Jump to content


Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4106 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

Hi

Yes sorry

I have not been active on her for the last year or so and the lind i had took me to an address that had been closed.

Hopefully someone else will help you or if not i will write you one.

PM Me iif you get no joy

 

Peter

 

I think this is the letter you may be looking for - acknowledgment to car

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Account Number: XXX

 

Re; your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of an application form and your companies current Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act.

 

To clarify, just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement.

 

This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.” This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

 

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

 

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

 

And more importantly

 

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

 

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

 

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

 

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

 

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

 

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.

It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

 

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues

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

  • Replies 17.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

If you don't pay, you are, in effect, inviting them to 'enforce' the debt by taking you to court; however if you carry on paying they may be quite happy with the knowledge that you will pay the debt in full at some date in the future & therefore not be so willing to discuss a realistic F&F. That's the dilemma. As peterbard has so eloquently pointed out above, you have no entitlement in law to stop payments.

 

Re. the amount of the settlement figure. IMO your offer should be based on:

1. is it a DCA? If so they have prob. bought the debt for between 10 & 20% of its value so anything they get over this sum is profit for them.

2. have they supplied an enforceable agreement or are they likely to be able to? If they have an unenforceable agreement (or are unlikely to be able to find one), it should strengthen you hand in negociation.

 

Suggest you start your offer lowish - they can always say no & then you can raise the game if necessary.

 

Out of interest FG, what do you suggest someone in this situation does if they don't have the money to offer a full and final (it is being assumed that we are all in a position to do so) and no prospect of the debt ever really being cleared, given that the creditor does not have a valid agreement? If you stop payments, how are you inviting them to take you to court? If they don't have an agreement, they would be pretty stupid really if they did and as mentioned before you would of course have a perfect defence. In actual fact, creditors who do not have an agreement do actually cease pursuing debts and I have had several who have written and admitted they do not have the agreement and therefore are unable to make further recovery. Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

 

With a view to the above

Has anyone had any experiance with Time orders As per section 129 of the act.

It something i have been looking at but have had no first hand experiance.

 

The new 2006 regs give the lender the right to apply for a time order on the reciept of the new default notification, which under the 2006 legislation must be sent before the default notice (section 87).This would enable the debtor to first approach the lender with an offer of a payment schedule and then if no agreement is reached get the agreement ratified in court.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Yes sorry

I have not been active on her for the last year or so

 

Peter

 

Good to see you back Peter.

 

FWIW I've not really been active on here for the past year, but now I'm back too.

Edited by Number6

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is the letter you may be looking for - acknowledgment to car

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Account Number: XXX

 

Re; your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of an application form and your companies current Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act.

 

To clarify, just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement.

 

This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.” This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

 

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

 

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

 

And more importantly

 

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

 

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

 

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

 

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

 

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

 

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.

It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

 

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues

 

Hi

Yes thats the one

 

I wrote this :)

I am sure Car wrote many supperior ones

wonderresd where it had gone.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see you back Peter.

 

FWIW I've not really been active on here for the past year, but now I'm back too.

Hi

yes like old times all we nead now is the old man from the begining of this thead and the the three witches and we have a full set.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Yes thats the one

 

I wrote this :)

I am sure Car wrote many supperior ones

wonderresd where it had gone.

 

Peter

 

:D Sorry I got the acknowledgment wrong!! I purloined it from one of car's threads & have used it to effect, so thank you peter.

 

Must be nice for you to see it's still going the rounds...:)

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

:D Sorry I got the acknowledgment wrong!! I purloined it from one of car's threads & have used it to effect, so thank you peter.

 

Must be nice for you to see it's still going the rounds...:)

 

Hi

 

Yes i remember writing it but i got a virus on my PC whilst i was in hospital and my hard drive went PFT. along with all my documents.

 

I still woder what would happen if someone used the logic in this to pursue a claim for continual unenforceability on an incorrectly executed copy.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Yes i remember writing it but i got a virus on my PC whilst i was in hospital and my hard drive went PFT. along with all my documents.

 

I still woder what would happen if someone used the logic in this to pursue a claim for continual unenforceability on an incorrectly executed copy.

 

Peter

 

Hi

Disclaimer

just looking at my last post and i would like to point out that the hospital was not responsible for my computer virus, as may be inferred.

 

Phew could feel the solicitors from the NHS breathing down my neck for a minute.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest FG, what do you suggest someone in this situation does if they don't have the money to offer a full and final (it is being assumed that we are all in a position to do so)

 

Holley specifically asked about a F&F. I am not assuming that everyone is in a position to do so.

 

and no prospect of the debt ever really being cleared, given that the creditor does not have a valid agreement?

 

You don't know this for a fact unless they admit it

 

If you stop payments, how are you inviting them to take you to court?

If they don't have an agreement, they would be pretty stupid really if they did and as mentioned before you would of course have a perfect defence.

 

Agreed - very stupid.

In actual fact, creditors who do not have an agreement do actually cease pursuing debts and I have had several who have written and admitted they do not have the agreement and therefore are unable to make further recovery. Magda

 

Doesn't mean the debt doesn't still exist though, just that you have both agreed it's not enforceable.

 

 

Your strategy is obviously working for you magda ;)

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

Hi

Disclaimer

just looking at my last post and i would like to point out that the hospital was not responsible for my computer virus, as may be inferred.

 

Phew could feel the solicitors from the NHS breathing down my neck for a minute.

 

Peter

 

:D Reminder to myself - wash hands before sitting at computer...

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

 

No, I don't intend to pay them at all. Most of these creditors behaved appallingly when I was forced to deal with them and I am therefore quite happy to cease payments now. As for the agreement being unenforceable, but the debt still existing, I believe that Francis Bennion said something about the money being deemed a gift if the creditor could not be bothered to get the Agreement correct at the outset. This is just my opinion, and I appreciate other people think differently. However, it is important that people visiting the forum are aware of all their options. Magda

 

Yes, it was Francis Bennion QC (his web-site is Francis Bennion - Home Page)......found this on the internet.

 

Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and associated case law, a regulated credit agreement must, as we know, have certain pieces of information contained within the 'four corners' of the agreement that is signed by both parties.

 

He said that any lender who failed to fulfil these requirements should not have the right to claim the money back and he was glad that parliament who enacted it had agreed with him! He actually stated that any money given by a lender under these circumstances should be considered a gift from lender to debtor so not be recoverable! (See also Wilson appeal case if interested.):)

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Yes thats the one

 

I wrote this :)

I am sure Car wrote many supperior ones

wonderresd where it had gone.

 

Peter

 

 

hi thanks for the reply,but it appears that ive already sent this letter back in september,as to which,they sent me the agreement which i showed you earlier...and i sent a further letter,and again,they sent me the same agreement....any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, it was Francis Bennion QC (his web-site is Francis Bennion - Home Page)......found this on the internet.

 

Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and associated case law, a regulated credit agreement must, as we know, have certain pieces of information contained within the 'four corners' of the agreement that is signed by both parties.

 

He said that any lender who failed to fulfil these requirements should not have the right to claim the money back and he was glad that parliament who enacted it had agreed with him! He actually stated that any money given by a lender under these circumstances should be considered a gift from lender to debtor so not be recoverable! (See also Wilson appeal case if interested.):)

 

Hi

Very clever man and co auther of the CCA itself of course.

 

Problem is it is just an opinion and not law.

The legislation does in my view confirm this but you still have to convince a judge on the day.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi thanks for the reply,but it appears that ive already sent this letter back in september,as to which,they sent me the agreement which i showed you earlier...and i sent a further letter,and again,they sent me the same agreement....any ideas?

 

 

Hi

If you thinjk you have a case fror claiming unenforceability under section 127 then let them take you to court and fight it out, if you don't then contact them and try and come to an arrangement.

I am affraid it has to be your decision.

 

Best regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your strategy is obviously working for you magda ;)

 

I agree with Foolishgirl....:)

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bluudy Ell, it's busy on here today...! :-)

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

 

Me vs Rockwell/Tessara/RBofS: pending.

Me vs MBNA/1st Crud: Discontinued.

First Direct Overdraft: CCJ won.

IR: 2 CCJs 1 won.

Birmingham Midshires: pending

BT: pending

others to come....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

If you thinjk you have a case fror claiming unenforceability under section 127 then let them take you to court and fight it out, if you don't then contact them and try and come to an arrangement.

I am affraid it has to be your decision.

 

Best regards

Peter

 

I agree. I just think it is important that everyone visiting this forum is aware that it is a choice they have, i.e, to withold payments to the creditor. In my experience they are just as likely to take you to court if you are making payments and they have an agreement, as they are when you aren't making any payments at all (in fact more so) because they have supplied what is an unenforceable agreement. Creditors, despite what we like to think, are not completely stupid, and they are aware that if the agreement they have is unenforceable or non-existent, there would be little to be gained by pursuing court action. I agree that in an ideal world it would be wonderful to offer a full and final, many of my creditors wrote initially offering me a reduced settlement, but in the real world, unfortunately this is actually not a realistic option for many of us. Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok...I've been on CAG for the last 8 hours (approx) and really want to thank everyone for their contributions and sharing opinions and experiences.

 

I've, thus far, I've decided that:

 

1) I won't declare bankrupcy or go for an IVA.

 

2) The fact that I make token payments to an account which has an unenforceable CCA doesn't suddenly mean I'm acknowledging the debt.

 

3) I'll be making token payments of £5 p/m onto all my accounts and in addition pay off all my creditors off one at a time every month. This will be in the form of a full & final payment offer of 30%. Hopefully they'll agree!

 

I'll keep u updated.....

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bluudy Ell, it's busy on here today...! :-)

 

It sure is AnimalMagic, it sure is!...lol!!:p

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest, do unenforceable CCA requests apply to current accounts as we all seem to have been referring to credit cards and loans?

Mint - Won! WCO not granted by court. :)

BlackHorse Loan- Won! WCO not granted. :)

 

Easy Money & More Than (Lloyds) - Won! Had been offered half of settlement prior but declined. :)

 

Capital One - Won! :)

 

BlackHorse PPI- WON £3,000, Claimed 4,500! :)

 

CitiFinancial - WON! :)

 

****************************************************************************

 

Monument - N1 Submitted Feb09

Cahoot - N1 submitted Feb09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would someone please check this for me?

Thanks.

 

 

 

loanCCApt1.jpg

 

ccapt2.jpg

The Egg agreements are generally thought to be enforceable on the whole, but it does state on a lot of them (mine included) that the limit will be decided from time to time, or something along those lines, it should in fact refer to the Credit Limit, not just Limit. Also, Egg do not appear to be able to provide the t&c's relevant to the account at the time of opening, they normally just refer you to their web site where the current t&c's can be viewed. Also, it is a two page document normally, and on mine the prescribed terms are not on the signature part of the document. These are just a few things to consider. Whether or not they are enforceable is another question, as quite a few people on the forum are currently trying to discover. Can you enlarge the image at all. Magda

Edited by MAGDA
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest, do unenforceable CCA requests apply to current accounts as we all seem to have been referring to credit cards and loans?

 

Hi

No bank accounts arn't c overred by the CCA they are regulated by the FSA.

Overdrafts are but unfortunately they do not have to have a sepperate agreement so you cannot ask for one to be supplied.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

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 4106 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...