Cap1 & CCA return

[bill-k]

I have been reading this, but not much to contribute so far - sorry. About to send a whole load of CCA contract requests off, though, so I might have some input later on.

 

Meanwhile, Peter, may I have a copy of that letter ?

 

Cheers in anticipation.

 

Bill.

[Fullyskinted]

Guys, please see my thread on claiming the funds back...

 

Dont think its been covered in its own enitrity (sp)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/56598-claiming-back-funds-unenforceable.html#post471839

[Guest The Terminator]

Just read the thread and it certainly opens up another avenue.I'm just wondering what the legal position would be.Its worth checking out.

[Fullyskinted]

Just read the thread and it certainly opens up another avenue.I'm just wondering what the legal position would be.Its worth checking out.

 

 

Well, I think the next person who gets the opportunity to get this far and claim their paid monies back should try it via this approach...

 

If a LBA was sent to the Company concerned quoting the Guarantee, surely it would add some more weight?:-?

[Guest The Terminator]

This is something that as just cropped up and perhaps it's the terminators brain going into overdrive.My 13 year old son has just asked me if he can apply for a credit card as one keeps on popping up on the net.Obviously I just laughed but then I thought isn't there something in the CCA that prohibits advertising to minors.Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure it falls under S50 and S51 of the Act.

[tamadus]

This is something that as just cropped up and perhaps it's the terminators brain going into overdrive.My 13 year old son has just asked me if he can apply for a credit card as one keeps on popping up on the net.Obviously I just laughed but then I thought isn't there something in the CCA that prohibits advertising to minors.Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure it falls under S50 and S51 of the Act.

 

might be a bit trickyto prove it was specifically targetted at a minor as its an advert on the net but minors are covered by sec 50.

 

50 Circulars to minors

(1) A person commits an offence who, with a view to financial gain, sends to a minor any document inviting him to—

(a) borrow money, or

(b) obtain goods on credit or hire, or

© obtain services on credit, or

(d) apply for information or advice on borrowing money or otherwise obtaining credit, or hiring goods.

(2) In proceedings under subsection (1) in respect of the sending of a document to a minor, it is a defence for the person charged to prove that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that he was a minor.

(3) Where a document is received by a minor at any school or educational establishment for minors, a person sending it to him at that establishment knowing or suspecting it to be such an establishment shall be taken to have reasonable cause to suspect that he is a minor.

[un1boy]

Same goes for me too please Peter

 

Cheers

 

Michael

 

 

And me!! Please!!

[meagain]

(2) In proceedings under subsection (1) in respect of the sending of a document to a minor, it is a defence for the person charged to prove that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that he was a minor.

 

Indeed their defence would be that they are not in control of which sites screen the advert, and cannot prevent minors from accessing them anyway.

[tamadus]

Indeed their defence would be that they are not in control of which sites screen the advert, and cannot prevent minors from accessing them anyway.

 

I have to agree with you Meagain. it would be very difficult to prove they knowingly targeted the adverts at minors.

 

Now if he applied and they sent a card that would be different

[JonCris]

Also agree with tamadus & meagain (& you know how that makes me mad).

 

I suggest that the only way such an offence could possibly be committed is if a money lender linked their site to another site specificaly targeted at children such as 'Toys R Us'

[meagain]

Exactly - you can't prevent children from looking at a website any more than you can prevent someone from picking up a tenner you leave on the street. The lenders don't choose the sites where online ads are displayed, and the sites don't choose which ads they get beyond a "porn/no porn" option.

[un1boy]

Exactly - you can't prevent children from looking at a website any more than you can prevent someone from picking up a tenner you leave on the street. The lenders don't choose the sites where online ads are displayed, and the sites don't choose which ads they get beyond a "porn/no porn" option.

 

Are you sure about this? Surely the lender's marketing department would know exactly which sites they are linked to, because a lot of them pay per click that is received!! Also, how would they know which invoices to pay and which to not?

 

As far as I am aware they know exactly which sites they are linked to, but granted, they have no control over who acceses those sites!

 

Which website was it that your son clicked on Terminator?

[JonCris]

Hi meagian even if your correct & they can't select the sites they appear on it doesn't mean they DO NOT committ an offence. The lack of control argument has already been used & failed. Such an argument could only be useful in mitigation.

 

Also un1boy appears to disagree

[TideTurner]

Surely they should take all reasonable precautions to ensure their target audience are within the acceptable age bracket. We have strict laws on this with TV and films - what's the difference? Responsibility cannot be placed with the viewer.

[un1boy]

Also un1boy appears to disagree

 

Hehe, and what I say goes!!

[JonCris]

Hehe, and what I say goes!!

 

If you say so

[meagain]

Are you sure about this? Surely the lender's marketing department would know exactly which sites they are linked to, because a lot of them pay per click that is received!!

 

The lender will pay an ad company to show its ads. The ad company will show it whenever the computer picks it out, which might be on any of the thousands of sites that carry their advertising code. Those sites may have chosen certain categories of adverts to be displayed or not be displayed on their own site (the most common is "porn/no porn"). The lender won't be able to go back and say "Actually, we don't want our adverts shown on this site", or "We got a good response from that site, please show more of our adverts there".

 

I believe one of the reasons we don't have banner ads on CAG is Dave wouldn't necessarily be able to select "no financial products", especially as a lot of them are keyword-driven (when one of your top keywords is "bank", this poses a problem).

 

So, they will know what sites the ad was displayed on and got them clickthroughs, but only after the fact. It wouldn't be them but the ad companies or the website itself that is guilty of any offence there.

[un1boy]

If you say so

 

I was being sarcastic - the way you said at the end, and un1boy disagrees.

 

That's all!!

[un1boy]

The lender will pay an ad company to show its ads. The ad company will show it whenever the computer picks it out, which might be on any of the thousands of sites that carry their advertising code. Those sites may have chosen certain categories of adverts to be displayed or not be displayed on their own site (the most common is "porn/no porn"). The lender won't be able to go back and say "Actually, we don't want our adverts shown on this site", or "We got a good response from that site, please show more of our adverts there".

 

I believe one of the reasons we don't have banner ads on CAG is Dave wouldn't necessarily be able to select "no financial products", especially as a lot of them are keyword-driven (when one of your top keywords is "bank", this poses a problem).

 

So, they will know what sites the ad was displayed on and got them clickthroughs, but only after the fact. It wouldn't be them but the ad companies or the website itself that is guilty of any offence there.

 

Not all companies advertise like this - my company advertise direct to each site they want to target!

 

I would suggest then that companies should take mmore responsibilty for their ads by advertising direct and not through Ad companies, or reques that the ad companies should have more thorough ways of choosing the options as to who they can advertise to.

 

I would suggest in cases like this the lender and/or ad compnay should be responsible...especially seeing as the technology is there!

 

Also, seeing as net advertising revenue overtook any other form in 2006 there are going to be more laws coming in to refine and regulate it.

[TideTurner]

Meagain, are you saying that you provide a media company with a brief and then have no control over where your name or company is advertise? If that is the case, then you should not place an advert which may be provided on any site (which is out of your control).

[JonCris]

I was being sarcastic - the way you said at the end, and un1boy disagrees. I wasn't I believe everything you say

 

That's all!!

not quite

[un1boy]

lol, I know you don't!!

[un1boy]

I have just had a thought: Would a CRA be required to action a CCA request?

 

Under the defs of the CCA I don't think so, but it's worth a discussion because I think they should have to.

[Guest The Terminator]

Are you sure about this? Surely the lender's marketing department would know exactly which sites they are linked to, because a lot of them pay per click that is received!! Also, how would they know which invoices to pay and which to not?

 

As far as I am aware they know exactly which sites they are linked to, but granted, they have no control over who acceses those sites!

 

Which website was it that your son clicked on Terminator?

 

He was on MSN when Capital 1 popped up.

[Peterbard]

Under the defs of the CCA I don't think so, but it's worth a discussion because I think they should have to

 

I don't think the cca's are regulated by the cca, isn't it the dpa they answer to.

Anyway don't the only hold info sent to them by the creditor and registry on defaults ccjs etd they don't have access completete agreements.

 

Peter