Cap1 & CCA return

[Peterbard]

Hi Shane

 

The form requirements of SI 1553 are pretty clear in what the schedule one information which is the main bulk of the T an c's and include the prescribed terms, should be within the agreement.There is no mention within the agreement regulations(1553) of the term "Terms and conditions".

These are a sepperate document intended for issuance as copy one or two docs in order to comply with sections 63-64 etc.

The statement "only sign if you agree to" is meaningless it does not conform to the required format of the agreement.

 

Best regards

Peter

[shane5408]

The statement "only sign if you agree to" is meaningless it does not conform to the required format of the agreement.

 

Best regards

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

the quote above is what I was trying to get at. I shouldn't of said T&C's either what i meant was simply any other document not being the signature document but being referred to in it; though I find in a lot of cases the prescribed terms are in the t&c's with credit card applications/alleged agreements.

 

So the fact that it may say on the signature doc 'only sign here if you agree....' carries no weight with regards to prescribed terms being on the other document you are effectively agreeing to be bound to because prescribed terms MUST be on signatue document itself.

 

kind regards,

shane

[car2403]

Only 108 posts (well, 107 now!) to go to 10,000 posts!

 

World Record?

 

[tomterm8]

Only 108 posts (well, 107 now!) to go to 10,000 posts!

 

World Record?

 

 

Who are you talking about:confused:

[car2403]

Who are you talking about:confused:

 

This thread

 

[tomterm8]

This thread

 

 

d'oh!

[Peterbard]

Hi Peter,

 

the quote above is what I was trying to get at. I shouldn't of said T&C's either what i meant was simply any other document not being the signature document but being referred to in it; though I find in a lot of cases the prescribed terms are in the t&c's with credit card applications/alleged agreements.

 

So the fact that it may say on the signature doc 'only sign here if you agree....' carries no weight with regards to prescribed terms being on the other document you are effectively agreeing to be bound to because prescribed terms MUST be on signatue document itself.

 

kind regards,

shane

 

Hi Shane

 

Yes and of course not only the prescribed terms but all the required terms stated within the agreement regulations should be within the signature document.

 

Best regards

peter

[Goldlady]

OK, I have received an application form (posted on another thread) with no prescribed terms at all, a printout of t&cs from a different year from when agreement was taken out which span two pages of A4 in their tiny print and could no way on this earth have been on the back of the original application form, and a credit card mailer from 2005 which is the only thing showing the credit limit and interest rate. The response to my original CCA request was the application form - one single sided sheet of A4.

[ncf355]

Hi all,

 

wasnt it today mabelline was in court with her CCA?

[car2403]

Peter/All,

 

I have another agreement I'd like to you have a look at, if you don't mind.

 

This seems to be a response to a CPR request under my HFC Bank claim and a second agreement has suddenly surfaced;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/110146-car2403-hfc-bank-default-4.html#post1186453

 

Isn't signed by HFC Bank?

 

Your thoughts on it? Have to compose a Defence/Counterclaim this week, (with tomterm8's help, of course!) so I'd appreciate a quick turnaround. (If that isn't too cheeky!)

 

Thanks,

Chris

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Ho All

 

Sorry to barge in but got a letter of Crapwest today and they are doing my head in:mad:

 

Can I just confirm the prescribed terms have to be on the signed page NOT in a seperate print out with the T&C

 

HAK

[un1boy]

Ho All

 

Sorry to barge in but got a letter of Crapwest today and they are doing my head in:mad:

 

Can I just confirm the prescribed terms have to be on the signed page NOT in a seperate print out with the T&C

 

HAK

 

Correct.

[Jeff2000]

Ho All

 

Sorry to barge in but got a letter of Crapwest today and they are doing my head in:mad:

 

Can I just confirm the prescribed terms have to be on the signed page NOT in a seperate print out with the T&C

 

HAK

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely!

[shane5408]

Ho All

 

Sorry to barge in but got a letter of Crapwest today and they are doing my head in:mad:

 

Can I just confirm the prescribed terms have to be on the signed page NOT in a seperate print out with the T&C

 

HAK

 

Yes this is true but remember as per the Regs some of the prescribed terms can be stipulated as statements explaining how they will determined , or worked out see

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/103383-agreement-enforceability.html

for more details

 

regards,

shane

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hi

 

There is not one prescribed term anywhere just in the T&C

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/110330-natwest-cca-response-help.html

HAK

[un1boy]

Hi

 

There is not one prescribed term anywhere just in the T&C

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/110330-natwest-cca-response-help.html

HAK

 

Well then hack, by virtue of section 127(3) the court cannot enforce the agreement and I wouuld issue an N1 immediately and contact your Trading Standards!

[paulwlton]

After Woodchester v Swaine it appears a defaut notice is inefective if it miss-states the amount needed to remedy the breach. My question is, if the figure quoted in the notice is less than the actual amount required. Would the notice still be inefective even though the borrower has not been put to a disadvantage.

 

Paul

[shane5408]

Hi Paul,

 

In that situation I don't think it would hold up in court. Though the default notice is supposed to be wholly accurate, in Woodchester v Swaine the court did mention an error that can be described as minimal could be overlooked.

'The court commented that a de minimis error may be overlooked.'

 

regards,

shane

[car2403]

Hi Paul,

 

In that situation I don't think it would hold up in court. Though the default notice is supposed to be wholly accurate, in Woodchester v Swaine the court did mention an error that can be described as minimal could be overlooked.

'The court commented that a de minimis error may be overlooked.'

 

regards,

shane

 

but;

 

"Accordingly, the assistant recorder had been incorrect to hold that the default notice was not rendered defective by alleging an amount which was in excess of the sum necessary to remedy the breach"

[shane5408]

but;

 

Hi,

 

If the creditor had stated on the default notice you must pay x amount to remedy the breach and x amount was overestimated then yes I would agree default would be rendered defective and void. Debtor would even be open to counterclaim for damages (see Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society) not to mention unlawful recission of contract aruguably precluding a court from making any enforcement order.

 

However, given that the innaccuracy in this case was to underestimate the sum required to remedy the alleged breach, by misrepresenting it the debtor is not really affected or prejudiced Imo, I think it would be hard to convince a judge otherwise.

 

regards,

shane

[shane5408]

Hi,

 

Does anyone have copies of

 

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1993

Consumer Credit (Notice of Variation of Agreements) Regulations 1977

Consumer Credit (Credit Token Agreements) Regulations 1983

Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983

Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983

Consumer Credit (Quotations) Regulations 1980

Consumer credit(Agreement to enter Prospective agreements)(Exemptions) Regulations 1983

The Consumer Credit (Quotations) Regulations 1989

 

Just my luck, server crashed and lost all data:o . If anyone has any of these in electronic form please let me know!

 

kind regards,

shane

[Acerfan]

Can anyone have a look at my thread Suspect I have no loan agrrement please? I could really, really do with some advice

[paulwlton]

Is this contrary to the OFTs view on complying with sec 77.

 

POST REMOVED.

 

Sorry, i've had my wrist slapped.

[alecmac18]

Wow - gotta love the line: "A classic example of thinking under pressure and adding real value to the bottom line"

 

We should call what they are doing by its true name: Fraud.

[MoonHawk]

The issue here is that TS is accepting this and putting the onus on the consumer to fight it in court. I can not accept that there is ever only one style of agreement at any one time, so it is in my view at best a guess. Next Direcotry have begun to go down this route, and when they took my wife to court and we asked for a copy of the agreement, they tried to fob us off by sending a typed up copy and quoted the CCA regulations.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk