Cap1 & CCA return

[millymollymoo]

Hi I wonder if you can help me.

 

I sent off CCA request to Egg for O/H and S.A.R in the same envelope with relevant fees on 18th January. The deadline for CCA is tomorrow. However, I am a bit concerned if they will reply anyway, as this account closed on default in 2002. He paid their in house debt collecter GOLDTHORN the full amount soonafter.

 

Can anybody help as was this the correct course of action to send to egg??? and direct me to a template letter for the next step?

 

Milly X:)

[millymollymoo]

Milly

 

O/H? help me please with the acronym..

 

there is nothing wrong with sending two or more requests in same envelope - I do it all the time. Regardless of the state of the accounts you are entitled under the act of a response to the CCA.

 

A failure to supply you with an executed agreement will put them in a weak position, regardless of settlement, because if they have no agreement they should never have chased you for any money. It then follows that they cannot profit from you and you can claim for Consolidation - ie a full refund of all their interest and charges plus statutory interest from the date of the first charge.

 

I would wait until you receive your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), because what you need here is to identify the dates and all the charges because you will need to claim those for consolidation. When you have that worked out and still not received your CCA, then hit them with an S78 Default notice and demand for the consolidation. If they do not respond favourably, you need to issue an LBA, wait, then procede to Court looking for confirmation that the agreement never existed and needs to be confirmed as unenforceable, request payment in accordance with your consolidation schedule and interest, and cancellation of all defaults recorded unlawfully against you with the CRAs.

 

You know there is such a focus on S85 within this post that S77/78 seems to be ignored... and in response to a previous poster... why aren't there more S85s being raised I would add... why isnt there more S77/78 raised.. - seems equally valid question with very strong grounds to claim.

 

The thing which I miss because I'm soft and need my hand held, is a step by step guide to action to take using either section. But I guess the ink isn't quite dry yet is it Term/Tam et al.???

 

Wow and thanks:) I had no idea what I was going to do with this one and now I do so thanks very much:)

 

Milly X

[millymollymoo]

Hi tamadus by the way.

 

Milly X

[millymollymoo]

Milly, just to let you know, they don't have to comply with your CCA request if the balance is nil.....which, from what I understand from your thread, it is!

 

 

Ok right that seems clear enough, however they still should answer the S.A.R shouldnt they? It is within the six years.

 

Milly X

 

.

[millymollymoo]

Originally Posted by un1boy

Milly, just to let you know, they don't have to comply with your CCA request if the balance is nil.....which, from what I understand from your thread, it is!

 

Actually thats not clear now.

 

Reason being this scenario at the moment seperate from the one asked about, I have paid back a credit card just recently and it is £10 in credit. Does that apply to that then and this credit card is current and active owing nil. So if that is the truth I have no agreement anymore with my present credit card company ??????? yet if I want to go out and spend the whole lot I could and then because I had spent on it Ia credit card agreement would be given then because there was adebt ??Really confused now:confused:

 

MillyX

[millymollymoo]

Ok, what it basically means is that the account has to be active - ie, if it's a credit card and you haven't closed it then you would make your request under sec 77 and they would have to comply.....if it was a loan and you had paid it all off and closed it, then they wouldn't

 

If the accounts have been defaulted and you are still paying a it off then they must comply, if you have paid the defaulted balance then they don't have to....

 

Does this make sense?

 

 

Crystal thanks:)

[millymollymoo]

Milly, just to let you know, they don't have to comply with your CCA request if the balance is nil.....which, from what I understand from your thread, it is!

 

 

Hi there, Just to let you know they did comply albeit you would need to be a mouse to read the tiny fonts they sized the agreement too:rolleyes:

 

Milly X

[millymollymoo]

Hi I have two CCA deadlines passed. Capital One and they have cashed the cheque:mad: and Goldfish who incidentally sent aletter confirming that they would send my CCA by agreed date. Can you suggest what I need to do now?

 

Milly X

[millymollymoo]

Hi I wonder if you could help is this 1 page document received enforceable/ No T&C's referred to received.

 

[millymollymoo]

Hi 3m

 

It is a bit small but it seems to be an enforceable agreement - it has the prescribed terms (which is what matters) in points 1,2 and 3 and your signature at the bottom.

 

However, it is not a properly executed agreement as the title is wrong - it should say Credit Card Agreement.... That means it can only be enforced by a court. A court would enforce it though.

 

Hi Steven, underdod and enron. Many thanks for your replies.

 

 

Hi yes It came extremely tiny! I have enlarged it as best I could! This came on an A4 paper and the size was just one 1/4 of the page! The 'agreement' refers to T&C's in the small print these have not been sent. I am wondering if they have the original at all as this until enlarged is virtually illegible. Could this be on microfilm or something??

 

 

My question is how can they refer through the course of the agreement to the cards T &C's if this is ALL they have sent and all that is signed. In other words without full T&C's whatt right did they have to charge late payment fee's, pass the account to third parties etc if they are not within the signature doc or proven ever provided. This document was obviously pre contract as the card was yet to be issued and application computer info came on the other side of the A4 paper. This I suppose becane executed on sending the card {I never received this or any T &C's though] I KEEP EVERYTHINGSO i KNOW.

 

Milly X

Edited January 10, 2009 by millymollymoo
added agreement

[millymollymoo]

Hi could someone clear something up for me in:

 

Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998

 

This highlights the effect of a invalid default notice and that the action should not of proceeded from what I gather.

 

So if the company terminated the account would this mean they should not of terminated and that they could then reinstate, issue a correct default notice to enforce the debt properly or am getting confused.

 

The reason i ask is then the company would be in a win win situation.

 

Milly XX

[millymollymoo]

Thanks dave;) for clearing that up!

 

Then this is good and I could quote this case if needs be.

 

MillyXXX

[millymollymoo]

bump

POST 14105

 

 

Hi Steven I am still waiting for a reply since January concerning mine from RBS and considering mine and phatrams were taken out not too far apart cannot understand the 'differences' as to no logo, ,no annual rate stated[just APR] the same monthly rate or cash as purchases APR different???

CAN instead of CANNOT in the legal rights section. After all these should be standard yes???

 

[millymollymoo]

Hi magna wonder why Mint are ignoring me? I requested a view of the original and the t&c's referred to. No calls, no letters and its been 6 weeks.

 

To mislead a consumer as to their protection under the 'rights' section is wrong as the agreement is then completely one sided. It says they CAN enforce an agreement against me if they do not meet their requiremnts WITHOUT a court order. It must be CANNOT as in all others.

 

Milly X

 

Milly X

[millymollymoo]

Not really....improperly executed, in reality means that they have to go to court to gain enforcement.....and they'll get it. However if you can show how anything missing has predudiced you, the court can re-open the agreement and you might get a reduction................ slim chance though

 

rgds

 

Dave

 

Hi I have a very similar agreement to phatram, received it tiny though[ about the size of a credit card!] I have been told that it is improperly executed and up to a judge to decide. whats your feelings on this though. Under the IMPORTANT _ YOUR RIGHTS PLEASE READ CAREFULLY [this bit makes it improperly executed] it says:

 

We CAN enforce ..... instead of we CANNOT.

 

What do you think?? Quite clearly predujiced here as I have NO RIGHTS whatsoever!

 

This made me suspicious and due to the size of the agreement have for 3 months requested a more legible copy - they have COMPLETELY ignored all my letters, why I ask:cool: I am wondering that due to mine having no logo and all typed with no credit limit that this may be reconstructed as similar agreements are different than mine. Also I am confused as to why the monthly interest for cash although a different APR is the same as the purchases:confused:

 

CitizenB:) kindly suggested a letter short and sharp as i have now received a letter from Green& Co solicitors:mad:

 

Please take a look.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/176709-mint-rbs-advanta-cca.html

 

Milly XXX

[millymollymoo]

Hi wonder if any one can help please.

 

On my alleged mint agreement I am confused as to the rates it shows and wonder how the two apr shown below which are different can produce the same monthly rate:confused:

 

The rate of interest we charge, and the equivalent APRs are shown below:

 

for purchases including 'transfer and save' rate we charge p/m APR

Until 1 June 2001 0.242% fixed 2.9%

From 2 June 2001 1.385% variable 17.9%

For all advances from the start 1.385% variable 20.4%

For each advance we will charge you 2% of the value of the advance or £1.50 whichever is more.

-----------------

Now I presume 'advance' means cash but does not say that word????

Is the APR wrong?????????????

Milly XXX

[millymollymoo]

Hiya Banker:) Hope all went well with your case.

 

Milly XX

[millymollymoo]

Regarding section 189(4) would this apply to Bank of Scotland Credit Card taken out in 2002 as a little confused???? does it mean living in scotland or agreemnts regulated in scotland????

 

From the CCact 1974:

 

This subsection does not apply to Scotland.

(4) A document embodies a provision if the provision is set out either in the

document itself or in another document referred to in it.

 

 

This is from there website:

 

Credit card T &c's:

17.6 This agreement is governed by Scottish law.

 

and from their site legal notice:

 

General

While Bank of Scotland has taken all reasonable care to ensure that the information contained within the pages of this site is accurate, current, and complies with relevant UK legislation and regulations as at the date of issue, errors or omissions may occur due to circumstances outside our control. We reserve the right to change the content, presentation, performance, facilities and availability of all or part of the pages of this site at our sole discretion and without prior notice. We make no warranty or representation that the pages of this site can be accessed at all times during the UK hours of business stated on this site. This site may be temporarily unavailable or restricted for administrative or other reasons. We will not be liable for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with the loss of the use of this site.

We accept no responsibility for information contained in any other sites which can be accessed by hypertext link from these pages or for these other sites not being available at all times. The links to any other sites are provided for general information purposes only and the sites concerned and their contents are not endorsed or promoted by us in any way, unless otherwise stated. Please note that when you click on any external site hypertext link, you will leave our site and access the external site at your own risk.

The Bank of Scotland will not be responsible for any loss or damage (including consequential or indirect loss) that you have incurred as a result of your use of or reliance on any information displayed on this site.

Finance is provided for business only and subject to satisfactory credit assessment by Bank of Scotland or a company within the same group as Bank of Scotland.

By accessing these pages, you shall be deemed to have accepted, and agreed to be bound by, the terms of these terms and conditions, which will be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of Scotland, unless otherwise stated

 

 

Milly XX

Edited April 4, 2009 by millymollymoo
added text

[millymollymoo]

Hi all citizenB has asked me to run this by you as to what is in a book on law. I posted it on fingers thread concerning Halifax.

 

 

{deleted till clarified)

Edited April 9, 2009 by millymollymoo

[millymollymoo]

J K Mcleod was involved in the Law Commission consultation in the published papers on the Net and mentioned by Royston Goode in the footnote here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2D0wfsUb_6QC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=JK+mcleod+law+professor&source=bl&ots=Zjc3qpkdZ3&sig=rsxMFUrdxISi9Bn3HoNLCJLKE0I&hl=en&ei=fr_bSYG5EsehjAfHw6TTCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

 

Milly X

[millymollymoo]

In what role?

 

 

Have a look here Company security interests - Google Book Search

 

Roy Goode is above him in the list too:)

 

Well I have emailed him, Professor J K macleod after some digging. I have asked him the questions concerning the prescribed terms having to be on the same side as the signatures and not on the reverse. Also an explanation to the required terms commonly on the reverse (T &C's)

and I also asked him to clarify that the prescribed terms should NOT be in aseperate document or referred to elsewhere.

 

Its worth a shot he may ignore or he may reply and that would be great as some clarification as to this is needed.

 

Milly XX

Edited April 7, 2009 by millymollymoo

[millymollymoo]

Hi

I think the peice you quoted refers to post may 2005 agreement which are coverred by the 2004/1482 agreement regulations.

The earlier regs co not require the signature to be on the same page of the agrement as the prescribed terms in fact they can be anywhere within the agreement.

The new ammended agreement regs altered this in 2005 when it intrudeced the key information format which alter the no dispecement rules contained within the 1983/1553 to include the signature box.

 

The embodiies versies contains definition is expalained on here several times by me and othere and is pretty much as you say .The term "Emodies "refers to any document other thatn the agreement which was involved in the anticedant negotiations.

 

{deleted}

Edited April 9, 2009 by millymollymoo
awaiting clarification

[millymollymoo]

for anyone interested on the Rankine case,

 

here is what Goode Consumer Credit law and practice has to say on the subject.

 

 

So Professor Goode is saying the judge was mistaken?

 

Milly X

[millymollymoo]

Superb, MMM:) Kudos to you!

 

 

Hi UD:). Well I have been confused as to why this is in a book of law published 2002 and I why a professor of Law would state that, and he is respected too, as referred to by Sir Roy Goode in footnotes of his own books {whom we all know is respected by creditors too]

 

I understood from here that the prescribed terms could be anywhere on the agreement pre may 2005, as peter said[whom also is very respected:)]from various threads I have been reading.

 

All i want is clarification from this professor , the author,as to why he made that statement and he will explain the questions I asked .

 

Hopefully it will be still as the book clearly states.

 

The only reason I have emailed this professor is because creditors are too happy to produce seperate documents 'certified' by their solicitors saying the prescribed terms were on the reverse when in court and the judge is only to happy to agree that this is believable. Its more to do with this action than anything else.

 

if Professer Macleod backs up his statement in the letter i get [we will see] then it would be excellent.

 

Confusion as to the CCA and its deciphering still remains till then to me.

 

Milly X

[millymollymoo]

the editors of the consumer credit law report part of the publication are at least,

 

 

Well this is all excellent! thanks PT

 

Milly XX