Cap1 & CCA return

[Number6]

 

 

The law changed in April 2007, meaning agreements can be enforced by the Court without complying with the strict requirements of the 1974 Act, as they had to before that date.

 

Just to clarify, this does not apply to pre-2006 agreements? The requirements of the C CA 1974 still apply pre-2006?

[pinny24x7]

Hi

 

I'm really struggling with my thread, could someone please comment as to the enforceability?

 

Also do agreements have to be signed for before the 6th of April 2007 or the 30th of April 2007.

 

My thread Pinny247 V Black Horse Car HP

[car2403]

Just to clarify, this does not apply to pre-2006 agreements? The requirements of the C CA 1974 still apply pre-2006?

 

The 2006 Act removed the enforcement restrictions contained in s.127(3) for agreements dated after 6 April 2007.

 

Agreements before this date are subject to s.127(3).

[millymollymoo]

Hi

I think the peice you quoted refers to post may 2005 agreement which are coverred by the 2004/1482 agreement regulations.

The earlier regs co not require the signature to be on the same page of the agrement as the prescribed terms in fact they can be anywhere within the agreement.

The new ammended agreement regs altered this in 2005 when it intrudeced the key information format which alter the no dispecement rules contained within the 1983/1553 to include the signature box.

 

The embodiies versies contains definition is expalained on here several times by me and othere and is pretty much as you say .The term "Emodies "refers to any document other thatn the agreement which was involved in the anticedant negotiations.

 

{deleted}

Edited April 9, 2009 by millymollymoo
awaiting clarification

[Jeff2000]

Hi Peter, No it was in a 2002 edition of Consumer Sales Law by Professor Jonn Keith Macleod, therefore it must of been pre 2005.

 

I have emailed the man himself of which he very kindly said he will send me am explanation by letter as to why he says the prescribed terms MUST be in the signature document on the same page as quoted from his book. {couldn't beleived I would get a reply!]

 

As soon as the letter arrives I will post up his comments.

 

RE: Question regarding an exerpt from your book Consumer Sales Law 2002‏

From: MacLeod, John (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.ac.uk) Sent:08 April 2009 11:42:33To: XXXXXXXXX

Dear XXXXX, I've written a reply, but cannot attach it to this email, but l cannot attach it to this email. Can you send me a snail-mail address? Sorry for my incompetence with the devil machine. John Macleod. 8.4.09 ------------------ Milly X

 

 

 

This is excellent news!!!

 

 

Well done!!!

[basa48]

One word ....... WOW!!!!

[underdog13]

Superb, MMM:) Kudos to you!

[pt2537]

for anyone interested on the Rankine case,

 

here is what Goode Consumer Credit law and practice has to say on the subject.

 

 

The court's strident and blunt approach is to be welcomed. This includes the statement at paragraph 9 that the Consumer Credit Act was introduced to protect the individual unsophisticated in financial affairs in contracts with unscrupulous and sophisticated financial institutions. It was not designed to help individuals in the financial services business make money out of financial institutions through exploiting its undoubted technicalities. In the latter regard, the court did not hesitate to dismiss the Rankines' various arguments in a commensurate tone.

 

 

However, with respect, it is submitted that Mr Justice Simon Brown QC was mistaken when he stated, at paragraph 16:

 

 

'In the Tesco case, where they are seeking enforcement, section 78(6) of the Act does not have the effect contended for by the Rankines. First, the prohibition is against a creditor 'under an agreement'. The agreement was at an end. Therefore there is no reason why there cannot be enforcement. Secondly, the

[2008] GCCR 7701 at 7713

 

word 'enforce' is not descriptive of the commencement of proceedings. Bringing proceedings during a time when the agreement has been brought to an end is only a step taken with a view to enforcement. It is not actually enforcement.'

The grounds for questioning the statement are the following:

 

 

 

• (i) In section 189(1) 'creditor' is defined as 'the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement … and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor'; 'debtor' is defined as 'the individual receiving credit under a consumer credit agreement … and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement includes the prospective debtor'.
  

 

• (ii) The Agreements Regulations identify 'creditor' and 'debtor' with reference to their respective descriptions irrespective of the status of the agreement. In other words, the expressions are used to identify the relevant parties under, or to, the agreement.
  

 

• (iii) The expression 'enforce an agreement' is utilised in the Act to mean to take steps to assert one's rights under the agreement, regardless of whether the agreement has come into force, is still extant or has been ended. Thus, section 65 of the Act uses the expression 'enforceable' when referring to whether an improperly executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor on an order of the court. Section 127 refers to enforcement orders in the case of infringement. Applying for an order under this section might amount to seeking enforcement of the agreement, as the heading to Part IX also suggests, namely: 'Enforcement of certain regulated agreements and securities'.
  

 

 

[SteveH2508]

Hi

I have just psoted this on the section 18 thread no takers yet so, i thought i would let you lot get a dig in:)

 

Couldnt this refer to a ppi policy on a credit card agreement?

 

 

12© an unrestricted -use credit agreement which is made by the creditor under

pre-existing arrangements between himself and a person (the “supplier”)

other than the debtor in the knowledge that the credit is to be used to

finance a transaction between the debtor and the supplier.

 

 

If it does it makes it unrestricted d-c-s the same as the primary accouunt not a seperate agrement at all .

 

Well i think section 12 does indeed apply to ppi, and i think that ppi is in fact unrestricted in credit cards and i think that all the casses that have gone to court are where the principle was restriced, and in the case of a credit card the principle is unrestricted so any transaction that does not invovle the forwarding of the orriginal loan would also be unrestricted, if it was not it wouldn't be in the total crdit at all but in the total charge for credit.

 

What do ya think

 

Go on let me have it

 

Peter

 

Surely the credit advanced for the PPI is restricted use credit as it is only for financing the PPI payment(s)? (Or have I missed something?)

 

G&T does that to me!

[millymollymoo]

for anyone interested on the Rankine case,

 

here is what Goode Consumer Credit law and practice has to say on the subject.

 

 

So Professor Goode is saying the judge was mistaken?

 

Milly X

[pt2537]

So Professor Goode is saying the judge was mistaken?

 

Milly X

the editors of the consumer credit law report part of the publication are at least,

[Number6]

So Professor Goode is saying the judge was mistaken?

 

Milly X

 

This was the crux of my reasons for disputing the judgement:

 

'In the Tesco case, where they are seeking enforcement, section 78(6) of the Act does not have the effect contended for by the Rankines. First, the prohibition is against a creditor 'under an agreement'. The agreement was at an end. Therefore there is no reason why there cannot be enforcement. Secondly, the

 

If this were true then there would be nothing to stop a creditor circumventing the provisions of the act by terminating the agreement, as once terminated they could litigate to their heart's content. This wouldn't make logical sense.

 

Every case brought by a DCA (or nearly every case) concerns a terminated agreement and 78(6) would be ineffectual if Brown was correct. Surely that cannot be the effect willed by Parliament when they passed the act?

Edited April 9, 2009 by Number6
Typo

[millymollymoo]

Superb, MMM:) Kudos to you!

 

 

Hi UD:). Well I have been confused as to why this is in a book of law published 2002 and I why a professor of Law would state that, and he is respected too, as referred to by Sir Roy Goode in footnotes of his own books {whom we all know is respected by creditors too]

 

I understood from here that the prescribed terms could be anywhere on the agreement pre may 2005, as peter said[whom also is very respected:)]from various threads I have been reading.

 

All i want is clarification from this professor , the author,as to why he made that statement and he will explain the questions I asked .

 

Hopefully it will be still as the book clearly states.

 

The only reason I have emailed this professor is because creditors are too happy to produce seperate documents 'certified' by their solicitors saying the prescribed terms were on the reverse when in court and the judge is only to happy to agree that this is believable. Its more to do with this action than anything else.

 

if Professer Macleod backs up his statement in the letter i get [we will see] then it would be excellent.

 

Confusion as to the CCA and its deciphering still remains till then to me.

 

Milly X

[Number6]

Hi Peter, No it was in a 2002 edition of Consumer Sales Law by Professor Jonn Keith Macleod, therefore it must of been pre 2005.

 

I have emailed the man himself of which he very kindly said he will send me am explanation by letter as to why he says the prescribed terms MUST be in the signature document on the same page as quoted from his book. {couldn't beleived I would get a reply!]

 

 

That is brilliant Milly! Well done to you.

 

I will be VERY interested to read the reply.

[millymollymoo]

the editors of the consumer credit law report part of the publication are at least,

 

 

Well this is all excellent! thanks PT

 

Milly XX

[dad]

@PT2537

 

While you have Goode available, could you look to see what he says about Default Notices. I am particulalry interested in where regulation 1983/1561 says:

 

Schedule 2

...

3 A specification of:--

(a) the provision of the agreement alleged to have been breached; and

 

(b) the nature of the alleged breach of the agreement, specifying clearly the matters complained of;

...

I believe what this says is that in:

 

(a) the creditor needs to set out the precise term that is alleged to have been broken (ie give the number and wording of the term in question).

(b) because the term might be quite technical the creditor also has to set out clearly what has gone wrong.

 

Dad

[Desperate Daniella]

Fantastic, Milly.

 

And how nice that the professor is going to take the time to reply.

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

Milly,

 

Tried to rep you too, but have to do some others first!!!!

[B3rty]

Every case brought by a DCA (or nearly every case) concerns a terminated agreement and 78(6) would be ineffectual if Brown was correct. Surely that cannot be the effect willed by Parliament when they passed the act

 

That thought has crossed my mind many times

[Peterbard]

This is excellent news!!!

 

 

Well done!!!

 

Hi

This is incorrect ther. is no stipulation for the signature to be on the signature page of the agreement pre 2005.

This is well established and if you look in the 1983/1553 regs you will read it for yourself.

 

The singature has to be in the same document nut not on the same page.

I will not repeat, but i would warn anyone reading this about folliwing the lead here as you will get shot down.

 

Peter

[millymollymoo]

Hi

This is incorrect ther. is no stipulation for the signature to be on the signature page of the agreement pre 2005.

This is well established and if you look in the 1983/1553 regs you will read it for yourself.

 

The singature has to be in the same document nut not on the same page.

I will not repeat, but i would warn anyone reading this about folliwing the lead here as you will get shot down.

 

Peter

 

 

{deleted awaiting clarification}

Edited April 9, 2009 by millymollymoo
added my previous post.

[Peterbard]

Surely the credit advanced for the PPI is restricted use credit as it is only for financing the PPI payment(s)? (Or have I missed something?)

 

G&T does that to me!

 

HI you would think so but that is not what section 12 says.

I suppose if you think about it, is it really restricted in the same way as a stand alone restricted loan would be, if you didn't buy the insurance would you still have the loan?

Well in the case of a credit card yes you would, in the case of a stand alone loan no you wouldn't.

So the question is was the purchase of the PPI on the crdit card part of the execution of the parent loan or was it the first transaction.

If it was the latter i woud say that it was unrestricted use of credit,there is no reason to believe that the parent loan would not have been issued if the ppi were not bought, who is to say that the parent loan could not have contained the amount forwarded for the ppi, and any way as i said if it were a condition of the loan it would not make up the total credit ,it would have to be in the TCC.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi Peter, That is why I have asked the author, Professor J K Macleod to explain that in my email of which I published the questions I asked him. It most definetly is stated in HIS book so I think an explanation as to why is he wrote that is ENTIRELY necessary.

 

 

 

 

I am quoting something written in his book, following through by getting his answer. I have stated all this in my posts. Its a fair question to ask don't you think?

 

Milly X

 

Hi

right one last time

 

I have sat through more court cases than i can remember where credit agreements have been used as evidence in fact i am involed in three as we speak. There as never been any question on this point becase the regulations make it perfectly clear look under section 2 (male sure you look at the unammended version )it gives a desciption of what has to be in the agreement in undespersed form.

 

Petr

[underdog13]

Hi UD:). Well I have been confused as to why this is in a book of law published 2002 and I why a professor of Law would state that, and he is respected too, as referred to by Sir Roy Goode in footnotes of his own books {whom we all know is respected by creditors too]

 

I understood from here that the prescribed terms could be anywhere on the agreement pre may 2005, as peter said[whom also is very respected:)]from various threads I have been reading.

 

All i want is clarification from this professor , the author,as to why he made that statement and he will explain the questions I asked .

 

Hopefully it will be still as the book clearly states.

 

The only reason I have emailed this professor is because creditors are too happy to produce seperate documents 'certified' by their solicitors saying the prescribed terms were on the reverse when in court and the judge is only to happy to agree that this is believable. Its more to do with this action than anything else.

 

if Professer Macleod backs up his statement in the letter i get [we will see] then it would be excellent.

 

Confusion as to the CCA and its deciphering still remains till then to me.

 

Milly X

 

I'll be extremely interested to read his response, MMM, as I'm sure will a lot of others on here:)

[millymollymoo]

I am deleting all my reference as the professor has obviously made a mistake.

 

 

 

I think its probably best not to confuse peeps on here. I will let the peeps know his explanation of that when the letter arrives. Until then I will delete the info.

 

I do not want to start world war 3:)

 

milly X

Edited April 9, 2009 by millymollymoo