Cap1 & CCA return

[Guest The Terminator]

Agree a lot with what you've posted there Tam.One point I will make though is that(and I do it everyday) when the judge say's I want such and such document in so many days he means it.Now looking at it from the banks angle they know darn well that they can't supply the documentation so that's why they settle out of court.

[tamadus]

Simple fact is if they have it then they will send it, apart from anything else it's easier to make a copy to send than it is to mess about removing bits. They know they are going to have to produce it eventually so why show a blatant disregard for the CPR by not sending it before litigation starts and thus avoiding wasting court time.

 

I am planning to write again to Barclaycard telling them that they are going ot have to take me to court before I pay any more to them unless they produce the agreement beforehand. I'll also quote CPR at them

[meagain]

That at least makes me more comfortable with the credit card - either way, the balance is over £500, and at least £300 minimum of that is penalties and interest thereon. I can also eliminate pretty much any interest in the last few months, as they continued to charge interest on a disputed balance (and proceeded to exacerbate the dispute by adding charges on top )

 

Would it be entirely in bad faith for me to write to them on Monday telling them the original deadline (the following Monday) stands for them to send me the original to prove it was executed under S61? (effectively a 3-week delay from the date on their letters - a 2-week delay from my having received the responses)

 

Would this impact any claim I might have against them, on the basis that if the agreement never existed I could not have breached it? Or could I go ahead anyway, on the basis that if the agreement never existed they were not entitled to charge me for breaching it?

 

I'm also somewhat worried about the consequences of pointing out the example in CCA which suggests that an overdraft is indeed regulated.

[tamadus]

That at least makes me more comfortable with the credit card - either way, the balance is over £500, and at least £300 minimum of that is penalties and interest thereon. I can also eliminate pretty much any interest in the last few months, as they continued to charge interest on a disputed balance (and proceeded to exacerbate the dispute by adding charges on top )

 

Would it be entirely in bad faith for me to write to them on Monday telling them the original deadline (the following Monday) stands for them to send me the original to prove it was executed under S61? (effectively a 3-week delay from the date on their letters - a 2-week delay from my having received the responses)

 

Would this impact any claim I might have against them, on the basis that if the agreement never existed I could not have breached it? Or could I go ahead anyway, on the basis that if the agreement never existed they were not entitled to charge me for breaching it?

 

I'm also somewhat worried about the consequences of pointing out the example in CCA which suggests that an overdraft is indeed regulated.

 

I think I would write as you suggest but I would also include that them providing the fully signed and executed copy could prevent litigation under the CPR. I would definitely bring the CPR into play here as, if nothing else, it should show them that you are fully aware of the legal position.

 

Have you done an SAR yet as the credit card info you give here definitely looks like your claim will put you in a zero balance situation and if a default has been recorded you have a strong case for its removal.

[tamadus]

I have just written a letter to Lloyds TSB who produced the agreement entirely but outside the time limits. They are going to have to make an offer now to settle that part of the matter and make sure my charges claim doesnt meet with the usual stalling tactics.

 

MY GEMoney/Asset Link case is coming together nicely, I'll post a lot more details in the appropriate thread once the research is completed and it gets moving properly. I don't want to say too much and warn the MIB. Suffice it to say at this point they both need to turn the fan off and duck.

 

Guess what Barclaycard, your next in line and your not going to like me very much:rolleyes:

[Guest The Terminator]

As I said November is going to be a good month.Megain I wish you well in your case and hope you get the right result.

 

Tam it looks as if you've got things under control so you should'nt have a problem.

 

And as for me I can't wait for the reaction from the three CCP in my signiture when they open their mail on Thursday morning.

[tamadus]

Have you seen the letter terminator ? I know you saw the one it's in reply to

if you have is it ok in your opinion ?

[meagain]

Have you done an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) yet as the credit card info you give here definitely looks like your claim will put you in a zero balance situation and if a default has been recorded you have a strong case for its removal.

I have all of the statements from recent history, and did a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) back in May. While I doubt it would put be in a literal zero balance situation, it would at least put me at a point which would have been well within my credit limit, and thus with no valid reason to close and default the account.

 

Still haven't received the credit report from one of the CRAs (I forget which one it was) where they asked me for more information but had the cheek to take the money anyway. I think they're past 40 days (even though it's technically 7 for CRAs), and given that I went through the whole process a month before the request, I don't consider them asking me to send two forms of ID, and lots of utility bills, a reasonable request (especially since my name isn't even on the utility bills at this address!).

[Guest The Terminator]

Have you seen the letter terminator ? I know you saw the one it's in reply to

if you have is it ok in your opinion ?

 

The letter is OK there's no problem with it .

[baileyboy]

What a truly informative thread this is turning out to be!

 

Debates both for and against production of an executed copy of CCA. I suppose the bottom line is has any body actually gained anything from the fact that an executed copy has not been provided and because of that, have had debts written off, or have been able to negotiate a reduction?

 

I do get the feeling that the dung is being piled up and the fan will shortly be turned on big time!

[tamadus]

The letter is OK there's no problem with it .

 

Thanks it took me a good 20 minutes to write

 

I think it makes the point of what I want and expect from them and its up to them now to make a suitable offer in settlement.

[tamadus]

What a truly informative thread this is turning out to be!

 

Debates both for and against production of an executed copy of CCA. I suppose the bottom line is has any body actually gained anything from the fact that an executed copy has not been provided and because of that, have had debts written off, or have been able to negotiate a reduction?

 

I do get the feeling that the dung is being piled up and the fan will shortly be turned on big time!

 

Baileyboy, yes some have had companies throw admit the agreement is no longer available and they have refunded money.

 

This thread (and a couple of others) are exploring the legal implications of the agreement not being available. We are slowly getting there and several of us are in constant communication as we are pushing the companies into a corner. It isnt really intended as a means of getting legitimate debts written off, but its more of ensuring that the companies abide by the law in their dealings with us. If, in achieving that some people do get reductions or even a debt written off then it's only because the company have not followed the law written into the CCA.

 

We believe they have a legal right to supply our agreements in full and not hide behind some loophole while trying to convince us they are legally right. If they cannot provide those agreements then they should stand up and admit it and negotiate a settlement, rather than use every delaying and bullying tactic they can find.

 

We are also pushing our MP's the DTI etc into rectifying the loophole in the flagship act of consumer protection before it gets so watered down as to be ineffective from the consumer point of view.

 

As always the leading edge takes time, especially in the world of legal argument.

[baileyboy]

Thank you for explaining this to me Tamadus. Your right in saying that the law should be applied fairly and equaly for all of us. The trouble is, the big financial institutions in particular appear to think they are above the law of this land. If it wasn't for people like yourself, Terminator and others leading the way forward, we would all be in a very sorry state.

 

Keep up the good work, I'm hooked on this one!

[meagain]

I think that if there's anything we can say after 35 pages of this thread, it's that we didn't know it all at the beginning, and we still don't know it all now.

[tamadus]

I'm not sure about me helping lead the way lol. I'm just going with the flow and learning as I need to in order to counter their arguments I do have a habit of taking action if I can when I see something that is obviously wrong though. Maybe I should fly to Australia and teach our cricket team how to play

 

I fully agree Meagain, as I said above I'm learning it as I go along and applying something that seems to have been abolished in this world over the last few years, common sense. We don't know it all yet but we will make a good try to understand it between us

[Guest The Terminator]

Thank you for explaining this to me Tamadus. Your right in saying that the law should be applied fairly and equaly for all of us. The trouble is, the big financial institutions in particular appear to think they are above the law of this land. If it wasn't for people like yourself, Terminator and others leading the way forward, we would all be in a very sorry state.

 

Keep up the good work, I'm hooked on this one!

 

Thanks for the comments there's still more to come yet

 

Regards

 

The Terminator.

[tamadus]

Yep I agree Terminator, we have only just started

[tamadus]

Interesting letter from a DCA this morning.

 

I made a sec77/78 request to them and this is part of the reply.

 

Whilst only an academic point given we intend fully to respond to your request, an assignee of debt cannot breach a s77 Consumer Credit Act 1974 request. An assignee does not fall within the definition of 'creditor' s189 Consumer Credit Act 1974 as the duty of the creditor can only pass via operation of law and not through assignment.

 

Any comments while I pick myself up off the floor where I fell laughing. If Asset Link are watching the clock is ticking

[e28bigalbexley]

Interesting letter from a DCA this morning.

 

I made a sec77/78 request to them and this is part of the reply.

 

Whilst only an academic point given we intend fully to respond to your request, an assignee of debt cannot breach a s77 Consumer Credit Act 1974 request. An assignee does not fall within the definition of 'creditor' s189 Consumer Credit Act 1974 as the duty of the creditor can only pass via operation of law and not through assignment.

 

Any comments while I pick myself up off the floor where I fell laughing. If Asset Link are watching the clock is ticking

 

Words associated with farmyards:

Headless chickens, Cluching at Straws and Pig swill.

 

I bet they have never read Sec 189 cca well they could'nt of could they, they have given the job to the office junior, or Olga has a new job (not for long).

 

AL

[Guest The Terminator]

Interesting letter from a DCA this morning.

 

I made a sec77/78 request to them and this is part of the reply.

 

Whilst only an academic point given we intend fully to respond to your request, an assignee of debt cannot breach a s77 Consumer Credit Act 1974 request. An assignee does not fall within the definition of 'creditor' s189 Consumer Credit Act 1974 as the duty of the creditor can only pass via operation of law and not through assignment.

 

Any comments while I pick myself up off the floor where I fell laughing. If Asset Link are watching the clock is ticking

 

I've just read this and fallen off my chair:D

[meagain]

Well, hey, if they're not a creditor, you can't possibly owe them any money at all

[Guest The Terminator]

As I said it was going to be a good November and as the Festive Season is nearly upon us I thought I'd send the banks an early Christmas present.Any comments or admendments welcome:lol:

 

 

 

 

 

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

 

 

Served under Section 85(1)

 

Of

 

The Consumer Credit Act (1974) as amended

 

 

Creditor:

 

Account No:

 

You are duly notified that you a have been in default under the aforementioned section of the above Act since (date)

 

In order to correct this breach all interest payments made since (date) must be consolidated.

 

To correct this, consolidation must be made within 1 month of this notice.

 

If the correction required by this notice is taken before the date of expiry of this notice then no further action will be taken in respect of the breach.

 

If the action required by this notice is not taken within 1 month of this notice then the default will be registered with a credit reference agency.

 

 

 

Notes under Section 85(2)

 

(a) The Creditor is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

 

(b) If the default continues for one month the creditor commits an offence.

[meagain]

As I said it was going to be a good November and as the Festive Season is nearly upon us I thought I'd send the banks an early Christmas present.Any comments or admendments welcome:lol:

 

I thought we've already established that subject to the 1983 Regulations, the creditors aren't actually in default? Correct me here if I'm wrong, as the bundle I received in response to my S78 request matches what I received with each new card, and we've had it confirmed that this actually fulfills the requirements.

[Guest The Terminator]

I thought we've already established that subject to the 1983 Regulations, the creditors aren't actually in default? Correct me here if I'm wrong, as the bundle I received in response to my S78 request matches what I received with each new card, and we've had it confirmed that this actually fulfills the requirements.

 

The CCA that Im working from has all the amendments up to 2003.I know the regulations have changed in I think 2003 and in 2005 but I can't be sure.What I do know is that S85 hasn't been repealed in the 2006 Act.

[tamadus]

The CCA that Im working from has all the amendments up to 2003.I know the regulations have changed in I think 2003 and in 2005 but I can't be sure.What I do know is that S85 hasn't been repealed in the 2006 Act.

 

85 is still there but that darn SI/1557 from 1983 means they dont have to send a signed copy with a new card so basically if they send their terms and conditions with it then they are acting within the act.