Cap1 & CCA return

[car2403]

Interesting point: what does 'provision' mean in that context, that subsection. One for the legal bods? Interesting, and this is what we have to watch out for - interperatation of the law..

 

The word provision isn't defined by the Act, so the dictionary definition of the word would suffice;

 

"something provided"

 

It this context, it seems to mean terms of agreement, which I'm sure a Judge would go along with unless there was good reason to rebut that assumption. (I can't think of one?)

[MAGDA]

When you write to dispute a CCA, it is not advisable to give the reasons for the dispute in detail. That way, they cannot write back to you in the way that they done.

 

This is what I use. It is then up to them to second guess what is wrong.

 

Remember it is not up to you to prove the CCA is invalid, it is up to them to prove that it is:

 

Account In Dispute

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: my request under s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Thank you for your recent letter sent to me dated **DATE**, the contents of which are noted. However, the reply received by me does not fulfil your requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The Act demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter, dated **DATE**. Upon receipt of the original request the specified account legally entered into disputed status.

 

My request remains outstanding. The supplied documentation does not constitute a true copy of a credit agreement and that which you sent doesn't even contain all the prescribed terms and is not 'properly executed'. The statements sent do not correspond to the amount stated in your earliest correspondence and therefore they do not satisfy the requirement to supply me with a statement of account.

 

As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law.

 

You had until **12 days DATE** to provide me with the true copy I requested. After that date you entered into default of my request. Whilst the account is in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agencies (or any third party).

 

To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the data subject to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this.

 

The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. Any such attempts to share my data without my consent will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

The time limits, which are laid down in the Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 are clear. You must supply an executed credit agreement within 12 working days of a proper CCA request. If you fail to comply with a legitimate request the account enters a default situation. . You entered into a default on **12 Days DATE**

 

Therefore you have 7 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint, otherwise your conduct will be reported to the Office of Fair Trading, the Financial Ombudsman and Trading Standards. Any investigation undertaken by them may affect your ability to hold a consumer credit license in the future.

 

Take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

 

Communicate in writing and ONLY in writing, your telephone calls will NOT be answered.

 

To sum up, I will not be making any further payments to you until you provide me with the document I have requested. Should you not have any signed credit agreement in relation to this alleged debt, please confirm this in writing to me.

 

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Thanks, I see your point, although with Cabot I think they seem to just send this letter out regardless. They have been nice and quiet for around a year now, so I guess they thought it was time to get back in touch again, although I'd much rather they didn't bother:)

 

It's all here, you just need to know where to look

 

 

Thanks Peter!

 

I know, just haven't got time at the moment to plough through such a huge thread - so thanks for providing the info from Peter - just what I needed. many thanks car, Magda

[MAGDA]

The word provision isn't defined by the Act, so the dictionary definition of the word would suffice;

 

"something provided"

 

It this context, it seems to mean terms of agreement, which I'm sure a Judge would go along with unless there was good reason to rebut that assumption. (I can't think of one?)

 

When you say "terms" I take it you mean general terms and not the prescribed terms though?

[FlyboyAgain]

provision - it's not explicit enough.

[car2403]

When you say "terms" I take it you mean general terms and not the prescribed terms though?

 

Yup

 

provision - it's not explicit enough.

 

There are many rules of Statutory Interpretation - too many to list and go in to here - but there are plenty of cases that have been decided to date which describe what is required by these sections. Reading them outside of that context will be confusing.

[MAGDA]

Yup

 

 

 

 

thanks:)

[uptoeyeballs]

Hi all,

 

Being following the advice on here and got my 1st agreement back.

 

I've set up a new thread.

 

Could someone have a Squint for me.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/214796-uptoeyeballs-cahoot-credit-card.html

 

Thanks!

[andrew1]

A further point with all this, I forgot to mention earlier. When i received my "CCAs", in all cases there were faults that according to my solicitor made them unenforecbale. Yes, I realise that in theory, only a court can decide that but as stated above in the thread, it's a question of who is bothering to go to court anyway. I sent the template letter about having an unenforecbale CCA (I posted it on the forums for all to see). However, I forgot to mention that I added a little paragraph like this:

 

To sum up, I will not be making any further payments to you until you provide me with the document I have requested. Should you not have any signed credit agreement in relation to this alleged debt, please confirm this in writing to me.

 

However, as a matter of goodwill, I am prepared to offer a full and final settlement of 500 pounds-20% of the original amount outstanding to Egg, which was 2500 pounds. You have 7 days from the date of this letter to accept my settlement offer, after which it will be withdrawn.

 

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

Did you get any response from Egg on this alisindebt?

[uptoeyeballs]

Hi all,

 

Created a new thread for this, but hoping someone could check these figures for me.

 

From the agreement:

 

Loan Details

Loan £20000.00

Repayment protection premium £0.00

Total amount of loan £20000.00

Total charge for credit (interest) £7279.84

Total amount you have to pay £27279.84

Annual percentage rate (APR) 17.4%

You have to pay us the following installments 48 monthly payments of £568.33

 

Thanks!

[king123]

Would some kind person with knowledge of these things please look at the document Egg have sent me in response to my CCA request? It would be much appreciated!

[car2403]

Hi all,

 

Created a new thread for this, but hoping someone could check these figures for me.

 

From the agreement:

 

Loan Details

Loan £20000.00

Repayment protection premium £0.00

Total amount of loan £20000.00

Total charge for credit (interest) £7279.84

Total amount you have to pay £27279.84

Annual percentage rate (APR) 17.4%

You have to pay us the following installments 48 monthly payments of £568.33

 

Thanks!

 

Answered on your thread;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/215079-uptoeyeballs-lombard-direct-rbs.html

 

Would some kind person with knowledge of these things please look at the document Egg have sent me in response to my CCA request? It would be much appreciated!

 

Answered on your thread

[uptoeyeballs]

Finaly read the whole of this thread!

[noomill060]

How long did that take you, eyeballs????

[texanbar]

Blimey... full credit to you upto....

 

x:)x

[enoughisenough]

Heroic effort. Upto is now the sole authority on this thread. Please direct all questions via pm to upto!

[andrew1]

Calm down, we old timers read these all the time!

 

Question and thought for the day:

 

Mortgage taken out for new house in November 1989 for £180k

 

Same day, same lender, further advance for home improvements documented separately as a Further Advance from the mtg, but included IN the mortgage package.

 

Question 1) Should the £10k be a Regulated Consumer Credit Agreement

(Personally, I think it should)

 

Question 2) What remedies can there be and what should I do about it?

 

 

ps..whilst this is a personal question worthy of its own thread, this has wider implications for people who have further advances on their mortgages which our Mr Bennion refers to as 'top-up' loans which should be regulated, so I'll leave the answers on here..for now at least.

A1

Edited August 16, 2009 by andrew1
add ps.

[enoughisenough]

S18 of the CCA is an anti avoidance measure. It provides fir apportioning agreements for the purposes of deciding whether they are regulated or not. However my view is that the killer section is section 11.

[car2403]

Finaly read the whole of this thread!

 

Blimey! I haven't even read the whole thread...

 

Mind you, I thought post #9,742 was bit dodgy?! :-|

[andrew1]

S18 of the CCA is an anti avoidance measure. It provides fir apportioning agreements for the purposes of deciding whether they are regulated or not. However my view is that the killer section is section 11.

 

In this case s.8 and s.9.(1) defines what a credit agreement is.

 

8.--(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 , 5,000 , 25,000.

 

(3) A consumer credit agreement is a regulated agreement within the meaning of this Act if it is not an agreement (an “exempt agreement”) specified in or under section 16.

 

9.--(1) In this Act “credit” includes a cash loan, and any other form of financial accommodation.

 

s.11,12 & 13 denotes what type of credit agreement it should be

 

and s.18 sorts out whether the different categories of credit mixed together are done so with the intentions of making the agreement a multiple agreement as defined by the above sections.

 

Question is, like I mentioned before, what does one do when a mortgage is provided and a further advance given which should have been a Regulated Consumer Credit Agreement and it is merged into the mortgage, as tens of thousands will have been and never have been noticed?

 

If one is facing a repossession for example and it is noticed that a part of the mtg should have been regulated then does that give an opportunity to question the repossession? - It did for me and the Judge allowed this to be looked into.

 

My questions are raised to make people aware that not all lending is straight forward and those with further advances should be looking at them as individual loans and Regulated as with any other personal loan.

 

 

..and the answers, if one is not facing repossession are?....

 

A1

[enoughisenough]

Certainly in my case the judge also agreed that the whole claim was imprperly stated. The judge felt that the most appropriate thing to do was transfer this to the high court. This is a real can of worms they've opened for themselves. Any subsequent 2nd loan and it's securityare probably unenforceable especially if it is provided in such a way as to leave you free to decide how to use it irrespective of any stipulations on use. I'm pretty strongly convinced that this is right and the judge seemed to agree.

[andrew1]

Certainly in my case the judge also agreed that the whole claim was imprperly stated. The judge felt that the most appropriate thing to do was transfer this to the high court. This is a real can of worms they've opened for themselves. Any subsequent 2nd loan and it's securityare probably unenforceable especially if it is provided in such a way as to leave you free to decide how to use it irrespective of any stipulations on use. I'm pretty strongly convinced that this is right and the judge seemed to agree.

 

..but what if you are not facing repossession..?

[enoughisenough]

I don't think individual circumstances affect the lawful status of the loan(s). Rather it is the other way around.

[Muffintop]

Did you get any response from Egg on this alisindebt?

Hi Andrew

Pmd you about the above. i also wonder what response you had. is 20% a standard offer to make? is this best to make prior to any iva or dmp you may set up as a pre curser

[andrew1]

I don't think individual circumstances affect the lawful status of the loan(s). Rather it is the other way around.

 

EIE...thanks, but I'm trying to elicit from wise old members here on how one approaches a bank when one finds out there is this anomilly in the loan set up..when in a position of repo it is easy to throw this in as a counterclaim - but when it is found out as I have posted above and needs to approach the bank then what exactly is one asking for them to do? I'm trying not to get guess work here....

 

A1

 

Muffintop - replied!

[uptoeyeballs]

Blimey! I haven't even read the whole thread...

 

Mind you, I thought post #9,742 was bit dodgy?! :-|

 

 

Have to trust you on that!