Cap1 & CCA return

[pudsters14]

How can you find out when a new card was issued to begin to make a section 85 claim... my hubby has had a Barclaycard account for years, I think they may have been in default from day one as he only signed a mailshot and sent it to them.. if when I receive the CCA through & it complies.. how do I then look to claim under the section 85 as I know they have never sent him a copy of the agreement when they renewed his card and they definately have renewed his card...i just wouldn't know when... hope this makes sense! Lol...

[carderuk]

Do a request under section 78 as well they have to provide the agrement as well as the section 85

[FANTASY CHARGES]

I'm only using your post to allow continuity on this subject InKogneeToh.

 

This idea of not being able to add interest applies to sections 77-79 as well as sec 85. It's primarily based on 2 things.

 

1. In all the above sections they are not allowed to enforce the agreement whilst in default. This part of those sections is not IMHO about enforcing payment but about enforcing the 'agreement. If we read the words carefully each section is refering in detail to the agreement and nothing is said at all about payments. Whoever drafted the original CCA picked his words VERY carefully, as has been noted in past court cases.

 

2. It's accepted (and I believe there is provision in law) that nobody can profit whilst commiting a criminal act, which they do once they exceed the month deadline.

 

 

EXACTLY SEE MY POST 4335 IN THIS THREAD

 

 

Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 268 (22 March 2006) (View plain HTML)

 

 

([2006] 3 WLR 452, [2006] EWCA Civ 268; From England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions; 127 KB)

 

 

65 In the end Mr. Hapgood's argument had to be that by enacting section 187(1) Parliament had cut down what would otherwise be encompassed by the broad wording of section 12(b). However, we are satisfied that the expression "treated as" was used to extend, rather than restrict, the scope of that section; in other words, we accept that it was part of a provision intended to prevent avoidance of its provisions. We think that the natural meaning of those words is to bring within the scope of section 12(b) arrangements that might otherwise fall outside it. If sections 187(1) and (2) had been intended to define the only kind of arrangements that were capable of falling within section 12(b) we think that the draftsman would have used the word "is" rather than the expression "shall be treated as". Our conclusion is reinforced by the evidence elsewhere in the Act that the draftsman has been careful and precise in his choice of language: for example, where "means" is intended the statute says "means", and where "includes" is meant it says "includes" (see the definitions in section 189). We therefore reject Mr. Hapgood's argument and, like the judge, take comfort from the fact that many distinguished commentators on the Act support that view: see, for example, Goode, Consumer Credit Law and Practice at IC 25.63(a) and IC 33.148; Guest and Lloyd, Encyclopaedia of Consumer Credit Law pages 2074/2; 2074/6; Brindle and Cox, Law of Bank Payments 3rd ed: paragraphs 4-066, 5-027 and 5-029.

 

 

APPLYING this logic for example

 

 

Consequently using common sense from the above paragraph ; when the draftsman uses the word “true Copy” in the statute he means “true copy” and when he uses the word “copy” in the statute he means “copy”.

hope this bit helps see earlier post today !!

[tamadus]

Hi

 

Well done you!!

 

It's just occurred to me that the uncertainty we are feeling about this s85 issue is bound to be also the same for the lenders.

 

If we make these claims for refunds of interest, how do they challenge it and more importantly are they going to want yet more court cases to defend?

 

They are always insisting that they are meeting unlawful charge claims purely because of commercial/financial reasons (yeah right!) so it will be interesting to see how many lenders actually let these s85 claims go to full court hearing.

 

The words 'Flood' and 'Gates' spring to mind and I'm sure they won't want that!

 

Regards, Pam

 

of late the words shooting and foot come to my mind

[tamadus]

Hiya - there are many issues with the whole Lloys TSB complaint, ive taken some free legal advice who did think that I had a good claim for mis-selling as they had both me and my husband sign on the day so I was under the impression it was in joint names but seem to have only put me on the account. Again they were very sneaky and particularly agressive with their sales tactics so am currently looking into lots of different avenues with this one. They also said that we were not allowed to borrow a smaller amount only the higher amount so forced us into taking more than we actually wanted... very long story to be honest and not really on thread, think I may need to get some more legal advice..perhaps Citz Advice too... have written LTSB a seven page complaint letter tho...

 

I also advised the Clerk of my University place and the fact that my income would be more than less what it was then, think it's very irresponsible that they then assigned all that debt into my name alone based on that information..

 

Think she has also lied on the application form about what we were using the loan for....

 

As you can see there is absolutely loads of things, got a huge list so if anyone who reads this thinks they can help/advise... im quite happy to pm or email you the whole query for perusal...

 

In the meantime... I will get back on thread! lol.. oh and just want to say that this site is fantastic... have learnt so many things! Thanx!

 

From what you have said I think you certainly have a case to bring. One problem I do see is that you signed the paperwork and will therefore be deemed to have read and understood it. A court will almost certainly take the view that you should have corrected things you were unsure about before signing.

 

You are also completely on topic, this thread has developed into a forum for discussion about any agreement covered by the CCA which your post is. Actually its evolved over time to cover a lot more than was ever intended

[tamadus]

EXACTLY SEE MY POST 4335 IN THIS THREAD

 

 

Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 268 (22 March 2006) (View plain HTML)

 

 

([2006] 3 WLR 452, [2006] EWCA Civ 268; From England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions; 127 KB)

 

 

That was the exact judgement I was thinking of FC

 

In reality the Act is VERY specific and most of the confusion arises from the Statutory Instruments that have subsequently been issued. MAny of these appear to have been released to reduce some aspects of the Act, or to water down its effects.

 

The Act was and still is the flagship in consumer protection litigation. We should never forget that it was put into place to protect the consumer and to safeguard us from the 'loan sharks' that existed in the 60's. Of course the sharks still exist but they have changed and adapted over the years. We are now attempting to fully understand in a matter of weeks what the financial institutions have spent years trying (and failing) to understand.

 

Personally I think we are doing very well as it's becoming more obvious that we are winning the various arguments we are raising with them all. They know that we are getting very close to breaking their 'misinformation' (for want of a better word) and their arguments supporting their position are definitely crumbling into dust.

[tamadus]

How can you find out when a new card was issued to begin to make a section 85 claim... my hubby has had a Barclaycard account for years, I think they may have been in default from day one as he only signed a mailshot and sent it to them.. if when I receive the CCA through & it complies.. how do I then look to claim under the section 85 as I know they have never sent him a copy of the agreement when they renewed his card and they definately have renewed his card...i just wouldn't know when... hope this makes sense! Lol...

 

I have been trying to solve this same problem, mainly so I know how many offences certain providors have committed. Just to give me some idea as the information is not forthcoming (I even have a complete SAR printoutfrom one major CCP, which includes reams of paper and just about every note ever made on the account) I have worked on the basis that most cards have a life expectancy of 2 years, which seems to be fairly close.

[pudsters14]

Thanx Tamadus... i've got so many different things going on :o ...lol... with uni work too! But am looking forward to making a start on everything and i've virtually got my letter together for LTSB about the loan now... I am going to wait for the CCA requests to come back (if they do or if some of them even have one...) and my statements... i've set up a file with a section for each lender so that when something comes through I can file it straight away...lol... i am definately going to pursue this section 85 route and am quite confident there may be some flawed agreements too... so will keep everyone informed! this site has been a fantastic help... am so glad i found it! :D

[pudsters14]

Thinking on....I think I have got some of the old cards at my Mum and Dad's house so may check them for ideas of renewal dates... will keep you posted...

[FANTASY CHARGES]

I have been trying to solve this same problem, mainly so I know how many offences certain providors have committed. Just to give me some idea as the information is not forthcoming (I even have a complete SAR printoutfrom one major CCP, which includes reams of paper and just about every note ever made on the account) I have worked on the basis that most cards have a life expectancy of 2 years, which seems to be fairly close.

 

YES checked with the crowd in the privates

 

Yes 2 years is the rule (assuming you do not lose one [or stolen] and get a replacement) and then allow for the extra issue of the card for the chip and pin introduction the earliest chip seems to be Jan 2002 some took a lot longer to introduce them (will get data pm) one issuer worked on an annual cycle.

 

for barclaycard and their mastercard also allow one extra issue when they changed the number on the cards but you would see this on your dsar

 

oh forgot the takeover factor as well

 

tsb to lloyds tsb

leeds to halifax etc etc

[Guest The Terminator]

I have been trying to solve this same problem, mainly so I know how many offences certain providors have committed. Just to give me some idea as the information is not forthcoming (I even have a complete SAR printoutfrom one major CCP, which includes reams of paper and just about every note ever made on the account) I have worked on the basis that most cards have a life expectancy of 2 years, which seems to be fairly close.

 

A minor observation. I've just looked at an old MBUSA card and that expired in 2002.Now that card was never renewed and had a £12,000 limit and the debt with the american mob is about 6k.Now for arguements sake we are looking at 5 years of interest and charges which in my opinion is an extortinate credit bargin.Now if the Act is not followed by the provider I beleive I have a very good case here and what the professor posted makes sense it is unfair to the consumer to get any redress and this not only applys to the creditor but to the DCA'S as well who think they can add extortinate charges to the debt.Unfortunatly the DCA'S are no more then "middle men" and I personally just laugh at them.Under the UTCC(1999) it says that there is an exhaustive list of unfair terms perhaps to bring the banks and CCP in to line this should be included in all defences.As I posted earlier if a bank was to be put in a courtroom then their T&C would be like putting paper through a shredder.This is the next part of my stratagy as well as S85(which as Tam says is precise) misquote me if I'm wrong.I think it's about time we upped the anti and got back some of them billions we are owed and at the same time put the finiancial institutions in their place.

[Guest The Terminator]

EXACTLY SEE MY POST 4335 IN THIS THREAD

 

 

Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 268 (22 March 2006) (View plain HTML)

 

 

([2006] 3 WLR 452, [2006] EWCA Civ 268; From England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions; 127 KB)

 

 

FC: I've read this case and agree with what your saying true copy is what it means.Copy has it's meaning as well under S189. Now looking through the Act how many times doe's true copy and copy crop up.As you are the info man/woman perhaps you could give us some figures on this.If you go back to my previous post today I mentioned S82 which binds S78 and S85 together.Read the wording.

[Guest The Terminator]

YES checked with the crowd in the privates

 

Yes 2 years is the rule (assuming you do not lose one [or stolen] and get a replacement) and then allow for the extra issue of the card for the chip and pin introduction the earliest chip seems to be Jan 2002 some took a lot longer to introduce them (will get data pm) one issuer worked on an annual cycle.

 

for barclaycard and their mastercard also allow one extra issue when they changed the number on the cards but you would see this on your dsar

 

oh forgot the takeover factor as well

 

tsb to lloyds tsb

leeds to halifax etc etc

 

MBUSA's are only 18 months but a majority of the others are 2 years.

[Seahorse]

Would anybody like to comment in this thread. Looks like someone is about to be stitched up...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/74733-credit-agreement-application.html

[ladybird17]

I've looked at this on the thread - I can't read it - only because the print is too small - but there are certainly some £'s & %age signs lurking around underneath the stamped signature. Can you give me a clue what your issues are with it & I will have another look?

[Seahorse]

Just what you read in the thread. But I'd have thought, no T&Cs, no enforceable agreement. But Trading Standards don't seem to agree, and a mod is saying pretty much the same thing... he/she thinks it would stand as an enforceable agreement too. I had hoped someone might pop in there and get involved, as all the forum "experts" seem to visit this thread.

[ladybird17]

I must admit I was a bit surprised that TS don't think T & C's form part of executed agreement. I can't see that an agreement is valid unless you know what T & C's are attached to it? Unless it would be a case of "you were stupid enough to sign it without knowing what you were signing up to"?

[ncf355]

Hi all,

 

can anyone help on this one -

 

I'm going after a CCP for PPI that was missold but want firm legal grounds

 

The now famous OFT 786a pdf document on the content of agreements has the following in it:

 

"In the OFT’s view, where PPI is to be financed by credit under the principal agreement, and falls within Reg 2(8)(a) there will generally be a ‘unitary multi-part’ agreement. This is irrespective of whether the PPI is mandatory or optional. "

 

(Thats at 9.4 of the PDF)

 

 

Cant work out what its referring to for Reg 2( 8 )(a) as it states at the start 'Regulations' is CCA1974, but I've looked in there plus the 1983 and all SI's I have to hand, cant find a Reg2( 8 )?

 

I need something thats states categorically they must detail the PPI cost within the prescribed terms AND get a seperate sig agreement to it (I just have a tick box to confirm, but its also on an agreement that doesnt meet the prescribed terms!)(literally NONE!)

 

Any help greatly appreciated

 

 

 

 

 

*Cough!*

 

 

Ayone help on this?

 

[ladybird17]

We haven't done a huge amount about PPI's on this thread - you may get better luck if you post on the PPI forum.

[Mike220359]

Would anybody like to comment in this thread. Looks like someone is about to be stitched up...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/74733-credit-agreement-application.html

 

Just going to it now.

 

Mike

[ncf355]

Hi LB,

 

I know, I've been with (and contributed to) this thread most of the way

 

It's only because I'm referring to the OFT document that we have posted on this thread twice that I've posed the question here

 

Just need to get a bearing on what Reg 2 ( 8 ) (a) is within the context of that document

 

Document was posted here on a few threads, but to save people searching its here:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/OFT786a.pdf

 

 

Thanks

 

NcF

[zubo]

Hi LB,

 

I know, I've been with (and contributed to) this thread most of the way

 

It's only because I'm referring to the OFT document that we have posted on this thread twice that I've posed the question here

 

Just need to get a bearing on what Reg 2 ( 8 ) (a) is within the context of that document

 

Document was posted here on a few threads, but to save people searching its here:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/OFT786a.pdf

 

 

Thanks

 

NcF

 

Sorry NcF I have cross-referenced both and cannot find it. I'll print the OFT doc off and try to get my head around it in the next few days.

Z

[Guest The Terminator]

Just what you read in the thread. But I'd have thought, no T&Cs, no enforceable agreement. But Trading Standards don't seem to agree, and a mod is saying pretty much the same thing... he/she thinks it would stand as an enforceable agreement too. I had hoped someone might pop in there and get involved, as all the forum "experts" seem to visit this thread.

 

The cavalry have just answered.

[JonCris]

I must admit I was a bit surprised that TS don't think T & C's form part of executed agreement. I can't see that an agreement is valid unless you know what T & C's are attached to it? Unless it would be a case of "you were stupid enough to sign it without knowing what you were signing up to"?

 

As we have seen on this site many times TS are not the best people to determine what is or what isn't anything, least of all what forms part of an executed agreement.

 

It's clear from many other statements by TS that they have little understanding of the CCA 1974

 

Also I disagree with the mod in that as the agreement relies on them the TC's do form part of the executed agreement

[ladybird17]

who does?