Cap1 & CCA return

[InKogneeToh]

Hi all

 

I don't know - I go out for a few hours and come back to find my monitor heat damaged!!

 

Anyway, Dave777 has picked up on one very important issue that I keep having to clarify (and it's not just you Zubo!)

 

An agreement that does not contain all the required information is NOT UNexecuted - it is IMPROPERLY executed - and there is a HUGE difference!!

 

The only time that an agreement would be UNexecuted is if it has not been signed by BOTH parties - in which case it has not actually been made!!

 

An agreement that has been signed by BOTH parties is, and always has been EXECUTED. However, if that EXECUTED agreement does not comply with the form and content requirements of the CCA then it is IMPROPERLY executed.

 

It's VERY important that people do not confuse the 2 definitions, particularly if they are actively challenging the enforceability of their agreements.

 

Regards, Pam

[trevor33]

Hi all

 

I don't know - I go out for a few hours and come back to find my monitor heat damaged!!

 

Anyway, Dave777 has picked up on one very important issue that I keep having to clarify (and it's not just you Zubo!)

 

An agreement that does not contain all the required information is NOT UNexecuted - it is IMPROPERLY executed - and there is a HUGE difference!!

 

The only time that an agreement would be UNexecuted is if it has not been signed by BOTH parties - in which case it has not actually been made!!

 

An agreement that has been signed by BOTH parties is, and always has been EXECUTED. However, if that EXECUTED agreement does not comply with the form and content requirements of the CCA then it is IMPROPERLY executed.

 

It's VERY important that people do not confuse the 2 definitions, particularly if they are actively challenging the enforceability of their agreements.

 

Regards, Pam

My head hurts.

I have asked for copies of credit agreements from HFC to see why my loan wont go down.

I found a copy since and found it NOT signed by HFC (then Benificial) does this mean its UNEXECUTED.

Trevor

[InKogneeToh]

My head hurts.

I have asked for copies of credit agreements from HFC to see why my loan wont go down.

I found a copy since and found it NOT signed by HFC (then Benificial) does this mean its UNEXECUTED.

Trevor

 

Hi Trevor

 

Not necessarily. The copy of your agreement that a creditor has to send you as a 2nd copy, shortly after you have signed up, does not have to show any signatures or your name or address and it may be that the copy you have found is a 2nd copy.

 

Have you requested the copy agreement under s77/78 CCA and have they sent anything yet?

 

Let us know what they come back with and we'll give our opinions on it.

 

And having a hurting head is a recognised side effect of perusing this site!! :eek:

 

Regards, Pam

[Perseus]

Sorry to jump in - thought I might provide the following to aide any further conversation - after all that's what this area is about isn't it? informed sharing of knowledge and requests for advice/guidance?

 

 

I have read parts of it e28.

 

So please remind me what section points to the 12 working days, as you are dying to tell me.

From the OFT Website - link in CAG statute library - During the lifetime of an agreement...

2) Duty to provide information during the lifetime of an agreement at the

request of a customer or surety

A customer (or surety if a different person from the customer) has, during the lifetime of an agreement (whether fixed-sum credit, running-account credit or hire), the right, to request from the trader concerned:

a copies of certain documents, and

b a statement of certain information.

Any such request from a customer or surety must be in writing and accompanied by the appropriate fee of £1.

In the case of a request from a customer for a copy of a security instrument, it is sufficient for the trader to supply the copy. No further information need be given.

The trader must provide in all other cases copies of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it. In the case of a request from a surety, a copy of the security instrument (if any) must be provided in addition.

The statement of information by the trader must:

be signed by or on behalf of the trader

show the information listed below, and

be given within 12 working days after receiving a request.

 

Type of regulated agreement

Fixed-sum credit (including hire-purchase)

Information to be given

A statement giving the following information:

the total sum paid under the agreement;

details of the total arrears due together with the

individual amounts which go to make up the total

and the dates when each became payable;

details of future instalments payable under the

agreement along with the date when each becomes

due and the total sum payable. (If, owing to lack of

information, it is not possible to give these details,

it is sufficient for a trader to state the basis on

which they could be ascertained.)

Running-account credit

A statement giving the following information:

the state of the account

the state of the account;

the amount, if any, currently payable by the

customer;

the amounts and due dates of any payments which

will later become payable by the customer provided

he does not draw further on the account. If, owing

to lack of information, it is not possible to give

these details, it is sufficient for a trader to state the

basis on which they could be ascertained.

Points to note

If the trader fails to comply with a request from a customer or surety within one month from the end of the 12 days, he commits an offence. Until he does comply with the request, he is not entitled to enforce the agreement.

 

Ah but can you provide the elusive link to the Criminal Justice Act 1982? If you can then I WILL be impressed!

The link to the CJA and available legislation on any government website was launched in 1996. Initially, legislation was only available from that year. In 2000, government took the decision to include older legislation for which they had electronic files. These files only dated back to 1988. Prior to this, legislation is only available in its original print format. The closest link to the CJA 82 is Criminal Justice Act 1988

as amended and produced in 1988. Hope this helps!

 

Lets shake hands and get on now eh?

 

Best regards

Perseus

[dpick]

Hi all can you check this is what CRAP1 sent me as my agreement under CCA request.

 

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t8/dpick1947/Crap1agreement.jpg

 

I believe this is just application, they sent this page only no copy of reverse side or leaflet for PPI

 

dpick:p

[Guest Battleaxe]

Dpick,

 

This is all we got also on our accounts

[Guest Battleaxe]

Standard scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Reference the Criminal Justice Act

[Guest The Terminator]

Hi all can you check this is what CRAP1 sent me as my agreement under CCA request.

 

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t8/dpick1947/Crap1agreement.jpg

 

I believe this is just application, they sent this page only no copy of reverse side or leaflet for PPI

 

dpick:p

 

Well if that was put in front of a judge I'm sure his comment would be it's an application form.It says it clearly at the top.So how would Crap 1 be able to deny that it isn't

[Gooders]

Perseus,

From the OFT Website - link in CAG statute library - During the lifetime of an agreement...

etc.....

 

thanks for this, i think alot of people (including myself!) will find your confirmation useful:)

 

Gooders

[Mike220359]

Not only an application form, but lacking prescribed terms it is therefore improperly executed.

 

Mike

[Mike220359]

300 posts wahoo!

 

I feel like a spartan

[Guest Battleaxe]

You know what happened to the Spartans. LOL

[angela1606]

thank you z for your help will send letter3 today as they didnt send us anything just tool the £1 as a gesture payment off the debt and asked for a better regime of payments i had to laugh lol

[un1boy]

OK Terminator. Theft as defined under the Theft Act 1968.

 

Now that is a criminal offence.

 

Are you suggesting they are guilty of theft?

 

Hiya

 

This is not an attack at all, but the Theft Act was replaced by the Fraud Act 2006 as far as I am aware, so any offences for theft would be prosecuted under the new Fraud Act!

[un1boy]

Hi everbody,

 

Can I please just say the following:

 

I am concerned that recently people have been getting into personal and childish debates over things that have been discussed in the past.

 

Just because they were discussed in the past, doesn't mean we can't discuss them again - this thread is over 266 pages long and it might help some people reading that are "new" to this thread. Plus, discussing them again might mean that we uncover other things that weren't thought of at the beginning.

 

I am getting uncomfortable with some of the attitudes on this site as I feel that CAG is a very valuable resource and we should all respect everyone else's opinons and help and support each other - if someone is unsure of the process, or needs more info, then we should be trying to find and telling them collectively - not just saying "this was discussed in March 1901 somewhere at the beginning of this thread"

 

Goodness me, we have only got were we have got today by healthy debate and discussion and by sharing and pooling our knowledge. Some people have more knowledge than others, some have more experience than others, but everyone should still be made to feel welcome and spoken to with respect.

 

I know that people sometimes feel reluctant to ask questions/think outloud about things for fear of being "shot down" which isn't really the culture we should be norturing on this forum - or this thread!

 

I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, but at the end of the day this is all happening far too much for my liking and if this post makes me "unpopular" (Not that I was in the first place! ) then I am sorry, but I feel this has to be said.

 

These are my observations and posted in the hope that we can all move on from these "arguments" and get on with the campaign!! :) :)

 

I commend the work done on this thread (and others) as it really has helped to spearhead the campaign to make lenders conform to the law.

 

*Phew - Un1boy sculks back into the corner*

[humbleman]

what might help is, if someone cleared all the crap posts that are irrelevent to the topic and that way you might be able to use this as a reference and avoid repeating. for example there must be no. of post referring to the time for producing CCA 12+2+month and so on

[m55dlc]

There are a number of posts saying that there are too many posts to see the relevant posts too, and we've got a number of posts asking the same thing (i.e. synopsis)

[un1boy]

what might help is, if someone cleared all the crap posts that are irrelevent to the topic and that way you might be able to use this as a reference and avoid repeating. for example there must be no. of post referring to the time for producing CCA 12+2+month and so on

 

 

 

Hi Humbleman

 

Thanks for your post.

 

I don't believe that any posts in this thread are "Crap" some may be irrelevant to sec 85 and 77-79 requests but most are relevant but at a differnet angle.

 

I also think it is good to have a bit of banter between people - that's the way that we can all make sense of it and also form friendships.

 

I understand your point and a reference may be a good idea - there are other threads however that have attempted and actually do provide a reference, step by step guides etc.....

 

You could try Zubo's thread?

 

Consumer Credit Act - Resources Workshop

[un1boy]

There are a number of posts saying that there are too many posts to see the relevant posts too, and we've got a number of posts asking the same thing (i.e. synopsis)

 

I agree, the trouble is that most of this is still experimental - so there isn't really a definitve list, or template guide per say.

 

Most of what we have re sec 77-79, 85 and the unenforcablility of agreements we are still learning and until the outcome of cases which have been referred to the ICO, OFT and Police etc we don't really have much to go on.

 

I am confident that as soon as we have some cases which have tested our theories a synopsis will be provided!!

 

I would be more than happy to start a thread with a summary of things, but, at the moment I have not got far enough with any of my cases to provide an accurate summary.

 

Battleaxe, Tamadus, Terminator etc I am sure will do the same as soon as they have completed their cases for their sec 85 cases!

[angry cat]

Hi everbody,

 

Can I please just say the following:

 

I am concerned that recently people have been getting into personal and childish debates over things that have been discussed in the past.

 

Just because they were discussed in the past, doesn't mean we can't discuss them again - this thread is over 266 pages long and it might help some people reading that are "new" to this thread. Plus, discussing them again might mean that we uncover other things that weren't thought of at the beginning.

 

I am getting uncomfortable with some of the attitudes on this site as I feel that CAG is a very valuable resource and we should all respect everyone else's opinons and help and support each other - if someone is unsure of the process, or needs more info, then we should be trying to find and telling them collectively - not just saying "this was discussed in March 1901 somewhere at the beginning of this thread"

 

Goodness me, we have only got were we have got today by healthy debate and discussion and by sharing and pooling our knowledge. Some people have more knowledge than others, some have more experience than others, but everyone should still be made to feel welcome and spoken to with respect.

 

I know that people sometimes feel reluctant to ask questions/think outloud about things for fear of being "shot down" which isn't really the culture we should be norturing on this forum - or this thread!

 

I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, but at the end of the day this is all happening far too much for my liking and if this post makes me "unpopular" (Not that I was in the first place! ) then I am sorry, but I feel this has to be said.

 

These are my observations and posted in the hope that we can all move on from these "arguments" and get on with the campaign!! :) :)

 

I commend the work done on this thread (and others) as it really has helped to spearhead the campaign to make lenders conform to the law.

 

*Phew - Un1boy sculks back into the corner*

 

I agree un1boy and..

 

instead of saying "this was discussed in March 1901, somewhere at the begining of the thread"

 

put a referring link on the post, that way it will be easier for others to locate a particular issue.

 

Love

AC

[Perseus]

Perseus,

etc.....

 

thanks for this, i think alot of people (including myself!) will find your confirmation useful:)

 

Gooders

Thanks for the click gooders! ;-)

[Cornucopia]

Thanks for the click gooders! ;-)

 

Pers! Nice to see you here hun!! x

 

I am sorry, I am probably being a right pain in the butt given the current dicussion, but Rhia and I have been having an email convo this morning and we wondered if somebody could clarify that when the amendments are made to the CCA on 6 April, the will affect agreements made after this date, not older agreements or ones in dispute.

 

Please don't shout if I am wrong! I know this has been discussed on here before but I am at work and shouldn't be doing this at all! It's just that it is vital to our current cases and we could do with some clarification!

 

Thank you!

[un1boy]

Pers! Nice to see you here hun!! x

 

I am sorry, I am probably being a right pain in the butt given the current dicussion, but Rhia and I have been having an email convo this morning and we wondered if somebody could clarify that when the amendments are made to the CCA on 6 April, the will affect agreements made after this date, not older agreements or ones in dispute.

 

Please don't shout if I am wrong! I know this has been discussed on here before but I am at work and shouldn't be doing this at all! It's just that it is vital to our current cases and we could do with some clarification!

 

Thank you!

 

Hi Corn,

 

It's no problem - as far as I am aware only agreements from that date will be covered - although, I think some parts of the act will cover current agreements.

 

Don't take my word on that - I am sure Pam, Peter or someone else can clarify further.

[Guest The Terminator]

Hi everbody,

 

Can I please just say the following:

 

I am concerned that recently people have been getting into personal and childish debates over things that have been discussed in the past.

 

Just because they were discussed in the past, doesn't mean we can't discuss them again - this thread is over 266 pages long and it might help some people reading that are "new" to this thread. Plus, discussing them again might mean that we uncover other things that weren't thought of at the beginning.

 

I am getting uncomfortable with some of the attitudes on this site as I feel that CAG is a very valuable resource and we should all respect everyone else's opinons and help and support each other - if someone is unsure of the process, or needs more info, then we should be trying to find and telling them collectively - not just saying "this was discussed in March 1901 somewhere at the beginning of this thread"

 

Goodness me, we have only got were we have got today by healthy debate and discussion and by sharing and pooling our knowledge. Some people have more knowledge than others, some have more experience than others, but everyone should still be made to feel welcome and spoken to with respect.

 

I know that people sometimes feel reluctant to ask questions/think outloud about things for fear of being "shot down" which isn't really the culture we should be norturing on this forum - or this thread!

 

I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, but at the end of the day this is all happening far too much for my liking and if this post makes me "unpopular" (Not that I was in the first place! ) then I am sorry, but I feel this has to be said.

 

These are my observations and posted in the hope that we can all move on from these "arguments" and get on with the campaign!! :) :)

 

I commend the work done on this thread (and others) as it really has helped to spearhead the campaign to make lenders conform to the law.

 

*Phew - Un1boy sculks back into the corner*

 

Hi Un1boy you can now come out of the corner.I agree entirely with what your saying and I beleive the posts you are refering too were from yesterday.It is no good arguing between ourselves because it is getting us nowhere.Everybody is entitled to their own opinion and I beleive that these opinions should be respected.I also agree that what one person see's from one angle another will see it differently.Bearing in mind that this thread has being going for six months and the information and opinions I beleive has given us the "upper hand" and this is the way I personally would like it to stay.As this site is constantly monitored the last thing we need is the MIB seeing us dispute with one another.They know that their time is nearly up before their T&C are blown into orbit and I'm working on that at the moment.So Terminator is asking for one thing and thats "civility" and lets get on with what we've got to do.

 

I'll now get off my soapbox and go and bash some banks:D

[Guest The Terminator]

Pers! Nice to see you here hun!! x

 

I am sorry, I am probably being a right pain in the butt given the current dicussion, but Rhia and I have been having an email convo this morning and we wondered if somebody could clarify that when the amendments are made to the CCA on 6 April, the will affect agreements made after this date, not older agreements or ones in dispute.

 

Please don't shout if I am wrong! I know this has been discussed on here before but I am at work and shouldn't be doing this at all! It's just that it is vital to our current cases and we could do with some clarification!

 

Thank you!

 

It only applies to new agreements made after 6th April