Cap1 & CCA return

[un1boy]

Contacting debtors at unreasonable times and at unreasonable intervals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.22 Slightly more respondents who commented on this issue were of the opinion that we should not attempt to specify what we consider to be unreasonable. There was widespread agreement that attempting to be prescriptive on this issue would be difficult given debtors' differing circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

2.23 There was a degree of consistency from respondents that contacting debtors between the hours of 8am to 9pm Monday to Friday would be reasonable. There was greater disparity over what is reasonable in respect of contact made at the weekend and on public/bank holidays etc. There was also greater disparity over what constituted reasonable intervals with opinion ranging from daily, every couple of days to weekly. A number of respondents including Citizens Advice and the Credit Services Association stressed the importance of giving debtors a reasonable time to respond.

 

2.24 We believe the best way to deal with this issue is to determine on a case by case basis whether the business concerned has acted reasonably. This gives us the discretion to take into account individual circumstances. It also gives debt collectors the ability to accommodate debtors' preferences.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/50F06527-9FC5-4610-B385-999D6E2A8950/0/oft664.pdf

 

good 'ol google, eh?

[un1boy]

Pete,

 

How come the request has changed.....it used to say a copy of the deed of assignment and stuff....is there two diffferent ones?

[un1boy]

Hi un1boy

 

No, it's always been the same. Neither S77 or 78 mention deeds of assignment, just the agreement, any documents referred to in the agreement and a statement of the account.

 

Pete

 

Ah....I see, makes sense!!

[un1boy]

They have, however, sent a response to my current account stating that it is not bound by CCA.

 

Would the following example from the CCA clear that up?

EXAMPLE 6

Facts. The G Bank grants H (an individual) an unlimited overdraft, with an increased rate of interest on so much of any debit balance as exceeds £2,000.

Analysis. Although the overdraft purports to be unlimited, the stipulation for increased interest above £2,000 brings the agreement within section 10(3)(b)(ii) and it is a consumer credit agreement.

[un1boy]

I still think that without the signed agreement its not worth the paper Meagain, even if they can quote R3

 

I would agree.

 

And in terms of overdrafts....I wasn't sure, but then read the Examples in the CCA and example 6 relates to overdrafts specifically:

_________

EXAMPLE 6

 

Facts. The G Bank grants H (an individual) an unlimited overdraft, with an increased rate of interest on so much of any debit balance as exceeds £2,000.

 

Analysis. Although the overdraft purports to be unlimited, the stipulation for increased interest above £2,000 brings the agreement within section 10(3)(b)(ii) and it is a consumer credit agreement.

___

 

Also, they issue default notices for current account overdrafts and you can't not be regulated by the CCA and also issue Default Notices- DN's are a document that is specific to the CCA.

 

Also, the banks credit check you when applying/issuing overdrafts etc, so, thinking about it, why wouldn't they be regulated under the CCA?

[un1boy]

In the case of the current account, I'll need a chapter-and-verse citation on where that example is, to back up the claim that it's covered by CCA, and specific text which excludes S78 requests from CC(CNCD)R. Even if I don't bother writing back to them, I will need it for when the case comes to court (let's see: there's the charges, then if they've registered the default with CRAs there's non-compliance with the Data Protection Act, and now there's offences committed under CCA - this is going to be a biggie ...).

 

Meagain, if you open the CCA and go right to the end of the doc, it's Example 6 at the bottom which is the one I posted above.

 

That's jsut my understanding of it - I hope others will say whether they agree/disagree with me?

[un1boy]

Un1 I understand the examples and I have seen them, I guess my mind can't relate the fluidity of an overdraft to being a credit agreement, but in reality is has to be. I suspect it's also covered in some obscure banking law as well.

 

Do you really think this? I have just been poring this for a while and wondeed what other people's thought of his was.....

[un1boy]

This is what I thoughtbut after reading the examples in the CCA and having a think about a few things came to mind - the main one is the fact that they issue Default Notices for overdrafts......only accounts that are regulated by the CCA can be issued with a default notce.

 

Also, the actual account itself is not credit unless you go into an overdraft. To get a curretn account the person has to go through the same credit checks etc as someone applying for a credit card/loan etc and people get refused if their credit score isn't good enough etc.

 

some credit cards let you change the credit limits over the phone - my old HSBC one did!!!

[un1boy]

You raised some very good points - I've just rad through Smile's Terms and conditions and there is nothing in there about it being a regulated agreement.

[un1boy]

Well Northern Rock have responded saying that they will process my request for a copy of the CCA Agreement they have had 2 weeks already, and why write telling me that why not just supply a copy as asked for?!

 

I know, bloody stupid isn't it?

[un1boy]

I'm all in favour of keeping within the law but that has to apply to all sides equally.

 

I agree with the above, not that I condone "debt dodging" but, if these companies have shown a complete contempt for British Law then thye should be held accountable.

[un1boy]

Can we have a straw poll on this and let's face it the law is full of loopholes.What if you and I were to go bankrupt how much of our debt would be paid back and this is the easiest way of doing it under the 2002 Enterprise Act.

 

Err...this might be me being thick Terminator and I am sorry if I cam, but I don't really understand the above.

[un1boy]

When I think of "debt-dodging", I think of people deliberately obtaining credit with no intention of ever paying back, which is a Bad Thing. All that is being done here is creditors being punished for their unethical behaviour. If they want to act in bad faith, that's fine, but they should be prepared to forfeit any debt owed to them if they do. If they're going to flout the law, then they should be prepared to submit to our terms, instead of us submitting to theirs. When the banks throw their toys out of the pram, there's no reason why we should retrieve them.

 

Same thing I was trying to say - but better presented!

[un1boy]

I personally believe that we are overcharged for most things in this life - how often do we get something 'cheap'? We seem to be settling for a 10% discount on goods and services - when the merchandise/service doesn't cost that to begin with.

 

The cost of absolutely everything is going up, it is harder for us to live and get by these days - the wages aren't going up in comparison with everything else.

 

Is a line rental of £20 and more... reasonable for a mobile telephone? Or a house phone? Or even broadband. These companies are raking it in.

 

Televisions made from cheap plastic parts costing thousands....#

 

... it is time the consumers fight back!

 

When I was a manager in retail I was told that companies mark up products by 75%......so, when you see manger's specials with 75% off, all they are doing is selling the item(s) at cost and making no profit from them!!

[un1boy]

Sorry but I find it a little hard to agree on some of your points here.1) No one on this forum is trying to escape their debts.2) There is no such thing as a free lunch and as for financial irresponsibility shouldn't a large percentage of that be blamed on the banks for their irresponsible lending.

 

Thanks Terminator

[un1boy]

Wow Busy day

 

Ok going to throw my two pennyworth in now although some of it has already been said by others. I apologise now for the length of this post.

 

NOBODY is trying to avoid repaying legitimate debts except the banks who have been making up to 3 BILLION a year from charging us unlawful penalties. This is not limited to charges on banks accounts but has spread to credit cards, mortgages and every form of loan on the market. When they are finally caught in their unlawful activities they deny it despite legal judgments going back over 100 years and push the blame firmly back on the consumer. They then make those of us who stand up for our legal rights the scapegoat by saying interest rates etc will rise to cover the cost of repaying the charges. If we dont persist in our legal and lawful rights they ignore our claims.

 

The banks are now running around trying to find ways of propping up their unlawful profits at OUR expense yet again.

 

The Banks (and I use the word banks to cover credit cards and all loan companies) have systematically flouted the laws of this country for years and got away with it. They talk about responsible lending and then penalise us with early repayment charges. They then bring out 5 times multipliers and 60 year mortgages. That to my mind is totally irresponsible. They consistantly bully the consumer and close accounts and post defaults simply because we stand up for our rights.

 

The banks have presided over the highest rates of personal bankruptcies imaginable over the last 20 years or so. They apply charges to suit themselves on those who can least afford it, driving them deeper into a spiral of mounting debt to the point where sevaral have taken their own lives to escape it. That to me is irresponsible and corporate murder charges should be brought against them in those cases.

 

I have worked all my life and never claimed benefits of any sort, I work up to 16 hours a day most days to see the banks I should be able to trust with my financial dealings rob me left, right and centre. One person in five is now affected in some way by the banks unlawful charges.

 

I do not condone in any way (as I have said many times before) not repaying legitimate debt, but I refuse to be subjugated by the banks any longer.

 

If they persist in acting above and beyond the laws of this country then they deserve to be brought to task and made to make restitution to the customers who line their pockets. if that means they cant recover a debt because they lost or failed to execute the paperwork so that it was legally enforceable then that is their problem not mine.

 

Barclaycard denied me my legal rights under the DPA, claiming the microfiche argument so I replied with a legal request for the credit agreement. They have failed to supply that document after several weeks. I am within my legal rights to challenge the validity of their claim. If the only way allowed to me of doing that is in a court of law then so be it. Liekwise I will challenge any other company who deny me my legal rights and treat me with total disregard and lack of respect.

 

I am not one to blow my own trumpet but I have an IQ in the higher levels and I run a successful company. I pay the banks a lot of money to handle both my company and personal finances. I do not expect them to treat me with respect, I DEMAND it.

 

Rant over till somebody else annoys me lmao

 

I agree with what you are saying here Tam, well done!

 

The reason these banks (used to cover the same companies as Tam) refuse to remove Derfaults etc unless we use legal action is because they can charge higher interest rates to those that have them. They issue them willy-nilly for this same reason, purely to make money.

 

I have 2 deafaults on my file, which are illegal because I never received the docs and they can't provide a copy of then, yet the only way for me to get them removed is to fill out an N1 form - they remove them then because the know they are in the wrong.

 

In my sister's case, she is a single mother and went over her overdraft - barcalys have been charging her £90 per month just for being over it. Her wages don't bring her back to zero, so they charge her again wach month - she has been charged £900 since June last year. So, as you can see, the bank have been making a lot out of her, just for adding their unlawful charges - it's absolutely ludicrous.

 

People ask me why the banks have got away with it and I just tell them because we all trusted them and thought that they would abide by the law. The things have realised from this site and my own research about how these companies have no respect for their customers and constantly break the law, sickens me.

 

So, I agree with Tam.

 

That's me done!

[un1boy]

IVA, or bankruptcy.

 

Which all practically mean the same thing!

 

Whay are IVA's marketed as not Bankrupcy when they both effect your credit basically the same anyway?!

[un1boy]

Hmmm in my opinion an IVA is a lifeline before bankruptcy... but the penalty is so severe that people hang themselves and end up bankrupt anyway.

 

Bankruptcy wipes the debt out completely and then in 12 months or so - you can trade again....

 

... with an IVA you can continue trading, pay a set amount each month and keep your home - with bankruptcy your home is an asset which has to be sold to pay debts...

 

... none of this is law.. but it's pretty much the way it works

 

I see. I wasn't fully aware of how they worked.....with an IVA you can't a mortgage until you've been "discharged" from it for 12 months.....same requirements as a bankrupt, that's probably where I was getting confised!

[un1boy]

so perhaps im missing the plot somewhere but wouldn't be more viable to the banks to reduce the debt to 10-15% to the debtor and save to costs.

 

Ah yes, but if the banks just reduced it for you, how would they make sure they could "ligitimately" (in the loosest sense of the word) charge you extra interest....they would have to put something on your ceidt rating....also, HSBC own their Debt collecting agency anyway, so they default you and still get all the debt themselves!!!

[un1boy]

Wooppe I'm a classic customer!

 

lol, little things.....

[un1boy]

I just called a DCA to see if they got my CCA LBA breach letter and she said so, are you saying that you haven't spent this money? I said, I am not having a conversation about it over the phone, and she said well I can assure you that these contracts, their terms and conditions etc are sent out accuratley. I just said to her, well clearly, they aren't. She was a nice lady and so I just said, look, I'm not tlaking about this over the phone - I'm awaiting your response from your solictors!!

 

It made me laugh when she said they are accurate!!!

[un1boy]

Hopefully they will have 195,000 closed accounts before February. Once again I see they are targetting those with incomes that dont move £1500 a month through the account. That is going to include a couple who both work and have seperate accounts but pay money into a joint account for housekeeping as well.

 

I use Smile (who settled my claim this morning ) but the minute they tell me they are going to charge me for using them I move to another bank. Even if I have to move my account offshore.

 

Tamadus, I bank with Smile and I didn;t have time to tell them officially that I had withdrawn the claim until about 2 weeks after they paid - the day after they sent my my formal 30 days' notice - so much for being ethical!!

 

The problem with this is I cannot get another debit card at the mo because of unlawful defaults and they want me to close my ISA and savings accoutns, meaning I cannot invest into another ISA until April 2007!!

 

I've always had a good relationship with them, did not see this coming!!

[un1boy]

I know it's a bit of an annoyance, but you do realise that in most cases you can just draw your entire salary and put it all back in to reach the £1500, yes?

 

I don't understand this Meagain, please explain

[un1boy]

A totally plastic society is what they want Al with their grubby little fingers in every last part of our lives. when you control the pocket you control the person.

 

Personally I think the people should start refusing their sterile, plastic world, so far its caused us all nothing but problems. Using cash was never a problem in my youth, the problems started with using plastic.

 

I agree....

[un1boy]

If your monthly income is, for arguments sake, £900.

 

When the money comes into your account, you withdraw £600. Then pay it back into your account. Your account will then show that you have income into the account that month of £1500.

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying that!