Cap1 & CCA return

[citizenB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGDA

This only applies to agreements taken out after April 2007 though doesn't it? I believe that this is not retrospective, so would not apply to agreements taken out prior to this? Magda

 

 

 

Correct

 

Sheesh, Thank goodness for that, I was getting just a touch worried after readign Peter Bard's post

[Guest dvdriley]

Thanks so much. look forward to hearing from you.

[un1boy]

:lol: that'll be most of the District Judges ive come across then

 

Here here!!

[jax007]

I too have a GF application (attached) - is mine the same as dvdriley's??

 

Can someone explain the difference between dvdriley's GF application and my Lloyds one (attached for reference) which is deemed a properly executed one please?

 

Just trying to understand the difference.

 

Thanx

jax

GOLDFISH.PDF

LLOYDS MD.pdf

[davefirewalker]

You are in the same position as dvd.....

 

the GF agreement doesnt seem to make any reference to t&c's either overleaf or supplied. the T&C's posted are not dated and dont appear to have default charges on them ( a sure way of dating them £20 or £12)

 

are the interest rates the same as when you signed up ?? if not then the terms were not the ones originally signed up to, and they have just sent any old set of generic terms

 

you have to "break the link" between the two

 

whereas the lloyds one seem to be 100% it makes reference to terms overleaf and all the correct terms are there. the copy of the terms seems to be in as poor condition as the agreement, making the link more plausible

 

 

Dave

Edited September 3, 2008 by davefirewalker

[jax007]

Thanks DFW

 

What I would say is that in 1999 when I took out the card an APR of 18.9% seems very high.

 

It mentions being liable for their 'costs incurred and reasonable (ha bloody ha) charges ............. for breaches, etc etc' but no actual amount.

 

What they actually sent me was the T&Cs on the back of the application form. If I hold it up to the light it is printed at the same angle on both sides (have printed off dvd's too and that seems the same)

 

On that basis does it make the T&Cs the same document as the signature document thereby making it 'properly executed'??

 

Also - please can you tell me the difference between my Lloyds one and the GF one??

 

Ta

jax

[jax007]

If they produce an original document with the T&Cs printed on the back - does that make it properly executed?

[davefirewalker]

The lloyds one makes SPECIFIC mention to terms overleaf The GF doesnt mentio terms at all. in wilson v hurstanger it was stated that ALL the terms should be within the signature document. there is some discussion as to references to terms elswhere that become part of the document. but in this cas I wouldnt think so. the GF terms seem very generic and are probably not contempary with the agreement

 

Dave

[davefirewalker]

If they produce an original document with the T&Cs printed on the back - does that make it properly executed?

 

Yes the prescribed terms are there. if they produce that doc in full then you are screwed

 

Dave

[jax007]

Oops sorry Dave - not sure if we're on the same page here!!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jax007

If they produce an original document with the T&Cs printed on the back - does that make it properly executed?

 

Yes the prescribed terms are there. if they produce that doc in full then you are screwed

 

Dave

 

The GF one is the one that looks like it's a double-sided copy so when I said this I was referring to the GF application not the Lloyds one - which one did you think I was talking about?

 

 

The Lloyds one as you mention refers to the T&Cs so I understand why that one is properly executed although I will ask if they have the original

[jax007]

OK Dave - just had a lightbulb moment (yes...yes...I do have them from time to time!).

 

Goldfish ... I have copies of my statements back to 2001 (unfortunately not 1999) and the interest rates at THAT time were the same as in the T&Cs that would appear to be on the back of the application form. On that basis I would accept that what they have sent me is actually a copy of a double-sided application form.

 

Does that mean in this case, I'm stuffed??? Or is there still a case to answer because there is no reference to the T&Cs in the application?

 

jax

[davefirewalker]

your call

 

personally I would imagine a judge might well be inclined to judge against you.

 

look at un1boys thread.....they admitted to no docs and still won (for the time being)

 

its down to how lucky you get, and my personal opinion is that all the judges and creditors have had a meeting and discussed those nasty little low life debtors and what they are doing to the banking industry.

 

I think you would lose......but as I said your call

 

Dave

[jax007]

OK....as far as I can see there is no reference on the application to T&C's either overleaf or anywhere else.

 

wilson v hurstanger.

 

have a look at the letter you sent and peter bards one and any of mine and make up a reply.

 

I'll try to get something worked on for you, but I am a tad busy at the mo...Central heating unit just went U/S, need to get hold of a solicitor (for something else) plus work as well...(shouldnt be here now )

 

I'll have a looksee later on

 

dave

 

Dave are you referring to your 'Dave against the world thread' when you say look at your letters?

 

I would also welcome a copy of what you work on for dvd if that's OK

 

Ta

jax

[jax007]

your call

 

personally I would imagine a judge might well be inclined to judge against you.

 

look at un1boys thread.....they admitted to no docs and still won (for the time being)

 

its down to how lucky you get, and my personal opinion is that all the judges and creditors have had a meeting and discussed those nasty little low life debtors and what they are doing to the banking industry.

 

I think you would lose......but as I said your call

 

Dave

 

Dave are you referring to me requesting the original from Lloyds here?

 

jax

[davefirewalker]

No... the lloyds one is 100%

 

the GF one is a matter for discussion, if the terms can be linked to the agreement then you are stuffed. if the link can be broken / discredited or whatever, you "might" have a chance as there are no prescribed terms on the agreement and no reference to them either.

 

Dave

[jax007]

Goldfish -

 

I'm not really understanding what you are saying here Dave ... sorry.

So just to be clear .............

 

1. When you say there are no prescribed terms and no reference to them either, do you mean on the signature page?

 

2. Are there prescribed terms within the supplied T&Cs (ie printed on the reverse of the application) or they don't exist at all?

 

3. If the answer to No 2 is YES there ARE prescribed terms within the supplied T&Cs ... AND ...the terms can be linked to the agreement just by being printed on the reverse (which I believe they are) then I think you are saying I'm stuffed. Yes?

 

4. Otherwise, if the answer to No 2 is NO ... there are NO prescribed terms at all ... then there's a chance??

 

To sum up ... I DO think if Goldfish produced the original then it would be a double-sided document with the supplied T&Cs printed on the reverse. (The APRs I DO believe are the same as when the application was made.)

 

I'm sure from what dvd says that his are the same as mine.

 

jax

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

section 61(a) of the act refers to prescribed terms being contained within the document,this means that they must be within the agreement,not refferred to or as sepperate T and Cs. The signature page itself does not have to contain anything other than the signature but it has to form part of the agreement(ie Page 1.)

Other terms of the agreement are covered by section61(b) which says that the terms may be ebodied in the agrement(but in another document) as long as they are expressly refferd to within the agreement(above). The referrence must be precise, an indication will not do.

 

YOu will notice that the SI 1983 1557 also uses the word contained when it refers to the contents of an agreement this means that it must be within the signature document.(again not nesseraly on the same page and not reffered to and within another document.)

A minor point improper execution does not make am agrement unenforceable,it only brings section 65 into play,it is a breach of section 127(3) that does ( if the prescribed terms are missing or incorrect).

 

Peter

[jax007]

Thank you Peter

jax

[davefirewalker]

Hi Peter

 

Of course you are right in that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. But there has been discussion here recently regarding S189 and definitions, add to that the fact that DJ's seem to live on an entirely different planet, and we might have a problem convincing them.

 

I feel that most DJ's would see the terms (even on a seperate doc) and link the two. (see Un1boys thread) the only way to then get it looked at properly would be to try to appeal.

 

Dave

[jax007]

Thanks Peter I think I understand what you are saying here, but what I'm not getting is these points in relation to the Goldfish agreements (I believe both mine and dvd's are the same).

 

1. Are the prescribed terms present and in the correct format on the T&C page?

 

2. If so, then by virtue of the fact that I DO believe the T&Cs were on the reverse of the application even though they are NOT referred to on the signature page, would this make this particular agreement a bona fide enforceable agreement?

 

jax

[davefirewalker]

Goldfish -

 

I'm not really understanding what you are saying here Dave ... sorry.

So just to be clear .............

 

1. When you say there are no prescribed terms and no reference to them either, do you mean on the signature page?

 

yes

 

2. Are there prescribed terms within the supplied T&Cs (ie printed on the reverse of the application) or they don't exist at all?

 

They are in the t&c which may be on the reverse

 

3. If the answer to No 2 is YES there ARE prescribed terms within the supplied T&Cs ... AND ...the terms can be linked to the agreement just by being printed on the reverse (which I believe they are) then I think you are saying I'm stuffed. Yes?

 

correct

 

 

4. Otherwise, if the answer to No 2 is NO ... there are NO prescribed terms at all ... then there's a chance??

 

NO....the t&c's presented (which might be linked) contain the prescribed terms......ie your stuffed

 

To sum up ... I DO think if Goldfish produced the original then it would be a double-sided document with the supplied T&Cs printed on the reverse. (The APRs I DO believe are the same as when the application was made.)

 

I'm sure from what dvd says that his are the same as mine.

 

jax

 

in that case they would win..........sorry

 

but as in everything, it depends on the judge on the day and how lucky you feel

 

Dave

[wellpastit]

Doesn't it state somewhere in the cca1974 reffering to creditors supplying of documents: "IF ANY" in brackets?

Hmmm

I think provisions should be made in legislation to help more with credlit card accounts that are now in "limbo" IE: years owing thousands , paying only minimum payment because of circumstances etc..Interest rates for such should be dropped/frozen and managed debt recovery without the "bully" boys.

 

 

what you think peeps

 

W

[Peterbard]

Hi Dave

I think that it is evident that the prescribed terms should be contained within the agrement,as you say the only thing is making sure you have all your arguments to hand when coming accross a judge who doesn't know the regulations.

 

Nothing in the act contradicts this. Definitions certainly doesn't as i have tried to demonstrate. THe oft have a guidline entitled what should be in the signature document i think i put it on my enforceability thead.

 

Wellpast

 

The words if any on the 77-79 request refers to the fact that not all agreements have to conform to section 5(be wriren down) small agreements or anything that comes uner section 74 for instance.)

 

Best regards

Peter

[Guest dvdriley]

OK....as far as I can see there is no reference on the application to T&C's either overleaf or anywhere else.

 

wilson v hurstanger.

 

in some cases it could be argued that the agreement made reference to t&c's elswhere so that they might be embodied in the agreement. (we are still arguing this one)

 

however yours does not appear to make any reference to t&c's........Its an application form.

 

have a look at the letter you sent and peter bards one and any of mine and make up a reply.

 

I'll try to get something worked on for you, but I am a tad busy at the mo...Central heating unit just went U/S, need to get hold of a solicitor (for something else) plus work as well...(shouldnt be here now )

 

I'll have a looksee later on

 

dave

 

 

Good Morning Firewalker, hope your heating is back on , a cold snap on the way. Any ideas how I can repy to GF,

[davefirewalker]

Hi........heating and hot water still off :( requires part which I am picking up today ( v expensive(ish) ).

 

am still working on reply, and will post asap................

 

my only worry is that if the terms can be proved to be a part of the same doc...ie on the reverse then you may have trouble. see jax007's GF replies on this thread.

 

that apart for the mo, if you can appear confident and forceful, they might just fold......maybe

 

Dave