Cap1 & CCA return

[patrickq1]

Hi Shane and Dave

What i did when i first saw this clause 127(3) is remove all the brackets(and information contained therin) and then read it and add them back in by one. If you do that the meaning becomes clearer and it is that, An Agreement must have the prescribed terms and the debtors signature contained within it in order to be enforceable or conversely without them it is totally unenforceable.

 

If the agreement has not complied with other matters of form and content made under section 60 of the act and laid down in regulations1983/1553 then it is only enforceable with a court order.

 

on the 6th April 2007 the unenforceability afforded to section 127 via subsections (3-5) was rescinded this means that any agreements made on or after that date even if the do not have the prescribed terms cannot be unenforceable but fall back on section 60 which would make them enforceable only by order of the court.

 

The second red bit IMO refers to the enforcement orders that can be made ie those with the prescribed terms and signed but with some other term( notice it doesn’t say prescribed term) missing and gives the court the power to consider that they are OK and to continue to enforce(this is to stop claims for unenforceability on minor breaches of section 60.)

 

There is no way that an agreement that is unsigned by the debtor can be considered properly executed in fact you could argue that because of section 61 the agreement was not executed at all.

 

Hope this helps

 

Just to add a comment on a completely different subject.

I think we are going to have to alter our thinking on the way we pursue these unenforceability issues.

We seem to be looking at agreements and if they contain the prescribed terms and a signature saying OK. there is nothing we can do it's enforceable.

Often this is not the case, i am thinking about the credit card agreements that are cropping up that do not even attempt to conform to the regulations on forms and content ,we should be making the creditors go to court for permission to enforce. Let’s face it that’s what we are going to after do with post 2007 agreements anyway. What is there to loose, send them a letter saying this agreement is unenforceable without a court order because it does not conform to regulations in that.... The worst that can happen is you get a repayment holiday and no interest added to your account whilst it is in dispute. Then we will see what the courts will and will not stand for in the respect of compliance.

 

Best Regards

 

Peter

would it also be fair to think where the credit card company has entered a default against you to another company ie experian etc (who also would be in breach for receiving and publishing info) without going to court be a breach of contract/aggreement without useing the court procedures to comply with defaults

just a thought cause i have three defaults entered when the payment where being met by the PPI insurance

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

patrick- Im in a similar position, credit card co defaulted me for amount 2/3rds of which is penalty charges and interest.

 

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'d and CCA'd them, turns out the agreement isnt actually enforceable due to Prescribed Terms being incorrect and s.127(3), but they beleive the default notice and processing to CRAs is quite legal and lawful due to their T&Cs.

 

(No doubt in the same way as they believe that penalty charges are also lawful.)

would like to ask peter

if this is still relevant concerning the bankers

i remember back to the 70s when you had to get a bank refferance for any type of business you where thinking of doing ie you used to have the bank make enquiries and also ask for bank references ,but in the 80s all this changed to reference agencies..so when did the BANKERS OBLIGATION NOT TO DISCLOSE unless it was through a sequestrator or police ? just a thought,you will find this section under NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS

just thought you might know or be able to shed light on this and also with the banks including this right to confer with others your details surely this alone renders any contract voidable or void hope you can research this

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

Refards? LOL sorry Peter, I just couldn't help myself! :grin:

Hi

 

Oh yes you could you just didn't want to.

 

Best fishes

 

Peter

hi peter appreciate your reply thanks

does anyone have a copy of section 82 of the 1974 act cause this is what the bank is relying on from a deed of assignment

or so i thought thats what it was until i have looked at it now and it says its swb1019 revised december 1989 guarantee sterling and currencey it dose nt actually metion deed of assignment also its ltd to 20,000 but they drifted to 21,800 on the bank statements at the time

so this is actually a guarantee sterling and currenceyby an individual or ltd co so what the hell have i signed up to ? they have not been in touch since oct 1993 since they are relying on this also in oct 1993 i challenged them to take me to court or forget it cause i wanted this case heard before a judge at the time ,bearing in mind i have a written libel letter here sent by the bank fax machine during the operation of the contract also they were frustrating the contract and my business at the same time

hope someone has some knowledge

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

I would also have thought that it would be time limited

 

if they have had no contact since 1993 then I would have thought that the statute of limitations would apply? they have 6 years to chase a debt. unless it has been the subject of a ccj

 

rgds

 

Dave

the agreement has not been updated nor amended cept to say they bounced three cheques whilst the account was in credit charged over 2000 pounds in intrest charges and sent me a libelous letter/fax from the bank rung my suppliers and basicly put me out of busines i had no choice but to bankrupt the company last i heard from them was 1992...........after all that i issued them with a notice giving them ten days in which i asked that they proceed with their court action if they wanted any monies for i was not prepared to discuss it farther until it was in court...ps before i forget my solicitor who was furnishing them with information weeks before i was privy to it was struck of and by the way most of my suppliers were in spain italy and some transport companies ..but efectively they deliberately put me out of busines ...i cannot act on any of this yet until i have undergone a few major operations and i get stressed every day thinking about this case its like a noose round my neck knowing they still have this deed on my property ..but after my operations i intend going for it

but thanks a lot dave i will now study the data you have posted

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

LOL at first glance i thought it said RETARDS lol i do feel like one dealing with the damm banks

[patrickq1]

just a thought hopefully its not without prejudice because the smaller page dose sound very interesting i am sure you would like to see this sheet for yourself sounds fishy big sheet and little sheet not too profesional

[patrickq1]

wake up tomoz with a clear head may its past midnight lol

[patrickq1]

. DOES A (BANK OVERDRAFT )come under the consumer credit agreements or where do people stand with regards to over the top charges ?

[patrickq1]

do you not reserve the right not to incrimanate yourself

[patrickq1]

remember in the very early 50/60s when banks were totally distrusted and less people wanted to use the banks ,(because the old folk knew of the dangers entrusting banks with your hard earned cash)then banks could nt do enough for its customers.you could call your local manager and he was only to willing to have a chinwag with his customer he would always ask how are you and family how is things with yourself..has nt things changed now you are a number their is only a computor and some nameless and faceless person,they wont even sign their letters now ...the BANKS GREED is now turning and all of us at cag can see this the last nail in their coffin was the T&C the right to process your data with a third party is finally being reilised by every one on here and is now being seriously questioned as to how on earth can we stop this .I FOR ONE HAVE DECIDED SOME YEARS AGO THAT NO MATTER THE COSTS I WILL PROSECUTE THE BANKS OVER THIS ISSUE because i beleive it is immoral and against my HUMAN RIGHTS to share any of my DATA except with the taxman police and a judge i want no other party to be privy to this information unless it has been lawfully instructed by a judge to do so ..the FSO ,TS,FSA have all allowed this fundimental right to be eroded now the trading standards cant even get information from companies concerning complaints against the companies ,i find this incredible,yet the same companies are quite ready to pass on your information to credit reference agancies with impunity.what has gone wrong with us all we are being led like sheep on the banks say so..how dare they process my data without my express permision...this is traficking personal data like they were drug dealers selling drugs

[patrickq1]

i cannot find it in law where it is legal to trade this data without the word of a judge...i stand to be corrected ..but if someone can point me to a lawbook and a judges decision that this is legal

and dont quote its in the T&C i was not party to this ,i was not party to any individual negotiations to this ...it is imposed no sorry it is forced on you ...i have gone through a few contracts that i could find ...i am not refusing to pay the companies i owe money to but at the same time i have sent them a photocopy of the contract and where the offending sentance is i have corrected it by saying you have the right to proces my personal dat to THE POLICE THE TAXMAN,AND A JUDGE ,you shall offer no other information to anyone without my express permission...if you have an objection please write to me so we can re negotiate a contract i beleive would be fair .if on the other hand you wish to rescind your contract then i am only too happy with this and shall then pay you monies owed when we go before a judge to alter the contract in a fair and balanced manner

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

they seem to be saying simmallar to what i have said all along,and this regulator is now already voicing his concern and that is just goverment departments,which is an indication as to how serious this problem has become,well done may for that newstory,,,,,,so thits gives more than clarity when you consider private companies and banks ,data sharing companies debt collection agencies....none of this data is licenced legaly this is why i keep bangin on about it a major defence needs to be challenged against these terms and conditions on the basis they are unfair terms with regards to third party before an action is taken,and i am taking it as the second party is THE JUDGE THE TAXMAN AND THE POLICE BUT NOT EXCLUDING THE MAIN GOVERMENT BODIES who may want for true and honest information,but the case against the banks is on consentious the information being passed is both bius and vexhasious the reasons for this if and when you apply for credit at anyones lending company .he knows that he can obtain information (not through the lawful courts and goverment chanells)(from a company who are recognised to may be in possesion of certain data be it credidible data concerning you or be it unreliable data concerning you...............AS YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS DATA ...this is highly unlikely....THIS DATA PROCESSING COMPANY IS ALLOWED TO COLLECT DATA AND PROCESS THIS DATA FOR BE IT PROFIT OR NOT that is DATA IN THE PUBLIC REALM normal chanels is through the goverment court system provided the judge has sandtioned it for public consuption,so why do i have no knowledge of this DATA being passed because the company whoever passed your data has not informed you of the excact details of what data they have passed concerning you they have denied you of your basic rights to challenge the truthfullness of the said data within a period of time the reason for this is before the DATA PROTECTION ACT became PUBLIC PROPERTY and people did not know they could question and challenge banks to the lawfulnes of their actions,because everyones or majority of right thinking people beleived in our banks to operate our accounts fairly and with a duty of care in all dealings ,but now we have discovered that we could challenge decisions that any ordinary person would deem unfair we have now started to question the banks and the processing of our data we were all co ersed into mitigating ourselves into the being co defendants in this CRIME OF PASSING DATA it was sign this aplication or dont sign because everyone has the same t and c so it was a no win situation.which is unfair arguements are welcome hope this explains me better shane lol

[patrickq1]

i sugest also we report The Information Commissioners Office that they are also in breach of their terms and conditions for failing to act upon false /and mis leading information with regards to bank charges and data protection issues ,report them to the OFT/MP s/PRIME MINISTER/and trading standards

[patrickq1]

beat that shane lol

[patrickq1]

trouble is we need to get their comments in writing i am not sure wether they will commit those comments to paper i may be wrong but it is time this orginisation was brought to book and made to adhere to the law excactly as it is read and written,for the ordinary person as he/she understands it to be you cannot procces data without it being questioned and verified in a legal sense

[patrickq1]

is it hedley and byrne or oscar chess ltd v williams negligent mis representation/or negligent mis representation injurious falsehood dutton vbognor regis careless auditing their is a wealth of options open

[patrickq1]

think i just ate the law book then lol

[patrickq1]

there has to be a lawful reason for the dispute otherwise regretfully i think the bank are legally within their rights to record missed paymnents.i agree with all of what your saying peter but one thing that sticks out is if you do happen to have a mis hap with your finances a decent person or bank would or should have or make the time to call you personally and ask is their any problems or do you need help it does not take much to do this its a matter of courtesy and good manners and gives re assurance to the person who has defaulted or has run into difficulties (not forgetting i was defaulted twice by morgan stanley ,whilst they where in receipt of payment through my PPI insurance) or a bank stops a payment to another bank or account or finance co..but to just send out defaults is both vexhatios and in most circumstances due to mis representation of unlawful bank charges ..so either the law is precise and the bank face imediate prosecution for the mis representation this then forces the banks to have a duty of care in administering your account fairly,the reason for defaults going through so freely is that they have not been entirely honest with their information to the goverment watchdogs same applies to the DCA companies...but with DCA we know its mostly vexhasious and should now be stopped completely also the credit reference agencies should be properly scrutinised and forced to comply with terms of reasonabless with regards to entering defaults some one must contact the person being defaulted and given the chance to make good missed debt payments .but up to now the posts on this subject are really getting more in depth and it is becoming clearer that the statutory duties of the oft and all other are lacking in definitive punishment against this databeing processed .our lives are being trespassed and harmed/abused to often without any one standing upto them...it is also a perversion of the justice system to allow it to continue

get of my soapbox now keep up the fantastic work peter and shane

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

an agreement can be canelled if their is a breach but it must be a serious breach but even a breach in an agreement must/or can be challenged

[patrickq1]

1. The data subject has given his consent to the processing.*

if the agreement is unenforcable by virtue of lacking prescribed

term(s) contract is deemed void hence debtor never gave consent to creditor

to process his data this statement is in most credit agreements is in itself is partly an unfair contract/agreement since you have not had any say because it is an implied part of the agreement and not a negotiated part of any agreement.yes i do not have a problem with this provided it is only that the data can be passed to the COURTS/POLICE/AND INLAND REVENUE.......this is also partly the TRADING STANDARDS remit to remove this clause as being an unfair term within the contract...i sent you data from the human rights charter peter did you look at that

[patrickq1]

sometimes copies are in duplicate and they can send you your copy and keep their signed copy unless you are absolutely sure you did not sign a copy but better minds are on here to explain the ins and outs good luck

[patrickq1]

that is simmalar to what i was saying but consider the banker is the debtor that ll put tnt in you pot lol

I found this one intresting more than most threads,one particular reason is Has anyone defaulted the Banks or Finance and Credit Card Companies Etc:for the simple fact of the Matter is have these defaults been listed by experian and others credit ref agenceys considering our defaults are legal as ordered through law then it is up to the credit reg agenceys to record these defaults if they are purpoted to be a lawfully registered agencey in the eyes of the justice system......so all banks and others have now written defaults for six years or until plaintiff sees fit to have these legal defaults removed at their PLEASURE is this not the correct procedures we have all been talking about....because i once remember a quote from someone that in truth the BANKER IS THE BORROWER,because he borrows your money with the promise to pay on demand......if he cannot pay on demand then he has lawfully defaulted the Bank who could be a subject to an administration order or some penalty through the stock exchange being a legal plc isnt a default against a PLC a much bigger crime ,just a thought

[patrickq1]

ah missed that bit sorry mate

[patrickq1]

andrew i also remember some cases being if ©buys (A) debt then sue (B)then be can force (a)to be a material witness and also doing this (A)must then bring all data and breakdowns as well cant remember but will find the case and post it here

[patrickq1]

i did not word correctley about the defaults peter sorry it was mis interpreted (gotta learn to spell)what i meant was why are the banks not on experian default register when they have been defaulted by the ordinary folk here and they have been defaulted legaly through the court proccess....so experian and others are very one sided in their processing of our data ..this should be brought up and discussed .an what is the penalties when a PLC does default on debts...

freds trhead look s intresting im going out now will read it later good work guys