Cap1 & CCA return

[FANTASY CHARGES]

ULTRA SHORT APPLICATION CERTIFICATE.

 

 

 

 

 

this is a consumer credit agreement.

 

Could this be the clanger?.

 

 

NO THIS IS ULTRA !!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/125619-cap-1-valid-agreement.html?highlight=ULTRA+SHORT

 

 

[stapeley]

surely this is just an application . There is not details on rates etc and importantly no mention of the amount of credit or credit limit .

[davefirewalker]

Hi FC

 

wow thats twice the size of mine........

 

and its got the creditors name and a sig (squigle).......why thats almost massive very nearly enforceable...if it had all the prescribed terms on it and a load of other stuff

 

Dave

[paulwlton]

You have a "form" i have a "certificate"

 

[ian1969uk]

As Harry Hill would say:

 

"But which is better, a form or a certificate?

 

There's only one way to find out......

 

FIGHT!!!!"

 

[davefirewalker]

Even thats huge........

 

I'm not being sizeist here (if thats a word)..but I'm proud that Ive got a small one....(if you know what I mean)

 

I'm quite happy in ALL other departments thank you

 

Dave

[noomill060]

Apparently, its not the size, its knowing what to do with it that counts...

[davefirewalker]

Apparently, its not the size, its knowing what to do with it that counts...

 

There speaks a man (or woman) that obviously knows what they are talking about......

 

Dave

[noomill060]

Harry Hill might also say:

 

"Not an agreement, simply an illusion and the power of suggestion"

 

What ARE you on about, Dave?

[Goldlady]

Well I am delighted to say that I haven't got one at all:eek:.

[car2403]

I did have one, but it wasn't used too often so I've now lost it - not bothered though, as I can easily go out and find another if I need one urgently...

 

[noomill060]

Just make sure it complies with s.60 and s.61 of the CCA1974, otherwise it maybe unenforceable without the assistance of a senior member of the judiciary.

 

[noomill060]

Failing that, Basil could give you a hand. (But he'd want 20% upfront)

[Goldlady]

I'm sure there is something fawlty in the logic of charging 20%

[un1boy]

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

[car2403]

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

 

The allocation notice will give 7 days for the order to be queried, but there will have to be a formal application notice submitted with the reasons why.

 

Wasn't there an AQ submitted with a Draft Order for Directions, that agreed to allocation to the small claims track?

[davefirewalker]

hang on a mo........£52k ??? I thought the limit for CCA was £25k

 

WHAT sort of charges have been put on this ???

 

Dave

[elizabeth1]

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

 

 

Where is this happening? (which court?)

 

Surely this should be small claims track cause it's under £1k

But maybe it's because the costs by the lenders are likely to be hefty and over small claims ceilings?

 

Would be interesting to see the actual claim and the lenders defence reasoning for this claim - there must be something that can be done about this surely.

 

I am watching time and time again these companies usimg "costs" as their axe to grind claimants down - it's high time some of these Judges saw through the tactics of these lenders and began dealing with their antics - seems the cases get passed over because people don't want to make decisions about these ruthless lenders?

 

Maybe I been in CAG too long and just cynical about what goes on with these lenders?

[un1boy]

AQ's were entered saying small claims track - they put an application saying they wanted it transferred to multi.

 

The hearing was heard and the Judge agreed. He has "stayed" the claim for 56 days so my friend can decide.

 

The balance of 52k is the total balance since it opened. I think the current outstanding is only 9k - but he is only claiming £980!!

 

The bank argued that as he is basically going to benefit and effectively obtain 9k it should be head in multi so that the court can consider the whole circumstances and rule accordingly.

 

The thing with multi is it's proof beyond reasonable doubt isnt it? The only reason theyve asked for this is to scare my friend - the fact is they dont even have an agreement and have admitted this in writing!!!

[car2403]

AQ's were entered saying small claims track - they put an application saying they wanted it transferred to multi.

 

The hearing was heard and the Judge agreed. He has "stayed" the claim for 56 days so my friend can decide.

 

The balance of 52k is the total balance since it opened. I think the current outstanding is only 9k - but he is only claiming £980!!

 

The bank argued that as he is basically going to benefit and effectively obtain 9k it should be head in multi so that the court can consider the whole circumstances and rule accordingly.

 

The thing with multi is it's proof beyond reasonable doubt isnt it? The only reason theyve asked for this is to scare my friend - the fact is they dont even have an agreement and have admitted this in writing!!!

 

Did your friend attend the application hearing and argue against multi- allocation?

 

Regardless of the claim amount, the court can allocate to any track and (even if it's in small claim) can award any amount in Judgment despite what the claim is for - the Judge must agree with the Bank that the whole agreement needs to be considered, so what is it that he is claiming for? Sounds to me like the creditor is going to try to counterclaim for the balance of the agreement, so continuing would be ill-advised, unless the claim is sound and watertight, IMHO. If they have admitted there's no agreement, they are bound by this by s.172 CCA 1974, however.

 

All Civil cases have an evidential burden of on the balance of probabilites - only Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt, as there's a risk of imprisonment.

 

I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do, but I do think this is best off in it's own thread, un1, as it needs some specific advice as to how to move it on - doing this here isn't going to work as it will get lost.

[un1boy]

Thanks Car - here's the thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/127572-cca-claim-sent-multi.html

[Juslookin]

According to their website, its something to do with upper case letters being used where lower case is necessary!

 

Eh?

 

 

The reasoning goes something like this:

 

The banks are corporations and work under commercial law. Human beings cannot work under commercial law so, in theory the bank cannot contract with us. Therefore after you have signed the agreement the bank opens up another account in your name BUT in CAPS. This account is opened up as a coporate account (or a trust). wHEN YOU SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT U WERE SIGNING AS A SURETY FOR THAT ACCOUNT (IN cAPS). tHE BANKs CALL IT A TRANASACTION ACCOUNT. (sorry bout caps) So, when the statements come for payment, your name is in capital letters, which is not you as a human being, it is your 'trust' account. So, effectivley you don't owe them the money as,this then is misrepresentation under contract law. ( Now don't shoot me I'm only the messenger) there is another company doing this on my thread EDIT

[Juslookin]

Below are details of the company they use as their regisrered address. ( Assuming it is not them, although I think it is)

 

Accounting Reference Date: 31/07

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/07/2006 (DORMANT)

Next Accounts Due: 31/05/2008

Last Return Made Up To: 18/07/2007

Next Return Due: 15/08/2008

[tifo]

The reasoning goes something like this:

 

The banks are corporations and work under commercial law. Human beings cannot work under commercial law so, in theory the bank cannot contract with us. Therefore after you have signed the agreement the bank opens up another account in your name BUT in CAPS. This account is opened up as a coporate account (or a trust). wHEN YOU SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT U WERE SIGNING AS A SURETY FOR THAT ACCOUNT (IN cAPS). tHE BANKs CALL IT A TRANASACTION ACCOUNT. (sorry bout caps) So, when the statements come for payment, your name is in capital letters, which is not you as a human being, it is your 'trust' account. So, effectivley you don't owe them the money as,this then is misrepresentation under contract law.

 

Where has this come from and do you have more info on it?

[Juslookin]

Ok, this is what I have found out.

After you have signed the credit agreement, you get a copy. After you have left, the bank stamps the back of this and writes:

Pay £xxx to the order of ( the bank). This is sent to the BofE and held on deposit against the account in CAPS. This changes the credit agreement into a promissory note which can then be treated as cash by the bank.

This makes the agreement unenforceable because they have changed a financial instrument into another one for the sole purpose of benefitting the bank. I understand that this is also fraud.

As the bank then treats this as cash, if you borrowed £5K, the bank use this promissory note as cash and so, using fractional reserve banking, they can then multiply this £5K and 'lend' out £45K to others. ( of course they don't actually lend the money, it's just book keeping entries) So the bank has lent you NOTHING, but demands you repay the capital they never lent you PLUS interest.

As far as I amn aware, the bakn /CC company cannot prove they actually lent you MONEY.