Cap1 & CCA return

[JonCris]

Yes write back stating you will grant them 14 days provided no attempts are made to try & enforce any debt & that if the do all bets are off.

 

Also make it clear that if they don't respond within THEIR deadline you will take any neccessary action you deem appropriate including reporting their criminal conduct regarding non-compliance.

[JonCris]

Happy new year

 

Great news............Now get the buggers to remove any adverse on your credit file

[JonCris]

tamadus your concerns are well founded.

 

However there is one way to stop this happening & that it refuse to use the internet to conduct any borrowing business. Nothing but phones & hard copy.

 

I realize it might be inconvenient for many (including me) but they might then get the message & we the consumer would not be at risk from the crooks we know are out there

[JonCris]

Perhaps we should mount a 'boycot the internet when dealing with the money lenders & their agents' (needs a better title) campaign. Great Idea for a new thread in the campaign forum. Anyone agree?

[JonCris]

You could always spell out the 1st word..........NO......A.S.O.L The telephone coversation with the money lender could go something like

 

Them/ "excuse me did you say your a member of the No Applications Signed on Line"

 

You/ "yes......No ASOL"

[JonCris]

Well done! 1st the the DTI & now if only we can get the OFT & the ICO to be able to understand the law.

[JonCris]

Sorry to interupt the flow guys, but have you seen this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-467620.html

 

Great the message is getting through.

[JonCris]

Jon please correct me if I am wrong buttttttt doesnt the OFT come under the DTI ??? Correct but as we have seen that doesn't stop the OFT giving apposing & incorrect advice

 

I have now seen the relevant parts of that letter and Peter is correct that is exactly what they say, they also say that just sending T&C would also be an offence.

 

Now my question is how come Peter got a much better reply from Ian McCartney than I did ?? Probably because being Labour Chair he had a minion do it who let the cat out of the bag

 

Any chance it's because my local MP is a tory ? No see above

 

 

My responses in bold

[JonCris]

Also agree with tamadus & meagain (& you know how that makes me mad).

 

I suggest that the only way such an offence could possibly be committed is if a money lender linked their site to another site specificaly targeted at children such as 'Toys R Us'

[JonCris]

Hi meagian even if your correct & they can't select the sites they appear on it doesn't mean they DO NOT committ an offence. The lack of control argument has already been used & failed. Such an argument could only be useful in mitigation.

 

Also un1boy appears to disagree

[JonCris]

Hehe, and what I say goes!!

 

If you say so

[JonCris]

I was being sarcastic - the way you said at the end, and un1boy disagrees. I wasn't I believe everything you say

 

That's all!!

not quite

[JonCris]

But The CRAs are Data Controllers in their own right Peter, so they have all the same responsibilties that the "orginal" data controllers have too!

 

Of course they do un1boy but according to them when asked they rely on their clients supplying correct info & they have no control or means of checking. Rubbish I say. They aren't exempt for the law they have an equal obligation under the law..

 

At some point in the not too distant future I see consumers litigating against them as they are now the money lenders

[JonCris]

Of course they are & because our wonderful regulators have stated that they won't cap such deals they now believe they have free reign to charge what they like. Provi 1,200%

 

Cap are covering themselves for the cost of refunds

 

They actualy said that to do so would mean the poor & disadvantaged would not have access to lending!

 

Do you think they know the meaning of irony

[JonCris]

Thanks so much guys!!!

 

All I have been sent is agreements which mention the terms but I don't have a copy of any of them!!!

 

Then they are stuffed. Just make sure that if they do come up with a set of T's & C's they are the ones in force at the time of the agreement. Later ones would be invalid..............unless you signed again

[JonCris]

Correct meagain but they have to have notified you of any change to those terms in order to give you the opportunity to opt out/cancel your agreement

 

If they have acted without notification then their agreement is not equitable

[JonCris]

If you enforce the agreement then that is in effect an addmission that it is inpart lawful.

[JonCris]

paul of course you can reclaim. The argument is about how.

 

If you rely on the agreement then you can't claim it's unlawful

[JonCris]

A photo copy is acceptable in a court ....Provided the original is produced also ..........if the original is not there BINGO.......

 

 

Sparkie1723:D

 

Sorry Sparkie but your post is a bit of a contridiction.

 

To clarify one of the bundles used in court must contain all of the original docs. The remainder will of course be photocopies

[JonCris]

Correct Sparkie. The court can & probably will request sight of the alleged original if it's argued that it ain't the original.

[JonCris]

Agreed Your bundle should be the originals.

 

No in fact if you go to trial your going to ask for disclosure of the 'true' agreement ain't you.

 

enough bed!

[JonCris]

They MUST produce the 'true' copy of the properly executed agreement......with signature.

 

They don't have to give you the original but it must be an accurate copy of the original no matter how it is stored.

 

If they litigate & it involves the agreement then the court WILL require sight of the original agreement. Without it the debt is unenforcable

[JonCris]

The signing has to be confirmation that the document being submitted is a true copy of the original.....not that they can claim that such a document exists yet still not produce it.

 

If they do sign & it's later proven not to be a true copy then they will have committed a very serious criminal offence

[JonCris]

If the debt is not acknowledged by the debtor then the courts WILL at some point require sight of the 'true' original

[JonCris]

Hi peter I don't think that's correct because as things stand now any agreement must be signed by both parties & if it isn't, a technicality though it is, it is unenforcable.

 

It is for this & others reasons like it that the CCA 2006 allows the court to disregard such an oversight & enforce the agreement