Cap1 & CCA return

[maybelline]

but do they care i am still black listed can't even get my date of birth write but the cra say its write because the bank says it is?

ditto, even the ICO could not understand my objections, inaccurate data that creditor has already admitted is wrong and removed but dca wont budge on!! sooooooooooooo frustrating.

[car2403]

Hi,

 

I dont agree

 

They will not have complied with s77 if the copy doesnt have the debtors name and address, crucial bit -

 

" General requirements as to form and content of copy documents

3.-(1) Subject to the following provisions of these Regulations, every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall be a true copy thereof.

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

 

any information included in an executed agreement, security instru¬ment or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy"

 

 

 

 

I stand corrected.

 

The the name and address is required to identify the parties, so should be included in the true copy.

[davey77]

On this subject i received this morning a reply from Halifax after i questioned the validity of the CCA they sent me:

 

[celebrity debtor]

DAVEY 77

 

ask them if they believe what they have sent you will stand up in court also have you got a copy of the original terms and conditions from them -- this is just as important

[davey77]

This is what was sent to me in reply to the CCA request. Card start date according to Experian is June 2006:

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Page1.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/page2.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc1.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc2.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc3.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc4.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc5.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc6.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc7.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc8.jpg

[rosierose]

This is what was sent to me in reply to the CCA request. Card start date according to Experian is June 2006:

Standard response it seems, Davey. Is there even a date?

[davey77]

I had a bunch of statements with it rosierose but the only illusion to a date is the last page of the docs.. T35R TEASBTF 0607

[rosierose]

I had a bunch of statements with it rosierose but the only illusion to a date is the last page of the docs.. T35R TEASBTF 0607

 

I have the same document in front of me

[davey77]

Really? What was your true start date? Must be just a seriel number then and nothing to do with dates as i thought... interesting!

[rosierose]

Really? What was your true start date? Must be just a seriel number then and nothing to do with dates as i thought... interesting!

 

April 07

 

It also doesn't include the correct APR (Mine should be 0% for 12 months)

[davey77]

I hadn't even thought about that aspect! hmmm I can't remember if mine was supposed to have zero.. i don't see myself getting a card without it though. ugh. Complicated stuff...

[celebrity debtor]

This is what was sent to me in reply to the CCA request. Card start date according to Experian is June 2006:

 

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Page1.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/page2.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc1.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc2.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc3.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc4.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc5.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc6.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc7.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t42/davey77_2007/Doc8.jpg

 

 

5.2 if in any month you incur interest and it is less than 50 pence we will make a charge of 50 p which will be added to your account in place of interest.

 

so they are saying if you don't spend money -- meaning get into debt we will make a penalty charge : interesting idea .... seems like there is mileage in this statement

 

16.2 mentions assignment 'rights or duties ' as opposed to 'rights and duties ' see thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/127756-reason-why-mbna-cannot.html

 

17.1 is also rubbish

[davey77]

Thanks CD.. very interesting! I'll go through that link later and see what i can gain from it.

Just been looking at my statements. Seems i transferred £1000 to the card in the Aug and was charged a £20 balance transfer fee. in Sep i had a late charge of £12 with estimated interest for the following month down as £0.14p. In oct i paid £100 and interest is down as £0.13p Suggesting that there was a zero balance available?! hmm going to have to sit down later tonite with my thinking cap on!

[paulwlton]

Hi Peter, are you well?

[Peterbard]

Hi

Be;ow is a letter i sent to the OFT asome months ago regrding the 77-78 issue

 

Dear Mr Aitchison

 

Thank you for your response to my enquiry. Dated 04/10/2007

 

I realise and in fact mentioned in my initial inquiry that the purpose of the section was to procure information regarding active accounts, I must admit to being somewhat bemused by your comments about this function being used as “a method of challenging agreements or, as appears to be occurring more frequently, as a mechanism for avoiding legitimate obligations.”

 

I take it that this is a personal view and does not reflect the opinion of the OFT. I am sure you know it is not a function of the OFT to make judgement of what motivates the public when making use of their statutory rights.

Your departments function in this regard I believe is to fulfil obligations under the directors instruction, via section 4 of the act, to give ”such information and advice as it may appear to him expedient to give to give to the public in the United Kingdom about the operation of this Act, the credit facilities available to them, and other matters within the scope of his functions under this Act.”

 

This also raises a question over your second point that the OFT does not give advice, the many information leaflets issued but the OFT have on their forward the sentence “this has been issued for the advice of business” an example of which is below from the 2002 Enterprise act

“This guidance is intended principally to advise businesses, their legal advisors or representatives, and consumer organisations, of what will happen when enforcers use their powers under Part 8 of the Act. In due course, the OFT intends to produce concise advice leaflets for business and consumers.”

 

The main point of this correspondence is to clear up the question of what is required by the regulations by the 77-78 request so in light of the above definitions of your role as a representative of the OFT I feel that it is within your remit to reply

 

Irrespective of any earlier replies the questions are these.

 

1)

Is it true that apart from the signature boxes the copy sent in response to one of these requests should be a true copy of the one the creditor holds and contain all information therein and only that information, together with other data required by the section?

2)

Is it true that apart from the debtors signature all other aspects of the copy agreement should conform to the agreement regulations in form and content as required by section 180 (1)a.

3)

Is it therefore not also true that if both the above criteria are not met that the creditor is in breach of contract by not supplying them and therefore the account would be in default.

 

In answering the above I would be grateful if you would quote the legislation that illustrates your response.

 

Regards

 

Peter F.Bardsley

 

CC Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory

The Rt. Hon. James Parnell MP

I recieved a response which just said that in his opinion these queries add already been answered and if i wanted the legal proof to go and see a solicitor.

 

I can still see any reason why this interpretation of the legisoation is not totally accurate and to date no one has been able to show the legislation to refute it.

In one court hearing a judje said that he was not about to issue an arder of unenforceability on the breach of section 78 because of the flood gates that would be oppened.is this really good enough.

 

Thiis issue really neds to be properly tested the problem is that it is much easier to let the none complience with section 77-78 slip, and go down the well troden path of trying to prove the agreement improperly executed under section 65/127.

 

The reason of course that the courts do not want to acknowledge the breach of section 77-78 is because the secion states that the creditor may not enforce the agreement the agreement whilst in default. This is in contrast to the precontractural wording of section 65 which states "enforce only by order of the court". In the first case the cort cannot order enforcement of the dreditor is in default, and if you apply the regulations this will allways be the case unless the stipulations as itemised in my letter are followed.

 

Best regards

peter

[Mike220359]

Cnat believe that they are trying to pass this on, still ) and I'm playing devils advocate here) they could argue that this is a true copy of the original agreement according to the SI of 1983, But look at the penalty fees they are stuck at £12, when we all know that they werent reduced until 06/07, so haow can it be the original.

 

Words fail me.

 

Mike

[Peterbard]

Hi Peter, are you well?

 

Hi Paul

 

Not so bad relitively speaking won't be running any marathons of course but not many of us can.

 

Hope you and yours are all fighting fit

Best regards

Peter

[maybelline]

good to see you about Peter:)

[moronic]

Hello - read some of this THREAD- its MASSIVE!!!!!!! so does this mean rule 77 / 78 and 85 are out the window?

[Josie8]

No

[davefirewalker]

Hello - read some of this THREAD- its MASSIVE!!!!!!! so does this mean rule 77 / 78 and 85 are out the window?

 

 

NO.....

 

The rules changed in apr 2007......if you signed the back of a fag packet with an agreement on it with most things missing, it would probably be enforced under the new rules

 

prior to that they had to comply in EVERY detail

 

The main "get out clause" 127 (3) has been repealed...its now upto a judge and his own personal whims

 

S77, 78, 85 still hold true, though how effective they will be we'll have to see.

 

Dave

[maybelline]

BBC NEWS | Business | Egg acts over 'risky' customers

[paulwlton]

How trustworthy is your bank? | Money | The Guardian

[patrickq1]

BBC NEWS | Business | Paying bills by cheque can be expensive

[Peterbard]

BBC NEWS | Business | Egg acts over 'risky' customers

 

Hi

 

Just a thought

 

HI

Has anyone lookes into the legalities of this action.

The consumer credit act gives the crditor the option of terminating the account given the statutory notice and with just cause but the act says that the creditor is to supply credit upto the crdit limiton a correctly executed agreement, to arbitralrily remove this without just cause is surely in breach of the act.

Wnatever it says within the Egg terms and conditions the no opting out clause of the Consumer Credit Act ensure that no terms in the creditors T and cs can overide the act. Isn't this unlawful recession of contract.

Best regards

Peter