Cap1 & CCA return

[tamadus]

And I hope they get locked up and the key is thrown away.The law can put you away for 25years for robbing a bank so what gives them the right to not have the same punishment when it's the other way around.Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

If we rob a bank it's called theft. If a bank takes money from us it's called business :o

Please note..........no libel !!

[un1boy]

Exactly - but the government need banks, don't they?

[reidnet]

If PPI was included in the Total Charge for Credit then it would make the agreement unenforceable as a case somebody highlighted to me recently showed.

 

Can anyone point me in the right direction with the above ..

 

Thanks

 

Ian

[un1boy]

I have just been reading this:

 

78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

 

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

 

(a) the state of the account, and

 

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

 

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

______________

Would I be right in thinking that if the lenders haven't confirmed:

 

(a) the state of the account, and

 

Ie. In default (plus default notices)

 

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

 

The current balance of the account

 

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

 

A list of payment dates etc

 

That they still commit an offence, regardless of whether they provide the signd Agreements?

 

Any thoughts?

[Guest The Terminator]

I have just been reading this:

 

78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

 

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

 

(a) the state of the account, and

 

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

 

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

______________

Would I be right in thinking that if the lenders haven't confirmed:

 

(a) the state of the account, and

 

Ie. In default (plus default notices)

 

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

 

The current balance of the account

 

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

 

A list of payment dates etc

 

That they still commit an offence, regardless of whether they provide the signd Agreements?

 

Any thoughts?

 

I'd say that all banks and credit card companies are in default at the moment and they don't actually know it.O.K you borrow the money you have to pay it back but the banks and CC companies have been a little uneconomical with the truth to the consumer and me personally would like some of their C.E's to come on this site and put their point across and actually debate the issue's but that is not going to happen because they have long yellow streaks up their backs you know what I mean.Missold pensions,missold PPI,missold loans,mortgages the list goe's on it's totally criminal and they get away with it.The problem they have now is that they have run out of lives and they will not defend any action.

[Guest The Terminator]

Spent the afternoon looking through the Acts of Parliment and came up with this nice little section of the Data Protection Act(1998):

 

Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc. 35. - (1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary-

• (a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

• (b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

 

Then I had a look at this section from the same act

 

Failure to comply with notice. 47. - (1) A person who fails to comply with an enforcement notice, an information notice or a special information notice is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who, in purported compliance with an information notice or a special information notice-

• (a) makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material respect, or

• (b) recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material respect,

is guilty of an offence.

(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he exercised all due diligence to comply with the notice in question.

 

 

Then I found this interesting piece of case law

 

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

 

You only need to read the part of the judgement about Human Rights at para 10. Add this to S35(DPA) and S85(CCA) and you have a potential time bomb.

[tamadus]

Very interesting reading and a lot of it supports http://www.creditlaw.co.uk/Documents/Full%20case%20-%20London%20North%20Securities%20v%20Meadows.doc

 

This case also centred around the total cost of credit and whether it was included in the agreement correctly.

 

The more we look into the various laws such as DPA, CCA and HRA the bigger the bomb is becoming.

 

I am having difficulty understanding how the banks and credit companies have got away with such blatant disregard for the law for so long.

 

Long live the 'Consumer Revolution'

[Guest The Terminator]

I forgot to add this the Protection from Harrassment Act(1997) now the bomb is nearly complete lol

 

Prohibition of harassment. 1. - (1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct-

• (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

• (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows-

• (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

• (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

• © that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Offence of harassment. 2. - (1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.

 

Interpretation of this group of sections. 7. - (1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1 to 5.

(2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.

(3) A "course of conduct" must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

(4) "Conduct" includes speech.

[tamadus]

I think your planning to nuke the lot of them in one go lmao

 

Pretty please can I declare 2 of them in criminal default first Only need to wait till Thursday LMAO

[un1boy]

Hi Terminator, I may be being thick here but waht do the sections you've posted above actually mean? I've read and read them, but can't think what they are saying, sorry!! :-/

[tamadus]

Hi Terminator, I may be being thick here but waht do the sections you've posted above actually mean? I've read and read them, but can't think what they are saying, sorry!! :-/

 

Hi un1boy

 

I'm sure Terminator will reply later today but the data protection act quotations reveal yet more offences the banks and credit card companies have been and still are committing on a daily basis. These could also be a way around the Abbey and Barclaycard microfiche excuses.

 

The day is getting ever closer when a consumer is going to jump on them from a great height with the full force of the law, (tomorrow in my case:))

 

The quote from the Protection of Harrassment Act virtually stops any of them from making their continuous phone calls after payment. Any reasonable person would describe several phone calls a day chasing payment as harrassment. Therefore the person or company making the calls is already committing an offence because he/she/they must know its likely to cause some form of distress.

 

Yes your right in your assumptions under the CCA s78 We are reading through the various acts now to cross reference everything.

 

If the men in black are reading this please be aware the fuse will be lit very soon.

[Guest The Terminator]

Hi Un1boy I will try and explain some of the posting for you:

 

S35(DPA) means that if the banks or CC companies do not give you the information you require in 40 days then they commit an offence which is then enforced by S47 as they would be in default.

 

S1(PFHA) mean's that no one is allowed to be harrassed either phisically or verbally and on the second occasion it is a criminal offence carrying 6months in prisionment.To simplify it if a DCA or money provider chase you for a debt they can only do it once a day if they ring you again the same day then they are committing an offence.If they ring you more than twice in one week they are committing an offence.7 (3+4) explain this "conduct" includes speech.If they make threats to you over the phone that is conduct and they are then committing an offence.With my own case I'm going down the harrassment route first then hit them for what they owe me.As Tamadus said in a previous post I going to "nuke" them.I hope this has simplified things a little better.

[tamadus]

Hi Un1boy I will try and explain some of the posting for you:

 

S35(Data Protection Act) means that if the banks or CC companies do not give you the information you require in 40 days then they commit an offence which is then enforced by S47 as they would be in default.

 

S1(PFHA) mean's that no one is allowed to be harrassed either phisically or verbally and on the second occasion it is a criminal offence carrying 6months in prisionment.To simplify it if a DCA or money provider chase you for a debt they can only do it once a day if they ring you again the same day then they are committing an offence.If they ring you more than twice in one week they are committing an offence.7 (3+4) explain this "conduct" includes speech.If they make threats to you over the phone that is conduct and they are then committing an offence.With my own case I'm going down the harrassment route first then hit them for what they owe me.As Tamadus said in a previous post I going to "nuke" them.I hope this has simplified things a little better.

 

Barclaycard and Lloyds TSB Trustcard get the first salvo of nukes from me this weekend as Thursday is THE DAY they move from being in default to committing an offence under s78(1). I am going to spend this evening composing THE LETTER and get it sent either Friday or Saturday. Barclaycard deserve it for stailling over the microfiche saga. They even tried fobbing me off with a copy of the application form lol. If they still have that on record (probably microfiche) then why not send me the signed agreement ?

 

Lloyds have been fairly reasonable during my crisis times but have now got caught in the backlash through not replying to my CCA letter.

[tamadus]

Hi Un1boy I will try and explain some of the posting for you:

 

S35(Data Protection Act) means that if the banks or CC companies do not give you the information you require in 40 days then they commit an offence which is then enforced by S47 as they would be in default.

 

S1(PFHA) mean's that no one is allowed to be harrassed either phisically or verbally and on the second occasion it is a criminal offence carrying 6months in prisionment.To simplify it if a DCA or money provider chase you for a debt they can only do it once a day if they ring you again the same day then they are committing an offence.If they ring you more than twice in one week they are committing an offence.7 (3+4) explain this "conduct" includes speech.If they make threats to you over the phone that is conduct and they are then committing an offence.With my own case I'm going down the harrassment route first then hit them for what they owe me.As Tamadus said in a previous post I going to "nuke" them.I hope this has simplified things a little better.

 

S35 also means that if you issue a claim then the court can order them to disclose the microfiche data as part of the court case.

 

In my case I am going the failure to send a copy of the agreement after 42 days route.

[Guest The Terminator]

Tamadus: I have come up with a very good piece of case law relating to S85 cca(1974).The link is below :

 

R Lukacs-Rajnai v Lloyds Bank Plc [1996] EWCA Civ 1027 (22nd November, 1996)

 

Now due to the way that the case was badly brought by the appealant the judgement in my opinion was correct. I've spent time looking for something recent but to no avail.I still think that S85 is a very hot potato. This one though is even better:

 

MBNA Europe Bank Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2006] EWHC 2326 (Ch) (22 September 2006)

 

Good luck tomorrow when two of your creditors become criminals.

[tamadus]

Tamadus: I have come up with a very good piece of case law relating to S85 cca(1974).The link is below :

 

R Lukacs-Rajnai v Lloyds Bank Plc [1996] EWCA Civ 1027 (22nd November, 1996)

 

Now due to the way that the case was badly brought by the appealant the judgement in my opinion was correct. I've spent time looking for something recent but to no avail.I still think that S85 is a very hot potato. This one though is even better:

 

MBNA Europe Bank Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2006] EWHC 2326 (Ch) (22 September 2006)

 

Good luck tomorrow when two of your creditors become criminals.

 

I agree the first case was badly brought and was doomed to failure.

 

I hate to think what the VAT bill for MBNA comes to.

 

One thing that did strike me hard is in paragraph 43 where the Judge refers to late payment charges as penalties.

[Ally]

Reading the MBNA case would i be right in thinking that the passing on of debts to outside agencies (DCAs) counts as supply thus incuring VAT?

 

its a bit above me mind I've gone cross eyed reading

[tamadus]

Reading the MBNA case would i be right in thinking that the passing on of debts to outside agencies (DCAs) counts as supply thus incuring VAT?

 

its a bit above me mind I've gone cross eyed reading

 

Thats exactly how the case decided Ally. They can affect your eyesight and mental health like that lol

[Guest The Terminator]

I agree the first case was badly brought and was doomed to failure.

 

I hate to think what the VAT bill for MBNA comes to.

 

As long as there is enough in the kitty to pay all the people on this site who have been [edit] then as far as I'm concerned they can go broke

 

One thing that did strike me hard is in paragraph 43 where the Judge refers to late payment charges as penalties.

 

Im sure he was having a dig there

[Ally]

So how does the VAT work on DCA's do they include it in their recovery charges against the debtor or is their a loop hole again? as this would surely arise every time a debt is passed on between companies?

[tamadus]

He might have been LMAO maybe he already reclaimed his charges

[tamadus]

So how does the VAT work on DCA's do they include it in their recovery charges against the debtor or is their a loop hole again? as this would surely arise every time a debt is passed on between companies?

 

Hmm I assume they charge the VAT to the client company but it's a very good question.

 

Darnation Terminator every time I get my plan of action worked out you complicate it by finding new things to add into the cooking pot. Now I have to decide if I charge Barclaycard VAT on my claim as well as contractual interest

[Guest The Terminator]

No you don't charge Vat because you will only have to give it to another bunch of ******** ba****ds

[tamadus]

No you don't charge Vat because you will only have to give it to another bunch of ******** ba****ds

 

Point taken Lmao and on that note and with due consideration that I have to get up in about 5 hours and drive 200 miles I am going to bed. speak soon.

[Guest The Terminator]

Tamadus: Are Barclaysharks and Lloyds IOU now classed as criminals? I hope the answer is yes. In about an hour im going to post something that is going to blow everything out of the water.Watch this space.