Cap1 & CCA return

[elsinore]

I certainly don't think an application form is sufficient even if it's signed by both parties

 

If only for the fact that the terms actually applied to the running of an account may well differ from any proposed on the application form.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

 

 

I've extended your underlining a bit Terminator,

 

un1boy, if any (or all) of your agreements refer to 'terms and conditions', then that cements the argument and you have them over the proverbial barrel!

 

Well done Terminator, more ammo!

 

Elsinore.

[elsinore]

8C. Details of how long you should allow for your payments to reach your account are on the back of your monthly statement.

 

Why aren't they included in the T&Cs?

 

Because you might miss that point, thus incurring a late payment charge.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

the DCA's really are a rotten shower of people aren't they?

 

Not the words I would have chosen to use, Elizabeth, but beautifully put!

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

I just Googled and picked this one at random. It seems to explain it pretty well.

 

Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee (MIG)

 

HTH

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

If it's been added to a loan of £5000 in your circumstances then it looks like a rip-off!

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Mortgage Indemnity Gurantee is indeed a rip off, as the other writer says it only benefits the lender, in that if you default and the house is repossesed and sold to liquidate the asset, any shorfall is made up by the MIG.

 

But here's the crappy bit, and I can remember this happening in the early 90s with a property bust and negative equity. Houses that were sold and did not realise enough money prompted the MIG to spring into life, the lender was then happy.

 

However the insurance company wasn't, they'd lost money on the agreement, so what did they do, they came after the poor sod who had just lost their house to cover they're losses, and if I remember properly they have 12 years in which to act. Alot of people were bamboozled into taking these 'products' in order to buy a house (me included), but in the wrong circumstances they are a ticking financial 'time bomb'

 

Mike

 

Tell me about it!

 

In 1992, two years after our house was repossessed by the Woolwich, they came at us for a shortfall of £38k! Their excuse was that their insurer required them to take all possible steps to recover the shortfall before they would pay out. That meant 'go to the poor sod and get it off him'. We then discovered that the property had been resold 'quietly' through an estate agent for a pittance.

As it happened it was a ludicrous proposition to chase us, as we had only enough money to feed ourselves at the time. We completed an income statement and they wrote to us every year or so, asking us nicely if our situation had changed, which of course it hadn't:rolleyes: .

After twelve years we breathed a sigh of relief having never paid them a penny!

There is now an agreement that lenders will not chase repayment after 6 years, although I believe the law regarding 12 years actually remains in place.

 

The repossession was brought about because, unbeknown to us, we had a second charge of £10k on the house which the lender called in after our business failed.

 

The lender? Natwest!

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

if anyone recognises 01273 743574 it would help

 

As 01273 is Brighton, you can bet your bottom dollar it's either LTSB Collections, or your friend and theirs, SC&M.

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

Banks to Face MP's Probe

 

Banks are to be investigated by MR's amid allegations of profiteering, rip-offs and threats to impose annual fees on current accounts.

 

The powerful treasury select committee has announced an inquiry in the wake of figures showing the eight biggest names made more that £40 billion last year.

 

MP's are concerned the banks may be operating a complex cartel which guarantees huge profits, rather than competing on prices and value.

 

it has also emerged recently that banks have been making millions of pounds from illegal and unfair penalty charges.

 

At the moment, the banks are regulated by a voluntary code, headed by the Banking Code Standards Board.

 

However, MP's will consider whether this body should be replaced by a statuatory body with legal powers.

 

Colin Breed, a LibDem member of the committee said:'They may well rue the day when they decided to be greedy in terms of fees and charges.

 

'There seems to have been a sheer rush for profit, rather than recognising they have responsibilities to customers.'

This was buried on page 19 Daily Mail yesterday

 

OVERDRAWN, OVERCHARGED, OVER THERE!

 

Congress takes on credit cards.

Confused by multiple interest rates on your credit cards? Not sure how much your cards charge in late fees? Frustrated by credit card companies that seem to change their policies at will, putting the burden on you to opt out of the changes?

If so, there's good news--Congress appears to be on your side. On Wednesday the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations holds the first of several hearings to examine business practices of the credit card industry, focusing on how credit issuers apply interest rates and other fees. Representatives from Bank of America , Chase Bank USA and Citigroup will testify in front of the panel, chaired by U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

According to Levin, many credit lenders engage in practices that are "unfair or abusive"--such as charging interest on balances that have already been paid--that are too complex for the average consumer to understand. "We're going to do our very best to bring these abuses to the light of day," he says, noting that credit card companies have the highest profits in the commercial banking industry.

In the coming months, Levin and subcommittee ranking member Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) are expected to work closely with the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which has jurisdiction over banking legislation, to craft a bill that provides more protection to consumers. Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) has been highly critical of abusive behavior by credit lenders, saying recently that legislators in both parties are concerned about companies' "profiteering at the expense of people who can least afford it."

Levin, in particular, says he wants to see lenders end the common practice of charging consumers compound interest for average daily balances, even if those balances have been paid on time. In addition, he wants banks to stop charging repeated "over-the-limit" fees beyond the month in which a consumer charged above the card's limit.

Wednesday's hearing stems from an investigation of the credit card industry completed in September by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the auditing arm of Congress. That study found that the amount of U.S. consumers charged to their credit cards annually ballooned from about $69 billion in 1980 to $1.8 trillion in 2005. It also noted that while interest rates on cards have fallen since about 1990, in recent years major lenders' disclosures about the costs associated with their cards often "buried important information in text, failed to group and label related material, and used small typefaces"--thus vexing, often bewildering, consumers.

"A big part of the issue here is disclosure that people understand in a clear and simple way," says Coleman. "The bottom line is that there has been a lot of growth in this area, and clearly folks have stepped over the line … I think what you're going to see is a lot of [companies] stepping back, and I think that's a good thing."

At least one company, Chase, apparently already stepped back after it discovered that one of its customers, Wesley Wannemacher, will be a key witness at Wednesday's hearing. In 2001, Wannemacher charged $3,200 on his Chase card to pay for his wedding. During the next six years, he paid $4,900 in interest charges, $1,500 in over-the-limit charges, and $1,100 in late fees--for a total of $10,700. As of last month, he still owed $4,400 on the card. After finding that Wannemacher will testify Wednesday, Chase reportedly waived the remaining balance on the card.

"The fact that the company has waived the balance, it seems to me, is an indication of their embarrassment," says Levin. Chase acknowledges that it closed Wannemacher’s account after his situation was brought to the company’s attention by Senate staff. “We quickly recognized that we made a mistake, and we want to do the right thing for our customer,” says Paul Hartwick, a spokesman for Chase Card Services, in an e-mailed statement. “After analyzing the situation, we realized he had made enough payments to satisfy his settlement offer.”

The credit card industry has among the lightest regulation in the nation, and lawmakers appear ready to give federal regulators more power to tame companies' lending policies if necessary. But they are also hoping that by working with the largest credit issuers, such as Citigroup, Chase Card Services, MBNA America, Bank of America and Capital One Financial, that a change in industry practices will have a trickle down effect to smaller lenders.

Nonetheless, the industry itself seems to realize that it is under intense scrutiny. Last week, Citi, a subsidiary of Citigroup, announced that it would end a widespread industry practice of increasing interest rates on their cards for customers that have defaulted on other credit obligations, a practice known as "universal default." The company also agreed to end another common practice, increasing its customers' rates and fees at "any time for any reason." This week, Chase also launched a new initiative to help consumers better understand their accounts. It includes e-mail alerts to remind customers when their payments are due and payment calculators to show customers how their payments affect their balances.

Dodd welcomed the news but added that credit card companies' practices still need to be examined for potential abuses by lenders because "a number of practices within the credit card industry have in many cases weakened rather than strengthened consumers’ financial well being…."

And a cluster of consumer groups--including the National Consumer Law Center, U.S. PIRG and Consumer Action--earlier this year banded together to call for an end to what they describe as "deceptive and unjust terms." They want, among other things, an end to the practice of retroactive rate increases (essentially applying higher interest rates to existing balances), mandatory arbitration clauses, which prevent consumers from taking companies to court, and an end to universal default.

From a consumer's standpoint, none of these seem like unreasonable requests

I watched a CEO of a US Credit Card Company apologise to a Congressional Comittee during a report on ABC World News (BBC News 24) last night. I thought I had dreamt it until I found the above reference, the actual news item having disappeared from ABC's website.

Interesting, insofar as it refers to the usual suspects!

Els

[elsinore]

We could do worse than pick up on the recommendations proposed by our US namesake here

 

Consumer Action :: Levin hearing exposes widespread credit card abuses

 

Els

[elsinore]

therefore to stop the Americans sounding like pompus twonks, they reshuffled and renamed it.

 

Failed again!

 

Elsinore

[elsinore]

 

subrcribed to this thread now so hopefully i wont have trillions of posts to look through in one go

 

 

Don't kid yourself fet!

 

Ninety+ posts today, so far!:o

 

Els

[elsinore]

Pami??? You gettin' fresh with me now Peter??

 

 

It'll be a typo!

 

Els

[elsinore]

his missus?

 

I'll let Peter tell you!

 

Els

[elsinore]

Night Termie. I'll be back.

 

........oh dear.

[elsinore]

 

Perhaps I need to look at the way I am posting comments to avoid any future upset to my fellow consumers.

 

 

Yup!

 

Els

[elsinore]

It's very quiet on here today - are you all holiday:(

 

Pam, I would like to revisit your idea of organising some kind of joint complaint to TS. I've been thinking about this today, and if they're the enforcement officers then they must have some duty to at least listen to us?

 

It's extremely frustrating that we can get to the stage where CCP's have committed an offence - over & over again -and that's the end of the story. Doesn't seem right to me.

 

Anyone else want to add to this?

 

Yeah, on holiday, but hooked on CAG! Sad, or what!

 

I think one of the problems, ladybird, is the way TS is structured. Each of us is only supposed to complain to our local TS, no matter where the subject of our complaint is located. TS, in turn, are only obliged to consider complaints from within their own area. So, if 20 of us wrote and complained about one CCP, those complaints could conceivably be received at 20 different offices.

 

However, suppose each of us copied our complaint to the TS office covering the area in which the CCP's head office was located? Maybe that TS office would sit up and take notice when they recieved 20 (or more?) complaints about the same CCP.

 

Somewhere, recently, I've read posts by an ex-TS employee. I'll see if I can find him/her and ask for an opinion.

 

Happy Easter:-)

 

Els

[elsinore]

 

Somewhere, recently, I've read posts by an ex-TS employee. I'll see if I can find him/her and ask for an opinion.

 

It's SteveH2508, on this thread!

 

Els

[elsinore]

Just one question, though. The letter states that we will register the default with the credit reference agencies.

 

Can we actually do this and if so, how? I don't want to send a letter containing an empty threat as I will have no recourse should they just ignore me.

 

 

Ian, JonCris, Battleaxe and InKogneeToh,

 

If we can’t persuade the CRAs to register lenders’ defaults properly, or at all (because we’re not members of their cosy little club), why not start our own agency?

 

It would be very simple to set up, as there are a finite number of CCPs, banks and other lenders.

• Instances of default (and, for that matter, CCJs) would be logged against offending lenders.
  
• Each CAG/BAG member would have access to the register to review the status of a potential lender. This would assist members in making a more informed decision as to which lender to choose when applying for credit.
  
• A potential lender, which failed to meet the borrower’s criteria, would be written to by the borrower informing them of this fact.
  
• Each lender could make an application to the Agency and, upon payment of a significant fee, receive details of its own standing. Information relating to other lenders would not be available, on the grounds of ‘commercial sensitivity’.
  
• A lender which later corrected a default, by complying with the CCA requirements, could apply to have that default removed. All such applications would be refused.
  
• A periodic return could be made to the relevant authorities* in tabular form, with the current worst offender at the top.
  
• The above return would not be available to lenders, as the information contained in it would be deemed to be ‘commercially sensitive’.
  
• A lender would not be able to modify or amend any entry against its name, without the express permission of the Agency management.
  
• The number of defaults/CCJs registered against a lender would count towards a total, to be determined, at which point the lender’s fitness to hold a Consumer Credit Licence would be brought into question with the relevant authorities*.
  
• There would be a special X-rated section for DCAs.

*All of them

 

Els:)

[elsinore]

Now, I just knew that you'd be along with some cracking additional ideas, JC!

 

Els

[elsinore]

elsinore, who would be able to put together a database of lenders and keep tabs on thing, surely this would be a full time job, given the current climate of non-compliance.

 

Well, Tanz, what started out as a whimsical comment, developed into a serious suggestion as the post was written.

 

I was thinking that members would submit their own data. The results would not be exhaustive, of course, relying, as they would, on the diligence of some and the apathy of others. Relevant threads, such as this one, could be trawled for information.

 

I know nothing about computer systems, so I'll leave it to others to determine how it might be done. Struggling Simon appears to have volunteered! so I'll seek his assistance.

 

Unfortunately, we seem to have lost a few regular contributors, but I expect there will be plenty more, here and elsewhere:roll:

 

Els

[elsinore]

Thanks ladybird, that makes very enjoyable reading!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/83246-well-well-halifax-court.html

 

Els

[elsinore]

We should all report it to the OFT - they guy i spoke with said that they would be VERY interested in all this as they use it all to decide whether to rennee credit licenses and assured me that they take all info like this very seriously....

 

That's when a database would come into its own (see post 6015)

 

Els

[elsinore]

Hi Lizzie

 

Don't the banks have an ACOP.

 

If you were to ask them, they would doubtless point to the Banking Code and Business Banking Code.

 

The words 'chocolate' and 'fireguard' spring to mind!

 

Els

[elsinore]

Els if we do utilise a database we must then comply with the DPA if we keep any personally identifiable information on it.

 

Yes, of course Tam, it requires a lot of thinking through.

 

Els

.