Cap1 & CCA return

[JonCris]

I agree Tam. I also agree that with passage of time coupled by our natural habit of NOT questioning our betters these companies have become blaise about their behaviour.

 

It only because there is beginning a sea change in attitudes brought about by citizens being pushed around by the jobsworths who want to 'fine' them at every opportunity & being seen by local authorites & government as a cash cow That we are beginning to inform ourselves to the extent that we are now able to fight back with confidence & in the knowledge that we probably know more than our apponents.

 

Also we can't rely on the so called reglutory

agencies as they are a joke so we have to take matters into our own hands

[tamadus]

Thanks for the compliment.S85 has taken a lot of reaserch from not only me but tamadus and the rest of the guys.We are in constant communication amongst us and when the time is right we will unleash it.If we can help just one person it will be an acheivement.

 

I'll add to those thanks, this really has kept me awake at night but as Terminator says if it helps one person then I'll be happy. believ it when we say the best is yet to come and when the time is right we will let it loose liek the tornado it is.

 

As a sidenote I'll also be happy to not have to read that darn CCA again lol.

[tamadus]

The question of what constitutes a copy agreement has been discussed in the past but I can't seem to find it. I remember there was a lot said about a copy doesn't have to show certain information such as signatures but that if anyone is challenging the validity of the agreement then we should ask for the signed one.

 

I am trying to find out what is an accepted copy for other parts of the Act such as S63 and S85 ie what did they have to send us at the time. Per the Act a copy is one defined by Section 180 but all that says is that regulations may be issued stipulating what a copy may or may not include. Can anyone remember where those regulations are?

 

Basically it falls down to SI 1983/1557 which allows certain things ot be omitted, signature boxes is an example. But the full copy would have to be produced anyway in a court to enforce it. so it's a pointless exercise to conceal them. SI1983/1557 applies to all sections of the act.

[elizabeth1]

I had the same feelings when I realised the implications in sec 85 Lizzy. It just seems to keep running through your head. NO WAY have I got this right and How can they be so stupid and blase.

 

Sad to say I now firmly believe we have got it right and they are in for some big shocks

 

Tamadus - it was funny when this stuff started sinking into my head - I really thought I'd lost the plot - I PM'd Rhia about some stuff and I mentioned it in passing and the more I thought about it - the more I thought I was having a "moment" ha ha - then my PC threw a wobbly and I was offline for a couple of weeks and then others had got the same trail of thoughts when I got back online!!

 

So glad you guys were looking too!! Cause it's sure nice to know I wasn't losing the plot :grin: certainly looks like big storms brewing in some companies when this stuff hits the fans?

[tamadus]

Tamadus - it was funny when this stuff started sinking into my head - I really thought I'd lost the plot - I PM'd Rhia about some stuff and I mentioned it in passing and the more I thought about it - the more I thought I was having a "moment" ha ha - then my PC threw a wobbly and I was offline for a couple of weeks and then others had got the same trail of thoughts when I got back online!!

 

So glad you guys were looking too!! Cause it's sure nice to know I wasn't losing the plot :grin: certainly looks like big storms brewing in some companies when this stuff hits the fans?

 

We have been looking at this for almost 6 months, and the application form saga

 

I cant say how many times I have read the CCA and every time I find something new in it, The amount of Statutory instruments is crazy but almost everyone of them makes sense and they all slot into the bigger picture.

 

If the banks etc follow the CCA then there are no problems. But this was specifically devised to reduce or eliminate the back street loan sharks and drive them out of business. If the high street financial institutions do not follow it then they face the same treatemtn.

 

I recall in the 70's it was hailed as a flagship of consumer legislation. I am now old enough and wise enough to realise thats exactly what it is.

[tamadus]

and on that note I am heading to bed. See and speak to you all tomorrow

 

Oh Jonchris can you pm or email me a landline phonenumber I can call you on please

[elizabeth1]

We have been looking at this for almost 6 months, and the application form saga

 

I cant say how many times I have read the CCA and every time I find something new in it, The amount of Statutory instruments is crazy but almost everyone of them makes sense and they all slot into the bigger picture.

 

If the banks etc follow the CCA then there are no problems. But this was specifically devised to reduce or eliminate the back street loan sharks and drive them out of business. If the high street financial institutions do not follow it then they face the same treatemtn.

 

I recall in the 70's it was hailed as a flagship of consumer legislation. I am now old enough and wise enough to realise thats exactly what it is.

 

Tamadus - I quite agree - this legislation was there to be followed and therefore could have eliminated the problems we are all seeing now - it's because companies didn't follow this stuff that they now have this trouble brewing - it's like they are sat on a potential "timebomb" !!!!

[paulwlton]

At the moment Jon its just an idea in progress, as I research it more. Your right its section 32 I am looking into,

 

if they have deliberately concealed the fact that no agreement exists then the Act in theory doesnt bar a claim going back that far. Any comments from you are greatly appreciated.

 

I'm in 2 minds as to even claim penalty charges back from them as no agreement means no interest oir charges since its inception.

 

s32(1)© Limitation Act Gives relief for the consequencies of a mistake.

If Barclaycard haven't concealed that no agreement exists, then they have enforced the agreement in the mistaken belief that an agreement exists.

Has i only found out the mistake after making a CCA request the clock should start ticking from this point.

 

Paul.

[zubo]

s32(1)© Limitation Act Gives relief for the consequencies of a mistake.

If Barclaycard haven't concealed that no agreement exists, then they have enforced the agreement in the mistaken belief that an agreement exists.

Has i only found out the mistake after making a CCA request the clock should start ticking from this point.

 

Paul.

Paul

Is this a defence? I have problems with the concept that Barclaycard, say, concealed that no agreement existed. What does that mean?

 

On the other hand, you could argue that they were duty bound before they apply charges and interest to your account to ensure that they are operating on a lawful basis which starts with ensuring that they do have a true copy of the agreement signed by all parties, otherwise (a) they are acting unlawfully (b) they are aware and therefore have concealed that fact and © have not sought remedy to this discovery by asking you to sign the agreement.

 

I don't think they have much of an argument...

[paulwlton]

Paul

Is this a defence? I have problems with the concept that Barclaycard, say, concealed that no agreement existed. What does that mean?

 

On the other hand, you could argue that they were duty bound before they apply charges and interest to your account to ensure that they are operating on a lawful basis which starts with ensuring that they do have a true copy of the agreement signed by all parties, otherwise (a) they are acting unlawfully (b) they are aware and therefore have concealed that fact and © have not sought remedy to this discovery by asking you to sign the agreement.

 

I don't think they have much of an argument...

 

I too have problems with the concept that Barclaycard have concealed thats why i think the mistake argument would stand up better.

 

In our case Barclaycard have charged interest to our accounts in the mistaken belief that an agreement has been in force.

[Guest The Terminator]

Is your bank taking you for a mug? Which uncover bank overdraft tactics

 

Now this is very interesting.

[un1boy]

It is interesting, but what is going to be done about it? That report only really tells us what we already knew, and, in my opinion would only scare people off from claiming their charges back!!

[Guest Battleaxe]

I notice which are saying to take the complaint to the FO after eight weeks if the bank doesn't respond.

[m55dlc]

If this was the States, we'd all start a class action - set a precedent and then all and sundry would automatically get a pay out (or so my John Grisham fuelled understanding of the legal process in the US would dictate).

 

We're never going to be able to beat the banks completely without combining forces and making them accountable. Until we can say 'don't do that or 1 million customers will leave your bank' or 'don't do that or we'll boycott'. Only then will the power be completely returned to the consumer (disappears in thoughts of grandure about a socialist society where everyone is equal and nobody 'sleeps in beds with sheets').....

[un1boy]

We're never going to be able to beat the banks completely without combining forces and making them accountable. Until we can say 'don't do that or 1 million customers will leave your bank' or 'don't do that or we'll boycott'.

 

Easier said than done mate! So, you'll organise that then eh?

 

(disappears in thoughts of grandure about a socialist society where everyone is equal and nobody 'sleeps in beds with sheets').....

 

 

Have you ever read Animal Farm?!

[tamadus]

Tamadus - I quite agree - this legislation was there to be followed and therefore could have eliminated the problems we are all seeing now - it's because companies didn't follow this stuff that they now have this trouble brewing - it's like they are sat on a potential "timebomb" !!!!

 

It's strange sometimes how this world works. This timebomb has been ticking away to itself for years and it's goit lit because they got greedy over charges and that made us all start looking a lot closer.

 

What comes around goes around

[un1boy]

What comes around goes around

 

Indeed!

[joneshousehold]

Agree with everything you say there Jon but there is another chapter after S85 should I let it out or wait.....

 

When will that be oh great one? - (is that a quote from Peter Cook & Dudley Moore)

[tamadus]

just thought you would like to know that Lloyds TSB have finally replied to SOME of my letters. They are about to get another one

 

They have also offered the difference between the OFT's farsical £12 and my claim lmao, 'if this is not acceptable I will arrange for our final response letter to be sent'

 

Hmmm they want to wash their hands of my claim while ignoring their default and criminal offences.

 

I feel a very long and strong letter coming

[Guest Battleaxe]

Of course they are ignoring the defaults asnd the criminality, they are above reproach.

[joneshousehold]

...and they think they are above the law!

 

How the mighty fall

[tamadus]

.... and I am sharpening the axe as we speak

[elizabeth1]

What comes around goes around

 

 

I am a great believer in Karma - every dog has his day - so they say?

[noomill060]

Sent Student Loans a S.77 CCA request, their 12 days is up on Friday.

I've spotted a get out for them as the Act states that Section 77 doesnt apply to non-commercial loans.

 

Do student loans (with interest set at the Retail Price Index inflation rate) count as "commercial" loans?

 

Cant really see it myself. Doh!

[TideTurner]

Did anybody listen to Radio 2 today (approx 18:30) where 70,000 account details have been delivered to the wrong address? All in boxes with the envelopes hand written?