Jump to content


Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4906 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Alternatively you could sign your partner's name and he could sign for you. This is what I have been doing for some while now and it has been accepted. :)

 

Or, just "PP" it!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Just a quick question. If a claimant's claim is struck out (because they didn't respond to the defendant's defence (as ordered by the judge), can the defendant then claim costs. I am in this situation and wondered if I can submit a claim to the court, as the claims were quite far along at the time they were struck out. Thanks, Magda

 

I would have thought you can enter a wasted costs order?!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

It seems a few creditors are using section 61(b) of the act to argue that the prescribed terms can be "embodied within" an agreement (ie elswhere, as long as expessly mentioned), in fact the prescribed terms are to be contained within the agreement as referred to in section 61(a), section 61(b) refers to other terms.

 

The term "contained" as in 61(a) and SI 1983/1553 refers to the terms as prescribed by section 60, and specifically to those as defined in schedule 6 of the SI.This means that means they should be within the document and cannot be in another one(even if experessly refferred to). This is the position taken by Goode and is generally accepted.

 

Regards

Peter

 

Best regards

Peter

  • Haha 2

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

It seems a few creditors are using section 61(b) of the act to argue that the prescribed terms can be "embodied within" an agreement (ie elswhere, as long as expessly mentioned), in fact the prescribed terms are to be contained within the agreement as referred to in section 61(a), section 61(b) refers to other terms.

 

The term "contained" as in 61(a) and SI 1983/1553 refers to the terms as prescribed by section 60, and specifically to those as defined in schedule 6 of the SI.This means that means they should be within the document and cannot be in another one(even if experessly refferred to). This is the position taken by Goode and is generally accepted.

 

Regards

Peter

 

Best regards

Peter

 

Yes, and this was also the approach taken by the Wilson case judges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all in the Goode Consumer Credit Law and Practice (page 322) or Blackstone's Guide to the Consumer Credit Act.

Edited by ukaviator

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

:-? i have just recently become aware of a contract law with regards to any unsecured loans/credit cards taken out before April 2007 and a way that these debts can be written off. i would like to know if this is for real and of any companies that deal in this for you or if you can go about this yourself. please let me know any info with regards to this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning everyone.I recieved this letter on 23rd Sept.From ARC Europe acting for EGG Credit card.I have recieved a two page badly copied CCA afrom egg dated december 200.(TWO ZERO ZERO) and a second page different type face apparently signed by me in Jan 02.Statements from 2004 and some from 2006.Before I discovered this forum I sent egg and arc alist of liabilities etc and offered £1.per month I signed a DD to arc for £1.00 payable over the next 999 months I'm 60 so this will run untill I'm 143 years old.Here is extract from ARC letter How do I respond?

 

Thank you tor your recent letter received on !"' September. Your letter acknowledges the documents we received from our dient following your request and these were enclosed with our letter of 19th August. Our instructions are that the documents, supplied are compliant and you may wish to take legal advise in this respect. Although Your letter states that you dispute the debt, you have so far given no grounds for a defence to our client's claim for the above balanceon your account. In fact, to the contrary. vou have provided us with Information as to your financial circumstances and made ten payments towards the debt. If vou deny having entered into an agreement our client or having used the credit card, please confirm this in writing in order that we may seek our client's further instructions. Would you also please specify whether you deny all or just part of the above balance?

! wil! place this account on hold for a final seven day period and would be grateful for your reply within that period.

 

Thanks for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning everyone.I recieved this letter on 23rd Sept.From ARC Europe acting for EGG Credit card.I have recieved a two page badly copied CCA afrom egg dated december 200.(TWO ZERO ZERO) and a second page different type face apparently signed by me in Jan 02.Statements from 2004 and some from 2006.Before I discovered this forum I sent egg and arc alist of liabilities etc and offered £1.per month I signed a DD to arc for £1.00 payable over the next 999 months I'm 60 so this will run untill I'm 143 years old.Here is extract from ARC letter How do I respond?

 

Thank you tor your recent letter received on !"' September. Your letter acknowledges the documents we received from our dient following your request and these were enclosed with our letter of 19th August. Our instructions are that the documents, supplied are compliant and you may wish to take legal advise in this respect. Although Your letter states that you dispute the debt, you have so far given no grounds for a defence to our client's claim for the above balanceon your account. In fact, to the contrary. vou have provided us with Information as to your financial circumstances and made ten payments towards the debt. If vou deny having entered into an agreement our client or having used the credit card, please confirm this in writing in order that we may seek our client's further instructions. Would you also please specify whether you deny all or just part of the above balance?

! wil! place this account on hold for a final seven day period and would be grateful for your reply within that period.

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Hi Loramos, Whether you entered into an agreement or not, or whether you used the credit card is irrelevant. You are actually disputing the enforceability of the agreement in question. The fact that you previously made repayments to the account is irrelevant also. Egg need to provide a CCA containing all of the prescribed terms, together with the T&Cs applicable at that time and also a statement of account.

 

I also had an egg credit card which was being handled by Moorcroft. I asked for a copy of my CCA and they sent a two page doc, which sounds exactly like yours. I had read on the forum that it was enforceable, but contacted Moorcroft anyway and disputed the fact that it is over two pages, with no apparent link between either page, also stated that t&c's had not bee provided or statement of account. I didn't hear anything from Moorcroft for several months. They finally contacted me again around two months ago stating that egg were going to send t&c's to me, but I haven't heard anything since and they don't appear to be pursuing the debt, which is unusual for Moorcroft.

 

I think it is certainly worth contacting the company again and highlighting any issues you have with the docs they have sent so far and then take it from there.

 

Good luck,

 

Magda

Edited by MAGDA
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The term "contained" as in 61(a) and SI 1983/1553 refers to the terms as prescribed by section 60, and specifically to those as defined in schedule 6 of the SI.This means that means they should be within the document and cannot be in another one(even if experessly refferred to). This is the position taken by Goode and is generally accepted.

 

Not only Goode but case law also :

TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

"33 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."

Link to post
Share on other sites

JUST A QUICK HI-JACK

 

OFCOM FINES BARCLAYCARD £50,000 TODAY

 

"Barclaycard: Made persistent silent calls to customers.

Britain's biggest credit card company has been fined £50,000 by the telecoms regulator for making silent and abandoned phone calls to UK customers.

Following an Ofcom investigation between October 1 2006 and May 10 2007, Barclaycard was found guilty of "the most serious case of persistent misuse" of silent calls the regulator had ever seen.

Such calls occur when call centres using automated systems generate more calls than their available agents can deal with, leaving many consumers picking up a silent phone call.

Handing out its maximum fine - and the biggest ever for this kind of case - Ofcom said the card provider had made "an extremely high number" of silent calls.

As well as breaching rules which require that such calls should not make up more than 3% of live calls made in a 24-hour period, Barclaycard broke Ofcom's rule that all abandoned calls must carry a short recorded information message identifying the source of the call.

It also failed to provide calling line identification, which allows people to dial 1471 to find out who called them.

Ofcom also found some of Barclaycard's call centres had no procedures in place to prevent people receiving repeated abandoned calls over a short period of time.

Although not made maliciously the watchdog said silent calls caused inconvenience and anxiety for thousands of people every month

Ofcom's chief executive, Ed Richards, said: "Taken as a whole this is the most serious case of persistent misuse by making silent and abandoned calls that Ofcom has ever investigated.

"Had we not been limited by the statutory maximum we would have imposed a larger financial penalty to reflect this misuse."

Barclaycard said it accepted Ofcom's findings and the resulting fine, and apologised to its customers.

A spokesman said: "Many of these calls were made with the intention of bringing potentially fraudulent activity to the attention of the card holder.

"Nevertheless, we recognise that all calls, irrespective of the purpose, should be made in the right way and we accept that our processes, in place at the time of the review by Ofcom, were inadequate.

"As a result we offer a full apology for any inconvenience and distress to our customers that these calls caused."

He added that the firm was now operating within the regulator's rules. "We have made robust and lasting changes to our processes, operations and reporting to ensure we continue to be compliant and to provide the highest levels of service to all our customers."

A spokeswoman for Ofcom said the regulator was satisfied that this was the case, but would not hesitate to act if Barclaycard was found to breach its rules again.

Abbey National, Carphone Warehouse and Toucan have been fined in the past for using silent calls.

"

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick opinion needed from the CCA experts on this thread please.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/160631-recieved-my-mbna-cca-3.html#post1733062

 

Thanks guys:D

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies for butting in but I would be grateful if someone could give me a definitive answer on the following:

 

Firstly, I have an agreemeent that has been deemed, irredeemably unenforceable.

 

I was defaulted by the OC in 2007, whilst in dispute over PPI etc

 

The alleged debt was then sold to a DCA, although I was not served with a notice of assignment from the OC.

 

The DCA registered the default with a CRA in the name of the OC and their own name.

 

I have never acknowledged the debt with the CRA and...have relentlessly pursued the DCA for documantary evidence that they are legally entitled to collect on the alleged debt, or register data with the CRA.

 

The CRA has ignored all my correspondence and questions relating to the purported assignment; absolute or equitable; Are you the Creditor? they will not answer.

 

Now out of the blue, I am served with an NOD by the DCA, the DCA states that they will to default the account October 2008 and then terminate, but it has already been defaulted and terminated in 2007 by the OC.

 

In a nutshell, can this DCA default the account again and then terminate; when the account has already been defaulted and terminated by the OC.

 

Note, the default notice, does not give the required 14 days; just 9 days; therefore it would be ineffective.

 

I would be very grateful if someone with espertise on the issue of defaults could clarify my query.

 

Thank You.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello AC!

 

As I understand it, if the Account was Terminated on the back of an invalid Default Notice, then it's a case of Unlawful Rescission of Contract.

 

In effect, the OC has denied themselves, or any DCA following on thereafter, the Right to take you to Court to Enforce the Debt.

 

The DCA is just making up new Rules as it goes along!

 

If the OC has blown the requirements of s87(1), but still went ahead and Terminated the Account irrespective of this, then that's it. Game over.

 

They have lost the Right to Enforce. They can't go back to fix this error once the Account is ended, as there is no longer a live Account to Default. They have failed to close it in the lawfully prescribed manner, but close it they have. Tough beans.

 

To Enforce, they need a Default Notice. Except they no longer have a valid one to wave at you! The one they did create may as well be a Banana for all the use it will be to them, that's if it is invalid/defective.

 

Once an Account is Terminated, it can't be un-Terminated without your Consent. In theory, to re-activate it, would mean a new Credit Agreement. I doubt you would want to agree to that.

 

They can't just open and close and open and close Accounts willy nilly, as the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is there for a reason to control this. The CCA Regulates the Opening and Closing of Agreements. They have to be set-up/Opened correctly, and they have to be closed/Terminated correctly.

 

The Unlawful Rescission of Contract also then opens up the scope to seek compensation from them...see below:

 

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DEFAULT AND TERMINATE AN AGREEMENT CORRECTLY

 

Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such Notice, (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998 ) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers [2005] EWCA Civ 147) but would also give the Claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1,000. (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119)

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello AC!

 

As I understand it, if the Account was Terminated on the back of an invalid Default Notice, then it's a case of Unlawful Rescission of Contract.

 

In effect, the OC has denied themselves, or any DCA following on thereafter, the Right to take you to Court to Enforce the Debt.

 

The DCA is just making up new Rules as it goes along!

 

If the OC has blown the requirements of s87(1), but still went ahead and Terminated the Account irrespective of this, then that's it. Game over.

 

They have lost the Right to Enforce. They can't go back to fix this error once the Account is ended, as there is no longer a live Account to Default. They have failed to close it in the lawfully prescribed manner, but close it they have. Tough beans.

 

To Enforce, they need a Default Notice. Except they no longer have a valid one to wave at you! The one they did create may as well be a Banana for all the use it will be to them, that's if it is invalid/defective.

 

Once an Account is Terminated, it can't be un-Terminated without your Consent. In theory, to re-activate it, would mean a new Credit Agreement. I doubt you would want to agree to that.

 

They can't just open and close and open and close Accounts willy nilly, as the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is there for a reason to control this. The CCA Regulates the Opening and Closing of Agreements. They have to be set-up/Opened correctly, and they have to be closed/Terminated correctly.

 

The Unlawful Rescission of Contract also then opens up the scope to seek compensation from them...see below:

 

 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Hello BRW

 

Hope your are well and I see you are still fighting the good cause. I must thank you for this post, it is invaluable to my disputes and will give me more ammunition to fire back at them.

 

Can I please ask for the list of specific legislaton under the cca and any other legislation pinning down the finer points for the arguements.

 

Any other info would be most appreciated:-D

If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal experiences. I have no legal training, but have educated myself in aspects of consumer legislation. My motto "NEVER GIVE IN, NEVER SURRENDER", THERE IS A WAR ON YOU KNOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello HHNF!

 

At the moment, it's really a case of quoting what is already in the CCA, and then researching existing Cases to quote in order to back this up.

 

Indeed, this is my understanding, so it would be good to discuss it here and I hope that some of those more experienced in the CCA and Court will add their comments.

 

To stress, the above is my understanding of the position, and I feel it is valid if you think it through. The cases I mention from another CAGGER's Thread seem to support this.

 

The battle, as ever, is then making sure a Judge follows the logic and comes to the same conclusion.

 

The Judge Lottery still has a lot to answer for! Likewise, you may have to push this past a slippery Barrister working hard for the enemy! Sometimes Victory or Defeat can come down to your luck on the day.

 

Thanks for the click BTW, I just hope the above helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I am just looking through the Consumer Credit Agreement 1983. regarding signature boxes.

 

I know it has to have the set wording in the box but I can not find the bit were it mentions the box...

 

Should it be a set size etc???

 

Any comments as looking at the act if it does not contain the wording it possibe is not legal.

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4906 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...