conjunction with reform of S.127 of the CCA. This is the section that governs the

enforceability of agreements and sets out the powers a court has to

enforce a regulated agreement. In cases where certain requirements of

the Act, relating to the form and content of an agreement, have not been

followed by the lender, the Court has discretion to consider whether to

make an agreement enforceable. However, in certain instances, the Court is precluded from making an enforcement order if the agreement is not properly executed – because, for example, the documents were not in a certain prescribed form or signed.

 

 

3.63 The House of Lords judgment, in July 2003, in Wilson and others v.

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant),58 confirmed that, in

these certain instances, the effect of a technical error on the part of the

lender will render the whole agreement unenforceable.

 

 

3.64 The House of Lords found that this was a proportionate outcome, even in circumstances where the lender has acted in good faith and the error had

stemmed from a mistaken understanding of the statutory requirements.

However, it is clear from the judgment that their Lordships had in mind

the current financial limit of £25,000, which confines the exposure of a

creditor. It is not clear whether they would have found such adverse

consequences to a lender acceptable on human rights grounds if there

was a much higher, or no, financial limit.

 

 

3.65 We therefore recognise that removing the financial limit could expose

lenders to greater liability where agreements are held to be

unenforceable. A more proportionate approach to enforcement will

therefore be sought which will seek to balance, on the one hand, the

objective of ensuring that particular attention is paid to the inclusion of

certain terms in documentation signed by borrowers, and on the other,

the financial consequences of unenforceability for lenders.

65

Fair, Clear and Competitive

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file23663.pdf

 

 

 

thanks a lot for this, invaluable information! I must admit i only found this thread a few months ago so did not see when you posted this info back in march! i will definitely be printing that document out, well atleast the relevant pages to use in court!

[shane5408]

shane5408, watching with interest, I too am looking at the prescribed terms argument as I am trying to put together, (amend a penalty charges claim )re this very issue. mine is secured on my home so need to get it right but am confident it can be challenged.

 

hi maybelline, welcome to the fight, the more the merrier! You're up against welcome finance i see, from what i've read they have one of the worst reputations out there!

 

Just wondering, are you planning on claiming back penalty charges and challenging the agreement as part of the same claim?

[maybelline]

yes, thats the theory anyway!

[FANTASY CHARGES]

yes, thats the theory anyway!

re cc act 1974(as amended) i am pretty sure it only applies up to£25,000

yes just checked

 

8 Consumer credit agreements

(1) A personal credit agreement is an agreement between an individual (“the debtor”) and any other person (“the creditor”) by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount.

(2) A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £25,000

[FANTASY CHARGES]

thanks a lot for this, invaluable information! I must admit i only found this thread a few months ago so did not see when you posted this info back in march! i will definitely be printing that document out, well atleast the relevant pages to use in court!

read all the document just saw this bit (near the end) remeber this was written a few years ago !! and so it proved correct

Consumer Redress

Risk

26 New opportunities for challenging unfair credit transactions may lead to a surge in the number of cases coming before the courts and/or an ADR

provider. This may, also, lead to companies withdrawing from the market

or, alternatively, increasing prices in order to cover costs. This is expected

to be a particular risk for lenders in the sub-prime market. These lenders

may have to charge higher prices in order to cover the risk premium,

which, in turn, may make them more vulnerable to claims of extortionate

credit. Again, there is a risk that vulnerable consumers will be forced to

pay more for their loans as lenders withdraw from the market, restricting

supply and causing them to turn to illegal moneylenders.

27 However these anxieties may overstate the case. One mitigating factor

would be if the ADR was not available for existing loans. Additionally, the

new standards the OFT will enforce are not likely to go beyond the

requirements of the voluntary standards to which many firms, including

those who lend to the sub-prime market, are already committed. We

would not, therefore, expect to see a diminution in the supply of credit to

sub-prime markets, as they are currently defined.

28 There is a risk that unscrupulous consumers might try to work the system by defaulting on loans at the point where it would cost the lender more to retrieve the sum than to write off the outstanding debt. This risk would not however be new; such behaviour would make it difficult for such consumers then to obtain credit in the future, but we do not expect this to be a widespread problem.

I don't agree with the last bit. but it might explain some banks actions.

[shane5408]

 

read all the document just saw this bit (near the end) remeber this was written a few years ago !! and so it proved correct

 

Consumer Redress

Risk

26 New opportunities for challenging unfair credit transactions may lead to a surge in the number of cases coming before the courts and/or an ADR

provider. This may, also, lead to companies withdrawing from the market

or, alternatively, increasing prices in order to cover costs. This is expected

to be a particular risk for lenders in the sub-prime market. These lenders

may have to charge higher prices in order to cover the risk premium,

which, in turn, may make them more vulnerable to claims of extortionate

credit. Again, there is a risk that vulnerable consumers will be forced to

pay more for their loans as lenders withdraw from the market, restricting

supply and causing them to turn to illegal moneylenders.

 

27 However these anxieties may overstate the case. One mitigating factor

would be if the ADR was not available for existing loans. Additionally, the

new standards the OFT will enforce are not likely to go beyond the

requirements of the voluntary standards to which many firms, including

those who lend to the sub-prime market, are already committed. We

would not, therefore, expect to see a diminution in the supply of credit to

sub-prime markets, as they are currently defined.

 

28 There is a risk that unscrupulous consumers might try to work the system by defaulting on loans at the point where it would cost the lender more to retrieve the sum than to write off the outstanding debt. This risk would not however be new; such behaviour would make it difficult for such consumers then to obtain credit in the future, but we do not expect this to be a widespread problem.

 

I don't agree with the last bit. but it might explain some banks actions.

 

Hi Fantasy charges,

 

where did you get this document from? Section 28 in no way describes what Caggers like myself and i'm sure everyone else here are trying to accomplish. As it states what would be the point of defaulting on purpose only to result in having an adverse credit history.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Hi Fantasy charges,

 

where did you get this document from? Section 28 in no way describes what Caggers like myself and i'm sure everyone else here are trying to accomplish. As it states what would be the point of defaulting on purpose only to result in having an adverse credit history.

 

 

ITS ALMOST AT THE END OF the white paper i put a link to

 

yes i agree if people were clever enough to think this way i would expect them to clever enough not to get into the situation in the first place if you see what i mean !! a bit under the belt i thought.

 

thinking again about it it would have to be some rich person who would not need a mortgage and in fact would not need credit ?!?

[elizabeth1]

Hi Fantasy charges,

 

where did you get this document from? Section 28 in no way describes what Caggers like myself and i'm sure everyone else here are trying to accomplish. As it states what would be the point of defaulting on purpose only to result in having an adverse credit history.

 

 

Well section 28 - is a lousy way to explain things isn't it?

 

How about it be rephrased - more to do with consumers suddenly learning they have "rights" and taking these lousy companies to task over their "gung ho" attitudes ? Because it is what we "caggers" are doing - we are merely using the law to protect ourselves from unscrupulous companies who flout the laws and regulations that govern them!!! :lol:

 

Tides are changing for us all - we no longer have to sit back and be bullied by such unscrupulous companies who take it upon themselves to bend the rules. I've not had so much fun in ages really!!!

[out of cash]

right with you elizabeth1 my attitude is give them hell

 

the line most banks use is as soon as you are in financial trouble please contact us immediately will will be really helpfull not. became unemployed last year and they helped me by raising the interest rate ona visa card from lifetime fixed balance 4.9% to a very high 26.5% most helpful people

 

when the boot is on the other foot they dont like it so tough on them:D

[pecky1]

I agree with you,I couldnt pay the £60 a month to Cap One tried to explain this to them offered £40 instead they didnt want to know, then passed it to NCO who expect me to pay £150 a month!

[Peterbard]

HI

"Unscrupulous customers" ,doesen't that make you seethe.

How much have financial companies made out of us by overcharging on fees and penalties, it is the poorest and less informed that get stuffed by them and they know it ,no they depend on it.

Well the tide is turning and as far as i am concerned they should be made to defend every action they take and show the legislation to back it up.

The days of, we had better just pay up and be quiet are long over.

 

Regards

Peter

[out of cash]

hi pecky1,

 

ive dealt with nco/rma or whatever name they call themselfs a real bunch of cowboys dont let them intimmidate you as they try to specialise in this area didnt work with me though:D

[shane5408]

HI

"Unscrupulous customers" ,doesen't that make you seethe.

How much have financial companies made out of us by overcharging on fees and penalties, it is the poorest and less informed that get stuffed by them and they know it ,no they depend on it.

Well the tide is turning and as far as i am concerned they should be made to defend every action they take and show the legislation to back it up.

The days of, we had better just pay up and be quiet are long over.

 

Regards

Peter

 

Hi Peter and others,

 

I've read a few threads with regards to CRA's needing our consent as the data subject to process our data and that if a credit agreement is deemed improperly executed and unenforcable then it can in no way be viewed as as consent given by the data subject to allow the processing of our data and subsequently any adverse credit data recorded on this basis must be removed. (Tried to make it as short as possible!)

 

I was just wondering if you know of any cases where someone argued this to the CRA's and got a successful result or even took it to court?

 

kind regards,

shane

[joesoap]

Peter, I don't think I've "seen" you so angry!

[maybelline]

re cc act 1974(as amended) i am pretty sure it only applies up to£25,000

yes just checked

 

8 Consumer credit agreements

 

(1) A personal credit agreement is an agreement between an individual (“the debtor”) and any other person (“the creditor”) by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount.

 

(2) A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £25,000

 

yes, definately below that sum, started as 2,900 for a car, the rest as they say, is history! now they want £28K!

[maybelline]

HI

"Unscrupulous customers" ,doesen't that make you seethe.

How much have financial companies made out of us by overcharging on fees and penalties, it is the poorest and less informed that get stuffed by them and they know it ,no they depend on it.

Well the tide is turning and as far as i am concerned they should be made to defend every action they take and show the legislation to back it up.

The days of, we had better just pay up and be quiet are long over.

 

Regards

Peter

 

agree, agree, agree, just exposed the kind of mindset we are up against and very much reminds of the language around the enforcement bill as it went through ,quite sneakily, but for your hard work briniging it to the attention of those who might listen!

[Peterbard]

Peter, I don't think I've "seen" you so angry!

HI

Yes i have spent the best part of the last 25 years workng with the Credit Union and attempting to get people who have fallen fowl of companies like Provident and Welcome out onf the mire, they get away with charging upto 300%APR on debts a lot of the time people just pay up and don't know what they are paying for but does it stop them taking the money,not likely.

We have people calling into the office who have just been brow beaten into giving the collector their giro for their weeks food money,these people have no social responsibility and in my opinion are the lowest of the low.

Now we have found there Achilies heel ,they are to lazy or to cocky to make sure their paperwork is correct, I for one have no compunction at all in retrieving whatever i can from them,lets face it we are never going to get back a fraction of what they have unlawfully taken over the years but we can be a royal pain in the backside.

It would make me laugh it it wasn't so serious,they go on about the morality of us exploiting the loopholes in the law,what about the morality of making people homeless when they have fallen on hard times or using a clause in the agrreement to ensure you are stuck in a revolving door that only enables you to get over priced finance which is impossible to pay which leads to debt with the only way out being more overpriced finance.

 

I have sen the long term effects that these companies have on a deprived area it is not just the individual that suffers.

 

When one of these companies targets these communities they suck all the money out of the area,they provide no reciprical service in return for their profit they just leave the community ghettoised and derilict.

I could rant on about the related bailiff issue but thats another cause.

 

Sorry about the spelling

 

Best regards

Peter

[maybelline]

BBC NEWS | Business | Home repossessions 'rise by 30%'

 

it is all too clear what is going on

 

CML arrears and possessions statistics

[patrickq1]

remember in the very early 50/60s when banks were totally distrusted and less people wanted to use the banks ,(because the old folk knew of the dangers entrusting banks with your hard earned cash)then banks could nt do enough for its customers.you could call your local manager and he was only to willing to have a chinwag with his customer he would always ask how are you and family how is things with yourself..has nt things changed now you are a number their is only a computor and some nameless and faceless person,they wont even sign their letters now ...the BANKS GREED is now turning and all of us at cag can see this the last nail in their coffin was the T&C the right to process your data with a third party is finally being reilised by every one on here and is now being seriously questioned as to how on earth can we stop this .I FOR ONE HAVE DECIDED SOME YEARS AGO THAT NO MATTER THE COSTS I WILL PROSECUTE THE BANKS OVER THIS ISSUE because i beleive it is immoral and against my HUMAN RIGHTS to share any of my DATA except with the taxman police and a judge i want no other party to be privy to this information unless it has been lawfully instructed by a judge to do so ..the FSO ,TS,FSA have all allowed this fundimental right to be eroded now the trading standards cant even get information from companies concerning complaints against the companies ,i find this incredible,yet the same companies are quite ready to pass on your information to credit reference agancies with impunity.what has gone wrong with us all we are being led like sheep on the banks say so..how dare they process my data without my express permision...this is traficking personal data like they were drug dealers selling drugs

[patrickq1]

i cannot find it in law where it is legal to trade this data without the word of a judge...i stand to be corrected ..but if someone can point me to a lawbook and a judges decision that this is legal

and dont quote its in the T&C i was not party to this ,i was not party to any individual negotiations to this ...it is imposed no sorry it is forced on you ...i have gone through a few contracts that i could find ...i am not refusing to pay the companies i owe money to but at the same time i have sent them a photocopy of the contract and where the offending sentance is i have corrected it by saying you have the right to proces my personal dat to THE POLICE THE TAXMAN,AND A JUDGE ,you shall offer no other information to anyone without my express permission...if you have an objection please write to me so we can re negotiate a contract i beleive would be fair .if on the other hand you wish to rescind your contract then i am only too happy with this and shall then pay you monies owed when we go before a judge to alter the contract in a fair and balanced manner

patrickq1

[shane5408]

i cannot find it in law where it is legal to trade this data without the word of a judge...i stand to be corrected ..but if someone can point me to a lawbook and a judges decision that this is legal

and dont quote its in the T&C i was not party to this ,i was not party to any individual negotiations to this ...it is imposed no sorry it is forced on you ...i have gone through a few contracts that i could find ...i am not refusing to pay the companies i owe money to but at the same time i have sent them a photocopy of the contract and where the offending sentance is i have corrected it by saying you have the right to proces my personal dat to THE POLICE THE TAXMAN,AND A JUDGE ,you shall offer no other information to anyone without my express permission...if you have an objection please write to me so we can re negotiate a contract i beleive would be fair .if on the other hand you wish to rescind your contract then i am only too happy with this and shall then pay you monies owed when we go before a judge to alter the contract in a fair and balanced manner

patrickq1

 

 

Hi Patrick,

 

as you know i agree entirely with your volitions. Just to clarify, from most of the agreements i have seen they stipulate that by signing and accepting the agreement you agree to their t&c's which is where they state you give your consent to them processing your data. Are you arguing then that the agreements you have been sent are improperly executed and lacking the prescribed terms etc etc, so unenforcable hence your consent was never given to the data controller to process your data? Is that the gist of your argument or are you drawing on humanitarian rights, if the latter please enlighten me! the more information i can gather on this subject the better!

 

regards,

shane

[maybelline]

UK regulator urges caution on data sharing | The Register

 

not everyone thinks it is a good idea for so much data sharing, I think you can opt out of the NHS data sharing register and there is a template somewhere. (but who is listening to the public concerns)

[paulwlton]

yes, definately below that sum, started as 2,900 for a car, the rest as they say, is history! now they want £28K!

 

 

Can you elaborate.