Cap1 & CCA return

[JonCris]

To my knowledge no one has been convicted of a s77-79 breach but then we have only very recently become aware of it to make such complaints.

 

I suspect that as time goes on & these companies continue to treat the law with contempt the authorities will eventualy have to act. That is why, even though it might appear futile every such breach should be reported (in writing) to both TS & the police

 

Also unless we complain they will never get a true picture of what's going on under their noses

[JonCris]

Section 127 of the CCA has been swept away at the instigation of the money lenders because of the Wilson v Secretary of State ruling & because they are fully aware that due to their cavalier attitude over the years towards the consumer & their never ending pursuit of profit at the cost of good oversight there are many many agreements out there which are unforceable

 

However provided the agreement has not been entered into online a court still needs a signature before it can make an order against the debtor.

 

The moral is never ever enter into an agreement on line. Having said that it's only a matter of time before fraudster companies start making such fraudulent agreements on line

 

Like chip & pin another great advance for the crooks

[JonCris]

It's a con trick! Don't sign

 

The 2006 Act is NOT retrospective. Agreements entered into prior to the 2006 Act are still valid as per the 1974 Act

[JonCris]

Angry cat prepare a report & tell TS that it is your intention to report them for maladministration. I'm sure there are few others here who will happily support your complaint

[JonCris]

Whilst the protection of 127 has been removed it is still my understanding that a court still CANNOT make an enforcement order without there being a signed agreement, electronic or otherwise

[JonCris]

They'll probably ignore you but in anticipation why not write to the CRA's Tell them you wish to register a default against the lender.

 

After all they 'pride' themselves & would have us believe they are the 'guardians' of consumer credit industry so surely it's just as important for them to know which companies are actualy flouting the law! Also they seem to let any Tom Dick or Harry (who can pay) use their services

 

Would the site consider having a default register where their failure to supply documents within the statutory time limit can be recorder for all registered members to see?

[JonCris]

Excellent Idea elsinore.

 

The only thing I would disagree with is that once a default is applied then it stays for at least 6 years even if the do later comply. After all we want to see their history don't we?

 

I think their should be 2 levels of default 1 which comes into being after 12 days & a 2nd criminal default which is applied after the next 30 days.

 

Furthermore, defaults should only be removed at the behest of the consumer/member who placed them

[JonCris]

 

Yes Un1 it is 6 months from the time that the debtor was made aware of the breach. That is the timescale in which you have to prosecute via a Magistrates Court.

 

Your correct, the Human Rights Act does not apply to private companies and of course that includes the CRA's, FOS & the FSA!!!

However, it would apply in the case of the OFT who are a government body.

 

It is about time that we all seriously considered making a mass complaint to the OFT.

 

The last time I spoke to my local TS fair trading officer, I stated that many consumers are in the same position as me and that because a consumer has to make a complaint about a S78 breach it has to be through their local TS office it would give an unclear statistic about the seriousness of the matter/breaches. She informed me that if ones complaint goes through Consumer Direct, the OFT's consumer arm, then a log of the complaints are made?

 

I am sure that this is probably correct, but surely a mass complaint to the OFT itself would have a significant impact.

 

I will leave you all with the thought...Our Human Rights and the OFT!

 

Love AC

 

The Human Rights Act applies to public authorities, including bodies which carry out public functions. It does not generally apply to disputes with a private individual or company, unless it is carrying out a public function

[JonCris]

 

interesting JonCris - could we argue that the CRA'a carry out a public function?

 

That's my understanding

[JonCris]

Anyone care to glance at this on the "other " CCA thread

 

I think I'm Screwed.....

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-753131.html

 

Dave

 

Unless I haven't spotted it it's meaningless as it doesn't appear to have the borrowers (you) signature. If so it could have been produced yesterday.

 

Did you request a 'true' copy. If so & it doesn't have your signature it isn't a 'true' copy therefore worthless

[JonCris]

Who did you?

[JonCris]

YEs great but very wrong in one aspect.

 

Under the DPA the banks MUST supply ALL data held no matter how old.

[JonCris]

Agreed. We need someone to compile the various rights & duties placed upon the money lenders & send it to each of the journalists who are on our side to use as a check list before they make such statements.

 

I'm fed up emailing the Daily Mail without a response each time they make such a mistake. I think the last one was that the OFT had 'capped' charges

[JonCris]

ncf I'm sorry but your post doesn't make sense. I realize you don't want to give info to the MIB but before I can respond I need to know a little more detail. Perhaps you could PM one of us

[JonCris]

I also emailed on that one without a response.

 

I know (or think) these people believe they are helping consumers but bearing in mind their readership runs into millions they are spreading a lot of misinformation

[JonCris]

Notice how they have all jumped on the bandwagon claiming it's 'their' campaign that has brought this about when in fact it's due to people like Marc & Dave

[JonCris]

I agree my only gripe is that much misinformation, almost on a weekly basis, is being expounded by our champions in the press & they completely ignore any attempt to correct them.

 

When told they can only claim charges from the point of the OFT announcement means thousands of consumers will believe such nonsense & only claim from that date.

 

It makes you wonder about the propaganda tool of misinformation. Pretend your in one camp when in fact your in another Just a thought from an old cynic

[JonCris]

Nor will the CPS!!!

 

Well they all need jobs when they leave!

[JonCris]

The ICO the OFT and the BO are a complete and utter waste of space.

 

The nonsense you where told does not come as the slightest surprise to those using this site

[JonCris]

Write to Aplins Solicitors & tell them their clients are in default & they better back off as their conduct can now be construed as criminal harassment

[JonCris]

did you know marbles credit card is closed to new business !!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hfc-household/93106-marbles-credit-card-closed.html

Vulture don't take this as gospel as it's only a guess based on what little common sense I have, but it may be that 'some' CCC's have finally taken proper legal advice & been told their docs & systems continue to leave them vunerable to non-compliance with the CCA (even the 2006 Act). As a result they may be consolidating their records & systems to ensure they do.

 

However if the horse has bolted, as in historical records have been disposed of, it's a bit late to be closing the stable door.

 

So lots more excitment ahead for us poor consumers & headaches for them

[JonCris]

Wonderful! Do you think they might go bust

[JonCris]

No 'Original' (true) properly executed agreement means no power to enforce the debt.

 

The courts don't accept copies why should you!

 

Yeah! the moneylenders greed by not paying for long term storage is coming back to bite them.

 

& to all of you 'guests' reading this. Ain't life grand

 

if your a genuine debtor please excuse my remarks & if your not well!

[JonCris]

I wish I was more informed. I have posted on the forum you suggested, as well as on my own thread in MBNA. Am I right in thinking that it is actually a criminal act not being able to provide me with the copy of the agreement?

 

Yes after 42 days it becomes a criminal offence not to have complied with your request

 

The 'letter' they have sent you is a complete & utter load of twaddle. They have not complied with any part of the CCA & whilst the debt does exist they have ABSOLUTLEY no means of enforcing it.

 

In other words no properly executed agreement = no payment - PERIOD

 

Once they know this (so tell em) & nevertheless continue to pursue you for an unenforcable debt they could be guilty of criminal harassment including having their fitness to hold a credit licence brought into question by the OFT

[JonCris]

Sorry standup but what are you talking about.

 

Is your claim in excess of what you owe? If not just don't pay anything more - end of.

 

In fact once that is out of the way I suggest that you spend a considerable amount of time reading various interesting threads on the site.

 

You may then find that some members in a simular situation as you have actualy reclaimed the money they have already paid prior to discovering the creditor had no means of enforcing payment of the debt