Cap1 & CCA return

[patrickq1]

333 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the

agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and

backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be

orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated.

As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and

the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which

are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the

minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.

thanks to curlyben for this

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

Under SI 1983/1553 the prescribed terms must be within the signature document

[davefirewalker]

But the signature document can be several pages....or more. It is proving what belongs to the "signature document" that is the problem

 

just re subscribing.....must have got deleted when the system went down

 

Dave

[trevor33]

Going back to my agreement posted earlier in this thread. The T&C was on a seperate sheet and both were photocopies. Can I assume that a judge might not accept this as a true copy of agreement.

[trevor33]

Could someone clarify something for me please. I have read loads of posts on, what is, and, what is not, an enforceable agreement.

My agreement was not signed and dated by OC but signed by me. Is this enforceable?

[butwhy]

Hi All,

 

i was redirected here from the PPI forum as I'm having a little trouble with my claim against Lloyds for a mis-sold Credit card PPI.

 

Basically, I was sold a PPI over the phone by an advisor while i was a student at uni working only 13 hours a week. I don't recall signing any documentation for it as I rarely went INTO a branch at all.

 

But after sending them an S.A.R. they have sent me a copy of a credit agreement which I apparently signed in 2001. It's stamped 2002 though. I don't understand why this would be. Also, the form has not been completed in my handwriting but it IS my signature and some of the details are incorrect. For example, the salary info is above what I was earning at the time.

 

Now the thing is, I need to contest the fact that I wasn't sold the policy properly because it only came to my attention that this wasn't valid due to all the recent publicity surrounding mis-selling. Otherwise I would never have known that I was not working the minimum required hours to be able to make a valid claim for this.

 

The form they have sent me is located here:

 

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj283/butwhypics/CCA-page1.jpg

 

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj283/butwhypics/CCAterms.jpg

 

The form is dated Jan 2001 but stamped 2002. I turned 18 in May of 2001, so how could I have been allowed to apply for a credit card at that age?

 

The only thing I remember applying for before I turned 18 was a visa debit card as I only had a cashpoint card at the time. So is it possible that they have confused the 2 agreements?

 

I would really appreciate some advice on this and how to approach the bank as they've managed to rip me off for approx £800 and i want it back!!

[patrickq1]

this is an application and as for PPI yes you have a right to claim back every penny you did not sign for PPI as far as you are concerned and aws you say someone must have ticked the space and you have only just become aware due to all the publicity

patrickq1

[butwhy]

Thanks for your quick response patrickq1.

 

I have almost all copies of pay slips dating back to this period of time so what is the best way to approach this?

 

Should I write a letter directly to Lloyds stating that I have all proof and also providing copies of these OR go straight to the court route and file a claim?

[car2403]

Going back to my agreement posted earlier in this thread. The T&C was on a seperate sheet and both were photocopies. Can I assume that a judge might not accept this as a true copy of agreement.

 

The T&C's can be on a seperate sheet, but the prescribed terms must be in the signature document itself, and the T&C's should be referenced within the agreement to show a relation.

 

A true copy of the original agreement and a copy of the T&C's under it will make the agreement enforceable, IMHO. As you can see from recent posts here, others agree, but I think a Judge will take a view it's enforceable, even if only a copy of the original is produced.

 

A photocopy is a true copy of the agreement.

[car2403]

Could someone clarify something for me please. I have read loads of posts on, what is, and, what is not, an enforceable agreement.

My agreement was not signed and dated by OC but signed by me. Is this enforceable?

 

The argument here is that its a prospective agreement under s.59 CCA 1974 and is not binding as a result.

 

The problem here being that this section makes the agreement "void", not "unenforceable", so using this could result in a successful counterclaim for the original amount loaned under the agreement. A void agreement would mean you weren't entitled to receive this benefit, so the Court could order that you have to repay the original debt without interest/charges under the agreement.

 

Personally, I don't think an agreement unsigned by a creditor would be deemed void - at best this would be improperly executed, enforceable with a Court Order, as the creditor isn't required to "sign" the agreement as a company logo would do, (for example) and at worst it would be enforceable.

[patrickq1]

thanks but ,i think you would be better to start your own thread,but looking at the agreement you also have not signed allowing them to share your data,has anyone else got a lloyds agreement from 2001 looking at this application looks ok but does nt look right somehow ..something looks weird you did nt by any chance sign a letter when asking for your cca did you as for the PPI you do have a claim being a student and just on a nominal wages and prob working less that 16 hours this is not as far as i know valid for PPI so you have a definate claim for PPI, so you need to start a new thread

then someone will sort htis for you and guide you through the best course of action but by all means do start your claim for the PPI so a SAR would be in order to see how much PPI you have paid to date

patrickq1

[trevor33]

The argument here is that its a prospective agreement under s.59 CCA 1974 and is not binding as a result.

 

The problem here being that this section makes the agreement "void", not "unenforceable", so using this could result in a successful counterclaim for the original amount loaned under the agreement. A void agreement would mean you weren't entitled to receive this benefit, so the Court could order that you have to repay the original debt without interest/charges under the agreement.

 

Personally, I don't think an agreement unsigned by a creditor would be deemed void - at best this would be improperly executed, enforceable with a Court Order, as the creditor isn't required to "sign" the agreement as a company logo would do, (for example) and at worst it would be enforceable.

Thanx for that car2403.

I do have an issue about this agreement with both the OC and the DCA. Would this thread be the best place to discuss this or start a new thread.

[car2403]

Thanx for that car2403.

I do have an issue about this agreement with both the OC and the DCA. Would this thread be the best place to discuss this or start a new thread.

 

If it's not related to the agreement, in your own thread.

[trevor33]

I was directed to this thread by Priority1 to check on the agreement. My issues are with non-compliance with SAR and CCA requests.

If anyone can help with these my thread is......

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hfc-household/130898-hfc-agreement-turned-up.html

 

Thanx all T33

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I have seen around 6 judges, all of which seem to go for the original

 

This is good news.

 

Like you say basically they could have added anything to the agreement very easily, like the perscribed terms. And they are still in default on the section 78 request as they have still not supplied the original T&C.

 

Its a pitty my T/S think that the most uptodate T&C are OK.

 

HAK

[Jeff2000]

But the signature document can be several pages....or more. It is proving what belongs to the "signature document" that is the problem

 

just re subscribing.....must have got deleted when the system went down

 

Dave

 

 

Hi,

 

 

Hence you need to see the original!!!

 

 

Jeff.

[patrickq1]

trevor i was refering to BUTWHY but there again this thread is in relation to aggreements,sorry you thought i was reffering to you

this is from peter bardsley HAK

on a few threads back

Re; your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of your companies current Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act.

 

To clarify:

 

On the 29th of December 2006 in response query Ian McCartney MP replied to a letter in his then role as minister for the department of Trade and Industry he stated this, “Mr Bardsley describes a situation in which he was sent a copy of a company’s standard Terms and Conditions when requesting a copy of a signed agreement form. Just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement”

 

This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.”

This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

 

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

 

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

 

And more importantly

 

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

 

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

 

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

 

The regulations state:

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

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instru­ment 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;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, what is being overlooked is the part highlighted, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

 

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

 

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.

 

It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues

 

Best regards

Peter

__________________

[noomill060]

This form may be of use to some CAG-gers being hassled by idiot DCAs.

 

The form is well hidden on the OFT's website and appears to be for the use of solicitors, but I see no reason why individuals cant use to to bring DCA harassment to the attention of the authorities.

 

Read this from the OFT-

 

The complaints form relates to the 2006 OFT Debt Collection Guidance report http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...dit/oft664.pdf

 

This complaints form oft debt collection complaint form is asking for info on those DCAs who are failing to abide by OFT Guidelines on Debt Collection

 

 

oft debt collection complaint form

 

Click on this link and you will get a PDF complaint form from the OFT.

 

Print it off, complete it and send it to:

 

Enquiries Centre

Office of Fair Trading

FREEPOST

London

EC4B 4AH

 

The more people who do this, the more chance we have of something being done.

[paulwlton]

The OFT have finally conceded after taking legal advice that the debtor's name and address MUST be contained in the "true copy" provided under sec 77-79. However, they are not prepared to email me or put this in writing, luckily, i have this confirmation recorded.

 

This is potentially bad news for a certain bank who are misleading their customers in claiming the law allows the bank to omit the debtor's name and address.

 

Paul

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Paul

 

OFT are doing my head in!!!

 

Its about time somebody there gives us the correct answers once and for all:mad:

[gaz2006]

Hi Why wont the oft put in writing what you say they said surely thast what they are there for to uphold the correct points of the contract etc perhaps a complaint against the oft through their own internal procedures as to why they wont confirm this is necessary

[paulwlton]

Hi Why wont the oft put in writing what you say they said surely thast what they are there for to uphold the correct points of the contract etc perhaps a complaint against the oft through their own internal procedures as to why they wont confirm this is necessary

 

Because the OFTs view is that the debtor's use of sec 77 -79 is merely a mechanism to avoid paying back a legitimate debt, and the fact that ex bankers have senior roles there tells its own story.

 

Paul

[gaz2006]

Because the OFTs view is that the debtor's use of sec 77 -79 is merely a mechanism to avoid paying back a legitimate debt, and the fact that ex bankers have senior roles there tells its own story.

 

Paul

But thats defeating hwole object they are regulators and must follow the law and be see to be impartial

[patrickq1]

Well Done Paul,i think this can put an end to an endless arguement that has been going on in this thread week after week TRUE COPY and not a reconstructed load of garbage,,good on you mate

patrickq1

[Jeff2000]

Well Done Paul,i think this can put an end to an endless arguement that has been going on in this thread week after week TRUE COPY and not a reconstructed load of garbage,,good on you mate

patrickq1

 

 

 

 

Hear! Hear!

 

Just the info we've been after!

 

 

Jeff.