Cap1 & CCA return

[Peterbard]

Hi folks,

 

I'd appreciate you all taking a look at this and pointing out any issues with it - I'm currently thinking the prominence of 'This is a consumer credit agreement regulated by the CCA 1974' isnt good enough - it should be where 'CITIBANK VISA CARD AGREEMENT' is, rather than down in the bottom section in minus 82 point text

 

Points - name, address of us taken out for MIB, along the very top is half the sig on behalf of the creditor - sig is literally a double squiggle, no name - I know we are still unsure as to what would constiute a valid sig by the creditors authorised agent?

 

Sig of us down bottom right and Citi reference number also taken out for MIB

 

Fire away folks!

 

This is not an agreenent under ther terms of the act.

It misrepresents itself as such but contains none of the prescribed terms.

The mere mention that they are on Tand C does not comply, they have to be on the main document together with the siganature box as per regulations.

I susspect this is a application form and if you were to look at the T and Cs it would say something like credit limit to be set accrding to crdit score which is a nono for an agreement

regards

 

Peter

[ncf355]

Peter,

 

Schedule 1 of the 1983 CC(A)R SI 1553 states that they can use the term " a statement that the credit limit will be determined by the creditor from time to time under the agreement and will be given by him to the debtor"

 

So a 'Credit limit to be determined' type statement doesnt preclude it from being an agreement as opposed to an application form

 

[Seahorse]

But it is an application form, and am I right in thinking that there is nowhere for the creditor to sign? It appears that someone has just written ACCEPT and scrawled their initials across the top. Don't see any T&C's either really.

 

At first glance it's just an application form, simply that, no more. IMHO, applying for a card does not constitute acceptance of same anyhow, no matter how they try to dress it up.

[Peterbard]

No but the statement that the credit limit will be assigned due to credit check will make the agreement unenforceable.

Peter

[Peterbard]

But it is an application form, and am I right in thinking that there is nowhere for the creditor to sign? It appears that someone has just written ACCEPT and scrawled their initials across the top. Don't see any T&C's either really.

 

At first glance it's just an application form, simply that, no more. IMHO, applying for a card does not constitute acceptance of same anyhow, no matter how they try to dress it up.

 

hi

no it isn't or it may be but it idoes not comply with the cca and is therefore unregulated.

 

petr

[FANTASY CHARGES]

meagain

 

If an application form does not contain signatures of both parties, signed in the prescribed manner then it cannot be the agreement. S61(1)(a) states:

 

"(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

 

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed

terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the

prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the

creditor or owner

 

The letter states, in para. 3 page 2:

 

.... [section 127]... provided that the court could not make an enforcement order under s65(1) if s61(1) was not fully complied with....

 

So none, or only one signature on an app form = totally uneforceable - Ian McCartney says so.

 

s61(1)(b) states "... the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms"

 

To embody means to incorporate, or to represent; it implies that it is a part of the whole, not a reference to some extraneous document. A commercial contract, no matter how complex would not leave out terms and conditions - referring to external documents is not good enough unless those terms are implicit, such as referring to law or statute; for example, no contract would state "you must not purposely kill anyone" as the law assumes that you know this to be wrong, it's an implied term. In the same way there is no need to incorporate the CCA 1974 into any contract because it is a statute and in the eyes of the law it's common knowledge, not a proprietory condition.

 

No, a contract (agreement) has to be signed and dated by all parties and must contain (not refer to) ALL the relevant terms and conditions.

 

I can point you in the direction of Egg for an example of a good contract (in terms of good meaning complying with the CCA). My Egg agreement is several pages long, looks and feels like a proper contract and so far as I can see complies with S61 in every respect. I can post a copy if you want. Now if Egg are doing that it must be for a reason.

 

Pete

 

 

for the benefit of our "newer subscribers" the the above is reproduced

 

 

If indeed we were to produce a typical Egg agreement {several pages long, looks and feels like a proper contract}in court to support our case it would be interesting to see the judges response.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

It would be extremely silly, but also feasible, since Parliament is able to create retroactive laws.

 

 

It would have to be. In general, laws are not retrospective, so surely the provisions of the Act which apply are those as were in force at the time the agreement was originally formed.

 

!!

[Guest Battleaxe]

As far as I know EGG is the only bank which complies with the Act when sending copies of the Agreement, we tried to fault them on Section 85 of the Act, but they send a copy of the EXECUTED Agreement when they reissue the cards

[Peterbard]

for the benefit of our "newer subscribers" the the above is reproduced

 

 

If indeed we were to produce a typical Egg agreement {several pages long, looks and feels like a proper contract}in court to support our case it would be interesting to see the judges response.

 

Remember this discourse with NO6

 

If the agreement has not been signed by the creditor it is only enforceable bya n order of the court.i f it has not been signed by the debtor it is unenforceable by virtue of 127(3)

 

Peter

[ncf355]

No but the statement that the credit limit will be assigned due to credit check will make the agreement unenforceable.

Peter

 

 

Thanks Peter,

 

is that via section 59 - entering future agreements void?

[Peterbard]

Remember what i said about the red bit above before on these .....

 

modern "balance transfer" cards

 

(meaning when you open an account the --- first transaction is usually a balance transfer --- )

 

they blatantly show the short term balance transfer rate and hide away the long term "variable rate apr" :

 

in fact if you look in the terms and conditions the first item is usually

 

1) relates to the short term interest rate saying it is say 5.9% etc etc

 

so i suggest you bear this in mind ----

 

it is hard to summarise the above in a few words.

 

Cant find Pams answer now but the APR has to be shown or an idea of how it will be calculaed in the Key information box in pro 2005 agreements im am not sure about the earlier ones i will look it up.

Peter

[zubo]

All

 

Can you have a look at this thread with regard to m55 argument re DPA and CRA processing and lack of consent:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/72974-reply-form-information-commissioners.html#post633218

 

Absolute rubbish imho and when I get to it I will challenge the CRA in court but what appalls me most is the opinions being put forward and I feel ICO or at least the caseworker needs challenging.

 

comments?

[Peterbard]

Thanks Peter,

 

is that via section 59 - entering future agreements void?

 

No its to avoid this.

 

What about rate-for-risk pricing?

 

A product may have more than one possible APR according to the amount or duration of credit or for other reasons. For example, different interest rates and/or charges may apply to debtors in different circumstances on the basis of rate-for-risk pricing.

However, each individual agreement may have only one APR – see Q3.65. In the OFT’s view, the document which the debtor signs must contain the APR applicable to that particular agreement. If it does not, the agreement is not properly executed and can be enforced against the debtor only with a court order – see Q1.19.

[zubo]

As far as I know EGG is the only bank which complies with the Act when sending copies of the Agreement, we tried to fault them on Section 85 of the Act, but they send a copy of the EXECUTED Agreement when they reissue the cards

 

Thats odd - I had my chip n pin renewed and I dont recall getting that and I have issued a CCA against them because I dont recall getting an executed agreement at the outset - we will see...

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Thank god managed to get back on this thread, deleted it from my subscribed links.

 

Right Number 6, I would save your postge, the reply that you got from the MP including the notes from the DTI don't mean Jack. Kateand pete on another thread got exactly the same comments from the DTI. I repeat what I wrote there the DTI is not going to judge against a sector of the British Economy that is worth billions to the country because only little consumer stands up for his rights. Its the law of the financial jungle.

 

I agree with what Joons2 has written at the top of this page, when it comes down to it, the courts are not going to accept a bit of paper as proof that an agreement exists between a bank and a customer just because the former says so. They can hide behind section 3 of the 1983 statutory instrument as much as they want to but at the end of the day they still have to proove that section 61 of the 1974 act was fully complied with.

 

How often are we sent 'mailshots' from card companies that are applcation forms. Its not the case with me coz my credit file is crap, but this week my daughter had an application form included in a Journal MBNA it was, but there was only one signature box on the form, and it says just above it do not sign unless you are prepared to be subject to the 1974 Consumer Credit Act.

 

Now everyone will know that that form does not comply with section 61, and the bank will not send another form for you to sign with their signature attached, but they will still send you a card that you can use and apply interest and charges unlawfully. Now are they going to produce that under a section 78 or pass it in front of a judge. Of course not, they're not stupid, but they think we are, and they think they can hide behind the 1983 statutory instruments, and so try to wear you down.

 

Things haven't changed, they have just been found out and they don't like it, so they are being nasty.

 

Meagain, I am genuinely sorry to see your plight, I know what's it's like, but they are just trying to scare you. If you receive a copy of the T & Cs that they supply under the 1983 SI, tell them that you do not accept it as proof and still consider the matter to be in dispute and in breech. Tell them that you want to see a copy of the agreement that complies with section 61, they will have to do this if it goes to court. They will threaten more keep writing to them, maintain contact, if you get 'phone calls report them under the OFTs debt collection guidance, report them to TS and the OFT.

 

I disagrre with the asertion that the OFT, TS and IC are no use, the more peaople use these bodies the more they find out what a problem it is.

 

Don't write to the DTI, and all your MP will do is pass it on to the relevant department (or minister) for comment, waste of time. No I'm sorry you have to use the main weapon that you have, the law plus your ingenuity and your own courage to face them down

 

Mike

 

this is one of two postings of high significance.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

No they have to send a copy of the excuted agreement, the terms and conditions are not enough, it cannot be the terms and conditions applicable on 29.11.06. It must be the terms and conditions that applied when the account was issued, this is the baseline for all other alterations for the terms and conditions that apply later, because the right to alter T & Cs later in the contract are established by the first executed agreement.

 

I realise that the copy agreements cited in the 1983 SI say that signature boxes and signatures and even dates can be missing, but all mass produced paperwork has issue dates, as had the T & Cs recently issued to me under a section 85 by Lloyds TSB that they try to fob me off with. The trouble is in the bottom left hand corner it had an issue date of June 2006.

 

Sorry Mr Humphrey, not a copy of the executed agreement and so your bosses are in default.

 

Monumment, in default since 2002, Royal Bank of Scotland deafulted in 2000. If it were that easy for them to squirm out of it don't you think that they would. As RBS said, 'we are unable to supply you with a copy of the executed agreement or terms and conditions applicable at the time the agreement was signed.' Then there is the section 61 issue, I know for a fact that Citibank, RBS and lloyds agreements had only one signature box, let them proove otherwise.

 

Mike

 

 

again repoduced for our newer subscribers

[Guest Battleaxe]

Thats odd - I had my chip n pin renewed and I dont recall getting that and I have issued a CCA against them because I dont recall getting an executed agreement at the outset - we will see...

 

 

I could be wrong Zubo, but I am of the opinion that EGG did this correctly, maybe they started to follow Industry Standard like the rest of them.

[ladybird17]

Credit card companies' change of heart - The Red Tape Chronicles ...

 

for those of you that asked me, this is one the US links - sorry this is a bit off thread, but of interest

[ncf355]

No its to avoid this.

 

What about rate-for-risk pricing?

 

A product may have more than one possible APR according to the amount or duration of credit or for other reasons. For example, different interest rates and/or charges may apply to debtors in different circumstances on the basis of rate-for-risk pricing.

 

However, each individual agreement may have only one APR – see Q3.65. In the OFT’s view, the document which the debtor signs must contain the APR applicable to that particular agreement. If it does not, the agreement is not properly executed and can be enforced against the debtor only with a court order – see Q1.19.

 

Thanks Peter

 

I need to dig for more, cos' obviously im looking for sometyhing concrete for section 127 so it wont be enforceable if the judge decides to try and fall on their side

[Guest Battleaxe]

Credit card companies' change of heart - The Red Tape Chronicles ...

 

for those of you that asked me, this is one the US links - sorry this is a bit off thread, but of interest

 

Oh boy, is this what our lot are going to get up to before the Parliamentary Select Committee Hearings? We will have to watch and wait.

[ncf355]

FC,

 

re this above (sorry, did use quote but it only brought through your 'for new subs' comment, not the whole thing!)

 

-

QUOTE

 

Monumment, in default since 2002, Royal Bank of Scotland deafulted in 2000. If it were that easy for them to squirm out of it don't you think that they would. As RBS said, 'we are unable to supply you with a copy of the executed agreement or terms and conditions applicable at the time the agreement was signed.' Then there is the section 61 issue, I know for a fact that Citibank, RBS and lloyds agreements had only one signature box, let them proove otherwise.

 

UNQUOTE

 

 

From looking at the 1974 cca and 1983 sui's I havent seen anywhere saying the creditor has to sign in a box, all it says is the credtior has to sign outisde the debtors signature box?

 

 

[zubo]

Oh boy, is this what our lot are going to get up to before the Parliamentary Select Committee Hearings? We will have to watch and wait.

 

actually I think we need to think about broadening our base so that we can share each others best practise and put pressure on our politicians to sharpen the Acts in our favour - not give it away because Financial businesses think the have us trapped....

we should consider how our rights can be enhanced within the EU also.

 

ok off soapbox...

[ladybird17]

zubo - get back on your soapbox, move right to the edge & make room for me!

[zubo]

zubo - get back on your soapbox, move right to the edge & make room for me!

 

how about we kick off with a global blog for CAG

 

Consumers Against Greed

 

Bill of Rights.

 

Article 1.

We the Consumers, believe all Consumers should be treated fairly openly and honestly by Finance Providers working jointly together in an ethical manner to enrich the well-being of the societies we all live in.

 

etc etc

[ladybird17]

sounds like an excellent start!

I subscribe to a US blog concerning credit charges, which is mighty interesting, but of course, somewhat irrelevant as US laws on credit are slightly different to the UK. Nevertheless, it's interesting to keep up to date with what seems to be an increasing backlash from US consumers.

Would be good however, to do some research on what's going on in other EU member states - I'm OK on a bit of French and Spanish, but my Rumanian is not up to scratch! Think I'll start with some Dutch blogs as they all seem to speak English.