Cap1 & CCA return

[JonCris]

If the Application form contains all the prescribed terms and is signed by the creditor and debtor then this would pass in my opinion.

 

If it doesn't include all the prescribed terms, and this is the important bit, if it doesn't include correctly stated prescribed terms then a court is precluded from enforcement.

 

We should also remember than any such document must be treat with equal status...........it can't be just an after thought

[JonCris]

Paul,

 

We will have to agree to disagree. That is an agreement I'm sure.

 

Application: A request and supply of information in support of pre-contract consideration.

Agreement.One of the elements of a legal contract. When an offer made by one party has been accepted by the other, with mutual understanding by both, an agreement exists. (LE)I think not at all the same!

 

Zubo I think your quoting contract law when we are referring to the CCA 1974 which is a different matter all together & places a much greater burden on the creditor

[JonCris]

Agreed............Blimey a thought has just come to mind....... If they are writing off mine or your debt then the DCA's may have no legal entitlement to pursue the debt courtsey of......... Dimond v Lovell

[JonCris]

Following on from my last post......We would have to ask "have you written off my debt" & they would have to respond.........If they said "no" then nothing gained but if they said "yes it's out of our hands" etc: Then bingo.............If they lied claiming they hadn't written it off & it was discovered they had mislead you & it had been written off.....then that would be a fraud as per the new 2006 Fraud Act

[JonCris]

anyone! Just a few thoughts to mull over in view of the banks recently announced huge profits & write offs........ Check out mine & Terminators previous recent posts

[JonCris]

So.....to clarify....

If the debt is passed to the DCA to recover and the bank write off, the DCA still chase you, its possible that they have commited fraud.

BUT...

If the bank sells the debt to a DCA regardless of what the banks do, the DCA has a right to collect the debt as they see fit.

Is that about right?

 

No read Dimond v Lovell

[JonCris]

No Think of the bank as the hire company..........If they have written off the debt then no debt or liabilty exists (also remember they get tax breaks on unpaid debt).............It then follows that the DCA has no right to try & collect a debt that no longer exists

 

The bank would have acted illegaly if they told you something which was untrue & to your financial detriment as per below:

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information

 

Section 3 provides that where a person dishonestly fails to disclose to another information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, & intends to make a gain or cause a loss or the risk of a loss an offence has been committed

 

Also:

Fraud by abuse of position

 

Section 4 makes it an offence for a person who occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not act against the financial interest of another person, to abuse that position dishonestly and intend, by means of the abuse, to make gain or cause a loss or risk of a loss to another. This creates a very broad offence which may catch the banks

[JonCris]

Sorry but I too am at a loss to see any corelation between Dimond v Lovell and a DCA (acting on behalf of the bank)chasing you for a debt that has been written off.

Surely if they are acting as collectors for the bank, and if the bank then writes off the debt their agent chasing you after the fact must be tantamout to fraud!

I hold my hands up to being an ignoramous.

 

 

The bank would be acting fraudently if they lied to you by saying they hadn't written off the debt when they had. The DCA having purchased a non existent debt would be acting fraudently if they told you they had a legal right to claim the debt when they hadn't

 

In other words if either lied to your financail detriment & their gain that would be a fraud

[JonCris]

But the banks don't write off the debt, they sell it. OK they make a loss, but a sale is a sale and it isn't written off. Therefore, again, there is no write off and therefore I am unclear as to where you believe the case applies?

 

Then you haven't read the link.........According to the banks own publicity they have written off over 6 billion...........So they can't sell something that no longer exists...........As a result buying debt has serious implications for the DCA's

[JonCris]

I agree it would take a lot to convince a court of this argument but we need to remove the wood from the chaff.......If the bank rights off the debt (no matter what they may call it) then the liability no longer exists.

[JonCris]

But the point is that the value hasn't been written off, it has been sold. I bought a car for £300.00 and sell it for £500.00. Does that mean the person who sold the car to me wrote off £200 in the transaction, or that they just didn't maximise the market value.

 

The banks have decided that it isn't in their interests to be tarnished in the way that a DCA is in attempting to maximise the true value of an account. The banks have reputations to uphold, the DCA's do not. The banks need to be seen to be whiter than white, the DCAs do not. This is trade here, purely and simply. The Dimond case didn't have the hire company selling the debt onto another company, did it?

 

There is nothing wrong with selling an account to a DCA for less than the true value. What you're more likely to have a better success with is saying the Banks are not allowed to sell the debt without the proper paperwork, otherwise they are committing fraud by selling something that is unenforceable.

 

I agree but what I'm saying is that on the one hand if they write the debt off then they have nothing to sell.........if they don't sell all of it off whatever the sale value that is all they are allowed to claim

[JonCris]

The £1700 hasn't been removed from the debt. The £1700 is still part of the debt, the DCA now owns that.

 

Not if they have written the £1700 off. Once part written off they have nothing to sell other than the portion that they sold

[JonCris]

If my car is repossed & sold at auction for below equity value then the lender or DCA is only entitled to claim the outstanding amount not the whole amount............If the lender writes off part of the debt as implied by selling it at a much lower value then that is the extent of the debtors liability

 

If I write to you saying I'm writing off £5 of the £10 you owe me I can't then pass the full £10 debt onto another......Of course for this scenario to work we would need to find out how much of the debt had been written off

[JonCris]

16 guest! I hope they are getting well paid

[JonCris]

I've just heard through the grapevine that a Lender/DCA is about to lose a major case

[JonCris]

The liability was sold prior to writing off the monies. An account isn't written off, the values quoted is the total amount of money their entire debt base has shrunk negated by the amount they sold it for, nothing else. The liability is already transferred and therefore still thrives

 

Whilst I disagree I do appreciate you arguments I do understand that this involves some lateral thinking on my part.....but then many would have said much the same about bank charges until the likes of CAG came along

[JonCris]

smoothy sorry can't tell yet will when matters are concluded

[JonCris]

They are all at lunch it would appear..........lets plot!

[JonCris]

naw there'er off to the canteen for cup & a cream bun

[JonCris]

Smoothy I think I've been to that cafe

[JonCris]

Offending posts removed.

 

What offending posts.........so what if we took a bit of the whatever out of the UNAMED opposition who haven't got the bottle to identify themselves when they come slinking through the site.

 

It was done to lighten matters Methinks you go to far karnevil I have reason to believe that such action might drive members away

[JonCris]

Follow the advice already given...........Not only are they well out of time they haven't complied with your request

 

My God! I despair of TS

[JonCris]

the thing, they say that it is a service you are paying in arrears for (like ur gas and electricity bills) and not "up front credit" which makes sense.....but then, they credit check you in order to see if you are "worthy" of getting their services, and issue default notices -which are specific to the CCA and process info to your credit files (the clue is in the name - CREDIT reference files)

 

so, they like to have their cake and eat it......I don't really understand the logic behind it, but Dayglo's thread is all about a Vodafone remonal....

 

Also although they don't tell you they set a credit limit & if you go over you can find your phone automaticaly disconnected

[JonCris]

Welcome Back!!

Just to summarise the last few pages, for myself as well as you!

The question is,

If you send a CCA request and what you receive back does not confirm as an executed agreement under the terms laid down in CCA, the agreement is unenforceable/void (depending on what you receive).Does this mean that the creditor still has a right to process your data?

 

I myself am not of a sufficient payscale to answer such a question! But reading the debate does make me see how this scenario may be played out in court and therefore, puts me off even attempting bringing a case based on this assumption.

Personally, I have a creditor who messed up and was found not to have a CCA agreement with me and had to wipe out the debt. BUT...there still remains on my file, a default and an outstanding amount.

So I have a vested interest in the outcome of this argument, but being yellow and having this big streak down my back means i am not compelled to join in!:)

I think it is a valid argument that has basis in CCA. But it could be a DPA matter.....i dont know my head hurts and i need coffee!

 

Smoothy hands Un1boy his soapbox back!

M55dlc...do you want ice with your advocate?

 

Smoothy I really don't know how many times this can be said.......if they don't have a properly executed agreement the unenforcable debt may still exist but they have not nor have ever had agreement to process your data........They can't claim "Ah! well there WAS one but we don't have it anymore but still have a right to process your data"

 

As you have not authorised them they are breaching the DPA

[JonCris]

Agreed TT but if no agreement exists then there is no evidence of that consent