Cap1 & CCA return

[tomterm8]

i accept theDPA but i do object to the sharing of data with third parties yes POLICE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES and CRA...that is it nothing more nothing less not for debt chasing not for marketing purposes and i certainley do want to be asked to write to them to object either ,this should nt be there and i certainley did not like the term debt chasers ,i have also noticed one thread on here where it was an entire page of the contract we reserve this we reserve that but will look for it ,it could be a credit card contract possibly egg but not sure ....

 

They would be entitled to give the data to agents, including DCA's anyway, under the law. And data held with CRA's are used for tracing debtors.

 

In terms of third party marketing, this does require consent from yourself, and under the DCA 1998 you have the right to require any person to stop processing data for marketing purposes

 

11 Right to prevent processing for purposes of direct marketing

(1) An individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing for the purposes of direct marketing personal data in respect of which he is the data subject.

(2) If the court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice under subsection (1), that the data controller has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice as the court thinks fit.

(3) In this section “direct marketing” means the communication (by whatever means) of any advertising or marketing material which is directed to particular individuals.

I know it's irritating to have to write off to people to prevent such processing... but all i can do is say what I believe the law to be; I can't change it... that's parliaments job:)

[TideTurner]

They would be entitled to give the data to agents, including DCA's anyway, under the law. And data held with CRA's are used for tracing debtors.

 

In terms of third party marketing, this does require consent from yourself, and under the DCA 1998 you have the right to require any person to stop processing data for marketing purposes

 

Tomterm,

 

They are only entitled to provide your personal or financial information to a third party where you give your authority. This may form one of the terms of a contract you have with them, but must be supported by a proper written agreement, dated.

 

Regarding provision for marketing purposes, you can write to them at any time to have your name taken off any database unless you are contractually tied in (in which case you can cancel the contract and claim that any information held is being processed contrary to any contract), or where it is a matter of National Security (in some cases you can still have it removed, without conviction).

 

Tide

[MoonHawk]

Third parties are entitled to process data in accord with their legitimate interests*, and several court cases have established that data held with the credit reference agencies are held in accord with the CRA leigimate third parties interest.

Tom,

 

I am assuming what you are saying is based on section 6 of Schdule 2 within the Data Protection Act:

SCHEDULE 2

Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of any personal data

6

(1)

The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed

, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied.

 

But before Schedule 2, comes Schedule 1:

 

SCHEDULE 1

The data protection principles

 

Part I The principles

 

1 Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless—

(a)

at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met

, and

(b)in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.

Now 1-b refers to schedule 2 applying but it must also be processed "lawfully".

 

In the Data Protection Act there is no definition of 'lawful', but there is in the guidelines provided by the Information Commissioners Office. In that, the way that I read it, it prohibits the processing when they fail to comply with CCA requests:

Data Protection Act 1998

Legal Guidance

3.1.4 Lawfulness

The Act does not provide any guidance on the meaning of “lawful”. The natural meaning of unlawful has been broadly described by the Courts as “something which is contrary to some law or enactment or is done without lawful justification or excuse”.

(R v R [1991] 4All ER 481). The term applies equally to the public and private sector and to breaches of both statute and common law, whether criminal or civil. An example of information unlawfully obtained might be information, which is obtained as a result of a breach of confidence or in breach of an enforceable contractual agreement. Since 2 October 2000 it applies to a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 by a data controller bound by that Act.

This means that a data controller must comply with all relevant rules of law whether derived from statute or common law, relating to the purpose and ways in which the data controller processes personal data.

 

There are certain areas of law concerning the use of information and the relations of data controllers with individuals, which have particular relevance where breaches of the first and Second Principles are being considered. These are:-

(a) Confidentiality arising from the relationship of the data controller with the data subject.

(b) The ultra vires rule and the rule relating to the excess of delegated powers, under which the data controller may only act within the limits of its legal powers.

© Legitimate expectation, that is, the expectation of the individual as to how the data controller will use the information relating to him.

(d) Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence).

Firstly, if the clause was not in there (as in Patrick's request for it to be separate), or they process it in a way that is not stated in the contract, then it is processed unlawfully.

 

Also they would, in cases where they have failed to comply with a request under the CCA 1974 and are in breach of the CCA, be seen as processing the data unlawfully? Especially for data processed after they went into default (e.g. selling your debt on).

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[tomterm8]

Tomterm,

 

They are only entitled to provide your personal or financial information to a third party where you give your authority. This may form one of the terms of a contract you have with them, but must be supported by a proper written agreement, dated.

 

This is not true, in general terms. One of the fair use conditions that permits use is of their is a contractual relationship between the parties, and it is necessary for the maintenance / running of the agreement. There is no requirement that the contract must be in writing, HOWEVER, if we are talking about a consumer credit agreement, then it is my view that the agreement must be enforceable by the court.

 

There are other "fair use" reasons to process data. For example, CRA's have a legitimate interest in the data.

 

Regarding provision for marketing purposes, you can write to them at any time to have your name taken off any database unless you are contractually tied in (in which case you can cancel the contract and claim that any information held is being processed contrary to any contract), or where it is a matter of National Security (in some cases you can still have it removed, without conviction).

 

You have the right to prevent data being processed for direct marketing purposes, as per the section quoted above. My understanding is that no contractual term can prevent you exercising that right.

 

Tide

 

Tom,

 

I am assuming what you are saying is based on section 6 of Schdule 2 within the Data Protection Act:

 

 

But before Schedule 2, comes Schedule 1:

 

SCHEDULE 1

The data protection principles

 

Part I The principles

 

 

 

1 Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless—

(a)

at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met

, and

 

(b)in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.

Now 1-b refers to schedule 2 applying but it must also be processed "lawfully".

 

Firstly, if the clause was not in there (as in Patrick's request for it to be separate), or they process it in a way that is not stated in the contract, then it is processed unlawfully.

 

i disagree. The general consensus is that consent, given at one time, can be withdrawn at any future time without notice. Consent is a general red herring, since de facto it would always be withdrawn at the instant the data subject issues a s10 notice.

 

The provision that is most relevant is:

 

6 (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied.

 

 

the requirement as to whether this processing is lawful is essentially a balancing act between different human rights: that is, the rights of the data subject and the property and freedom of expression rights of the CRA and other credit companies. generally, the rights of the CRA seem to win in court on public policy grounds.

 

As mentioned before, the Directive is important, since the underlying european law tends to place a presumption that the data subjects rights are more important than the data controllers; while the Data Protection Act 1998 requires you to prove that it is unwarranted.

 

This does not appear to have been argued in court, to the best of my knowledge.

 

A very important requirement is that the data controller abides by the requirement that they take all reasonable steps to inform the data subject of the way they intend to use data. Failure to inform would itself render the them in breach of the DPA. But there is no de facto requirement that this be provided within the contract.

 

 

Also they would, in cases where they have failed to comply with a request under the CCA 1974 and are in breach of the CCA, be seen as processing the data unlawfully? Especially for data processed after they went into default (e.g. selling your debt on).

 

Quite possibly. It should be noted, however, that the contractual relationship still exists in that case.

 

Several cases I'm working on at the moment involve DCA's and Original Creditors in actions where a debt unenforceable in the courts, and yet they continue to record information with the CRA's. in my view, that is a breah of the DPA, and may also constitute the tort of Unlawful Interference.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

..

[MoonHawk]

Thanks for the thorough reply Tom

 

Quite possibly. It should be noted, however, that the contractual relationship still exists in that case.

 

Several cases I'm working on at the moment involve DCA's and Original Creditors in actions where a debt unenforceable in the courts, and yet they continue to record information with the CRA's. in my view, that is a breah of the Data Protection Act, and may also constitute the tort of Unlawful Interference.

I quite understand that there is still a contract. That is not denied, and it is what I usually tell people. But my argument is that without a signed executed agreement, who is to say that you are in default when there are no terms to apply to the contract?

 

Or go to the extreme, who is to say the contract was not "pay us as and when you can"? I know that is a ludicrous statement, but shows the fact that there is nothing to prove the terms of repayment and to show you are in default. I am here talking about the ones that fail to produce any document or only show an illegible application form (as with my Barclaycard ).

 

I do not believe that there is proof of legitimate interest, where they say you are behind with payments, when there is nothing to prove what your payments should be. The CRAs should not be allowed to list any account unless they were shown a valid contract. Although that is my personal view and unfortunately not one of any government body.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[tomterm8]

Thanks for the thorough reply Tom

 

I quite understand that there is still a contract. That is not denied, and it is what I usually tell people. But my argument is that without a signed executed agreement, who is to say that you are in default when there are no terms to apply to the contract?

 

Or go to the extreme, who is to say the contract was not "pay us as and when you can"? I know that is a ludicrous statement, but shows the fact that there is nothing to prove the terms of repayment and to show you are in default. I am here talking about the ones that fail to produce any document or only show an illegible application form (as with my Barclaycard ).

 

I do not believe that there is proof of legitimate interest, where they say you are behind with payments, when there is nothing to prove what your payments should be. The CRAs should not be allowed to list any account unless they were shown a valid contract. Although that is my personal view and unfortunately not one of any government body.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

 

Yeah, that's much the same argument as I've advised a couple of people to bring in an action with (at the moment) reasonable success, although I highlight that a default is a breach of a legally enforceable term of a contract; in the case of an unenforceable contract, there can be no such breach.

[TideTurner]

..

 

Tom,

 

Totally confused. If there is no contract, are you talking about a verbal agreement? None of these would go anywhere near a Court with respect to a CCA.

 

The terms of any agreement must be specific and state the purposes for which the information obtained will be used. Both parties must agree to these terms.

 

For example, where information is obtained via an application form for the purposes of obtaining credit worthiness, the data must be destroyed once it has served its purpose. Any further use of this information is subject to further agreement / contract between the parties.

 

There were a lot of problems with contracts up until last year which contained 'opt-out' clauses as opposed to being automatically 'opted-in'.

 

THE DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES

2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.

 

3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.

5. Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.

There cannot be any verbal compliance or reliance upon the above by either party without a written agreement.

Tide

[un1boy]

Guys,

 

I've had a look through the act and can't seem to find again anywhere...I'm looking for the part that says that we can take seperate civil action as well as criminal action.

[TideTurner]

In the DPA? S13 covers compensation, The criminal depends on the circumstances and involves other Acts.

 

13. - (1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.

(2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if-

(a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or

(b) the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes.

(3) In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned.

[un1boy]

Sorry Tide, I meant in the CCA....

[TideTurner]

No problem, have you tried the search on the thread / site. Need the right buzz words though.

[monopoly23]

Yeah, that's much the same argument as I've advised a couple of people to bring in an action with (at the moment) reasonable success, although I highlight that a default is a breach of a legally enforceable term of a contract; in the case of an unenforceable contract, there can be no such breach.

 

I'd also be very interested to see where this discussion goes and what results come out of it. No doubt you will get results before me Moonhawk - I'm taking a break from this court malarkey!

 

As you know though, my case against Next, when I bring it, will be mostly about the fact that they have defaulted me on the basis of a legally invalid default notice, and of course that no agreement exists.

 

When are you planning on going to court with this?

[patrickq1]

Rt Hon John McFall

John McFall, Chair of the Treasury Select Committee

 

John McFall, Chair of the Treasury Select Committee responds to Dumbarton constituents on Overcoming Barriers to Social and Financial Exclusion

The provision of service from the credit and store card industry and regulatory frameworks intended to protect the consumer has proven to be severely inadequate. The present consumer credit regime is very outdated and bears little relevance to the financial market that exists today. It is, however, in the process of being updated through a White Paper issued from the DTI.

Generally, in the credit card industry important information is written only in the small print and in type so minute it is barely, if at all, readable. Confusing technical jargon is used and the real costs of interest are concealed through complex calculations. The industry has not launched any concerted initiatives itself to tackle these problems. This leaves them falling well short of fulfilling their basic social responsibilities of providing a transparent and competitive market.

As Christine Liddell has pointed out one of the most confusing areas of credit cards is the calculation of Annual Percentage Rates (APR). Not only is the APR a misleading way in which credit cards can be compared but there are two different ways in which APR can be calculated. This is an enormous obstacle to any meaningful comparison of cards and reflects very badly upon the industry. The Treasury Select Committee has been pushing for the introduction of a single method of APR calculation to be used by the entire industry by October 2004. The DTI has now indicated that they are on-course to achieve this long-overdue reform.

Christine Liddell has suggested that credit cards should show the true cost of borrowing, meaning the cost of the item plus the sum of interest that will be paid depending on the speed in which the debt is cleared. The Treasury Committee have introduced a scheme where certain likely scenarios are printed on the card’s literature to show how the amount of interest paid is effected by different repayment patterns.

A Summary Box, with the key information about the card listed, is being introduced as part of the Banking Code’s requirements. The Committee has recommended that likely scenarios, showing the ‘actual’ cost of interest should be included in this, including particularly the cost if only the minimum amount is repaid each month. Some high street banks have already begun to include this. The idea of the Summary Box is to provide customers with a meaningful way of comparing cards and enabling them to chose the card which best suits their needs. The Box should have a minimum font size so that it cannot be lost in the small print of an application form.

Clear communication between credit card companies and their customers is essential in order to maintain public confidence in the industry. Advertising campaigns such as the Barclaycard 0% forever offer can mislead the public. Even the Chief Executive of Barclays had trouble understanding the terms of his company’s own offer at a session with the Treasury Committee. Thanks to pressure from the Committee this advert has now been withdrawn. As highlighted by both Malcolm Wright and Christine Liddell this practice of aggressive selling tactics and misleading adverts are unacceptable. The new Consumer Credit Act from the DTI is tightening up on these practices, especially those that encourage increasing debt in order to take advantage of special offers. The Committee has recommended that the OFT should develop best practice guidelines to be either incorporated into the Banking Code or enforced by the OFT.

The Summary Box provides an opportunity to eliminate the existence of hidden charges. All charges should be clearly listed in the Box. The Treasury Committee has also raised the need for card issues to charge lower fees for customers with lower credit limits or low outstanding balances when payments are received late, as is the practice in the US. Furthermore, the fee levied should not exceed the cost to the lender of the relevant breach of contract. The practice of some sections of the industry has given rise to some customers “sleepwalking into a situation of over-commitment.” Over-indebtedness has devastating consequences and can be a threat to social stability as Malcolm Wright pointed out. Card issuers need to recognise their social responsibility to prevent this from happening.

Credit Unions are presently stepping in to fill the void where banks have failed the poorest sectors of society. Although they are yet to become as prolific as other countries (Britain’s Credit Unions have 1 million customers compared to 2 million in Ireland) they are providing, to an increasing number of people, a valuable borrowing service. Without such a service people who find themselves below the conventional banking threshold can face rates of up to 410%.

Hugh Collins and Catherine Liddell have addressed another problem with the industry - insufficient credit checks, which can ultimately lead to individuals or households becoming overstretched financially. The Treasury Committee has recommended that credit limits should never be raised without appropriate and thorough checks being carried out and that the practice of sending out unsolicited credit card cheques should cease immediately. In order to prevent an increasing number of people finding themselves unable to meet their financial commitments it is essential that the minimum repayment on any debt covers the interest and insurance to ensure that the debt is at least not growing despite payments being made.

Task Force One, set up by the Government, provides a forum where consumer groups, the industry and the regulatory bodies can discuss the way forward. Recently made more permanent, this body can make recommendations to help guide the industry in a direction agreeable to all parties.

The cosy relationship between store card providers and the stores has provided another area for concern. There are suspicions they have acted together to prevent customers from being able to get all the fact about the products they are selling. The cards have extremely high interest rates and hide most if not all of the important information in illegible small print. The behaviour of the stores and their card issuers in providing sufficient transparency in their products has prompted an OFT investigation into this market. The practice of preventing application forms from being taken out of the shop has been stopped through pressure from the Treasury Committee and further advances in the transparency of this market should follow after the OFT’s findings.

As Malcolm Wright highlighted one of the most important steps to help prevent more people finding themselves in a cycle of indebtedness is to improve the financial education of consumers. The Treasury Select Committee has welcomed any steps towards fostering an improved level of financial understanding in the general public. It is essential that the financial industry face up to its responsibilities in this area. Products should be tested on consumers to ensure they are comprehendible and clear advice must be provided to any one struggling with their debt. The Citizens Advice Bureau has worked hard in this area and although the assistance provided by the financial services is welcomed it will not be sufficient to cope with the rising numbers of people facing debt related problems.

The Treasury Committee hopes that the financial industry will fulfil its obligations by continuing to comply with all of the Committee’s recommendations and provide a socially responsible, inclusive, stable, transparent and competitive credit and store card market.

[MoonHawk]

I'd also be very interested to see where this discussion goes and what results come out of it. No doubt you will get results before me Moonhawk - I'm taking a break from this court malarkey!

 

As you know though, my case against Next, when I bring it, will be mostly about the fact that they have defaulted me on the basis of a legally invalid default notice, and of course that no agreement exists.

 

When are you planning on going to court with this?

I'm way off in relation to my case with Next.

I am trying to gather as much knowledge to tackle the CRAs issue in relation to all companies that can not produce a CCA, and Tom's input has been invaluable as usual as has Tide's and Patrick's.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[conar686]

In regard to Data Protection Act issues; when I asked the Information Commissioners Office to investigate Littlewoods who admitted that they could not produce an agreement and were still processing my data.

 

The Information Commissioners Office advised that in their view - as there had been a clear business relationship (I'd ordered & received goods) Littlewoods were in their rights to process my data despite the technical lack of a contract.

 

There final word was that I'd need to go to court & have a judge decide. I am getting seriously hacked off with that advice from Gov't organisations who're supposed to police consumer legislation

[MoonHawk]

I'm could easily get hacked off too Conar. But I decided to put my energy towards working it out rather than getting angry

 

In relation to the ICO's response, a clear business relationship does exist, but without an enforceable contract, there can be no breach or default. There is nothing to show when you would be in default. So they are allowed to process your data for the management of teh account, and they are also allowed to register with the CRAs that there is an account with them. In my opinion they can not register a default as there is no proof there is one. So it is not the fact that they are processing your data that you should be complaining about to the ICO, but that the information is inaccurate and ask Littlewoods to prove there is a default, by showing the terms that relate to a signed enforced agreement.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[conar686]

Quote.doc

 

I know this is standard Bllx the agreement arrived with the OH name & addr in Pen, their signature, however no OH signature. So unenforceable.

 

Is there a response to this statement I can send which puts them back in their box

 

cheers

 

MAC

[conar686]

I'm could easily get hacked off too Conar. But I decided to put my energy towards working it out rather than getting angry

 

So it is not the fact that they are processing your data that you should be complaining about to the Information Commissioners Office, but that the information is inaccurate and ask Littlewoods to prove there is a default, by showing the terms that relate to a signed enforced agreement.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

 

Not Angry MH just frustrated as I can't financially afford to go the courts route.

 

Good point on the challenging Littlewoods so will give that a shot - cheers

[Peterbard]

HI

I have made inquiries with several sources regarding the TS assertion that the CCA section 77 is about to be de-criminalised i recieved an e-mail from Lacours this morning saying that they were unaware of any such legislation either going through the parliamentarry procces or in draft.

 

I also recieved aspecialist e-mail whatever that is from the Information Commissioners Office with their new guidance notes i have pasted some of them here.

 

The last paragraph is interesting

 

32 Lenders should tell their customers about filing information with a credit reference agency as part of the account opening procedure, in line with the requirements of the ‘fair processing code’4. This explanation will not normally refer explicitly to defaults and will often be distant from the events which cause them. Therefore we strongly recommend that a notice of the intention to file a default should be served. Many lenders now subscribe to trade association codes of practice which require this. This practice helps the transparency of the credit reference process and may even prompt payment, so avoiding the need to file a default at all.

33 Notices to comply with Sections 13.7 of the Banking Code5 and 7.5 of the Lending Code6 should provide adequate warning. A notice of intention to file a default can be sent with a formal default notice served under Section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Where lenders are not required to issue these notices, they can send an intention to file a default through a final demand, letter or relevant account statement, which should make clear not only the intention to file but also the date of the intended default. The date should allow the customer enough time to respond properly. Lenders who have to provide a notice of intention to file a default under a relevant code of practice should be aware that not complying with the code may be taken into account in any assessment of the fairness of their processing.

34 When a default occurs in line with the criteria in this guidance, and the lender has given the customer 28 days notice of the intention to file a default, then subject to paragraph 37, the lender may supply this information to a credit reference agency despite no advance warning when the account was opened.

 

Best regards

Peter

[MoonHawk]

34 When a default occurs in line with the criteria in this guidance, and the lender has given the customer 28 days notice of the intention to file a default, then subject to paragraph 37, the lender may supply this information to a credit reference agency despite no advance warning when the account was opened.

Thanks for that Peter

 

That is all fair enough, but how is it proven what a default is? There is no proof that you took the account under the standard T&Cs or negotiated special terms. Otherwise you can be acting perfectly within the contract and paying on time etc. and they can still record a default.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[Peterbard]

Thanks for that Peter

 

That is all fair enough, but how is it proven what a default is? There is no proof that you took the account under the standard T&Cs or negotiated special terms. Otherwise you can be acting perfectly within the contract and paying on time etc. and they can still record a default.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

Hi

 

Agreed i meerly posted this an an iteresting article i am aware of the requirement for processing data, strangely enough though after just reading the guidlines isued by the Information Commissioners Office ther is no mention of this when listing the requirements for placing a entry on someones credit file.

 

Bes regards

Peter

[MoonHawk]

The question was not specifically directed at you I was questioning ICO's unclarity and refusal to commit on the issue.

 

I am not sure if you are talking about the "Data Protection Act 1998 Legal Guidance" or another document. But in the above there is plenty to cover the actual processing by the CRAs but nothing on how they get the data, which leaves a big hole in the whole process.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[ian1969uk]

I have gone down the route MoonHawk suggests with a couple of catalogue accounts, demanding that they prove a default by providing the agreement. When they could not, I asked them to demonstrate how I had defaulted as it was not known what terms I had agreed to, and therefore how could I be proven to default?

 

All they say is that accounts would not be opened without accepting the standard terms and conditions, and so the fact my account was opened is proof enough.

 

So, it's the old industry standard bit again in a different way. It's very tiring to continually challenge these people, I know, but we have to keep pushing them and the regulatroy bodies.

[conar686]

*bump* any thoughts how best to respond to this 'tosh'

 

[attach]1117[/attach]

 

I know this is standard Bllx the agreement arrived with the OH name & addr in Pen, their signature, however no OH signature. So unenforceable.

 

Is there a response to this statement I can send which puts them back in their box

 

cheers

 

MAC

[conar686]

Just had an email from my local TS can anyone help me refute this statement.

 

"I have stated previously, the obligation to provide a copy of your original consumer credit agreement under the CCA lies with the creditor with whom you took out that agreement and not a debt collection agency"

 

IMO s189 covers the OC but does this include a DCA acting as an agent?