Cap1 & CCA return

[ian1969uk]

Original agreement or not, that could be enforced due to it being signed and it containing all prescribed terms.

[Peterbard]

HI

It says it is a credit agreement so that is what it is.

It may not be correct in form or content but it is a credit agreement.

Whether or not it is enforceable or is even within the scope of the cca 1974 is the issue and to be honest i cannot see enough of the text to comment except to say that contrary to earlier postings they do not have to give a credit limit just a note to say a credit limit wil be assigned and from what i can see everythng seems there.

 

As a matter of form yes the orriginal does have to conform to scedule 1 of SI1558/1553 but the best you can hope for if you quote that particular point is that the agreement can only be enforced by an order of the court.

Another point is that this if this (this is really for others who have copy docs returned) is a copy and contrary to popular opinion the copy does not have to conform to the orriginal in matters of form as long as the content and terms are there.

 

Best regards

Peter

[paulwlton]

Original agreement or not, that could be enforced due to it being signed and it containing all prescribed terms.

 

Agree.

[un1boy]

Agree.

 

Me too....

[Cornucopia]

Agree.

 

Hi all, could I just make a point regarding Angry Cat's agreement. I have studied it closely and compared it to one I have already got in my possession from another MBNA victim, it is identical. The thing is, MBNA and their evil DCA took said victim to court for a charging order. This agreement was presented to the Judge who dismissed it as inadmissable. Victim was awarded costs and compensation for wasted day. MBNA/DCA were ordered to provide :

 

A true copy of the executed agreement.

A copy of the deed of assignment.

Something else that for the life of me I can't remember.

 

They have 30 days.

 

Now, given that this was all MBNA could come up with in six months, I doubt very much that they are able to produce anything else. The 30 days isn't up yet but I suspect it is game, set and match to the victim.

 

I do realise that a lot hangs on what Judge you get and whether he/she is in a good mood that morning, but the fact is that one Judge ruled this document to be useless.

 

I do hope this is the case for AC!

 

Regards.

 

Corn x:)

[ian1969uk]

I agree Corn, all I said was it could be enforced, not that it definitely would be.

[paulwlton]

Document: piece of paper providing an official record of something.

 

If a document contains the prescribed terms in the prescribed manner.

 

I think it would be hard to convince a judge that an application form was not a document.

 

Paul

[Cornucopia]

Document: piece of paper providing an official record of something.

 

If a document contains the prescribed terms in the prescribed manner.

 

I think it would be hard to convince a judge that an application form was not a document.

 

Paul

 

Hi Paul, I am not disagreeing with the above, I was just pointing out that I am in possession of an identical one and it was deemed inadmissable by this particular Judge. To be honest, I think it was the look of it that put him off and frankly, given MBNA's love of the methods of Blue Peter, this is hardly surprising. Torn off and photocopied bits of paper don't really cut the mustard when you are asking for sight of "the true executed agreement". Bear in mind that MBNA were unable to produce the actual document in Court.

 

Regards,

 

Corn x:)

[Cornucopia]

Hi Paul, I am not disagreeing with the above, I was just pointing out that I am in possession of an identical one and it was deemed inadmissable by this particular Judge. To be honest, I think it was the look of it that put him off and frankly, given MBNA's love of the methods of Blue Peter, this is hardly surprising. Torn off and photocopied bits of paper don't really cut the mustard when you are asking for sight of "the true executed agreement". Bear in mind that MBNA were unable to produce the actual document in Court.

 

Regards,

 

Corn x:)

 

The other thing I would add to my quote above is that, whatever the circumstances, they are not allowed to use reconstructive conjecture and I suggest that this is the case with AC's agreement as it was with the one I mentioned earlier. The fact remains that they have torn off/cut off the bits that they need and stuck it in the photocopier. They would also have to produce the original in Court, so why not send a copy of that instead of avoiding the bit that says "application form", I have seen this before. They can't just cut and shuffle to suit and expect it to comply. Bear in mind I have a letter from MBNA regarding a wholly conjectured credit card mailer that says "the deletions we made served merely to CONVERT a credit card mailer into a copy of a credit agreement", I would suggest this is unlawful as they are doctoring documents for their own benefit. Also, as in my case, they can't just make something up and add T&C's that were applicable 7 years later and tell me it is a true copy!

 

Again, I reiterate, it will come down to the Judge on the day but it also comes down to the responsibility of the lender to provide the true copy to the Judge and if they can do that on the day, then why not do it on the back of a CCA request? Concealment is not allowed!

 

On a lighter note, this thread is the quietest I have EVER seen it tonight!!!! I think we must all be bored with arguing!

 

Good night and God bless all!

 

Regards,

 

Corn x:)

[dpick]

Hi a thought for all I got my first credit card from crap1 ( yes I know a BIG mistake) but I got this because I was so p****d off at getting mail shots for credit cards I replied to 3 in same week got accepted by 2 and never heard from no 3. The thing being I only accepted the crap1 one card because they sent the card with a covering letter to ring and get card activated while the other sent a full agreement to sign and return for the card to be sent to me. Just rang crap1 to activate the card I don't think I ever got an agreement to sign from crap1 just the application form.

 

My thought is this how can crap1 say application is agreement as I could have refused the card when it was sent to me as I did with the other supplier I NEVER signed an agreement bearing in mind that crap1 application did not contain APR, minimum payment info, credit limit etc.

 

Just as an after thought I am in the happy position in that the balance on the card is a lot less than my charges claim will be, I just want to cause these B******S as much #$%&*&%$ as they gave me.

 

dpick:p

[yaffsimone1]

I have a question about my credit card agreeement. I have offered to pay NatWest reduced monthly payments but because they are below Natwest's required 2.25% they are refering it to a DCA. My question is, on thier letter they say 'that because of the above blah blah we will send your account to a DCA. Additionaly we may exercise our right of set off over any of your funds held elsewhere with us'

 

I have asked Natwest and they cannot clarify what they mean, i have the horrible feeling i know excatly what it means. They intened on taking the money out of my bank account (also held with them), which is in the overdraft every month anyway. I do not have any savings accounts. Am i right? Can they do this? The card and my current account are two seperate agreements.

[davefirewalker]

i feel that they think they can do this. in fact it happens all the time!

they can even raid savings accounts to pay off debts without asking you

 

I dont know if its legal or not.....but they do it anyway

 

open another account pronto!

 

Dave

[ladybird17]

yaffsimone, yes they can "offset" - i.e. take from one account to cover another. It's in all the banks' T&C's.

[Sparkie1723]

I think that would cause the bank some problems if your account is O/D because that would put that account more overdrawn more added interest and lead to heavier charges which you could then claim back with interest dont think they'll chance that ....I could be wrong stranger things have happened .......I know that from personal experience.

 

sparkie1723

[pford]

got this of the Halifax today

 

 

As Advised in my last letter, as you have used the facilities of the account which have amounted to the outstanding balance under the new terms of the Consumer Credit Act section 15 we do not hold any abligation to issue you with a copy of said agreement as the legal timescales for such documents to be held is within the last 6 years, in this case our records are held from 3rd May 2001 until the present day.

 

 

Since when does the 2006 Act apply to accounts opened before this

[Sparkie1723]

They are trying we all know that they keep records longer, but if they hold records longer and with hold them to prevent you taking action against them quote section 32 of the Statute of Limitations Act that by passes their argument.

 

sparkie1723:D

[pford]

am i reading this right Schedule 3 — Transitional Provision and Savings of the 2006 act right

11 The repeal by this Act of—

(a) the words “(subject to subsections (3) and (4))” in subsection (1) of

section 127 of the 1974 Act,

(b) subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

© the words “or 127(3)” in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

 

am i right in thinking that what they where saying is wrong

 

As Advised in my last letter, as you have used the facilities of the account which have amounted to the outstanding balance under the new terms of the Consumer Credit Act section 15 we do not hold any abligation to issue you with a copy of said agreement as the legal timescales for such documents to be held is within the last 6 years, in this case our records are held from 3rd May 2001 until the present day.

[zubo]

am i reading this right Schedule 3 — Transitional Provision and Savings of the 2006 act right

 

11 The repeal by this Act of—

(a) the words “(subject to subsections (3) and (4))” in subsection (1) of

section 127 of the 1974 Act,

(b) subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

© the words “or 127(3)” in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

 

am i right in thinking that what they where saying is wrong

 

 

 

Pford

 

You are quite correct - they are wrong.

 

Write back and ask them where exactly in the 2006 Act does it specifically relate to agreements prior to its implementation date. Then tell them that they have run out of time and have committed an offence and are in default under the Act. spell it out what they cannot do.

 

Z

[paulwlton]

Waheeeey just received a cheque for my sec 85 claim. Post details later.

 

Paul

[davefirewalker]

great news .......wheeee heee

 

dave

[Cornucopia]

Waheeeey just received a cheque for my sec 85 claim. Post details later.

 

Paul

 

Hey Paul! That's fantastic, I am away for the weekend so will be very excited to read your news!! In fact, I am coming your way this evening so maybe we should go out on the lash!!!:D:D

[Guest Battleaxe]

Don't it make you feel good, when a cunning plan comes together and we were right all the time. Tam and Term your homework paid off.

 

Paul well done, did you have to file the N1 or did they cough up without twisting their arm up their back

[InKogneeToh]

Don't it make you feel good, when a cunning plan comes together and we were right all the time. Tam and Term your homework paid off.

 

Paul well done, did you have to file the N1 or did they cough up without twisting their arm up their back

 

Hi

 

That is excellent news Paul, and I am genuinely pleased for you.

 

Unfortunately though, unless this was paid as the result of a court judgement, it doesn't prove that the creditor did not comply with s85, or that non-compliance means that monies paid must be refunded. I assume that the creditor decided not to contest this in court, in the same way that the banks are not contesting our claims that their charges are unlawful penalties. Just because they are paying out on our charges claims does not mean that the issue has been proven in law.

 

A different creditor may choose to contest an s85 claim and allow it to go to court. Even then, a county court judgement does not set precedent, so one victory does not a landslide make!

 

Anyway, I'm sure you don't give a monkey's either way and I hope you thoroughly enjoy spending it!

 

Regards, Pam

[un1boy]

Waheeeey just received a cheque for my sec 85 claim. Post details later.

 

Paul

 

congratulations mate - I look forward to the details later! :D

 

Remember though - it's not over until the fat cheque clears!!

[paulwlton]

Hi

 

That is excellent news Paul, and I am genuinely pleased for you.

 

Unfortunately though, unless this was paid as the result of a court judgement, it doesn't prove that the creditor did not comply with s85, or that non-compliance means that monies paid must be refunded. I assume that the creditor decided not to contest this in court, in the same way that the banks are not contesting our claims that their charges are unlawful penalties. Just because they are paying out on our charges claims does not mean that the issue has been proven in law.

 

A different creditor may choose to contest an s85 claim and allow it to go to court. Even then, a county court judgement does not set precedent, so one victory does not a landslide make!

 

Anyway, I'm sure you don't give a monkey's either way and I hope you thoroughly enjoy spending it!

 

Regards, Pam

 

Totally agree i think it was Zootscoot who had a refund regarding a mortgage fee, and others who have subsequently challenged this fee have lost in court.

 

My payout is not a great deal and will be used for a lawyers fee.

 

Paul