Cap1 & CCA return

[alisindebt]

Hi

 

I wonder if someone can help me?

 

I have sent of my 12+2 letters stating that the account is now in dispute as none of my creditors sent a true copy of my agreements, however I spoke with one of my credit card providers today and they told me a default was about to be applied to my account and when I stated the account was now in dispute as they failed to supply an copy of the agreement they stated that as it is a credit card and not a personal loan they do not have to provide a signed agreement. They did send me T&Cs and cashed the cheque that was sent.

 

Can someone advise me of the next step I need to take as I thought they now had to cease applying all charges to my account.

 

Sorry to sound dim but I am getting a little confused.

 

TIA for any help.

Lamps

 

BS, every loan or card has tyo have a CCA. Did you record the call? Start recording now. What they said is completely unlawful.

[01900redhen]

Hi, can anybody help. We are trying to check our various agreements. British consumer Forum says for the agreement to be enforceable it must contain signitures of both creditor and debtor. But in reading the "Basil Rankine v American express" at para 29 we are confused!! The agreements we have received do not have all the partys signatures.

[enoughisenough]

I may be uninformed and misinformed, confused or not confused but I have a deep recollection of being advised to learn only one lesson from any case involving Rankine:

 

That lesson was do not attempt or do what Rankine tried to do.

 

Apologies to mods if this post is out of order. Cagbot delete at will, if you must.

 

Love y'all! EiE.

[pedross]

Hi, can anybody help. We are trying to check our various agreements. British consumer Forum says for the agreement to be enforceable it must contain signitures of both creditor and debtor. But in reading the "Basil Rankine v American express" at para 29 we are confused!! The agreements we have received do not have all the partys signatures.

 

To be enforceable it must contain the signatures of both creditor and debtor.

 

To be enforceable by a court it only needs a document (application form /agreement) to be signed by the debtor, which contains the prescribed terms. However, a court cannot find an agreement enforceble if certain criteria is not met.

 

Pedross

[01900redhen]

We are asking a sensible question! The Rankine name is irrelevant. What is at question is the Judge decsion at para 29 which conflicts with the statement made by British consumer forum. We all know about the Rankines and have our own opinions.

[car2403]

The Rankine case turns on it's own facts. If you turn up to Court with a gun-ho attitude towards debt and brag about other legal successes "writing debts off", you deserve everything you get, as the Judge will struggle morally to see things your way - that can happen without the bragging, also.

 

To be properly executed, a CCA requires both the debtor and the creditors signature. If either is missing, the agreement will be improperly executed and only enforceable by a Court order under s.65. If the debtors signature is missing, the Court is prevented issuing such an order under s.127(3) if the agreement predates 7 April 2007.

 

Hope this is clear enough.

[01900redhen]

If you read the Rankine decsion at para 29 the Judge states "the executed copy does not have to have to... bear the parties signatures" !!! ?

[car2403]

If you read my post, I said that Rankine turns on it's own facts.

 

In brief, Rankine is very bad legal precedent. There are threads on the reasons why, so look them up, but any other case is easily distinguished, so I wouldn't worry about this too much right now.

[01900redhen]

Why does the act state both parties should sign the agreement, and various sites state that for an agreement to enforceable it should be signed by both parties, and yet the Rankine judge states this need not be the case and in fact in most cases is not because of the automated system of producing credit cards.

[car2403]

Because they ****ed the Judge off and he didn't want them getting away without paying yet another credit agreement, that's why.

 

The Act is as I've stated above, which is why you don't have to worry about Rankine too much.

[BlueSquirrel]

That is only if there is NO further acknowledgement of the alleged debt by the Debtor.

(...Assuming a properly prescribed Default Notice was actually served on the Debtor of course. )

 

e.g....Any payment credited to the account re-starts the 6yr SoL period in which the alleged debt can be legally recoverable through the courts.

 

So does that explain why when you send in pound for the CCA they credit it to your account?

[car2403]

So does that explain why when you send in pound for the CCA they credit it to your account?

 

Yes.

 

If they apply it as a payment, a Court may decide you've acknowledge the debt at that point and start the 6 year period from then.

 

Good thing you can prove it was a "CCA payment" and not an "Account payment", then.

[citizenB]

Well, the origonal CC agreement is now closed, so they have probably replaced a non complient CC agreement with a complient loan agreement.

 

OFT guidelines say that creditors must not offer new credit to replace problem credit.

 

It's exactly that - if you've signed a new agreement, that is enforceable, you've made somewhat of a mistake.

 

I've seen some unscrupulous finance companies using these tactics to overcome erroneous agreements. Usually, this is done under the guise of "restructuring finance" to reduce payments to a more affordable level.

 

Buyer beware, again...

 

unfair relationship anyone?

 

 

The ubiquitous Managed Loan.. the favoured "get out of jail free" card" of HSBC..

 

They roll up overdraft and current account charges plus their own unenforceable credit card accounts into one nice loan that has all the t's crossed and the i's dotted.

 

To be avoided at all costs.

[enoughisenough]

Oh well you live and learn! I'm looking very closely at the loan agreement and I'm pretty certain it's rock solid. Is there anything can be done about the original improperly executed cc account?

[andrew1]

The ubiquitous Managed Loan.. the favoured "get out of jail free" card" of HSBC..

 

They roll up overdraft and current account charges plus their own unenforceable credit card accounts into one nice loan that has all the t's crossed and the i's dotted.

 

To be avoided at all costs.

 

Could that not be construed as a multiple agreement though and need to be documented as such?

[citizenB]

The ubiquitous Managed Loan.. the favoured "get out of jail free" card" of HSBC..

 

They roll up overdraft and current account charges plus their own unenforceable credit card accounts into one nice loan that has all the t's crossed and the i's dotted.

 

To be avoided at all costs.

 

Could that not be construed as a multiple agreement though and need to be documented as such?

 

Hadnt thought about that one, andrew. It might be worth pursuing:)

 

I think what also needs to be asked is, at the time of the loan being offered.. was there an income review done by the bank ? It would seem to me, if a person couldnt make the repayments on a credit card and overdraft, then they certainly wouldnt be able to make the repayments on a loan.. as the monthly repayment wouldnt be all that different. In some cases the banks "encourage" a ppi element.

[enoughisenough]

Excellent piece of lateral thinking a1. more than one way to skin a cat eh? Love this site!

[car2403]

Could that not be construed as a multiple agreement though and need to be documented as such?

 

Not really, as it will have single prescribed terms, even though the advance is made up of amounts going to different accounts.

 

Unless they try to sell you PPI on it, that is.

[andrew1]

Not really, as it will have single prescribed terms, even though the advance is made up of amounts going to different accounts.

 

Unless they try to sell you PPI on it, that is.

 

Any chance s.82 kicks in then?

s82.--

 

(1) Where, under a power contained in a regulated agreement, the creditor or owner varies the agreement, the variation shall not take effect before notice of it is given to the debtor or hirer in the prescribed manner.

 

(2) Where an agreement (a modifying agreement) varies or supplements an earlier agreement, the modifying agreement shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as--

 

(a) revoking the earlier agreement, and

 

(b) containing provisions reproducing the combined effect of the two

agreements, and obligations outstanding in relation to the earlier agreement shall accordingly be treated as outstanding instead in relation to the modifying agreement.

 

(3) If the earlier agreement is a regulated agreement but (apart from this subsection) the modifying agreement is not then, unless the modifying agreement is for running-account credit, it shall be treated as a regulated agreement.

 

(4) If the earlier agreement is a regulated agreement for running-account credit, and by the modifying agreement the creditor allows the credit limit to be exceeded but intends the excess to be merely temporary, Part V (except section 56) shall not apply to the modifying agreement.

 

(5) If--

 

(a) the earlier agreement is a cancellable agreement, and

 

(b) the modifying agreement is made within the period applicable under section 68 to the earlier agreement, then, whether or not the modifying agreement would, apart from this subsection, be a cancellable agreement, it shall be treated as a cancellable agreement in respect of which a notice may be served under section 68 not later than the end of the period applicable

under that section to the earlier agreement.

 

(6) Except under subsection (5), a modifying agreement shall not be treated as a cancellable agreement.

 

(7) This section does not apply to a non-commercial agreement.

[car2403]

It's not a modifying agreement, though, it's a new one?

[andrew1]

It's not a modifying agreement, though, it's a new one?

 

Okay, I'll dwell on that! Thanks.

[poundhound1808]

subbing

[letitbeme]

The following should be made a mandatory condition for the issuing of a claim in the civil Courts.

 

Mandatory Claim Form Submission Conditions

 

The claimant must enter all of the relevant information that will clearly outline and identify the POC (see Appendix I for relevance), all supporting documents must (see Appendix II for relevance) be attached to the POC when presented to the courts.

 

 

Failure to comply withthe Mandatory Claim Submission Conditions will result in the return of your claim form and your submission fee will not be refunded, you will be required to fully comply with the mandatory requirements for submitting a claim form and a new fee will be required. If upon the re submission and presentation to the district Judge it is further found that you have not fully complied with the Mandatory Claim Submission Conditions you will be liable for a Fine of £1000.00 and your claim form will be returned.

Can any one fill in the blanks?

 

Appendix I

 

1. Blank

2. Blank

3. Blank

4. Blank

5. Blank

6. Blank

7. Blank

8. Blank

9. Blank

10. Blank

 

Appendix II

 

11. Blank

12. Blank

13. Blank

14. Blank

15. Blank

16. Blank

17. Blank

18. Blank

19. Blank

20. Blank

[enoughisenough]

As a defendant against powerful institutions I agree that this would be a good thing. They are Bound to as they always have done slip up. As aclaimant without full understanding of these requirements I'd be terrified.

 

The process is complex enough. Not because people are simple (they aren't) but because they don't have enough time on their hands. it would also undo Woolf.

[letitbeme]

Hi, just to clarify.

 

I fully agree with

As a defendant against powerful institutions I agree that this would be a good thing. They are Bound to as they always have done slip up.

 

and yes this is also true

As a claimant without full understanding of these requirements I'd be terrified.

 

The process is complex enough. Not because people are simple (they aren't) but because they don't have enough time on their hands. it would also undo Woolf.