Cap1 & CCA return

[Cristal]

Hello - I too have a personal reserve account and the original copy sent to me is dark, grainy and almost totally illegible the only thing I can make out is the interest rate which is considerably less than it is now and ticked box for PPI - I have had it since 96. I have therefore asked for a further copy and despite sending numerous letters and at least one cheque for £1 have still not got it. I have also asked for PPI details. Their staff when I have taken the odd call are rude and aggressive. I could easily pay it but i'm not on principle. They call 10 times every day.

 

Why they cant comply with a legal and reasonable request is strange to say the least. Its one I'm thinking of issuing proceedings against in small claims court as its only £800 odd and they will owe me more than that in mis-sold PPI and unfair interest charged.

 

A solicitor friend tells me, which you can see in the CCA is a requirement that agreements have to be legible - but a claims solicitor I spoke to said they only have to produce a legible one for comparision for a court to enforce it ! Sounds bit against the CCA to me to be able to enforce. Actually they are worse than MBNA and almost as bad as Monument for harrassment. Surprising given their good image.

 

Let me know how you get on please !

 

Captain, thanks for your input. Even if M&S produce a legible copy of the so-called agreement in Court, it is my understanding that it must comply with the CCA 1974. Collect Direct and Rockwell Debt Collection Agency gave up on collecting (presumably because they know the 'agreement' is flawed). I've been dealing with Jayne Ellett and Graham Officer in Customer Relations - why M&S doesn't refer the matter to a legal team that knows the CCA is a mystery to me. I am assuming they will soon make a Claim against me and so it goes.....though I would appreciate some advice about the validity M&S's assertion that they are not lawfully obliged to produce an original or copy of the original agreement.

 

Thanks! Cx

[captain2]

Hi they have to produce a copy not a generic copy - there are several authorities for this on here -

 

Here's a copy of one of my letters to them -

 

Dear Sirs

 

I am in receipt of your letter of xxxxx wherein you express sympathy that this account has been of concern to me. You indicated a full response in about 10 days. There is a postal strike and backlog so that’s maybe why the delay has occurred.

 

However your staff are calling my number several times each day and I have repeatedly explained to them that I am waiting for your reply. They are rude aggressive and harassing. I am also mindful from what they have said that they are obviously acting on company orders to make these harassing calls. This is potentially a criminal offence. Please see why below. That you have a good reputation and that I spend a lot of money in your stores and on your financial services with life cover etc. should really deter you from acting in this way as it is going to ruin what reputation you may have. It is clear to me there has been potentially mis-sold life cover with this account and massive over payments of interest over the years for which I require full a refund and compensation plus interest at 8%.

 

I will however also inform you of this –

 

Sections 77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 refer to supplying a copy of the ‘executed’ agreement within 12 working days of receiving a written request from the debtor. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable against the debtor until a copy is provided.

 

Execution involves signing the agreement. If no agreement has been executed, it is impossible to supply a true copy of the agreement. Should a creditor supply a copy agreement, even though the debtor has never signed any agreement with that creditor, no indication should be given that it is a true copy or a copy of an executed agreement.

 

To do so may contravene Regulation 5 of the CPRs and be an unfair or improper business practice.

 

The consequence of the debtor not having signed a credit agreement with the creditor is that the agreement is unenforceable except where the court orders that enforcement may take place. Where the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 the court is not able to make such an order unless the agreement was signed by the debtor.

 

Therefore it is misleading to state, when complying with a section 77 or 78 request, that the debtor has signed or would have signed (or similar) the enclosed agreement where the debtor has not done so. From 26 May 2008 such a statement will be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Regulation 5 of the CPRs states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ (Regulation 5(5)(d) of the CPRs).

 

Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is also a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Regulation 5(4)(k) of the CPRs. It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it.

 

Breach of Regulation 5 of the CPRs is a criminal offence under Regulation 9 and can also be enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Under section 218A of the Enterprise Act, where an application for an Enforcement Order is made the court may require the Respondent ‘to provide evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim’ (such as a claim that a debtor has signed a credit agreement).

 

In addition, it should be noted that threats to take action that cannot be taken is listed as one of the factors that will be considered in assessing aggressive practices in Regulation 7(2) of the CPRs.

 

Please read the above information and consider the position.

 

In providing me a legible copy of what I have signed I cannot agree that any debt exists namely due to the none specification of interest rate alterations and other prescribed terms potentially absent as I assume the text which is illegible in the signed and executed copy contains this but that due to its illegibility I cannot check this. In my opinion I have already paid you considerably more than the original margin advertised and as the rate increase terms and conditions are effectively not stated in the agreement it has prevented me from finding this out and thus assessing the situation.

 

Regarding the interest charged - the following is an extract from the Office of Fair Trading web site -

 

One of the main themes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that there should be

‘truth in lending’, particularly in advertisements for credit and written agreements or

other documentation. The Total Charge for Credit Regulations, made under section

20 of the Act, define a total charge for credit (TCC) which includes interest and other charges which affect the real cost of borrowing – even if they are not payable under the credit agreement itself. Simply knowing the amount of the credit charges is not usually enough for a borrower to compare one credit deal with another. The time at which the credit and charges have to be repaid affects the rate of the charges being made and how valuable or costly the deal is to the borrower. Lenders use a number of different ways of charging interest and these can treat the time of payment in different ways. So, in addition to leaving out other charges, lenders’ interest rates will not generally provide a useful comparison. The Total Charge for Credit Regulations also set down how to calculate an annual percentage rate of charge

(APR), which expresses the TCC as a standard measure borrowers can use to compare the credit charges under one deal with another, whatever rate or method of charging is used. It is important to understand that APR is not the only thing the borrower needs to consider when choosing credit. For example, the deal with a lower APR might require monthly payments the borrower cannot afford, or run for much longer than the borrower wants or than the goods bought with the credit are likely to last, or the goods might be cheaper from another store, making that a better deal even though the credit charges are higher. However, APR is the only standard measure which allows the borrower to compare the charges being made for the credit provided. In addition to helping borrowers shop around for credit, the TCC and

 

APR have other uses under the Act. The TCC is used in the calculation of rebates on early settlement (details of these provisions are given in the Office’s booklet Matters

arising during the lifetime of an agreement) and to determine the charges which a

credit broker cannot make, or must return, if he does not obtain a loan for a

Office of……etc etc’

 

Thus section 20 of the CCA1974 defines TCC and this includes APR as a stated requirement and one of the prescribed terms of the Act where a court has no power to enforce if not stated correctly.

 

In the case of your alleged ‘agreement’ interest and APR but not TCC is stated and the payment details are omitted. The amount of credit and credit limit are also omitted. Thus the single sided ‘copy’ ‘agreement’ cannot be considered adequate under the Act as some of the prescribed terms are missing and the agreement is illegible.

 

That there is no properly executed agreement contradicts your claim that you are reporting factual information regarding none payment and defaults as there is no proper basis for so doing furthermore under the banking code defaults are not allowed while an account is in dispute. Nor is not allowed under the Data Protection Act and is something I will write to the Commissioner of Information concerning wrongful dissemination of such information.

 

Under the Banking Code which applies to Credit Card companies there is a fairness commitment and to provide clear information on products, how they work, terms and commitments – detailed information before you commit to a contract – The code specifically states - 4.3 ‘we will give you a full explanation of how we work out interest.’ The Banking Code also reiterates your commitment Under the Data Protection Act of my right to see the records you hold about me which includes copy signed agreements. Furthermore under the banking code you may only contact credit reference agencies if the account is not in dispute. Section 13.6.

 

I will also further add -

'I am repeatedly having to say the same things to your representatives who call my telephone number continually until I stopped taking your calls but still make dozens of calls each week. Please note that under the Data Protection Act I am formally demanding that you remove my telephone number from your records. If you fail to do so I shall take this matter to the relevant authorities for their investigation. Due to the seriousness of this matter and any legal action, which may arise, I will only correspond in writing and will not accept phone calls or personal visits. Should you either visit or phone I shall consider this as harassment and either take legal action and/or make complaints to the Office of Fair Trading under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Section 40 of the Act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

• harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or the occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation.'

 

 

Please take particular note of the above as I find your company tactics unreasonable harassment.

 

I must advise you that you must cease all calls to me and that in any event all dealings MUST be in writing. Should you not take notice of this you will be

in breach of the Banking Code your consumer Credit Licence and S.40 of the Administration of Justice Act.

 

Should you not cease this forthwith I shall complain to the Office of Banking Code Commissioners and the Trading Standards Department.

 

yours etc....

[captain2]

Hi a further note - I have already got most of the agreements from creditors - but using a tactic of asking for them again three months after originally

getting them - I have sent off again to see what they will send second time round. The responses are as follows -

 

1. M&S refuse to send one ! conclusion prob because its not enforceable

2. MBNA 2 agreements -still not sent in spite of numerous requests conclusion as above

3.Egg 2 agreements still not sent after ,any requests -conclusion as above

4. Monument just downright thick - haven't got a cat in hells chance of making what they sent stick -in my opinion

5. Capital one almost as inadequate as Monument and like them VERY aggressive but since I've written to the ombudsman about them they've backed right off -and called those equally thick Fredericksons off -

6. Mint a fixed margin over base of 9.41% so rate now should be under 10 % but its over double that - inadequate agreement with accompanying generic terms - not enforceable -lacks some prescribed terms in the signature document

7 HSBC admitted in March their records dont go back to 95 but second request for agreement they are now sending generic ones out with cheeky letters about no need to include a signature -

 

My solicitor friend (not a consumer expert) says that no one can write a letter these days he thinks the 'call centre culture' prevents anyone from being able to read absorb or compose a letter.

 

But the exercise of asking again has drawn interesting results as noted above. We know from here that Egg's use of 'approved limit' is not 'credit limit' as required as a prescribed term without which a court is NOT allowed to enforce.

 

So my letters ready to fire off about misrepresentation and inadequate agreements remain on file unable to send until I get the copy agreements.

[Cristal]

Well, Captain, I guess THAT answers my question! Thank you. Guess what I'll be sending M&S tomorrow??? Huge thanks, it a fabulous letter....will keep you posted, CXX

[Cristal]

Hi a further note - I have already got most of the agreements from creditors - but using a tactic of asking for them again three months after originally

getting them - I have sent off again to see what they will send second time round. The responses are as follows -

 

1. M&S refuse to send one ! conclusion prob because its not enforceable

2. MBNA 2 agreements -still not sent in spite of numerous requests conclusion as above

3.Egg 2 agreements still not sent after ,any requests -conclusion as above

4. Monument just downright thick - haven't got a cat in hells chance of making what they sent stick -in my opinion

5. Capital one almost as inadequate as Monument and like them VERY aggressive but since I've written to the ombudsman about them they've backed right off -and called those equally thick Fredericksons off -

6. Mint a fixed margin over base of 9.41% so rate now should be under 10 % but its over double that - inadequate agreement with accompanying generic terms - not enforceable -lacks some prescribed terms in the signature document

7 HSBC admitted in March their records dont go back to 95 but second request for agreement they are now sending generic ones out with cheeky letters about no need to include a signature -

 

My solicitor friend (not a consumer expert) says that no one can write a letter these days he thinks the 'call centre culture' prevents anyone from being able to read absorb or compose a letter.

 

But the exercise of asking again has drawn interesting results as noted above. We know from here that Egg's use of 'approved limit' is not 'credit limit' as required as a prescribed term without which a court is NOT allowed to enforce.

 

So my letters ready to fire off about misrepresentation and inadequate agreements remain on file unable to send until I get the copy agreements.

 

Captain, yes, I agree with this strategy. I've had great success with just wearing them down, too. A lot of them merely disappear. The ones that have issued Claims have always withdrawn them. The retail financial industry is paying for its arrogance and sloppy contracts. If I ran a company like they do......CX

[cupcake68]

Hi Captain2

 

I have read this page with great interest!

 

After a tough ride at the end of last year/beginning of this, I CCA'd some 30 creditors in March and so far have basically been advised two of them are enforceable. Therefore I have continued paying these two. One of which is Mint.....

 

I wondered if you would be kind enough to have a look at my agreement as per this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/195385-cupcake68-mint-ec.html

 

and advise me if you think my agreement is also not enforceable.

 

My main reason for questioning the very good advice I have received on this is because again today for the 2nd time I have received a letter from Mint saying although you are paying your account on time we have noticed a diference in your account and wonder if we can be of any help to you.

 

I really don't understand why they would be doing this when I have continued to make minimum payments to them!

 

thank you for your time

 

Cupcake

[diddydicky]

Go on- i dare you- have a larf with them

 

 

 

dear Sirs,

 

i write to you with regard to your "Aversion" to providing a photocopy of a document.

 

You are absolutely correct in stating that you are not obliged to provide a photocopy of an original document

 

the purpose of my letter is to counter the brainwashing of your "masters" in beleiving that the consumer credit act or some other legistalation decreed that you be exempt from such a course of action in order that you may frustrate what is a simple request from your "customer"

 

the requirements to produce "true copies of documents" were of a time when photocopiers and maybe even carbon paper were but mere twinkles in inventors eyes

 

therefore the scribe was obliged to produce a "true copy" from a document to his best ability and was required to reproduce it in as near the original layout as possible.

 

clearly in this process he could not re- produce the signatures on the document since this would be forgery

 

Any sane person (including the chap on the clapham omnibus) would accept the arrival of modern technology within his/her office environment and realise that producing a true copy of an original document on the photocopier was not only far more cost effective in financial and time terms , but is as easy as sitting ones naked bum on the copier and pressing the button at the office party.

 

The customer therefore,, who himself undoubtedly possesses a photocopier- (such is their universal popularity) , upon receipt of barely legible , grainy or part copied documents - or not even the documents he has asked for, is naturally going to question why this is so

 

The more so since he knows that a true copy CANNOT be made from memory, may not be what the person producing the copy thinks the original would have looked like and may not be a copy of a "similar" document to that which was in existence at the particular time of an agreement.

 

he will therefore naturally tend towards the opinion that he has been deceived, duped, fooled into thinking that the person who made the "true copy" did not have the original document in his sight when he made that "true copy"

 

Indeed , he may feel that in such circumstances perhaps two documents have been "merged into one" or that more likely what he has been sent has been produced from a microfiche, with it 's tell, tale signs, and which itself is a copy of a document and not an original

 

The customer may then make more demands to be satisfied that his creditor, who has after all set up a "customer relations department" might in fact be falling short of its charter and be more concerned instead with protecting the creditor than supporting the customer because it is likely that the creditor has not really got an original executed credit agreement.

 

The customer would ask himself why the creditor concerns himself with numerous letters and contracts with debt collectors to attempt to extract money from the customer with threats and demands when all along all he needs to do to get what he wants (money from the customer) is to remove the bum prints from the glass, put the original agreement on there, press the button and spend 35p to post it to the customer.

 

Having enlightened you to life on the the "other side " of the fence, perhaps you might feel a little more bold in using the photocopier- it would make life so much more simple for all of us

 

if of course you do not have the original agreement, why not again cut to the chase and just admit this fact and again we can then attempt to resolve matters to our mutual satisfaction

 

Y F

[rapidres]

Captain 2

 

Thanks for your reply. Is there a template letter that I send out to my credit card companies and if so where are they, also what are the timescales that I give to these companies?

 

Hope to hear from you soon

[Beck1968]

Go on- i dare you- have a larf with them

 

 

 

dear Sirs,

 

i write to you with regard to your "Aversion" to providing a photocopy of a document.

 

You are absolutely correct in stating that you are not obliged to provide a photocopy of an original document

 

the purpose of my letter is to counter the brainwashing of your "masters" in beleiving that the consumer credit act or some other legistalation decreed that you be exempt from such a course of action in order that you may frustrate what is a simple request from your "customer"

 

the requirements to produce "true copies of documents" were of a time when photocopiers and maybe even carbon paper were but mere twinkles in inventors eyes

 

therefore the scribe was obliged to produce a "true copy" from a document to his best ability and was required to reproduce it in as near the original layout as possible.

 

clearly in this process he could not re- produce the signatures on the document since this would be forgery

 

Any sane person (including the chap on the clapham omnibus) would accept the arrival of modern technology within his/her office environment and realise that producing a true copy of an original document on the photocopier was not only far more cost effective in financial and time terms , but is as easy as sitting ones naked bum on the copier and pressing the button at the office party.

 

The customer therefore,, who himself undoubtedly possesses a photocopier- (such is their universal popularity) , upon receipt of barely legible , grainy or part copied documents - or not even the documents he has asked for, is naturally going to question why this is so

 

The more so since he knows that a true copy CANNOT be made from memory, may not be what the person producing the copy thinks the original would have looked like and may not be a copy of a "similar" document to that which was in existence at the particular time of an agreement.

 

he will therefore naturally tend towards the opinion that he has been deceived, duped, fooled into thinking that the person who made the "true copy" did not have the original document in his sight when he made that "true copy"

 

Indeed , he may feel that in such circumstances perhaps two documents have been "merged into one" or that more likely what he has been sent has been produced from a microfiche, with it 's tell, tale signs, and which itself is a copy of a document and not an original

 

The customer may then make more demands to be satisfied that his creditor, who has after all set up a "customer relations department" might in fact be falling short of its charter and be more concerned instead with protecting the creditor than supporting the customer because it is likely that the creditor has not really got an original executed credit agreement.

 

The customer would ask himself why the creditor concerns himself with numerous letters and contracts with debt collectors to attempt to extract money from the customer with threats and demands when all along all he needs to do to get what he wants (money from the customer) is to remove the bum prints from the glass, put the original agreement on there, press the button and spend 35p to post it to the customer.

 

Having enlightened you to life on the the "other side " of the fence, perhaps you might feel a little more bold in using the photocopier- it would make life so much more simple for all of us

 

if of course you do not have the original agreement, why not again cut to the chase and just admit this fact and again we can then attempt to resolve matters to our mutual satisfaction

 

Y F

 

 

Now thats worth £4.95 of Special Delivery.......Today

[Bigdebtor]

Personally I think it's dangerous to get facetious in such situations - just in case it ever does get to court and the judge suffers from the customary sense of humour failure.

 

I would just ask innocently in a short and polite letter why it is not possible to simply send a legible photocopy of the original signed agreement as requested. If they write back saying "they don't have to" they are not answering your question - and you can write back and ask them why they have not answered it - ad nauseam. Even better get a dedicated (i.e. not your usual personal) e-mail address and pester them with free e-mail requests daily.

 

Am I right in saying that with the £10 SAR they MUST send a photocopy of the signed original - or state it has been mislaid?

 

BD

[vint1954]

Go on- i dare you- have a larf with them

 

 

 

dear Sirs,

 

i write to you with regard to your "Aversion" to providing a photocopy of a document.

 

You are absolutely correct in stating that you are not obliged to provide a photocopy of an original document

 

the purpose of my letter is to counter the brainwashing of your "masters" in beleiving that the consumer credit act or some other legistalation decreed that you be exempt from such a course of action in order that you may frustrate what is a simple request from your "customer"

 

the requirements to produce "true copies of documents" were of a time when photocopiers and maybe even carbon paper were but mere twinkles in inventors eyes

 

therefore the scribe was obliged to produce a "true copy" from a document to his best ability and was required to reproduce it in as near the original layout as possible.

 

clearly in this process he could not re- produce the signatures on the document since this would be forgery

 

Any sane person (including the chap on the clapham omnibus) would accept the arrival of modern technology within his/her office environment and realise that producing a true copy of an original document on the photocopier was not only far more cost effective in financial and time terms , but is as easy as sitting ones naked bum on the copier and pressing the button at the office party.

 

The customer therefore,, who himself undoubtedly possesses a photocopier- (such is their universal popularity) , upon receipt of barely legible , grainy or part copied documents - or not even the documents he has asked for, is naturally going to question why this is so

 

The more so since he knows that a true copy CANNOT be made from memory, may not be what the person producing the copy thinks the original would have looked like and may not be a copy of a "similar" document to that which was in existence at the particular time of an agreement.

 

he will therefore naturally tend towards the opinion that he has been deceived, duped, fooled into thinking that the person who made the "true copy" did not have the original document in his sight when he made that "true copy"

 

Indeed , he may feel that in such circumstances perhaps two documents have been "merged into one" or that more likely what he has been sent has been produced from a microfiche, with it 's tell, tale signs, and which itself is a copy of a document and not an original

 

The customer may then make more demands to be satisfied that his creditor, who has after all set up a "customer relations department" might in fact be falling short of its charter and be more concerned instead with protecting the creditor than supporting the customer because it is likely that the creditor has not really got an original executed credit agreement.

 

The customer would ask himself why the creditor concerns himself with numerous letters and contracts with debt collectors to attempt to extract money from the customer with threats and demands when all along all he needs to do to get what he wants (money from the customer) is to remove the bum prints from the glass, put the original agreement on there, press the button and spend 35p to post it to the customer.

 

Having enlightened you to life on the the "other side " of the fence, perhaps you might feel a little more bold in using the photocopier- it would make life so much more simple for all of us

 

if of course you do not have the original agreement, why not again cut to the chase and just admit this fact and again we can then attempt to resolve matters to our mutual satisfaction

 

Y F

Only a point on accuracy here DD. I do beleive that it was " the No 47 Clapham Omnibus" not a plain old omnibus.

[davefirewalker]

 

Am I right in saying that with the £10 SAR they MUST send a photocopy of the signed original - or state it has been mislaid?

 

BD

 

 

NO.....

 

in my understanding they only have to provide details of the the loan ie the data they hold,.... when it was entered into, amounts, payments etc.....unless you specifically ask for the agreement. Even then I am not sure that they are under any obligation to provide it.

 

s77-78 cca 1974 will only get you rubbish usually, the only real way to be sure is to be prepared to take them to court and go down the cpr route....but that too has its drawbacks.

 

it seems as though the creditors want to eat their cake as well as have it

 

dave

[Bigdebtor]

So if they won't provide the signed CCA under the CCA or SAR routes then is the solution not just to deem the "account in disput" and stop all payments until sorted out?

[Gallahad]

So if they won't provide the signed CCA under the CCA or SAR routes then is the solution not just to deem the "account in disput" and stop all payments until sorted out?

 

That is the solution, however you will have to expect to have adverse records with the cra and get phone and letter harrassment both from the creditors and various dca they will pass you on to. This is the route I took and still running after 10 months.

G

[diddydicky]

Personally I think it's dangerous to get facetious in such situations - just in case it ever does get to court and the judge suffers from the customary sense of humour failure.

 

I would just ask innocently in a short and polite letter why it is not possible to simply send a legible photocopy of the original signed agreement as requested. If they write back saying "they don't have to" they are not answering your question - and you can write back and ask them why they have not answered it - ad nauseam. Even better get a dedicated (i.e. not your usual personal) e-mail address and pester them with free e-mail requests daily.

 

Am I right in saying that with the £10 SAR they MUST send a photocopy of the signed original - or state it has been mislaid?

 

BD

 

judges have just as much a sense of humour as anyone else and is suggest the jduge would be entirely in agreement with the sentiments of the letter

 

its horses for courses- i have sent such a letter but it was posted in jest so take it or leave it

[diddydicky]

ahhh you learn something every day vint

[diddydicky]

Personally I think it's dangerous to get facetious in such situations - just in case it ever does get to court and the judge suffers from the customary sense of humour failure.

 

I would just ask innocently in a short and polite letter why it is not possible to simply send a legible photocopy of the original signed agreement as requested. If they write back saying "they don't have to" they are not answering your question - and you can write back and ask them why they have not answered it - ad nauseam. Even better get a dedicated (i.e. not your usual personal) e-mail address and pester them with free e-mail requests daily.

 

Am I right in saying that with the £10 SAR they MUST send a photocopy of the signed original - or state it has been mislaid?

 

BD

 

there is no obligation whatsoever for the creditor to supply the original agreement or document

 

the SAR requires them to send the INFORMATION they hold about you not the documents you have signed , how they supply that information is up to them

 

some do send the original docs, some dont but there is no compulsion

 

only CPR31.16 will get you that and even then you are likely to be refused and have to make an application to the court (with good grounds) in order to get it.

[summerbreeze]

only CPR31.16 will get you that and even then you are likely to be refused and have to make an application to the court (with good grounds) in order to get it.

 

And if you get an order to allow inspection of the original agreement and when you try to arrange to view it the answer is that it has been destroyed and there is only a microfiche copy available ...what then ??

[diddydicky]

And if you get an order to allow inspection of the original agreement and when you try to arrange to view it the answer is that it has been destroyed and there is only a microfiche copy available ...what then ??

 

then they o not have an original executed credit card agreement upon which to base a claim

 

of course they could ask the court to accept the microfiche as the agreement

 

whereupon you will want a myriad of witnesses including the person who first put the original on to microfiche, when and how they did it - the rules and guidleines associated with it, you will ask them in court how they can recall. amongst the thousands of copies they did- they can remember doing this one,

 

where the original went and why it was destroyed

 

the person who produced the copy of the microfiche and so on

 

lots of third party and heresay evidence for the creditor to contend with

 

i'd be amazed if they went ahead in this case (but i'm no expert)

 

 

personally i would NEVER use CPR 31.16 and prefer instead for various sound reasons to wait until they issue a claim then use 31.14 to exactly the same effect

 

the likelyhood of them doing so with only a microfiche as evidence is (IMO) remote

 

far more likely that they will keep trying to bull**** and/or pass it around the DCA merrygoround

[IainHL]

Go on- i dare you- have a larf with them

.

.

Thank you diddydicky for a really good Friday afternoon laugh, I needed that (and may well use it one day).

[diddydicky]

Nwf

[captain2]

Hi Gallahad - I too stopped paying all cards and some bank loans as I didn't have the funds to do so. That was in February and as a result i've managed to keep my small business afloat. I deal with all calls from creditors by keeping my phone on silent and naming the numbers from M&S Egg and MBNA etc so I dont answer those calls when i see the names calling. Fortunately only Egg have my home number and they don't ring that very often. Monument and M&S and by far the worst. I have zero credit rating now but Im not wanting to move house or buy a car etc so its not really affecting me in practice.

Im just wondering how long life can go on without them issuing statutory demands or court summonses ? But none of them have valid agreements in any event. I am arranging to go into a DMP and keep them at bay that way while waiting for legal opinions on the agreements. How have you got on with your debts so far ?

[Gallahad]

Hi Gallahad - I too stopped paying all cards and some bank loans as I didn't have the funds to do so. That was in February and as a result i've managed to keep my small business afloat. I deal with all calls from creditors by keeping my phone on silent and naming the numbers from M&S Egg and MBNA etc so I dont answer those calls when i see the names calling. Fortunately only Egg have my home number and they don't ring that very often. Monument and M&S and by far the worst. I have zero credit rating now but Im not wanting to move house or buy a car etc so its not really affecting me in practice.

Im just wondering how long life can go on without them issuing statutory demands or court summonses ? But none of them have valid agreements in any event. I am arranging to go into a DMP and keep them at bay that way while waiting for legal opinions on the agreements. How have you got on with your debts so far ?

Hi captain2, my situation mirrors yours, even on the timing. I have dealt and coped with the calls in the same manner. Most of my cca have now been passed on to DCA which I deal with by recorded delivery notification that the account is in dispute. Mine is a family business and we have a substantial 2nd charge with a very dodgy subprime lender to add to our burden. I just take each day at a time and use the awesome people power from this site to address issues as they arise. Sorry but I have to ask what is a DMP?

[davefirewalker]

........ Sorry but I have to ask what is a DMP?

 

Debt Management Programme....I think

 

dave

[captain2]

Hello thats quick reply - DMP = debt management plan - I owe £86k on cards and huge mortgage but as I do holiday lettings the mortgage interest should be covered next year - i have sizeable unsecured and secured business debts too and its really chaotic - BUT my business is beginning to recover so at least I can now see an end or more like a ledge to get on before the next climb ! The DMP would stave off action and not tie me into acknowledging the debts as they are either statutorily unenforceable or not - maybe you should look at this. Payplan is the credit industry's funded charity which seems to have a good arrangement with creditors where they can get agreements in place. The once they've become used to accepting small token sums a low one off full and final may be attractive to them -