Cap1 & CCA return

[Peterbard]

HI L

 

I don't know the history behind the doc posted so please forgive me if i am going over old ground

 

I presume this was in reply to a 78 request.

Did they send the associated doc ie the cancelation terms if not they are in default.

I cannot see the creditors signature also nessessary if they are going to enforce.

 

 

Regards

 

Peter

[un1boy]

un1boy,

 

Have a look at this from the FOS site FAQs - complaints about bank charges

 

complaints about bank charges

 

closing accounts

 

what if my bank account gets closed following my complaint about bank charges?

Like any business, banks and building societies are free to decide who they want as their customers – just as consumers are free to decide who they want to bank with. We recognise that the relationship between a bank or building society and a customer can sometimes break down for a number of reasons - and the closure of a customer account might sometimes be inevitable, where the proper procedure has been followed (including giving the customer time to make alternative banking arrangements).

However, we expect customers to be treated fairly by their bank or building society – and consumers should not be penalised for exercising their right to complain. We can – and do - investigate complaints from consumers that their bank accounts have been unfairly closed, for example, in retaliation for complaining about bank charges.

Some recent adjudications from the ombudsman service [PDF versions of adjudication A and adjudication B open in new window] set out some of the typical issues we take into account in this sort of case.

As we are a private dispute-resolution service – and respect the privacy of people whose complaints we handle – we have anonymised the names of those involved in those cases.

 

 

Tide

 

Thanks Tide, but I didn't complain at all - in fact, my balance never even went below £100 with them....I only applied for a second curret account for my direct debits to go out of.

 

No one is interested, the Banking Code Standards Board said I should be entitled to compo for them breacing the code and that they don't enforce it - apparently the FOS do and apparently, the FOS don't get involved......the usual.....

 

I am writing to their CEO to advise him of the fraud then gonna put a claim in the courts, or the police, haven't decided yet!

[un1boy]

HI L

 

I don't know the history behind the doc posted so please forgive me if i am going over old ground

 

I presume this was in reply to a 78 request.

Did they send the associated doc ie the cancelation terms if not they are in default.

I cannot see the creditors signature also nessessary if they are going to enforce.

 

 

Regards

 

Peter

 

Peter, are stamps and "automated" signatures allowed, or do they have to be original and signed in pen by the creditor?

[TideTurner]

un1boy,

 

Looks like something is going on behind the scenes like notes to your computer log or internal memos.

 

If you made a SAR, how thorough was it?

 

Tide

[un1boy]

un1boy,

 

Looks like something is going on behind the scenes like notes to your computer log or internal memos.

 

If you made a SAR, how thorough was it?

 

Tide

 

I know, weird isn't it?

 

Not done a sar yet, but will do!!

 

Even my branch manager doesn't understand what's gone on!!

[TideTurner]

See the SAR on my thread, and make sure you get everything. Also, Photoman has another version.

[un1boy]

See the SAR on my thread, and make sure you get everything. Also, Photoman has another version.

 

Nice one mate - I'll PM you later if that's ok?

[rippedoffagain]

I have followed this thread for quite some time, and as others have observed, whilst you remember reading something, it becomes extremely difficult to find it amongst nearly 6000 posts.

 

So that said, could anyone tell me why the CCP are obliged to stop charging interest etc?

[TideTurner]

No problem un1boy

[ian1969uk]

I have followed this thread for quite some time, and as others have observed, whilst you remember reading something, it becomes extremely difficult to find it amongst nearly 6000 posts.

 

So that said, could anyone tell me why the CCP are obliged to stop charging interest etc?

 

The CCA (Sections 77/78 ) states that if they default on providing the required agreement documents, then they are not entitled to enforce the agreement. As one of the terms of the agreement is interest, it follws that they are not entitled to enforce the right to apply interest, therefore they must stop.

[rippedoffagain]

The CCA (Sections 77/78) states that if they default on providing the required agreement documents, then they are not entitled to enforce the agreement. As one of the terms of the agreement is interest, it follws that they are not entitled to enforce the right to apply interest, therefore they must stop.

 

Thanks, I knew I must have read it somewhere.

[The Lantana]

Thanks Term and thanks Peter.

 

I'll progress the application / agreement issue with gusto.

 

The agreement was sent to me under s78 and they didn't comply with other requirements under that part.

 

Their signature is, I think, within the stamp though it's very difficult to see.

 

Regards

 

Lantana

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Halifax (HBOS) Bank Error - Posts account details of 75,000 customers by mistake to an unsuspecting customer / Personal_Finance / Strategic News

 

Jan 29, 2007 - 06:31 PM

By: Shahla_Walayat

 

Halifax (HBOS) Bank Error - Posts account details of 75,000 customers by mistake to an unsuspecting customer :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Forecasting & Analysis Free Website

[hellhasnofury]

Halifax (HBOS) Bank Error - Posts account details of 75,000 customers by mistake to an unsuspecting customer / Personal_Finance / Strategic News

 

Jan 29, 2007 - 06:31 PM

By: Shahla_Walayat

 

Halifax (HBOS) Bank Error - Posts account details of 75,000 customers by mistake to an unsuspecting customer :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Forecasting & Analysis Free Website

 

Loved it, hello!!! must be something to do with the lack of manual intervention lol how stupid are they:oops:

[InKogneeToh]

Just had a quick look will go into a little more detail later.First observation is that this is not an agreement and what gives it away is" I apply for a mint card to be issued to me...... with the emphsis on the word apply.Also there is no cancellation box.Example you would have to write to mint to cancel they then send you a form to sign and all this is going to be done in 7 days as the Act says.Unfair term there.

 

Hi

 

Although this is an application form, IMO it is also a document containing all prescribed terms and statutory notices and is signed by the customer so it comes within the 'unless.....' part of s127(3) and is therefore most probably enforceable.

 

It also has the cancellation statement advising that details about how to cancel will be sent later. Provided the 2nd copy agreement that would have contained this info was sent within the prescribed time then it seems to pass the test (unfortunately!)

 

Regards, Pam

[InKogneeToh]

HI L

 

I don't know the history behind the doc posted so please forgive me if i am going over old ground

 

I presume this was in reply to a 78 request.

Did they send the associated doc ie the cancelation terms if not they are in default.

I cannot see the creditors signature also nessessary if they are going to enforce.

 

 

Regards

 

Peter

 

Hi

 

The cancellation notice and information on how to cancel are normally contained within the 2nd copy of the agreement that is sent within 7 days of signing (or in the case of a credit card, either before, or with, the card) as per the notices and copies regs.

 

This document is not referred to in the agreement as it is a copy of the agreement but with cancellation info added and so does not come within the 'any other document' part of a s77/78 request.

 

Also the creditor's stamp on this copy appears to contain what is probably a printed signature.

 

Regards, Pam

[humbleman]

Would appreciate if someone can clarify for sure

 

If a trader (finance co.) hires to a Ltd. Co. under a Hire Agreement regulated by CCA 1974, accorded the same protection as a individual.

 

When i was looking for this clarification couple of months back I am sure I came across a site which stated that if the hire agreement is titled HIRE AGREEMENT REGULATED BY CCA 1974, then it is covered under the act provided it is under 25k and over 3months. I just can't seem to find this reference again.

 

All the references I have come across, does exclude Ltd. Co's.

[tamadus]

OK this is TOTALLY off topic (but I can get away with it lol ) and purely hypothetical of course

 

The scenario is:

 

A solicitor files a defence on behalf of his clients and signs it for them.

 

The crux of the defence is that the UTCC and UCT do not apply as the charge does not indemnify any third party.

 

As part of their court bundle they intend to produce a witness statement showing it is an indemnity charge, I also have at least 2 letters clearly stating its an indemnity charge and indemnifies them against any loss to a third party.

 

Nowwwwww if they go to court using the indemnity to justify the charge then in theory the defence (which states it isnt an indemnity) is clearly out of order.

 

In my mind I think it shows the defence statement to be contempt of court, which of course carries a prison sentence.

 

The ultimate result in this scenario could be the defending solicitor serving time (which could of course get him barred from practice) and the defence being struck out of court.

 

Anybody got any other thoughts?

[tamadus]

Ok just as a quick update.

 

I have received letters from a DCA acting for Barclaycard, which among other things have threatened to send a collector to my home which should be interesting as I already know he wont like what he hears.

 

In addition LTSB have failed again to respond to my letters and I have had nothing from them since late february.

 

I have therefore decided to move both of these forward in time. I was planning to get my case against Abbey resolved first to ease the pressure a little, but neither of these are moving anywhere at the moment. Looks like poor little Tam is going to be busy again lol.

 

MCOL have been filled in and just need the POC typing out now. IN addition to reclaiming any and all charges (plus reserving the right to claim charges beyond 6 years when data is available) I intend to push the no agreement side of things plus the sec 85.

 

Now one of 2 things can happen here. Thye will give in to the inevitable or they can try arguing it in court. If they go for the latter then we should have a definitive result very soon.

 

Comments as usual are appreciated.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Okay, I have a query....

 

I received my agreement from MINT following a CCA request. The agreement seemed pretty good, apart from the fact that they'd not obviously signed it. It is stamped, but if the stamp also includes their signature, it's not very clear. Anyway, I figured this ws no big deal.

 

So I wrote to MINT, explained my dire financial circumstances (with copy of benefits statement) and made a token offer to be reviewed when I returned to work. Their response was to request a full statement of income and expenditure, assets and liabilities etc., but they also muttered about 'further action'.

 

So I got thinking about 'further action' and looked again at my agreement. According to my agreement it's between 'us' and Lantana. 'us' isn't defined on the agreement, though the card issuer is defined as 'MINT, PO Box blah...' I've written to the OFT to see if MINT has a credit licence.

 

Now I know that MINT is a businress name of Royal Bank of Scotland (that's what their website says), but surely the agreement should say so (e.g. Royal Bank of Scotland t/as MINT). What I'm saying is, presumably MINT cannot take me to court because MINT is not a legal entity, only a registerd business name. And Royal Bank of Scotland can't have me either because the agreement doesn't say it's with them! In effect, I think the agreement may be unenforceable.

 

I'd be interested in my fellow CAGer's thoughts on this.

 

Regards

 

Lantana

 

Information Commissioners - Data Protection Register - Entry Details

 

WHAT year was the account opened ?

[The Lantana]

Hi FC, 2004

 

Regards

 

Lantana

[TideTurner]

Tam,

 

Have you looked into this indemnity charge, how it was presented (sold) and whether it applies(d) to you at the time it was sold?

 

You need more details of it, in particular look at mis-selling of insurance.

 

Tide

[InKogneeToh]

 

I have received letters from a DCA acting for Barclaycard, which among other things have threatened to send a collector to my home which should be interesting as I already know he wont like what he hears.

 

 

Hi tam

 

Is it Lowell by any chance? If so, they only employ phantom collectors to do their home visits - several people on Lowell's 'hit list' (myself included) have waited in for the promised collector but he hasn't materialised!

 

Phantom? materialised? Groan!!!:grin:

 

Regards, Pam

[TideTurner]

Tam,

 

You should check the small print. In mine, they stated that they could visit providing there was two weeks notice. That was back in 1991.

 

They visited anyway without notice and I have them under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 - a Right to Privacy.

 

You need to explore their rights to receive, store or process your information under the DPA 1998.

 

Tide

[paulwlton]

OK this is TOTALLY off topic (but I can get away with it lol ) and purely hypothetical of course

 

The scenario is:

 

A solicitor files a defence on behalf of his clients and signs it for them.

 

The crux of the defence is that the UTCC and UCT do not apply as the charge does not indemnify any third party.

 

As part of their court bundle they intend to produce a witness statement showing it is an indemnity charge, I also have at least 2 letters clearly stating its an indemnity charge and indemnifies them against any loss to a third party.

 

Nowwwwww if they go to court using the indemnity to justify the charge then in theory the defence (which states it isnt an indemnity) is clearly out of order.

 

In my mind I think it shows the defence statement to be contempt of court, which of course carries a prison sentence.

 

The ultimate result in this scenario could be the defending solicitor serving time (which could of course get him barred from practice) and the defence being struck out of court.

 

Anybody got any other thoughts?

 

 

They may have dropped a clanger it would seem the defence is incorrect and could be seen has contempt if it's backed up with a statement of truth. Even if it's not seen as contempt the judge will start doubting their case .

 

Paul