Jump to content


Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3937 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

 

The term "contained" as in 61(a) and SI 1983/1553 refers to the terms as prescribed by section 60, and specifically to those as defined in schedule 6 of the SI.This means that means they should be within the document and cannot be in another one(even if experessly refferred to). This is the position taken by Goode and is generally accepted.

 

Not only Goode but case law also :

TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

"33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them."

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

JUST A QUICK HI-JACK

 

OFCOM FINES BARCLAYCARD £50,000 TODAY

 

"Barclaycard: Made persistent silent calls to customers.

Britain's biggest credit card company has been fined £50,000 by the telecoms regulator for making silent and abandoned phone calls to UK customers.

Following an Ofcom investigation between October 1 2006 and May 10 2007, Barclaycard was found guilty of "the most serious case of persistent misuse" of silent calls the regulator had ever seen.

Such calls occur when call centres using automated systems generate more calls than their available agents can deal with, leaving many consumers picking up a silent phone call.

Handing out its maximum fine - and the biggest ever for this kind of case - Ofcom said the card provider had made "an extremely high number" of silent calls.

As well as breaching rules which require that such calls should not make up more than 3% of live calls made in a 24-hour period, Barclaycard broke Ofcom's rule that all abandoned calls must carry a short recorded information message identifying the source of the call.

It also failed to provide calling line identification, which allows people to dial 1471 to find out who called them.

Ofcom also found some of Barclaycard's call centres had no procedures in place to prevent people receiving repeated abandoned calls over a short period of time.

Although not made maliciously the watchdog said silent calls caused inconvenience and anxiety for thousands of people every month

Ofcom's chief executive, Ed Richards, said: "Taken as a whole this is the most serious case of persistent misuse by making silent and abandoned calls that Ofcom has ever investigated.

"Had we not been limited by the statutory maximum we would have imposed a larger financial penalty to reflect this misuse."

Barclaycard said it accepted Ofcom's findings and the resulting fine, and apologised to its customers.

A spokesman said: "Many of these calls were made with the intention of bringing potentially fraudulent activity to the attention of the card holder.

"Nevertheless, we recognise that all calls, irrespective of the purpose, should be made in the right way and we accept that our processes, in place at the time of the review by Ofcom, were inadequate.

"As a result we offer a full apology for any inconvenience and distress to our customers that these calls caused."

He added that the firm was now operating within the regulator's rules. "We have made robust and lasting changes to our processes, operations and reporting to ensure we continue to be compliant and to provide the highest levels of service to all our customers."

A spokeswoman for Ofcom said the regulator was satisfied that this was the case, but would not hesitate to act if Barclaycard was found to breach its rules again.

Abbey National, Carphone Warehouse and Toucan have been fined in the past for using silent calls.

"

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick opinion needed from the CCA experts on this thread please.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/160631-recieved-my-mbna-cca-3.html#post1733062

 

Thanks guys:D

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

My apologies for butting in but I would be grateful if someone could give me a definitive answer on the following:

 

Firstly, I have an agreemeent that has been deemed, irredeemably unenforceable.

 

I was defaulted by the OC in 2007, whilst in dispute over PPI etc

 

The alleged debt was then sold to a DCA, although I was not served with a notice of assignment from the OC.

 

The DCA registered the default with a CRA in the name of the OC and their own name.

 

I have never acknowledged the debt with the CRA and...have relentlessly pursued the DCA for documantary evidence that they are legally entitled to collect on the alleged debt, or register data with the CRA.

 

The CRA has ignored all my correspondence and questions relating to the purported assignment; absolute or equitable; Are you the Creditor? they will not answer.

 

Now out of the blue, I am served with an NOD by the DCA, the DCA states that they will to default the account October 2008 and then terminate, but it has already been defaulted and terminated in 2007 by the OC.

 

In a nutshell, can this DCA default the account again and then terminate; when the account has already been defaulted and terminated by the OC.

 

Note, the default notice, does not give the required 14 days; just 9 days; therefore it would be ineffective.

 

I would be very grateful if someone with espertise on the issue of defaults could clarify my query.

 

Thank You.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello AC!

 

As I understand it, if the Account was Terminated on the back of an invalid Default Notice, then it's a case of Unlawful Rescission of Contract.

 

In effect, the OC has denied themselves, or any DCA following on thereafter, the Right to take you to Court to Enforce the Debt.

 

The DCA is just making up new Rules as it goes along!

 

If the OC has blown the requirements of s87(1), but still went ahead and Terminated the Account irrespective of this, then that's it. Game over.

 

They have lost the Right to Enforce. They can't go back to fix this error once the Account is ended, as there is no longer a live Account to Default. They have failed to close it in the lawfully prescribed manner, but close it they have. Tough beans.

 

To Enforce, they need a Default Notice. Except they no longer have a valid one to wave at you! The one they did create may as well be a Banana for all the use it will be to them, that's if it is invalid/defective.

 

Once an Account is Terminated, it can't be un-Terminated without your Consent. In theory, to re-activate it, would mean a new Credit Agreement. I doubt you would want to agree to that.

 

They can't just open and close and open and close Accounts willy nilly, as the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is there for a reason to control this. The CCA Regulates the Opening and Closing of Agreements. They have to be set-up/Opened correctly, and they have to be closed/Terminated correctly.

 

The Unlawful Rescission of Contract also then opens up the scope to seek compensation from them...see below:

 

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DEFAULT AND TERMINATE AN AGREEMENT CORRECTLY

 

Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such Notice, (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998 ) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers [2005] EWCA Civ 147) but would also give the Claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1,000. (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119)

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello AC!

 

As I understand it, if the Account was Terminated on the back of an invalid Default Notice, then it's a case of Unlawful Rescission of Contract.

 

In effect, the OC has denied themselves, or any DCA following on thereafter, the Right to take you to Court to Enforce the Debt.

 

The DCA is just making up new Rules as it goes along!

 

If the OC has blown the requirements of s87(1), but still went ahead and Terminated the Account irrespective of this, then that's it. Game over.

 

They have lost the Right to Enforce. They can't go back to fix this error once the Account is ended, as there is no longer a live Account to Default. They have failed to close it in the lawfully prescribed manner, but close it they have. Tough beans.

 

To Enforce, they need a Default Notice. Except they no longer have a valid one to wave at you! The one they did create may as well be a Banana for all the use it will be to them, that's if it is invalid/defective.

 

Once an Account is Terminated, it can't be un-Terminated without your Consent. In theory, to re-activate it, would mean a new Credit Agreement. I doubt you would want to agree to that.

 

They can't just open and close and open and close Accounts willy nilly, as the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is there for a reason to control this. The CCA Regulates the Opening and Closing of Agreements. They have to be set-up/Opened correctly, and they have to be closed/Terminated correctly.

 

The Unlawful Rescission of Contract also then opens up the scope to seek compensation from them...see below:

 

 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Hello BRW

 

Hope your are well and I see you are still fighting the good cause. I must thank you for this post, it is invaluable to my disputes and will give me more ammunition to fire back at them.

 

Can I please ask for the list of specific legislaton under the cca and any other legislation pinning down the finer points for the arguements.

 

Any other info would be most appreciated:-D

If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal experiences. I have no legal training, but have educated myself in aspects of consumer legislation. My motto "NEVER GIVE IN, NEVER SURRENDER", THERE IS A WAR ON YOU KNOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello HHNF!

 

At the moment, it's really a case of quoting what is already in the CCA, and then researching existing Cases to quote in order to back this up.

 

Indeed, this is my understanding, so it would be good to discuss it here and I hope that some of those more experienced in the CCA and Court will add their comments.

 

To stress, the above is my understanding of the position, and I feel it is valid if you think it through. The cases I mention from another CAGGER's Thread seem to support this.

 

The battle, as ever, is then making sure a Judge follows the logic and comes to the same conclusion.

 

The Judge Lottery still has a lot to answer for! Likewise, you may have to push this past a slippery Barrister working hard for the enemy! Sometimes Victory or Defeat can come down to your luck on the day.

 

Thanks for the click BTW, I just hope the above helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I am just looking through the Consumer Credit Agreement 1983. regarding signature boxes.

 

I know it has to have the set wording in the box but I can not find the bit were it mentions the box...

 

Should it be a set size etc???

 

Any comments as looking at the act if it does not contain the wording it possibe is not legal.

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no set size for the box but the wording must be as in CCA Regs 1983.

 

Extract from OFT Guidance/FAQs on Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as amended by the 2004 Amendment Regulations

 

'6.9 Are there rules on the size of signature box?

The signature box may be of any size, but must contain the wording specified in Sch 5. Such wording must (apart from any signature) be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the background medium – see Q7.1.'

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning everyone.I recieved this today from one of the Credit card cos.I had prev requested a CCA and recieved a CC application form instead I said this wasn't good enough etc and this is their reply

 

I refer to your correspondence dated 29 August 2008.

I regret to advise that the card agreement has been misfiled and despite searching of our records we have been unable to locate it. Our record of the setting up of the card account has insufficient detail to enable us to recreate the agreement with the required degree of certainty this course of action requires.

In the circumstances we appreciate that under Section 78 of the CCA if you decide not to meet your obligations under the card agreement as they fall due we will be unable to take steps to enforce repayment of the debt. However we consider that you should continue to meet your obligations under the agreement bearing in mind that the agreement isn't void, it remains valid and your continuing default will be reported to the Credit Reference Agencies.

Section 78 reference to 'unenforceable' means we are only prevented from pursuing recovery of the debt through the courts.

Should further assistance be required, please do not hesitate to contact us at the above Office.

 

Any comments, should I continue with my £1.00 per month payments and if not what are the repercussions?

Edited by loramos
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could argue with them that the agreement is in fact legally void as they are unable to prove any properly executed agreement. I would strongly put them on notice that they should immediately cease processing your information with Credit Reference Agencies.

 

For a start, while they can't comply with your s78 request they are specifically forbidden by the CCA1974 to register any defaults with the Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no set size for the box but the wording must be as in CCA Regs 1983.

 

Extract from OFT Guidance/FAQs on Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as amended by the 2004 Amendment Regulations

 

'6.9 Are there rules on the size of signature box?

The signature box may be of any size, but must contain the wording specified in Sch 5. Such wording must (apart from any signature) be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the background medium – see Q7.1.'

 

Hi

 

Does there have to be a box then.

 

I have some agreements with the wording but not in a box

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello AC!

 

As I understand it, if the Account was Terminated on the back of an invalid Default Notice, then it's a case of Unlawful Rescission of Contract.

 

In effect, the OC has denied themselves, or any DCA following on thereafter, the Right to take you to Court to Enforce the Debt.

 

The DCA is just making up new Rules as it goes along!

 

If the OC has blown the requirements of s87(1), but still went ahead and Terminated the Account irrespective of this, then that's it. Game over.

 

They have lost the Right to Enforce. They can't go back to fix this error once the Account is ended, as there is no longer a live Account to Default. They have failed to close it in the lawfully prescribed manner, but close it they have. Tough beans.

 

To Enforce, they need a Default Notice. Except they no longer have a valid one to wave at you! The one they did create may as well be a Banana for all the use it will be to them, that's if it is invalid/defective.

 

Once an Account is Terminated, it can't be un-Terminated without your Consent. In theory, to re-activate it, would mean a new Credit Agreement. I doubt you would want to agree to that.

 

They can't just open and close and open and close Accounts willy nilly, as the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is there for a reason to control this. The CCA Regulates the Opening and Closing of Agreements. They have to be set-up/Opened correctly, and they have to be closed/Terminated correctly.

 

The Unlawful Rescission of Contract also then opens up the scope to seek compensation from them...see below:

 

 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

 

Thanks BRW!

 

I still need some clarification;

 

My account was defaulted by MBNA whilst I was in dispute in 2007. The default notice required payment, the remedy, by 1st April 2007;

"On are after the date shown, the agreement will be terminated".

 

MBNA, then sold the account to Link Financial in July 2007. MBNA were in default of s78 CCA at this time.

 

Link Financial have pursued me but I do not acknowledge the debt, as it is made up of mis-sold PPI premiums and interest. I have never paid any monies to Link.

 

Over the weekend I have received a Default Notice fron Link in relation to the account.

 

Note, Link appear to be sent out these default notices to other members.

 

Can they default an account that has already been defaulted and terminated by the OC?

 

Link state:

 

"We Link Financial Limited, give you notice of default acting on our own behalf as assignee of the benefit of the above referenced account and debt, AND ON BEHALF OF MBNA TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE STILL A CREDITOR".

 

Link will not say what type of assignment this is; equitable or absolute?

 

If the assignment is absolute, then MBNA would not be a Creditor.

 

Therefore, if they are both creditors the NOD would need to have both names on it;

MBNA & Link, wouldn't it?

 

Surely, if an account has been terminated and then sold, how could a DCA, LINK, default it and then terminate the account again...doesn't make for common sense.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello AC!

 

It sounds like the usual DCA fun and games, disinformation and invented rules to suit their desired end result...irrespective of the Law.

 

Firstly, I think it's wise to remember that an Agreement, if properly executed and Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, is a binding Contract between both sides.

 

A lot of the discussion in this Thread does, correctly, concentrate on the Consumer side of this. However, we must also remember that there is another side to this. The other side, namely the Lender or Original Creditor (OC), that side is very tightly governed by how it can, and cannot, act.

 

If you or I want to end an Agreement, the main issue that matters is to close it leaving no Debt. If a Credit Card, you Pay the Balance, send the Card back, and say Bye, Bye, it was nice doing Business with you.

 

However, if the OC wants to end the Agreement, then they can't just wake up one morning having a Bad Hair Day, and say, that's it, Terminated, now Pay us the Balance. They would probably have to compensate you for the gross inconvenience this would cause, and the compensation could be to wipe the Balance.

 

Now, if you Breach your side of the Agreement, then the CCA via s87(1) sets out what they need to do to warn you via a valid Default Notice, and then, if you do not remedy that Breach within the Statutory timescale advised via the lawful Default Notice, thereafter, they acquire the Right to Terminate the Agreement and seek early Payment of the whole Balance. This can be via Court if you won't or can't Pay it.

 

What they now have is an Enforceable Lump Sum Debt. It is no longer an Agreement, so there is no point Defaulting it. It's just a lump sum Debt backed up by sufficient evidence to allow a Court to Enforce it. They can either make you Pay, or they can Sell it on fast for a fast buck, and let someone else make you Pay. The wise OC will work out their Court Costs, work out the time it will take, work out the loss of income (or opportunity cost) if they did not have the cash to re-lend now, and then deduct all of that from the Debt Total and then find a dull DCA to sell it to for around that figure.

 

Now, if they didn't abide by the Rules, specifically s87(1), then they can't seek early Payment of the whole Balance. Indeed, as I understand it, they can't seek anything, as they've blown their side of the Agreement once they unlawfully Terminate the Account. Whatever Breach you made no longer matters, as they've chopped off the end prematurely. They've made it Unenforceable by not following the rules. They've left themselves with an Unenforceable Debt. They can sell that, but selling it does not make it Enforceable, and does not re-activate it back like magic into a properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement. It's just a stale Debt going nowhere...unless a crafty DCA can bully someone into Paying that is!

 

Going back to your MBNA Card, if your Agreement is irredeemably unenforceable, i.e. has no Prescribed Terms and is an Agreement before CCA 2006, then that should be that. Nobody should be able to Enforce the original Debt. They cannot lawfully Default you either, as there is no properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement to Default. There's also nothing to Terminate.

 

Thus, if the MBNA Defaulted you, but had no evidence of ever having an Agreement, then I think that is where you must first direct your attention. Write to the Credit Reference Agencies, and make it clear that the MBNA never had any Right to Default you. Get that Default removed first, and then start on any DCA that came thereafter.

 

If the MBNA's Default Notice was also invalid as a Notice, even better. But attack the MBNA issues first.

 

Once you have nailed the MBNA and any detritus they have left on your Credit History, then turn your attention to the DCA.

 

Once you have shown that the MBNA either never had an Agreement, or Defaulted and Terminated unlawfully, then you are on your way to proving that there is no Enforceable Debt, and certainly no Debt that could be passed on carrying with it any Rights at all, irrespective of the type of Assignment.

 

To be blunt, they may as well be passing on a Turnip.

 

The DCA now has a nice Turnip, and he now wants to Default you and Terminate the Turnip. Whatever he has, it is not a Live Agreement, and it is not an Enforceable Debt. He can't Default if the thing he has is not subject to the Consumer Credit Act. Using s87(1) implies that there is a Live properly executed Regulated Agreement to Default.

 

If the Agreement has already been Terminated, then it's dead as far as Defaulting via s87(1) of the CCA goes. The question then remains, is it a Debt that can be Enforced. Do they have an Enforceable Agreement, did the OC Default it lawfully, did the OC Terminate it on the back of that lawful Default, and did the OC then Sell the Debt lawfully to the DCA.

 

If the DCA thinks the Debt is Enforceable, then he should take you straight to Court without passing Go.

 

If not, then anything he does do can be contested by you, especially if you have, by then, already nailed the MBNA by clarifying No Agreement and/or Unlawful Rescission of Contract etc.

 

The DCA is just messing around, but I do appreciate that they will be causing short term damage if they are littering your Credit Files with adverse Data. Tackle them after the MBNA, and then bring all your guns to bear at the same time: CRA complaint, Information Commissioners Office Complaint, TS Complaint, FOS Complaint etc etc.

 

Pick off your targets one by one, starting with the biggest fattest one first, namely the MBNA. Don't let them slink into the background having dumped on your Credit File and then sold on an Unenforceable Debt.

 

If I were you, I would invest £1 and send the DCA a s78(1) CCA Request, just to pin them down. Wait 12+2 Working Days and, while you are waiting, bone up on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, that came into force on 26 May 2008. Then wait to see what the DCA does after the 12+2 Working Days...then add that to your above Complaints.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Does there have to be a box then.

 

I have some agreements with the wording but not in a box

 

HAK

 

Here is the preceeding FAQ from the OFT, HAK, relating to the Signature Box:

 

'6.3 Where must they sign the agreement?

Reg 6(3)(a) provides that each debtor (or a person acting on his behalf in the case of a partnership or unincorporated body) must sign the document in the space indicated for the purpose. This must be within a signature box as specified in Sch 5 – see Q6.5.

Reg 6(3)(b) provides that the creditor (or a person acting on his behalf) must sign the document outside any signature box used by the debtor. The creditor may sign within a box, but this must be separate from the box containing the debtor’s signature.

Reg 6(3)(d) provides that a witness may sign the document provided that this is outside the box containing the debtor’s signature.

6.4 Do they need to date the agreement?

Reg 6(3) provides that, in the case of a cancellable agreement (see Q4.20), the date of signature by each debtor must be inserted in the space indicated in the signature box. The date of signature by or on behalf of the creditor must be inserted outside the box.

In the case of a non-cancellable agreement (see Q4.21), the date on which the unexecuted agreement becomes an executed agreement may be inserted instead of the dates of signature. If this is not done, the dates of signature must be inserted as above.'

HAK its in 1983 (SI 1983/1553) shedule 4

 

Think B3arty might have meant Schedule 5?

 

Hope that helps your cause...:)

  • Haha 1

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for that.

 

So for the agreements that I have got with no signature box does this render the agreement as never have been made so basically unenforcable?

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question HAK. You would think so wouldn't you - unless your agreement is pre-1985 which I think is the effective date of the Regs in relation to the box & I suspect that it prob. wasn't retrospective.

 

Suspect that it may have to be a court decsion to make it definitive & as we have seen recently on CAG, a DJ might well rule it enforceable.

 

Perhaps a legal guy will come along & provide you with your answer in due course...:)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for that.

 

So for the agreements that I have got with no signature box does this render the agreement as never have been made so basically unenforcable?

 

HAK

 

 

No, an agreement can be enforced by the Court if it contains the prescribed terms and your signature and certain cancellation notices were given, no matter what other errors or omissions it contains. Now, if there were numberous other errors or omissions the Court may reduce the sum it orders to pay or even make no enforcement order at all if the agreement is a mess and totally uncompliant

 

s127(2)....If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question.

Lack of a signature "box" is no real defence if there is a space set out for your signature and date which you have completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've finally got my 'credit agreement' through from barclaycard. Can you peeps have a look through it and advise me where I stand?

 

I'd appreciate some insight into exactly how Barclaycard have managed to produce two credit agreements. Well, I mean I know how they've produced two, they've just printed out two sets of T&Cs and put my name on the top of the current ones. Interestingly, on the current 'credit agreement' my surname is spelled wrong, the only instnace of this spelling by Barclaycard is on the letter that came with these documents, so its obvious that this 'agreement' was just plucked from thin air. Its certainly nothing I've ever seen before!

 

Anyway, I know neither is enforceable as they don't feature my signature, but how else do they fail the requirements of the CCA 1974? And whats the best approach to making them disappear efficiently, and then cleaning up my credit record?

 

Thanks!

 

Original Agreement:

 

Original Agreement 1.jpg.JPG on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Original Agreement 2.JPG on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Current Agreement:

 

Current Agreement 1.JPG on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Current Agreement 2.JPG on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Current Agreement 3.JPG on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well They try it on by sending the old agreement and the new one.

They will probably try the old trick like we dont need a signature but this only applies to agreement taken after 2006.

 

I

Link to post
Share on other sites

And whats the best approach to making them disappear efficiently, and then cleaning up my credit record?

 

Hi Paul

 

HFK is right & sorry to say, my experience of Barclaycard is that there is no easy way to make them see sense. :evil:

 

I have just completed a LONG LONG corresp. with them which finally concluded with my sending an LBA to them at which point they capitulated. However you will see in the BC forum that they don't always roll over even when they are in the wrong & frequently get up to the court door.

 

Suggest you post in the BC forum for more detailed advice but I would start by writing back to them pointing out the error of their ways & arguments but don't be surprised if you just get a standard letter back saying 'we're right'! You just have to keep plodding or wait for them to take you to court at which point you can vigorously defend. It takes time & LOTS of patience but you'll get there in the end. :)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone take a look at Gazza's MBNA agrrement/application form in the following link please. Thank you. :)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/159827-nat-west-default-notice-3.html#post1738273

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

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 3937 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...