Cap1 & CCA return

[JonCris]

TT lets go straight to court with an application for disclosure or If you have the info include their statement in your NI thereby explaining why you have given them little time to settle before bringing proceedings Something along the lines of "what would have been the point your honour" before anyone picks up on it I use the term honour for gravitas

 

Make them eat their words let them come back to bite them.......Snotty sod

[JonCris]

Correct zubo & the ICO have been proved wrong (in court) before

[JonCris]

Posting a default is part of an enforcement & if any agreement falls foul of the CCA & is unenforcable (as in Wilson v Secretary of State) then although the debt does exist there is no remedy left to the creditor which includes the processing of that data. Mrs Wilson even had her security returned to her as a result of the judgement

 

To explain further if the agreement is void then the whole of the agreement is void which includes the bit where the debtor consented to their data being processed

[JonCris]

This case is the reason why this government much to their shame are removing the protection of s127 of the CCA 1974 as they decided it was too punitive on the money lenders & when you read it you will see why

 

They where so concerned for the money lenders profits they used public money to take the case to the HOL but lost......again

 

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030710/will-1.htm

House of Lords - Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant)

[JonCris]

I'm not claiming the debt doesn't exist. The point I'm trying to make is if the debtor sends a D10 then because the agreement is unenforcable the data cannot be processed.

 

In other words the creditor can no longer rely on the terms of an agreement that is unenforcable. If that was the case they could still pursue the debt

[JonCris]

m55 So what! If the money lenders lose money because they haven't played with the rules sobeit. They don't have any consideration of fair play when it comes to ripping off their customers.

 

Pam & the rest please forgive me but I think your ALL missing the point

 

What happened to Wilson was a result of the judgement & not the cause.

Your reading the consequences & not what their Lordships said which is much farther reaching than just this one case.

 

What they are saying is that a controlled agreement is unenforceable if the lender fails to comply IN ANY WAY with the CCA 1974 & that includes the many technicalities which may be breached.

 

They not only have to comply with the spirit of the law but also to the letter of the law. They have no wriggle room & that is why this government, to their everlasting shame, are removing s127 from the 2006 act

[JonCris]

YEs They mention Nationwide refusing to consider claims until the OFT rule on whether or not their fees are lawful. This shows an appalling, but not unsurprising, lack of understanding by Nationwide. The OFT cannot make such a ruling. They can say it's too high & unjustifiable but as in the case of the Credit Cards companies they will make a finding which will exclude a finding of unlawful.

 

When we claim they are unlawful it's an allegation not a fact & only a court can make a finding of unlawful

 

As for Nationwides threat sobeit. They can stamp their feet as much as they want just continue with your legal action & as I have already mentioned include their nonsense statement as part of your evidence bundle

[JonCris]

Pam- I will try! I'd need some help later on with uploading it here though. One thing with your suggestion is that you are all pretty clued up on CCA, or at least on the parts relevant to our quest. So vast majority of the seminar might be boring! With specific question you hopefully get what you want, i.e. direct answers to your questions.

 

joa Yes could you ask the DTI why they are removing s127 from the act & also what makes them think electronic signatures will be free of fraud

[JonCris]

Tan write & tell them they are in criminal default & can no longer pursue any debt & if your making any kind of payments they shall cease forthwith.

 

Also advise them that as soon as this matter is resolved you are now minded to report them to the appropriate authorities

 

Also make prominent mention of their default in your POC.

 

On the N1 you refer to your attached POC which I assume is already prepared to issue with the N1

[JonCris]

No!! .What the act says is what is written in stature and this is what my contact tells me( and I won't go down MC55 route if you know what I mean) but as she says you've got to read the law not the regs as they are secondrey to the primary legitation.Although the regs say you have to do this and that which is really a red herring as it as already been stated in peters reply from the SOS.

 

Ive lost track Terminator can you give me a link to peter's reply from SOS you mention

[JonCris]

Thanks had a CRAFT moment.........now I realise I have read it

[JonCris]

Agreed but if enough consumers did this, this shower of a government would simply move the gaol posts to protect their friends in big business

[JonCris]

I have been looking at this the last few days in my spare time after seeing the s85. I still cant find anything relevant to it.

 

AFAIK the ability to charge interest would be stated in the agreement. And under what circumstance. THe right to have interest reclaimed from the breach under an agreement would have to be taken up under each case from that agreement generally headed Responsibilities Under This Contract etc. Normally it only deals with legal fees etc.

 

The point of non-compliance on subsequent card issues with s85 is that there is NO agreement so the creditor cannot claim any payment

[JonCris]

I must admit I was a bit surprised that TS don't think T & C's form part of executed agreement. I can't see that an agreement is valid unless you know what T & C's are attached to it? Unless it would be a case of "you were stupid enough to sign it without knowing what you were signing up to"?

 

As we have seen on this site many times TS are not the best people to determine what is or what isn't anything, least of all what forms part of an executed agreement.

 

It's clear from many other statements by TS that they have little understanding of the CCA 1974

 

Also I disagree with the mod in that as the agreement relies on them the TC's do form part of the executed agreement

[JonCris]

U takes your pick

[JonCris]

Hi

 

I found this article when I was doing my last CCA claim and emailed Wragge & Co about it but no-one would respond to me!

 

I would have liked to know how they reached this conclusion.

 

Regards, Pam

 

That's because there has been a HOL ruling subsequent to this in the form of Wilson v Sec of State........I suggest

[JonCris]

My advice is that if you receive nothing DON'T write back telling them.

 

Just ignore their empty envelope & write asking why the delay in providing the papers are you have requested. Also remind them that they only have ex number of days left to comply with the CCA or DPA

 

If you acknowledge receiving their empty envelope they might try & claim you DID receive the docs but are now lying about it thereby making you out to be the villain

[JonCris]

Jones I don't agree & your missing the point.

 

If they don't send the agreement when asked then they ain't going to produce it later. Also if you write again asking for the docs, even without reference to their empty letter, you have advised them that you haven't received it. Different tactic same outcome.

 

Particularly it is happening a lot so as it appears very possible they may have sent the empty letter simply to delay matters & you making no reference to it will cause them to worry that their trick ain't working

 

Of course if they are out of time report them

[JonCris]

Corn

 

No on the face of it it's a major breach of the act.

 

Problem is your not the person who's data has been disclosed & the only person who can complain is your husbands ex

[JonCris]

Corn as we have seen the people the money lenders employ ain't the sharpest tools in the box.

 

Nor do they appear to understand that they may be involved in matters which later turn out to be criminal.

[JonCris]

Tam you will not be surprised to know that I don't agree with the sentiment "if I owe it I'll pay it"

 

To hell with that. If any consumer, all of whom over the years will have been fleeced at some time by the money lenders, can legally avoid paying any debt then they certainly have my whole hearted support.

 

By their conduct & their avarice the banks, the credit card & finance companies no longer hold the high moral ground & are never ever to be trusted again

[JonCris]

The data MUST be able to be understood by the data subject & if it isn't then they are in breach of the DPA.

 

Write back remind them of this & tell them that if they don't comply you will report them to the ICO

 

Also provided you have asked you should be given true copies of ALL the agreements so mention that also is one of your requirements

 

If you are still paying & intend disputing the debt you should send a sec 77-79 CCA request thereby placing the debt in dispute which means that you can stop payments & the creditor cannot enforce the debt until they comply.

 

If after 42 days they have still not complied they being in criminal default must seek a courts permission to enforce the debt which can only be given if they produce a true properly executed agreement

[JonCris]

yes they will but they will be 'fined' by the fos all of about 150 quid......Big deal!

[JonCris]

If an account debt is being pursued it's not closed

[JonCris]

CCJ is less than £200 (+ costs) and the unlawful charges on the account are £600+

 

If the CCJ for £200 at the time of being granted was made up entirely of penalty charges then you can ask the court in your POC to order it's removal.

 

Plus you could also sue for damages as they will have libelled you but I suggest that's for a another day. Just don't accept any settelment as being full & final