Cap1 & CCA return

[foolishgirl]

Here you go...

Enjoy an interesting read!

Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983.pdf

[foolishgirl]

Re. signature: you can print or create a digital signature & insert that on all your corresp. I use Online Personal Signature Maker - MyLiveSignature - Free Personal Signature Generator (it's free) but there are others out there.

Re. payments: Don't send a cheque - 'cos it has your signature on! And as you say, it can be scanned by the unscrupilious. PO's are advisable.

[foolishgirl]

Sorry - read comments wrong - ignore me!

Edited June 28, 2008 by foolishgirl
Posted on wrong thread

[foolishgirl]

Yes, you can send SAR to anyone you believe holds any data on you. Just make sure you ask for all data & enclose the fee.

[foolishgirl]

Their desks are probably next to one another!

 

Fancy a cup of coffee OC? Oh, thanks a lot DCA. Whoops, just spilt it on this CCA. Never mind, we've got plenty more as standard issue - they'll never know.

[foolishgirl]

Oooh, where's Mrs. Wilson?! She'd have Carland for breakfast!!

[foolishgirl]

Perhaps you're looking at the version of the 1974 act that includes the updates & amendments?

[foolishgirl]

The 30 day 'offence' no longer applies. It was removed as part of the CPUTR 2008.

Edited August 12, 2008 by foolishgirl
spelling

[foolishgirl]

How were you going to use it with Mint dvd? The legislation it looks as though you're intending to use re. CCAs still comes under the CCA1974, the CPUTR2008 just amends a bit of it. You may interested in Babybears thread on CPTUR before you start quoting it to OCs, DCAs & it contains a lot of useful info.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/147392-cca-dcas-unfair-commercial.html

[foolishgirl]

Magda, this has been my experience in the past too. However now TS HAVE to act - they are the enforecment arm of the OFT under the new CPUTR 2008 & if you're not getting anywhere with them I suggest you read Babybears thread & then complain quoting the above Regs & also OFT guidance on implementation:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/147392-cca-dcas-unfair-commercial.html

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/530162/oft931int.pdf

[foolishgirl]

When did the CCA 1974 come into force?

 

 

Is this a trick question?

 

 

(think the actual date is 31st July 1974 - is that what you wanted?)

[foolishgirl]

OK, you legal bagels (seagulls) - now you've lost me. Who's Prof Goode please?

Can he be quoted in court or is he just reference?

Edited August 24, 2008 by foolishgirl
Whoops, sorry beagles, but you might be tastier as the original!

[foolishgirl]

Thanks Tinkerbell - I'm off to study him...

[foolishgirl]

I know PT - just picked myself up off the floor. That's a 'ell of a goode price!!

[foolishgirl]

Well, this is the first I have heard of this Goode fellow & jolly good he seems too! Pity his pronouncements are so expensive. Does anyone know where I could study a copy apart from law school? I can't imagine my local library will have a copy & if I request one I can see my council tax going up immediately!!

[foolishgirl]

Thanks un1 - will try the library..

[foolishgirl]

If so I will photocopy the info and post

 

Sounds a good idea but do you know how BIG this volume is? And are you sure that there wouldn't be copyright issues on that knightmare?

[foolishgirl]

:DI was just going to copy the relivant page

 

Cop out knightmare!!

 

(Do check the copyright though)

[foolishgirl]

 

It is all fair and good arguing on here over the finer points of the act ,and i have done my fair bit of it, but it is a different matter when you are in court.

 

A major factor is also that the debtor is fully conversant with that legislation and can think on his feet ,you usually only get one chance to make your point,it is pointless thinkng of some technical detail after the case is over

 

Excellent advice Peter!

 

I don't think you realise how difficult it is to muster your thoughts/facts & put a coherent & persuasive case in front of a judge & the oppostion until you have done it.

 

Not only do you have to know your own case & the laws pertaining to it but it seems that some DJs are prejudiced in favour of the financial institutions before you even start to present. It's an uphill battle & just 'cos the law is technically on your side doesn't mean the judgement will be!

[foolishgirl]

 

There is one which mentions the 'gift' you're right, but I can't lay my hands on it just now.

 

 

I think you're looking for the Wilson v FCT judgement:

 

 

1. The recognition that there is nothing in the 1974 Act which prevents an improperly executed regulated agreement from giving rise to contractual rights, nor which prevents the right to possess goods pawned as security passing on delivery of the goods, provides the answer, as it seems to us, to the principal argument advanced on behalf of the Secretary of State in support of his submission that there is nothing in section 127(3) of the Act which is incompatible with Convention rights. It was said, in effect, in relation to article 1 of the First Protocol, that, where there was no document signed by the debtor – or where the document signed by the debtor did not contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement – neither the agreement, nor the delivery of the pawn, conferred any enforceable rights on the creditor. So, in the present case, the creditor had no relevant "possessions" to the peaceful enjoyment of which it was entitled, or of which it was deprived by section 127(3) of the 1974 Act. In effect, the creditor – by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms – must (in the light of the provisions in sections 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid; so there is nothing to engage the rights guaranteed by article 1 of the First Protocol. Nor, on that analysis, does the creditor have any civil rights in respect of which it is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Article 6 of the Convention is not in point.'
   

[foolishgirl]

 

My request was for a 'true' copy of my original signed agreement and therefore what you have sent me does not comply with my request nor with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (any section I should quote here??).

I think the Sections you are looking for here may be Sect 77/78 - not sure without reading all your posts which is appropriate for yours so amend to suit

 

77 Duty to give information to debtor under fixed -sum credit agreement

 

78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

I am therefore writing to ask you to confirm in writing that you do indeed hold the original agreement in its entirety and, if so, that you would be able to produce this original document in a court of law should you be required to do so. In fact, if you do have the original agreement, I would appreciate it if I could arrange to inspect it with your legal adviser at a local office.

 

I hereby give you (7 / 14 days???) to respond to this letter. Failure to do so will give me no alternative but to assume that you do not in fact have the original agreement, in which case the agreement is unenforceable in a court of law.

 

14 day response time looks more reasonable if the corresp. has to be produced in court at any stage.

You could also point out that as they have supplied what appears to be a 'mock up' of the agreement, it would also be unenforceable by virtue of the prescribed terms not being embodied or contained within the 'four corners' of the document.

 

Trust you are aware that you may have to defend this course of action in court at some stage & the risks you are taking in them not being able to produce an agreement that would be enforced by a judge.

[foolishgirl]

A true certified copy of any official document must be certified by a professional such as doctor, lawyer, JP, police officer, etc, etc However for them to certify that something is a TRUE copy then the ORIGINAL must be available for comparison.

 

I always understood that a certified copy can be certified by any responsible person having knowledge of the original i.e. to able to verify the 'trueness' of it so that could be for eg. a manager of the company concerned (not just the 'independent' professionals listed by jax). But jax is quite correct 'for them to certify that something is a TRUE copy then the ORIGINAL must be available for comparison' .

 

The argument you then have to persuade the DC is that the manager (or whoever certified the copy) did not have knowledge of the original & the easiest way for the certifier to dispel your allegation is to produce the original. If he won't /can't I would be asking the judge to find out why & how can the certifier swear the copy to be true if he has not seen the original?

 

[foolishgirl]

 

Exactly, I know that some people argue that to keep the originals would mean holding onto vast amounts of paperwork which wouldn't be practical,

 

Doesn't make any difference whether it's practical or not, if a company is going to go to court to claim their rights under an agreement & the law says that in order to do so they must produce a true copy of that agreement, it's their responsibility to ensure that the agreement is safely kept & can be produced when required. If they can't discharge their duty properly under the law, I would argue with any DC they are not entitled to their rights under it 'cos quite simply, they cannot prove it.

[foolishgirl]

although he should be acting according to law, so in theory there shouldn't be any problem......

 

Gawd, I hope you're right!

 

[foolishgirl]

I have found that having a copy of Blackstones Civil Practice 2008, Goode Consumer Credit Law and Practice and also the Halsburys series , especially the Consumer Credit Vol 9 re-issue works just as good as a witness statement from a partner etc

 

 

Yeah, but a lot more expensive PT - as we've discussed before!! ;-)