Cap1 & CCA return

[egg-sterminator]

Give them until next wednesday, then send the above but add, further to my letter dated xxxxx, i note that to date I have not received a response.

 

They all carry on regardless with charges etc. Complaint to OFT and trading standards.

Like Vint says the gap between what they should do and do is huge . My friend has a case against mbna via solicitor and council . under a CPR 31.16 [ is that the one ] for a 2001 card via mbna, they sent an application [signed on keele serives on one of mbna's many marketing drives] and some t&cs mbna claim were on the back of the application . Council and solicitor fold .He has a copy of the original t&cs so we have requested and are being sent mbna's defence . Solicitor states "these things have just started coming out of the woodwork all of a suden" so it seems mbna are useing same tactic as used on countless caggers . Will get him to start thread with mbna's defence as it may be help to some . One question though his application has ppi on so by their own claim have they shot themselves in the foot . On receipt if case is a fraud [alledgedly] who should it be refered to ?

[vint1954]

If the agreement contains PPI, then it is a multiple agreement. Thas OK if there is a separate signature box and terms within the agreement for PPI. If not, then the agreement fails.

[egg-sterminator]

If the agreement contains PPI, then it is a multiple agreement. Thas OK if there is a separate signature box and terms within the agreement for PPI. If not, then the agreement fails.

the post has just arrived only one sig on application, the t&cs on a quarter page the rest blank . No mention of ppi, have they scored an own goal ? would the aggrement be invalid ie unenforcable or improperly executed or just not valid at all?

[vint1954]

If you start your own thread, post the agreement minus personal details, then others can comment.

[letitbeme]

Hi There,

 

Could you clarify this point for me.

 

If the agreement contains PPI, then it is a multiple agreement. Thas OK if there is a separate signature box and terms within the agreement for PPI. If not, then the agreement fails.

 

If the CCA has a tick box for PPI and no separate signiture box and no terms within the CCA in relation to the PPI, is the CCA and PPI unenforcable or just the PPI?

[car2403]

Hi There,

 

Could you clarify this point for me.

 

 

 

If the CCA has a tick box for PPI and no separate signiture box and no terms within the CCA in relation to the PPI, is the CCA and PPI unenforcable or just the PPI?

 

A multiple agreement requires prescribed terms for each part and it needs to be signed. As far as I know, there isn't a signature required for each part? (I've been known to be wrong, however )

[egg-sterminator]

A multiple agreement requires prescribed terms for each part and it needs to be signed. As far as I know, there isn't a signature required for each part? (I've been known to be wrong, however )

hi car would ppi be invalid if prescribed terms were missing, but cca be enforcable for say a card . Or would entire agreement be void for both card and ppi ?

[steven4064]

egg-sterminator

 

It is impossible to answer questions about an agreement without seing it - could you post it on the thread (better- a thread of your own) with personal details removed

[mitzi50]

Hi, sorry to be jumping in, not sure how to set up new thread but I'm looking for some advice on what my next move would be regarding the attached applications/agreements. I think only the Barclays agreement looks enforceable but I am not so sure on the Clydesdale Bank or Cap One.

Barclays0001.pdf

C.B.0001.pdf

CapOne0001.pdf

[SB100]

Hello Mitzi, welcome to CAG. You're in fairly safe hands here- lots of people pooling information, most in a similar position.

 

First, have a read here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

Then read here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

 

This should explain a lot of your questions..

 

For what its worth, and we'd need to see more, but Clydesdale and Cap1 don't appear to have any prescribed terms, and, I may be mistaken, but the t&c section on the barclays 'agreement' looks out of line with the main body- like its been attached for the photocopy. I may be wrong- its getting late and its been a long day!

[sunray001]

Hi Mitzi,

 

I could be wrong, but it looks like you've got a bunch of application forms.

 

sunray001

[01900redhen]

Hi, i read this at para 29 of the Rankines v American express...........

 

A credit card issuer is required to provide three copies of agreement to a borrower. The first copy (which is set out as an application form) is signed by the borrower and sent to the lender. The borrower is given, with this application copy, a copy to keep (in accordance with the requirements of section 62 of the Act. This is the requirement to provide a copy of the unexecuted agreement (unexecuted because at that stage it has not been accepted or signed by the lender). When the agreement is executed a credit card is sent out, and usually this is attached to the "card carrier" copy of the agreement. This copy has to be sent to the borrower by virtue of section 63(4) of the Act and this is the executed copy. The requirement for such documents to be "true copies" is set out in regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Regulation 3(2) provides that the lender can omit from this document any signature and/or signature box, so although the card carrier is the executed copy, it does not have to (and invariably will not) bear the parties signatures.

 

Not sure where that fits in with your credit card agreements/applications?

[car2403]

Hi, i read this at para 29 of the Rankines v American express...........

 

A credit card issuer is required to provide three copies of agreement to a borrower. The first copy (which is set out as an application form) is signed by the borrower and sent to the lender. The borrower is given, with this application copy, a copy to keep (in accordance with the requirements of section 62 of the Act. This is the requirement to provide a copy of the unexecuted agreement (unexecuted because at that stage it has not been accepted or signed by the lender). When the agreement is executed a credit card is sent out, and usually this is attached to the "card carrier" copy of the agreement. This copy has to be sent to the borrower by virtue of section 63(4) of the Act and this is the executed copy. The requirement for such documents to be "true copies" is set out in regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Regulation 3(2) provides that the lender can omit from this document any signature and/or signature box, so although the card carrier is the executed copy, it does not have to (and invariably will not) bear the parties signatures.

 

Not sure where that fits in with your credit card agreements/applications?

 

Rankine is a very bad decision based on morality grounds, as I've already said.

[andrew1]

Rankine is a very bad decision based on morality grounds, as I've already said.

 

 

Car, I've not read up a whole bundle on credit cards, but following the above post for a second...numerous people request 'agreements' from card companies to authenticate claims from dca's etc as well as the original creditors. I have heard the arguments before about card carriers being the agreement, but what exactly constitutes an agreement as far as credit card companies are concerned to be consistent with the CCA - is it a document with both signatures like a credit loan agreement?, would the card carrier as described above be correct? - I think the poster is pointing to getting that kind of matter clear and it might help a few of us understand what exactly constitutes a credit card 'agreement' in relation to cca requests.

[car2403]

Car, I've not read up a whole bundle on credit cards, but following the above post for a second...numerous people request 'agreements' from card companies to authenticate claims from dca's etc as well as the original creditors. I have heard the arguments before about card carriers being the agreement, but what exactly constitutes an agreement as far as credit card companies are concerned to be consistent with the CCA - is it a document with both signatures like a credit loan agreement?, would the card carrier as described above be correct? - I think the poster is pointing to getting that kind of matter clear and it might help a few of us understand what exactly constitutes a credit card 'agreement' in relation to cca requests.

 

Absolutely. It needs to comply with s.60/s.61 to be enforceable, so if the prescribed terms, for example, or on the carrier and not on the agreement, it would be UNenforceable due to s.127(3).

 

Rankine's (the case, not the people!) flaws have been discussed on other threads, so take a looky at those for more on that case.

Edited September 24, 2009 by car2403
d'oh - too early!

[egg-sterminator]

Absolutely. It needs to comply with s.60/s.61 to be enforceable, so if the prescribed terms, for example, or on the carrier and not on the agreement, it would be enforceable due to s.127(3).

 

Rankine's (the case, not the people!) flaws have been discussed on other threads, so take a looky at those for more on that case.

sorry car do you meen to say "unenforcable due to s.127[3] ? a friend who has now joined cag and will be starting a thread today had a case going through under a well known manchester based company who claim they can walk on water . 2001 mbna with ppi under a cpr31.16 request they sent to aformentioned comapany a copy of application with no t&cs and some copies of recent cca which dont even give the correct apr figures . one lot of t&cs were a quarter page the rest of screen blank and the default charges £12 pounds which wasnt the case until after OFT revue i seem to remember reading . My friend has the original card carrier conditions reading the threads on this site its my understanding they have to have an original copy contianing the signiture and prescribed terms within the 4 corners of the agreement, and not a application which is in any case is illegable even with magnifing glass and a bunch of photo copies of t&cs which seem to be much more current and carry no or date . ON receipt of the defence company who are happy to take peoples money drop case even though cca was false and in any case contained no signatures leaving him in a worse position . Moral if you want it doing properly do it yourself. Can anyone remember when OFT report that recomended £12 pound default charge happened ?

[Stubie]

5th April 2006

[enoughisenough]

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft842.pdf

[MilkTrayMan]

...Can anyone remember when OFT report that recomended £12 pound default charge happened ?

Methinks that OFT didn't actually 'recommend' a £12 default charge.

OFT released the following on 5th April 2006...

 

"...Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12. Setting a threshold for intervention is a pragmatic pro-consumer action that is designed to give the industry the opportunity to change its practice without litigation. It is supported by detailed guidance to the industry as to how to reduce the likelihood of public enforcement.

A default charge should only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults. Exceptional business factors which may affect the level of a fair charge may include policies to prevent casual defaults as operated by issuers such as Egg.

Only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not. The OFT has today set out a statement of its view of the law."

 

Further relevant reading can be found in the following link...

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Search

 

 

[egg-sterminator]

thanks guys he has an original unsigned copy so can prove Mbna's action in sending alledgedly fraudulant material . is it FOS we complain to or MBNA first ? fat lot of good that would do .

[vint1954]

Hi, sorry to be jumping in, not sure how to set up new thread but I'm looking for some advice on what my next move would be regarding the attached applications/agreements. I think only the Barclays agreement looks enforceable but I am not so sure on the Clydesdale Bank or Cap One.

If you go to the bottom of this page, there is a new thread button.

Debt Collection Industry - The Consumer Forums

[car2403]

sorry car do you meen to say "unenforcable due to s.127[3] ?

 

D'oh! Yes... I shouldn't post too early, see

[vint1954]

Hi, sorry to be jumping in, not sure how to set up new thread but I'm looking for some advice on what my next move would be regarding the attached applications/agreements. I think only the Barclays agreement looks enforceable but I am not so sure on the Clydesdale Bank or Cap One.

Breifly.

 

no 1 is illegible

 

2 & 3 have no prescribed terms

 

If you set up 3 threads, with links back here, others can advise also.

[Artie44]

A friend was advised by his solicitor to request copies of his credit agreements as follows:

 

Dear sirs

 

I authorise you to provide me with a true copy of the regulated and executed agreement I entered into with you for account no. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. I enclose a postal order in the sum of £2 for this.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Most creditors ignored it. Is it sufficient for my friend to put the accounts into dispute or should I advise him to re apply using a CAG template letter and a £1 postal order?

[01900redhen]

Andrew 1 , thank you someone else is thinking like me and has the same questions. You can not say the judge was penalising the Rankines, he is a JUDGE and has stated his interpretation of the LAW. That interpretation clearly muddy the water for credit card holders, and indeed is a point of law to which any party could rely to the detriment of a card holder. It would be great to have a technical response to my above statement and in the light of which a purposeful response to mitzi 50 application/agreements......