Cap1 & CCA return

[progenic7]

lol

 

ever get the feeling your ignored.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

169 Offences by bodies corporate

 

Where at any time a body corporate commits an offence under this Act with the consent or connivance of, or because of neglect by, any individual, the individual commits the like offence if at that time—

 

(a) he is a director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate, or

 

 

(b) he is purporting to act as such an officer, or

 

 

© the body corporate is managed by its members, of whom he is one.

 

 

 

 

SO WITH OUR

 

"offences " committed after 12 + 30 days

 

 

is it possible to take out a

 

PRIVATE PROSECUTION AGAINST A NAMED INDIVIDUAL

 

----- OF SAY MBUSA --- say the one we wrote to

 

 

would get a lot of publicity ???

we all know BILL STICKERS WAS "PROSECUTED"

could we do the same to ROBERT UDDY !!!

[Guest The Terminator]

My opinion is that you wont get redress for interest or charges through the CCA.

 

The way to get charges removed is of course common case law.

 

The way I would go for interest accured would be in a section/or non section of your original agreement using the 1999 legislation that if you have no redress for a creditors breach or default the agreement is likely to be unfair.

 

Some judge must rule on this to make it so, cant find anything yet.

 

Good point Professor.But it is common knowledge that a bank or CCP would not enter a courtroom because their T&C would be ripped to shreds.I agree that many of the T&C could be construed as unfair and as Schedule 5.5 of the UTCC(1999) states the list is exhaustive.

[InKogneeToh]

 

(1) Before sending to the debtor or hirer, for his signature, an unexecuted agreement in a

case where the prospective regulated agreement is to be secured on land (the “mortgaged

land”), the creditor or owner shall give the debtor or hirer a copy of the unexecuted

agreement which contains a notice in the prescribed form indicating the right of the debtor

or hirer to withdraw from the prospective agreement, and how and when the right is

exercisable, together with a copy of any other document referred to in the unexecuted

 

 

Hi

 

Just to clear up, once and for all, the argument put forward by Peter that a mortgage agreement cannot be signed at home because the CCA states that a creditor must give (i.e. hand over personally) a copy of the unexecuted agreement to the debtor as stated above.

 

The definitions section of the CCA states:

 

“give”, means, deliver or send by post to;(so it does not have to be given in person!)

 

Sorry to go back over this largely irrelevant subject but the definition is also applicable to any other regulated agreement where the question may arise.

 

Regards, Pam

[InKogneeToh]

i have to ask this again as its bugging me now (infact this whole issue about s85, 77 ect ect)

 

does anybody in this forum have proper authority (ie case law) to show that the s85 claims, consolidation of interest and the like are legitimate claims, and not just someones interpretation from cag ?

 

i have searched the database of case law and cannot find a single ruling regarding issues of this nature. How many cag members have already been down this route in court and won up to yet ?

 

somebody please put me straight on this

 

Johnny

 

Hi

 

Sorry you feel you are being ignored. I too am looking for answers but as far as I know no-one here has yet been to court about the s85 issue so there's nothing to report as yet.

 

Regards, Pam

[Cornucopia]

M55.You must start to chill out.I got a default notice yesterday from Arrow Global and I just laughed giving me 14 days to cough up all else.The only coughing I will do is to clear my throat.Anyway I can use the default as a tool because it do's not follow the Act on one little technicality Westclott sent me one the day previous for the same alleged debt.Now this is the juicy bit Arrow brought the debt from my good old buddies MBUSA but without any evidence.In one paragraph they say they have been assigned and in the next they say they've brought it.Sorry they won't confuse the Terminator.So as I have no agreement with Arrow they will be receiving a S10 DPA notice early next week and Westclott will receive a CCA request then we will see who is confused.Anyway as it's St Pat's day and im English I am just going to forget it.So if the MIB's are watching the beers are on you.

 

Hmm, chance will be a fine thing Terminator, M55 is trying to start global anarchy on my MBNA thread:rolleyes:

 

Back to the matter in hand, we are also involved with Arrow Global. MBNA "sold" the debt to them without any warning or default notice to us, a long story but that is the crux of it. However, despite an initial letter from Arrow and a default and termination notice from them (again before we could do a thing about it), we haven't heard from them since! All correspondence has been from Eversheds, their Sols. So, don't be surprised if you don't hear a word more........the best thing is, I have defaulted them under the 12+30 rule of the CCA - how nice that was too!

[Cornucopia]

Hi

 

Sorry you feel you are being ignored. I too am looking for answers but as far as I know no-one here has yet been to court about the s85 issue so there's nothing to report as yet.

 

Regards, Pam

 

This is a difficult one, I know that Zubo was going for consolidation as is PriorityOne. We know that Battleaxe is persuing Sect 85 with MBNA but so far, they haven't taken up the challenge of court!

 

This is a wait and see subject I think..........or do it yourself and see what happens! I am toying with the idea right now, but want to see where the land lies first.

[Guest The Terminator]

Hmm, chance will be a fine thing Terminator, M55 is trying to start global anarchy on my MBNA thread:rolleyes:

 

Back to the matter in hand, we are also involved with Arrow Global. MBNA "sold" the debt to them without any warning or default notice to us, a long story but that is the crux of it. However, despite an initial letter from Arrow and a default and termination notice from them (again before we could do a thing about it), we haven't heard from them since! All correspondence has been from Eversheds, their Sols. So, don't be surprised if you don't hear a word more........the best thing is, I have defaulted them under the 12+30 rule of the CCA - how nice that was too!

 

Thanks Corn. I'm not holding my breath over it.I already have 2 DCA'S in criminal default so a 3rd is not going to make any difference.

[paulwlton]

Interesting, i've just received a letter from Barclaycard saying: we are pleased to note that your account has been credited with £98.00, representing the charges that occurred whilst we dealt with your enquiry, we are also pleased to confirm that the default notice has been removed.

 

Now this is the interesting bit it refers to my sec 85 dispute : With reference to the dates when your credit card was renewed- we can confirm that your card has never been renewed during the period your account was open.

 

I opened the account in May 2001 i have a card in front of me valid from 01/05 expires 02/06 and 02/06 expires 07/09 i think it would be fair to conclude that the card has been renewed twice.

 

Methinks someones telling porkies.

[Professor Fate]

Charges been default charges for late payment?

 

Or charges been refund of interest?

 

BC probably dont have that kind of information to hand as it would take intervention to go back into the account. There is a big difference between telling a lie and not having the information/or cant be arsed to get the information.

[Sparkie1723]

Hiya Paul,

 

Now we know Banks never tell porkies dont we???

They make errors and "sorry we have mislead you" and "we have taken steps to insure it does not happen again".

I dont believe these people even if they said black is black. you couln't be sure.

I think all Banks have a dept "think tank" for thinking up excuses.

I might apply for that job when one comes up.

 

 

sparkie 1723

[paulwlton]

Charges been default charges for late payment?

 

Or charges been refund of interest?

 

BC probably dont have that kind of information to hand as it would take intervention to go back into the account. There is a big difference between telling a lie and not having the information/or cant be arsed to get the information.

 

 

All charges including interest and ppi. If BC can't be arsed to get the information then why mislead me by stating the card has never been renewed.

 

Regarding telling a lie The banks state their charges are fair and reasonable, i rest my case.

 

Also Professor my correspondance has not been with a call centre worker it's been with the legal dept.

[InKogneeToh]

All charges including interest and ppi. If BC can't be arsed to get the information then why mislead me by stating the card has never been renewed.

 

Hi

 

So just to confirm - BC have refunded you the interest they charged whilst your account was in dispute! Is that right? What was the basis of your dispute (apart from s85)?

 

Regards, Pam

[paulwlton]

Hi

 

So just to confirm - BC have refunded you the interest they charged whilst your account was in dispute! Is that right? What was the basis of your dispute (apart from s85)?

 

Regards, Pam

 

Yes, interest that was applied whilst in default has been refunded the default was under sec 78.

 

Paul

[InKogneeToh]

Yes, interest that was applied whilst in default has been refunded the default was under sec 78.

 

Paul

 

Hi

 

Oh - that's very interesting, and encouraging! Did you actually ask for interest to be refunded due to the s78 default or did they just take it upon themselves to do this?

 

Regards, Pam

[Professor Fate]

LOL well if it applies for section 78 then i cant see why the same thing cant be applied to 85.

 

Something you have to remember about banks and the like, is that the people you are dealing with, its NOT their money. They follow their procedures (well, some of the time) if it`s not in procedure, different, annoying, hassle or outside the norm it causes problems.

 

The legal dept is not the accounts dept. The accounts dept isnt in charge of renewing cards, thats the issuing dept. See what I mean?

[Fullyskinted]

LOL well if it applies for section 78 then i cant see why the same thing cant be applied to 85.

 

Something you have to remember about banks and the like, is that the people you are dealing with, its NOT their money. They follow their procedures (well, some of the time) if it`s not in procedure, different, annoying, hassle or outside the norm it causes problems.

 

The legal dept is not the accounts dept. The accounts dept isnt in charge of renewing cards, thats the issuing dept. See what I mean?

 

Exactly what I was thinking!

 

So when they send you a renewed card and no CCA, (whooooaaaa 1995 was that???) they defaulted on Sec 85. So could I ask for all interest and payments back from then?

[InKogneeToh]

 

The legal dept is not the accounts dept. The accounts dept isnt in charge of renewing cards, thats the issuing dept. See what I mean?

 

Hi

 

Well hopefully this apparent lack of communication/info. sharing between departments will help us all with our claims if it's at all indicative of the industry as a whole.

 

Hopefully they don't actually keep proper records of when/if a copy agreement is sent with a replacement card. At the moment they all seem to be relying upon the card carrier (which in most cases is defective as a copy), and if not all departments can access/be bothered to access, records of replacement cards either then it's all the more helpful to us!

 

Regards, Pam

[InKogneeToh]

Exactly what I was thinking!

 

So when they send you a renewed card and no CCA, (whooooaaaa 1995 was that???) they defaulted on Sec 85. So could I ask for all interest and payments back from then?

 

Hi

 

You cannot reclaim payments made on the principal sum lent. An unenforceable agreement does not mean that the debt does not exist, only that it may not be enforced.

 

The whole issue being discussed on here at the moment is whether a creditor may also charge interest whilst in default. This is the only part of the money paid (apart from unlawful charges) that you may be able to reclaim.

 

Regards, Pam

[paulwlton]

Hi

 

Oh - that's very interesting, and encouraging! Did you actually ask for interest to be refunded due to the s78 default or did they just take it upon themselves to do this?

 

Regards, Pam

 

 

I made it clear that whilst in default the agreement could not be enforced and charges including interest should be refunded.

[m55dlc]

BC probably dont have that kind of information to hand as it would take intervention to go back into the account. There is a big difference between telling a lie and not having the information/or cant be arsed to get the information.

 

Ahh, but they said confirmed, which means categorically that they have checked. That is a very decisive word and basically is another example of how they have lied. Send back a photocopy of your CC and a copy of the letter and ask for an explaination. They are lying and it is easy for them to be shown to have lied.

[Professor Fate]

Well the other thing to remember is that complexity costs.

 

Not only internally in procedures but also externally in the case of yourself v bank. The more complex it is, the more it will cost to defend. In which case they might well be in the right but its just not worth the argument or cost to go up against it.

[InKogneeToh]

I made it clear that whilst in default the agreement could not be enforced and charges including interest should be refunded.

 

Hi

 

Well done you!!

 

It's just occurred to me that the uncertainty we are feeling about this s85 issue is bound to be also the same for the lenders.

 

If we make these claims for refunds of interest, how do they challenge it and more importantly are they going to want yet more court cases to defend?

 

They are always insisting that they are meeting unlawful charge claims purely because of commercial/financial reasons (yeah right!) so it will be interesting to see how many lenders actually let these s85 claims go to full court hearing.

 

The words 'Flood' and 'Gates' spring to mind and I'm sure they won't want that!

 

Regards, Pam

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Well the other thing to remember is that complexity costs.

 

Not only internally in procedures but also externally in the case of yourself v bank. The more complex it is, the more it will cost to defend. In which case they might well be in the right but its just not worth the argument or cost to go up against it.

 

 

yes it's called risk analysis --- it's applied to everything --- so "us" will be no exception ---- just keep writing those letters recorded delivery the more sections of the consumer credit act 1974 (as revised) you quote the the better.

 

 

and keep a running list number each letter 1,2,3 4 etc to wear them down.

 

think about it a £2000 debt sale value £400

 

so if it costs in internal costs £15 per hour they will soon reach a point when a decision has to be made wheter to give in.

 

and remember if we spend £10 on a dsar request how much is it actually costing them £500 in time etc i would guess ???

 

so get your dsar's in and we will really overload them

[meagain]

They are always insisting that they are meeting unlawful charge claims purely because of commercial/financial reasons (yeah right!) so it will be interesting to see how many lenders actually let these s85 claims go to full court hearing.

 

I think the problem is that the banking industry in this country has so many skeletons in its closet that the banks will do anything to make sure they stay there. The difference between this and the charges claims being that we already have well-established case law.