Cap1 & CCA return

[Guest Battleaxe]

Peter,

 

I hope you are not refer to me as a stirrer? I will have you know Pam Ladybird and myself are fine upstanding members of our respective communities and yes I am a Witch, but not on broomstick duty. Had to get toether my documentation for my latest FOS complaint regarding A & L loans. Seemed to be photocopying for hours.

[un1boy]

I believe the CCR 83 regs say that a copy of a correctly executed document does not require any personal details such as customer details and signature.The point of the CCA s85 being to confirm the agreement complies with the rules, not to prove that a contract exists.

 

Clearly, if one was disputing the existence of the contract a full copy of the executed agreement would need to be produced, but that is a different matter.

 

My undertanding of the CCR 83 regs is that to satisfy a sec 77-79 request, tehy can provide the doc without signatures, but it must be a true copy of the original....not sure how it applies to sec 85 though, if it does!

 

Also, I am surprised that they replied to both your letters in one - that's bad in my opinion, seperate letters means seperate complaints. And, as you say, you both may not even be aware of each other's circumstances....

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Section 85 clearly states while the creditor remains in default they are not allowed to profit and they must consildate within one month of the default. they are supposed to send a copy of the executed agreement and T & C's when the second credit card is issued. While the default remains, they are not allowed to collect any interest and this must be repaid for however long this default has been in place. i.e second card re-issued 2003, not interest is allowed to be collected. it is not the matter of an agreement being in existanece, they have to send a copy of the agreement when re-issuing the card. Simple as that. Industry standard might be the practice but it is not lawful. The Section 85 is explicit.

 

CONSEQUENTLY the data sent to the credit reference agencies is "bad data" and erroneous and consequently must be removed ?

(a) obviously the current balance stated on any CRA database is wrong(as they have added interest)

(b) the status history cannot possibly be detrimental (should not contain any monthly update other than "0" during the period that they are in defaul)

[ecobabe]

on a slightly different note.....don't know if it was you peterbard or tamadus that had letter from Ian mcCartney.....??? anyway, now that my debts are all gone (wayhay!!) i've been helping some other folks and one of them had old MBNA credit card passed to Link, (bear with me here ) so we CCA'd them in sept and got patronozing letter back from link saying s77 & 78 doesn't apply to us cos we aint the original credito. anyway i replied reminding them of s185 and that they were wrong. when all time had elapsed we complained to TS who called today to say that they had spoken to link and they would still be pursuing the debt because original creditors would have agreement and other pish(sorry but i am really disgusted at TS). So we cca'd MBNA today and I know I am in the right, but anybody else want to tell me i'm wrong? Ian McCartney wants to tell his dept to train their staff properly

[Guest The Terminator]

Credit cards | UK credit cards | Compare credit cards - MSN Money UK - Don't accept Virgin's late payment ploy

 

Add this to the 37 bill profits the banks are going to make this year and it = war!

[un1boy]

I reported breach of the CCA (request in August, still not sent me all the docs) and all the TS said to me was, are you disputing that the agreement and debt exists?

 

I said, with all due respect, I am reporting the criminal offence they have made to you as it is you guys who can take action - any other factors are, at this stage, irrelevant.......why does it matter to them? They don't ask someone who's been mugged whether they had their wallets out at the time, do they?

[ecobabe]

i'm not worried by link nor is my friend, but i just despair for the folk who don't about this stuff. for Link to be so blatant to TS and for TS to be so ...........**** is enraging.

[un1boy]

I agree - I mean, TS should be prosecuting them for the fact they have commited an offence.....I don't think they will in my case, in case I am well and truly [done in]!!!

[TideTurner]

All,

 

Did anybody see this article about Nationwide being fined by the FSA for not holding peoples personal information securely enough?

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2007/021.shtml

Tide

[humbleman]

You have to accept the fact that the personnel at ICO, TS, the Ombudsman, have not had to deal with such complains or issues, in the past. Therefore their training is limited to writing standard letter/templates etc. Now inorder for them to deal with these complex issues they need to a higher level of training. For example in the past TS used to mainly deal with compalint about rogue traders, trades description etc, but when it come to finance, white collar etc, thats a different ball game altogether.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Isn't it nice to nice to know we are contributing to their further education in dealing with higher level complaints.

 

I wonder when these stat authorities will develop the intestinal fortitude to go for the jugular with the banks and credit card companies and actually bring a a criminal case against them?

[TideTurner]

Humbleman, Trade Unions, Councils, Ltd Companies etc are all now starting to send their staff on legal courses now so they have these services in-house. So do the Banks, although they aren't solicitors either. I agree when you say there's a bit of catching up to do though.

[Guest The Terminator]

Isn't it nice to nice to know we are contributing to their further education in dealing with higher level complaints.

 

I wonder when these stat authorities will develop the intestinal fortitude to go for the jugular with the banks and credit card companies and actually bring a a criminal case against them?

 

The problem is BA is that they haven't got the bottle to do it.And that's my opinion until they prove me wrong.

[ladybird17]

Axe - because the government have the ear of the banks and vice-versa. How many MP's retire & take up bank directorships? A good many of them.

So statutory agencies or quasi-governmental bodies are always going to hold back from upsetting the status quo. You scratcha my back - I scratcha yours. (IMHO, of course)

[Guest Battleaxe]

Ladybird,

 

Our MP Jonathan Djanogly definitely has decalred interests in several banks

[un1boy]

Well the government need the banks so they won't act - most politicians, judges, CEO's etc ahve shares in all the major banks and they all lend to each other, so they all have a vested interest in each other......they lend a lot to the government too.....the FOS and the FSA are definitely funded by the banks, I dont know about TS ec, so they are basically investigating their own....

[rippedoffagain]

Well the government need the banks so they won't act - most politicians, judges, CEO's etc ahve shares in all the major banks and they all lend to each other, so they all have a vested interest in each other......they lend a lot to the government too.....the FOS and the FSA are definitely funded by the banks, I dont know about TS ec, so they are basically investigating their own....

 

A bit harsh!

 

There will cetainly be some MP's who are board members etc, I would not say most without research.

 

I am getting the impression the judiciary are closer to the people than they are to Downing Street.

[zubo]

Which reminds me.

 

Quite a few posts ago several of our friends had or were approaching their local police to report a criminal offence.

 

Whatever happened to those complaints - were they acted on?

 

If not then I think we should each ask our MP to raise the lack of action within the House and determine the appropriate approach to complain to the Goverment about the unwillingness for the custodians of our consumer legislation to NOT comply with their obligations and using well documented evidence supplied, bring prosecutions to ensure compliance.

 

hello 10 MIB, we can see you and your IP addresses....... and locate you.

 

This needs to be well-cordinated with our friends the Press to ensure maximum coverage, maximum exposure of weaknesses with the OFT and maximum exposure of significant breaches by the Finance community.

[Guest The Terminator]

Which reminds me.

 

Quite a few posts ago several of our friends had or were approaching their local police to report a criminal offence.

 

Whatever happened to those complaints - were they acted on?

 

If not then I think we should each ask our MP to raise the lack of action within the House and determine the appropriate approach to complain to the Goverment about the unwillingness for the custodians of our consumer legislation to NOT comply with their obligations and using well documented evidence supplied, bring prosecutions to ensure compliance.

 

hello 10 MIB, we can see you and your IP addresses....... and locate you.

 

This needs to be well-cordinated with our friends the Press to ensure maximum coverage, maximum exposure of weaknesses with the OFT and maximum exposure of significant breaches by the Finance community.

 

In my case the police were not interested although they were given copies of the Malicious Letters,Threats,Call logs etc and suggested that I should take this through the civil courts even outling the facts to when civil becomes criminal they still wasn't interested.Now if it was a bunch of hoodies breaking into an off-licence then that is completly different.The old bill just aint got a clue.Now another thing as cropped up today a DCA who I refuse to talk to and shouldn't be processing my personal data have found my landline number so I'm going to wait until they take me to court then have my pound of flesh.

[maybelline]

Mortgage Consultation and Consumer Damage

 

i came across this looking for something on misselling but see how old this is, goes back to 2000! general comments about lack of proper information is all too prevalent.

[InKogneeToh]

I gather it would have to be by special delivery:lol:

 

Personal delivery would be best!

[InKogneeToh]

the obligation to provide you with this document is fulfilled by the card carrier you received and to which your new card was attached. This is an industry standard document and conforms to the Regulations"

 

 

 

Just out of interest, can anyone remember what these 'industry standard' and 'CCA compliant' card carriers actually say on them? I must confess I normally just pull the card off and bin the rest without taking much notice.

 

Regards, Pam

[rippedoffagain]

I have recently received a citicard, the letter dropped through the post, pre approved, sign the application and send it in.

 

The card came stuck to a letter saying

 

"Credit card agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act !974"

 

"This is a copy of your agreement for you to keep, it includes a notice about your cancellation rights"

 

No signitures.

[InKogneeToh]

Section 85 clearly states while the creditor remains in default they are not allowed to profit and they must consildate within one month of the default. they are supposed to send a copy of the executed agreement and T & C's when the second credit card is issued. While the default remains, they are not allowed to collect any interest and this must be repaid for however long this default has been in place. i.e second card re-issued 2003, not interest is allowed to be collected.

 

Hi Battleaxe

 

Sorry to disagree with a respected member of the coven but what you have posted above is not stated in the Act.

 

S85 states that an agreement may not be enforced whilst the creditor is in default but it is only an assumption that this means that they cannot charge interest!

 

This interpretation of the meaning of 'enforcement' was a central part of a court claim I raised against a creditor a couple of years ago. The judge ruled that 'unenforceability' meant only that the creditor could not force payment or sue on the debt. He said that I had made all previous payments voluntarily and that therefore the creditor was entitled to keep them. It was only the remainder of the debt that I had no legal obligation to pay. This, he said, was because unenforceable does not mean void or invalid. It just means that the creditor cannot force you to pay.

 

This was his decision even though it was declared that the agreement had been improperly executed and, by virtue of S127(3), had been totally 'unenforceable' from the beginning!

 

I appealed against this but the second judge agreed with that interpretation.

 

I quoted several passages from the Wilson judgment (and others) but this had no effect.

 

I am so hoping that these s85 claims will result in creditors having to pay back interest but this is by no means certain.

 

Regards, Pam

[InKogneeToh]

I have recently received a citicard, the letter dropped through the post, pre approved, sign the application and send it in.

 

The card came stuck to a letter saying

 

"Credit card agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act !974"

 

"This is a copy of your agreement for you to keep, it includes a notice about your cancellation rights"

 

No signitures.

 

Hi

 

Is that ALL that was written on the attached letter?

 

Regards, Pam