Jump to content


Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4063 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Jeff do you think it would get his back up:)

 

 

 

It may well, but you have to fight your corner!

 

Some of these judges are not all that clued up on the CCA.

 

You are only putting your point across, which is your right!

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

HAK another one that I have had ready for my various aborted court appearances is that if they haven't got a CCA then they did not have the right to charge interest or make any charges. In my case that would have worked as I had actually paid off the capital, if you see where I am coming from, and I would have felt quite OK about saying that in the court.

  • Haha 1

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

HAK another one that I have had ready for my various aborted court appearances is that if they haven't got a CCA then they did not have the right to charge interest or make any charges. In my case that would have worked as I had actually paid off the capital, if you see where I am coming from, and I would have felt quite OK about saying that in the court.

 

As you know, I am already treading this path. I am about to start turning the screw a little, as they havent moved from their last offer (writing the debt off circa 4000 pounds).

 

Getting just a little weary of playing these games with no movement now.

 

on a different tack Equidebt who own my mbna debt have offered me a substantial reduction.......(wonder why :) )

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

see

 

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 (2 May 2001)

 

paragrap 26 says

 

The recognition that there is nothing in the 1974 Act which prevents an improperly executed regulated agreement from giving rise to contractual rights, nor which prevents the right to possess goods pawned as security passing on delivery of the goods, provides the answer, as it seems to us, to the principal argument advanced on behalf of the Secretary of State in support of his submission that there is nothing in section 127(3) of the Act which is incompatible with Convention rights. It was said, in effect, in relation to article 1 of the First Protocol, that, where there was no document signed by the debtor – or where the document signed by the debtor did not contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement – neither the agreement, nor the delivery of the pawn, conferred any enforceable rights on the creditor. So, in the present case, the creditor had no relevant "possessions" to the peaceful enjoyment of which it was entitled, or of which it was deprived by section 127(3) of the 1974 Act. In effect, the creditor – by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms – must (in the light of the provisions in sections 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid; so there is nothing to engage the rights guaranteed by article 1 of the First Protocol. Nor, on that analysis, does the creditor have any civil rights in respect of which it is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Article 6 of the Convention is not in point.

 

============

paragraph 51 says

 

 

 

 

    1. We allow the appeal against the order made on 24 September 1999 for the reasons given in our interim judgments of 23 November 2000.
    2. ORDER: Appeal allowed; declaration of incompatibility made; Judgment for claimant in the sum of £6,900.00. Defendant to pay applicants costs assessed at £1,354.36; Appeal to the House of Lords refused.
    3. (Order does not form part of approved Judgment)

    ===============================================

    on the human rights aspect this case appeared in the house of lords of appeal

     

     

    Wilson & Ors v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 (10 July 2003)

     

    paragraph 1 says

     

    In January 1999 Penelope Wilson borrowed £5,000 from a pawnbroker for a period of six months. The pawned property was her car, a BMW 318 Convertible. She did not repay the loan. The pawnbroker sought repayment, failing which the car would be sold. Mrs Wilson's response was to commence proceedings in the Kingston upon Thames County Court. She claimed the agreement was unenforceable because it did not contain all the prescribed terms. She sought on order for the return of her car. Alternatively she sought to reopen the agreement as grossly exorbitant. At the trial Mrs Wilson appeared in person. The pawnbroker was a two-man company, First County Trust Ltd. The company was represented in court by its finance director.

    ================================

    paragraph 4 says

     

    The agreement was a regulated agreement for the purposes of section 8 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless the document signed contains all the prescribed terms: section 61(1)(a). One of the prescribed terms is the 'amount of the credit': see the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553), regulation 6 and Schedule 6, para 2. The consequence of failure to state all the prescribed terms of the agreement is that the court is precluded, by section 127(3), from enforcing the agreement. In the absence of enforcement by the court the agreement is altogether unenforceable: section 65(1).

    ==================================

    paragraph 6 says

     

    The appeal was heard in November 2000, shortly after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sir Andrew Morritt V-C, and Chadwick and Rix LJJ, allowed Mrs Wilson's appeal: see [2001] QB 407. Sir Andrew Morritt V-C recognised there was considerable force in First County Trust's submissions in support of the judge's view. But having analysed the statutory provisions, the court held that the £250 added to the loan to enable Mrs Wilson to pay the document fee was not 'credit' for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act. So one of the prescribed terms was not correctly stated. In consequence the agreement was unenforceable. So also was the security. First County Trust was ordered to repay the amount of £6,900 Mrs Wilson had paid the company after Judge Hull's judgment together with interest amounting to £662. The overall result was that Mrs Wilson was entitled to keep the amount of her loan, pay no interest and recover her car.

     

    ==================

     

    paragraph 49 says

     

    I consider, however, that there is no relevant restitutionary remedy generally available to a lender in the circumstances now under consideration. The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched. That would be inconsistent with the parliamentary intention in rendering the entire agreement unenforceable. True, the Consumer Credit Act does not expressly negative any other remedy available to the lender, nor does it render an improperly executed agreement unlawful. But when legislation renders the entire agreement inoperative, to use a neutral word, for failure to comply with prescribed formalities the legislation itself is the primary source of guidance on what are the legal consequences. Here the intention of Parliament is clear

    ================================

    paragraph 50 says

     

    This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order. In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the statutory provisions. It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398.

     

    ===================================

    paragraph 100 says

     

    But the consequence of reading section 127(3) of the 1974 Act in a way that is compatible with FCT's Convention rights cannot be looked at without taking account of the effects of doing so on the other party to the transaction, Mrs Wilson. She too acquired rights as a result of the transaction, as well as FCT. The set of provisions of which it forms part, and on which she relies, were enacted for the protection of consumers. Section 61(1) provides that a regulated agreement is not properly executed unless it satisfies certain requirements. It must include a statement of all the prescribed terms, which include a term stating the amount of the credit: paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. Section 65(1) provides that an improperly executed agreement is enforceable against the debtor or the hirer on an order of the court only. The amount of the credit in this agreement was incorrectly stated, so Mrs Wilson became entitled to the protection of section 65(1) as soon as it was entered into. What this right meant in her case was spelled out in section 127(3), which provides:

    "The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner)."

    ==================================

    paragraph 220 summing up says

     

    The present action was in progress when the 1998 Act came into force on 2 October 2000. So, for the purposes of article 1, the operative provisions of the 1998 Act, including sections 3 to 5, do not apply to this action. I am content to rest my decision on that narrow ground. It follows that the Court of Appeal had no power to make the declaration of incompatibility that they did - and, indeed, that the Secretary of State had no right to be joined as a party under section 5(3). Despite this technical quirk,
    I would allow her appeal and make the order proposed by Lord Nicholls of

    Birkenhead
    .

    =======================================

     

    print this lot out read it and then read it and put it under your pillow

     

     

    Just another thing thats been playing on my mind..

     

    If it goes to Court and a judge says "Have you spent the money on the credit card" or "do you admit th debt as you have used it" what do you say to the judge:confused:

    HAK

     

    conclusion

    no more nightmares

  • Edited by Vulture_Bank
    updated
    • Haha 1

    Tam Wing Chuen -v- Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 69

     

    1996

    PC

    Lord Mustill Commonwealth,

     

    Lord Mustill discussed the need to construe a contract contra preferentem: "the basis of the contra proferentem principle is that the person who puts forward the wording of a proposed agreement may be assumed to have looked after his own interests, so that if words leave room for doubt about whether he is intended to have a particular benefit there is reason to suppose that he is not."

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    (Barclays - really getting on my nerves right now)

     

    I have the orginally agreement and terms and conditions (loan) which has error (point 6 and 7 are missing i only recently noticed this ) and is two pages long.(page 1 signature, page 2 terms and conditions) I did a CCA request on 16/06 and

     

    First they sent me only the first page - so i wrote back complaining.

     

    Now Barclays sent me a completely different terms and condition, they are completely different three page long. The terms and conditions do not match the copy which i gladly kept from 2004.

     

    They only have just over a week, i have already wrote to them again as they did not comply, should i write to them again telling them i have kept the orginally and know what they sent me does not match.

     

    I don't believe they have the real agreement - as before they only sent me the first signuature page, and the orginally has a mistake. What they have sent is twice as long. and the reference number at the footnote is different ( the one i should have end in 03 the one they have sent ends in 05)

     

    Or have they still complied?

     

     

    (i'm not sure what the dealine is?)

    Edited by la2006
    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    HELP!

    I have just received a copy of my CCA with Black Horse for a car. The figure they have put in the total amount payable is incorrect.

    They have added my part exchange deposit too the total amount payable. Also in the termination bit the calculation is wrong.

    Save0001-2-1-1-1.jpg

    Hi Star, looking at the repayment amounts on the agreement, I think the figures do add up, as you would be paying back £6155.50, plus the total charge for credit which makes a total repayable of £9787.40, which I think is correct. I think the figure they have shown of £12,630.90 is the amount you would pay before the part exchange deposit is deducted. It is a very confusing layout though, so I am probably completely wrong! I'm sure someone else will give an opinion, Have you checked the interest and APR by the way? Magda

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    see

     

    Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 (2 May 2001)

     

    In effect, the creditor – by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms – must (in the light of the provisions in sections 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid; so there is nothing to engage the rights guaranteed by article 1 of the First Protocol.

     

     

     

     

     

    Hi,

     

     

    Most of us have been under the assumption that most of our accounts were just unenforceable and that the debt still existed. But reading this, without a properly executed agreement, or an agreement without any of the prescribed terms, the money made available was gifted.

     

    Therefore, if it is a gift there is no indebtedness and so the debt does not exist at all!

     

    In fact it never existed!

     

    Any thoughts?

     

     

     

    Regards, Jeff.

    Edited by pt2537
    added forward slash to the quote
    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Hi,

     

     

    Most of us have been under the assumption that most of our accounts were just unenforceable and that the debt still existed. But reading this, without a properly executed agreement, or an agreement without any of the prescribed terms, the money made available was gifted.

     

    Therefore, if it is a gift there is no indebtedness and so the debt does not exist at all!

     

    In fact it never existed!

     

    Any thoughts?

     

     

     

    Regards, Jeff.

     

    Hmmm... See what you mean.

     

    IMHO, it doesn't mean it didn't exist, but it means that it doesn't exist once declared unenforceable.

     

    "Tomato" and "tomato", if you ask me! :p

    Always happy to help where I can!

    :lol:

    Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

    It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

     

    Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

     

     

    USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Hi guys- new ID -previously known as noomill060 but lost password and so far no response from CAg about a new one.

     

    Anyway, Ive just recieved letter from Lowells (groan) Says they have bought a debt alleged to be owed to Barclaycrud.

     

    Last year I started small claim against bcard for non-compliance with SAR. Case currently adjourned.

     

    I vaguley remember that there is some prohibition on selling on accounts which are legally in dispute but cant remember where abouts I read this. I know its in the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines, but just like to know the legislation where this is laid out.

     

    Just about to send Lowells a CCA request, but I'd just like to add a little message about the legal action I've taken against the Original Creditor.

     

    Could anyone point to where in legislation this is mentioned?

     

    thanks in advance.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Sorry to butt in Guys!

    but I have a question re: Assignments.

     

    I have a credit agreement which has been deemed irredeemably unenforceable under s127.

     

    However, the OC sold the alleged debt to a DCA whilst I was in dispute.

    Since that time I have been pursuing the DCA for the Deed of Assignment...

    Further, I have asked a leading question; Are You The Creditor?

     

    Now I have received a somewhat ellusive response to my question:-

     

    "I can confirm this account was assigned to XXX on XXX. We are not required to provide you with a copy of the deed of assignment. The debt is known as a "chose in action". As the original lender holds the legal right to collect the debt, they also hold the right to assign their rights to XXX. Although the lender does not need your permission to do this, Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires, in order for there to be a legal assignment, that notice of assignment should be given in writing".

     

    Correct me if I am wrong but the above indicates to me that the above letter relates to an equitable assignment and not an absolute assignment. Please confirm as to whether I am correct, ot not.

     

    Thanks

    AC

     

    ps. If I am posting this in the wrong forum, I apologise.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

     

    Now I have received a somewhat ellusive response to my question:-

     

    "I can confirm this account was assigned to XXX on XXX. We are not required to provide you with a copy of the deed of assignment. The debt is known as a "chose in action". As the original lender holds the legal right to collect the debt, they also hold the right to assign their rights to XXX. Although the lender does not need your permission to do this, Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires, in order for there to be a legal assignment, that notice of assignment should be given in writing".

     

    Correct me if I am wrong but the above indicates to me that the above letter relates to an equitable assignment and not an absolute assignment. Please confirm as to whether I am correct, ot not.

     

    Thanks

    AC

     

    ps. If I am posting this in the wrong forum, I apologise.

     

     

    From what you are saying, it seems that they have an Absolute assignment

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Right?

     

    Well if the original OC holds the legal right to collect the debt, how can it be an absolute assignment? - it must be an equitable assignment - No?

     

    Furthermore, both the OC & DCA are recorded on my CRA file re: the alleged debt, but I have never been informed that the data controller has changed fom the OC to DCA, or vice versa; which would make the assignment ineffectual, together with the fact that the OC/assignor failed to send a correct notice of assignment; they just said that the alleged debt had been sold to DCA but failed to provide the amount of the alleged debt, the dates differ.

     

    I have pursued DCA requesting documentary evidence that the alleged debt has been legally assigned to them...it would seem that they are either unable or unwilling to provide this evidence...

     

    As ever I am an Angry Cat...do you blame me?

     

    I appreciate your interest.

     

    Thank You

     

    AC

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Hello angry_cat and pt2537,

     

    I have to say (and I do not like admitting it) but that DCA has actually come up with a very clever paragraph there. It is written in such a way that two people reading at it can come up with two different meanings.

     

    I can actually see how someone can think it is an Equitable assignment and another person an Absolute assignment ...... it is all in the sentence "As the original lender holds the legal right to collect the debt, they also hold the right to assign their rights to XXX." ...... Does it mean they still hold the right at present .... or does it mean historically they held the right?

     

    As normal a statement meant to mislead and confuse ..... but this time the DCA put some thought into it ......... Oh Dear ....... a DCA with brains ...... :shock:

     

    angry_cat ..... POST 11999 on this thread might be of interest to you re the CRA problem and getting compensation.

     

    Onwards and Upwards

     

    Chalkitup

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    anything under s.136 LoP 1925 is an absolute assignment and they buy everything, including the right to sue and default in their own name.

     

    an equitable assignment is usually when they collect on behalf of the OC.

     

    recently, there has been some debate about this and how a debt can be both equitable and absolute, where DCA has rights and benefits and OC has liabilities and obligations.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I am not sure why you are worrying about it AC. First the OC should not have assigned the debt during the dispute. But second and more importantly, as the debt is "irredeemably unenforceable" it doesn't matter what the assignment was since there is nothing either company can do about it. Except remove any details from your credit report.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    "I can confirm this account was assigned to XXX on XXX. We are not required to provide you with a copy of the deed of assignment. The debt is known as a "chose in action". As the original lender holds the legal right to collect the debt, they also hold the right to assign their rights to XXX. Although the lender does not need your permission to do this, Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires, in order for there to be a legal assignment, that notice of assignment should be given in writing".

     

    Correct me if I am wrong but the above indicates to me that the above letter relates to an equitable assignment and not an absolute assignment. Please confirm as to whether I am correct, ot not.

     

    32.2.4. Assignment of debts

     

    Assignment is a process whereby debts are sold on to another organisation, and is common practice within the industry.

     

    For an assignment of a debt to be legally effective, it is necessary to assign both the rights and the responsibilities of the creditor under the agreement.

     

    Partial assignment which, in effect, assigns the right to enforce but not the associated responsibilities will be invalid and will preclude the assignee from enforcing the debt.

     

    There are two types of deed of assignment - equitable and absolute. The first assigns the right to pursue the debt to the assignee but not the obligation of the OC. The second assigns both the rights and obligations of the assignor to the assignee. However, in order for this to be legally binding you as the debtor would have to give your consent to such an assignment.

     

    If the notice includes an amount demanded that is incorrect it renders the notice legally invalid (e.g. unlawful charges or DCA admin/collection charges).

    Even if the amount doesn't include charges but is misstated it is still invalid.

    If the date is incorrect it is legally invalid (i.e. does not tie in with the deed of assignment - the execution of assignment should be the same as the date shown on the notice). The case that supports this is W.F.Harrison & Co Ltd v Burke [1956] 1 WLR 419

     

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    DFW I read with interest and intrigue your post

     

    As you know, I am already treading this path. I am about to start turning the screw a little, as they havent moved from their last offer (writing the debt off circa 4000 pounds).

     

    Getting just a little weary of playing these games with no movement now.

     

    Are you saying here that you have a £4K debt with MBNA which they have offered to write off but that you are also going down the path of reclaiming your interest charges??

     

    If so, I assume this is on the basis that if the debt is unenforceable and deemed a 'gift' then they had no right to charge interest at all and that it is reclaimable??

     

    If I am right here ... would you accept having the debt written off and THEN reclaim the interest??

     

    Perhaps you could put me straight here as I may have misinterpreted the whole message!!

     

    thanx

    jax

    8-)

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    DFW I read with interest and intrigue your post

     

     

     

    Are you saying here that you have a £4K debt with MBNA which they have offered to write off but that you are also going down the path of reclaiming your interest charges??

     

    If so, I assume this is on the basis that if the debt is unenforceable and deemed a 'gift' then they had no right to charge interest at all and that it is reclaimable??

     

    If I am right here ... would you accept having the debt written off and THEN reclaim the interest??

     

    Perhaps you could put me straight here as I may have misinterpreted the whole message!!

     

    thanx

    jax

    8-)

     

    Life is full of little problems....one of them is that They have offered to write off the debt if I sign all my future rights away. I dont think that that is going to happen......

     

    If you have been reading my thread you will know I have at least three card debts that are unenforceable, that will be getting "special" treatment shortly.

     

    The debts are unenforceable and improperly executed and as such the t&c's have never been in legal effect. therefore no right to vary the agreement or to charge interest has existed.

     

    Any money paid in interest was paid in mistake and as such is due restitutuion.

     

    I am allowed to charge for the time value of the money at contractual and compound rates.

     

    Should be fun...............:)

     

    Dave

    ** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

     

    see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

    Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

    Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

    Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

    :D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Thanks Dave

     

    What rights are they wanting you to sign away??

     

    Why are your CCAs not properly executed??

     

    I have a number of credit cards of which 2 may be compliant. The others would appear not to be. I have sent prelim letters stating they are not compliant, they should freeze the interest and account in dispute, etc etc. Some have not responded - some have by saying they consider CCA to be compliant and will pursue debt!

     

    Am I right in thinking if I can prove these CCAs are unenforceable I can get debt quashed and claim back interest at compounded contractual rates?

     

    Most have also put up interest rates to ouch% and keep doing so when I miss a payment.

     

    Do you have any template letters you could supply me with please ... and any advice on where to go from here??

     

    ta muchly

    jax

    8)

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Thanks Dave

     

    What rights are they wanting you to sign away??

    [/Quote]

     

    They want me to agree that I'll never take them to court again EVER !!!

     

    Why are your CCAs not properly executed??

     

    None of them have any prescribed terms

     

     

    I have a number of credit cards of which 2 may be compliant. The others would appear not to be. I have sent prelim letters stating they are not compliant, they should freeze the interest and account in dispute, etc etc. Some have not responded - some have by saying they consider CCA to be compliant and will pursue debt!

     

    Am I right in thinking if I can prove these CCAs are unenforceable I can get debt quashed and claim back interest at compounded contractual rates?

     

    Well that bit is up to you, do your homework properly and be prepared to see it through..........it could prove expensive to take to court as the creditor will more than likely fight it all the way, and it may go fast track or multitrack and you would be responsible for the costs if you lose

     

    Most have also put up interest rates to ouch% and keep doing so when I miss a payment.

     

    Do you have any template letters you could supply me with please ... and any advice on where to go from here??

     

    ta muchly

    jax

    8)

     

     

    Have a read of my thread there are loads of letters that Ive written, some good, some not so. I cant or shouldnt advise you to go ahead. YOU have to make up your own mind, its not a decision to come to lightly.

     

    But that said its "do-able" and "win-able" if you get your facts right and put in a good claim. you NEED to know your stuff though. Well worth reading up on

     

    Dave

    ** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

     

    see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

    Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

    Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

    Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

    :D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Thanx again Dave

     

    Do you have a separate thread or is it all on this one?

     

    Did you actually start court claims yourself or have you just let the situations take their course? If so, are the OCs taking YOU to court?

     

    Sorry so many questions ..................!!

     

    I do realize you have to have nerves of steel in this game :eek: and am prepared to go the whole hog if necessary.

     

    I'll have a read through your posts anyway and hopefully will be able to pick up a few tips:).

     

    Can you just post a quick resume of the steps you have gone through please?

     

    ta

    jax

    8)

    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    • dx100uk changed the title to Cap1 & CCA return
    style="text-align: center;">  

    Thread Locked

    because no one has posted on it for the last 4063 days.

    If you need to add something to this thread then

     

    Please click the "Report " link

     

    at the bottom of one of the posts.

     

    If you want to post a new story then

    Please

    Start your own new thread

    That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

     

    Thanks

    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
     Share

    • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

      • No registered users viewing this page.

    • Have we helped you ...?


    ×
    ×
    • Create New...