Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4986 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

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Captain

 

Sorry - all i know how to do is to click on Zion and get a list of the 6 identical posts - sne t by them just a few minutes before their bank opened this morning. I don't know how to copy or refer to your excellent post in othe hreeads.

 

Can anyone else help?

 

BD

 

PS - If you do look at Zion's info you will he/she/it has no friends! Result!

 

 

 

done....

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a lot of twaddle by yet another a DCA troll who as per usual was selective in his response. What the McGuffick judgement ACTUALLY means is that reporting someone to a CRA without having the agreement is NOT enforcement which of course is not permitted without the paperwork

Link to post
Share on other sites

Littlewoods are not pursuing my Mums account as they cannot find the agreement (Thanks to CAG!:)).

 

Does this mean they admit she should not have paid anything to them, and if so, can I claim back all payments plus 8% interest?

 

I recall reading on one thread that someone had a lawyer looking into this - but on other threads I recall seeing that by having paid them you are acknowledging the debt which still exists - it's just they can't enfoce the bit not yet paid back - but it will still sit on your credit file as unpaid. I think that if they can't find the agreement within 6 years of the last payment then it will become Statute Barred.

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

...by having paid them you are acknowledging the debt which still exists - it's just they can't enfoce the bit not yet paid back - but it will still sit on your credit file as unpaid. I think that if they can't find the agreement within 6 years of the last payment then it will become Statute Barred.
That is absolutely correct Bd. ;)

 

If they don't have an enforceable Credit Agreement, any monies thereafter paid to them once they have defaulted on producing it, are just prolonging the 6yr period in which they could later find it + go on to enforce repayment, plus the interest during the time that payments were suspended during their non-compliance period.

 

Which, to a certain extent, happened in the McGuffick case. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys your assumptions are wrong on two fronts.

Firstly Zion is a girl and secondly I am in the same position as most folks on this site. It just so happens that the first time I post in order to get feed back, it did not quite work out.

I have three outstanding cases on CCA agreements.

1.MBNA - £9364.24

2.Barclays - £4588.45

3.Sony style - £3725.79

 

On saturday I received a letter in the post from MBNA paraphrasing the excerpt that I posted this morning. I have been sending letters back and forth to these companies since March this year and they all seem to send the same reply. However, in September they sent holding letters saying they were looking into my complaint. I now realise they were waiting for the outcome of the McGuffick v RBS case.

There are no sinister motives here on my part! I will copy and scan the letter shortly.

Thank you and apologies for the confusion.

Zion

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there - the posts since yours appear to already deal with your queries - an agreement is either enforceable or it isn't regarding anything pre March 07. If they've shredded or lost it they've got no chance and if they can find it but terms are illegible, unsigned or prescribed terms missing court cant enforce it either - apparently MBNA have just withdrawn from what were intended to be test cases this last week. A judgement on the other test cases is anticipated first week in January.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys your assumptions are wrong on two fronts.

Firstly Zion is a girl and secondly I am in the same position as most folks on this site. It just so happens that the first time I post in order to get feed back, it did not quite work out.

I have three outstanding cases on CCA agreements.

1.MBNA - £9364.24

2.Barclays - £4588.45

3.Sony style - £3725.79

 

On saturday I received a letter in the post from MBNA paraphrasing the excerpt that I posted this morning. I have been sending letters back and forth to these companies since March this year and they all seem to send the same reply. However, in September they sent holding letters saying they were looking into my complaint. I now realise they were waiting for the outcome of the McGuffick v RBS case.

There are no sinister motives here on my part! I will copy and scan the letter shortly.

Thank you and apologies for the confusion.

Zion

 

Zion

 

Sorry for doubting your motives! BTW I suggest you don't put the EXACT amounts owed to creditors - as it could identify you exactly - just put "about £9.4k, £4.6k and £3.7k. .

 

Good luck with the good fight!

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Captain2.

So basically, I should just keep writing my standard letters which are :-

 

This is what I wrote to the debt collection company Experto Credite Limited

Dear Sirs

Thank you for your letter 17th September 2009, the contents have been noted.

It would seem that you are of the belief that you/MBNA have discharged your obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in particular section 78(1).

 

You have provided me a copy of an application form not a properly executed agreement form.

 

Firstly, to comply with section 61 of the consumer credit act 1974 which by the way refers to the signing of an agreement (Not an application), a document must conform to regulations made under the provisions of section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 otherwise it cannot be properly executed

 

These regulations I refer to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553). These regulations set out the form and content of agreements. For an agreement to be compliant with the regulations it MUST embody within the agreement, the prescribed terms laid out in the SI1983/1553 without the prescribed terms the agreement does not conform to section 60(1) 1974 and therefore cannot be properly executed as described in section 61(1) CCA 1974.

The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: -

A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit,

A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and

A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

(a)Number of repayments;

(b)Amount of repayments;

©Frequency and timing of repayments;

(d)Dates of repayments;

(e)The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable.

 

Nowhere on the application form that you supplied is there any reference to these terms. I wish to remind you that the absence of these terms will render a document unenforceable in court and I also wish to point out that these terms MUST be contained within the agreement and NOT in a separate document headed terms and conditions or words to that effect. They must have been contained in a separate document, which is prohibited by the SI1983/1553, as there is no clear link to them within the signature document.

 

Therefore, you have failed to supply an enforceable document, which is correctly executed as to be so; it must conform to the Regulations under s60 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I am of the opinion that a court is precluded from enforcing this agreement by s127 (3) CCA1974 as it is improperly executed under s61 CCA 74, the consequences of improper execution are set out in section 65 CCA 1974 and s65 sets out that only a court can enforce an improperly executed agreement subject to certain qualifications, one of those is that the document is signed and contains all the prescribed terms. Now since this document does not contain all the prescribed terms s127 (3) CCA 1974 strictly prevents the court from enforcing this agreement.

 

I respectfully request a reply within 14 days of the date of this letter.

 

Kind regards

 

THis is what I wrote to MBNA

 

Dear Ms XXXXX

I write to express my disappointment in your illegal appointment of Experto Credite Limited to pursue payment on the above account.

As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law, as shown below.

 

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor

 

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

 

The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. I have not written them here for you as I’m sure you are well aware of them.

 

Regulation 2 states:

2 Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms

(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a color which is readily distinguishable from the background medium upon which the information is displayed.

 

As you have failed to fully respond to my legal request, this alone is sufficient for this account to remain in dispute.

This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies.

 

To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the customer to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this.

 

The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. Any such attempts to share my data without my consent will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office

 

To sum up, I will not be making any further payments to you until you provide me with the document I have requested. The resolution of this situation is within your hands. Whilst you remain in default of my request, you are not permitted to take any action against this account. This includes adding further charges and passing any information to the credit reference agencies.

 

Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data.

It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’; you must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

Furthermore you should be aware that a creditor is not permitted to take ANY action against an account whilst it remains in dispute.

 

The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies:

• You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

• You may not add further or any charges to the account.

• You may not pass the account to a third party.

• You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.

• You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

 

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities that I have an on going complaint with. You have 21 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter.

Kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's OK Bigdebtor. Thanks for the tip.

I am just learning and it has been an uphill struggle.

I am determined to keep going but when you receive bits in the post that sound so legalistic it sends the shivers through me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon Captain

 

Do you know why MBNA have withdrawn from the test case?

 

Perhaps they were worried about which way it would go and then the flood gates for them would truely open wide and drown them all lol

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco :cool:

"I just want to make people silky-smooth!"

 

Scrapper vs MBNA Partial Settlement Success. Saved £13,000 :lol:

Scrapper vs Barclays Bank Plc PPI Reclaim Success £5,500 :lol:

Scrapper vs Barclaycard Partial Settlement Success. Saved £6,000 :lol:

 

Scrapper vs Tesco's FOS upheld complaint. Possible court action to get default removed

 

Scrapper vs Egg (Barclaycard) Awaiting FOS

 

Scrapper vs Barclays Bank Plc Offered made & Refused. This means war :-x

Scrapper vs Barclaycard (Cabot) Waiting 4 years for CCA. Cabot advised irresolvable :lol:

 

Scrapper vs Intelligent Finance. Success

 

Scrapper vs Picture (Webb Resolutions) Success

 

 

Beginner's guide

 

Advice & opinions given by Scrapper are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scrapper - I have got this info from a chat today with a no fees claim handler/auditor I am using - I was aware that these cases were coming up from somewhere or someone on this web site - and when I mentioned it to the claims co. they confirmed MBNA had withdrawn and in doing so had annoyed the court as a test case that had been expected was suddenly not going ahead. It seems the reason was - 'yes it could open the floodgates' ! This is all hearsay and third party but the circumstances in which it was explained to me were genuine and gave me no reason to disbelieve them - the judgement of the others which did go ahead is expected first week in Jan. You may also have seen that the OFT are looking at or are even going to force creditors to reveal whether they have any agreement or an enforceable agreement as part of some sort of new found honesty like a truth and reconciliation process in nations ! Sounds good !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scrapper - I have got this info from a chat today with a no fees claim handler/auditor I am using - I was aware that these cases were coming up from somewhere or someone on this web site - and when I mentioned it to the claims co. they confirmed MBNA had withdrawn and in doing so had annoyed the court as a test case that had been expected was suddenly not going ahead. It seems the reason was - 'yes it could open the floodgates' ! This is all hearsay and third party but the circumstances in which it was explained to me were genuine and gave me no reason to disbelieve them - the judgement of the others which did go ahead is expected first week in Jan. You may also have seen that the OFT are looking at or are even going to force creditors to reveal whether they have any agreement or an enforceable agreement as part of some sort of new found honesty like a truth and reconciliation process in nations ! Sounds good !

 

Hi Captain 2

 

This is a very interesting development in that banks should tell the customer if there is either (1) no CCA record in existence or (2) if there is a CCA, it is unenforceable.

 

Take MBNA, as discussed in the last few posts. I had a credit card from Abbey, then it became MBNA. When I defaulted it eventually went to Lowell's. I won against them-see my threads elsewhere, because after several years of them writing to me asking for payments, I learned that there was such as thing as a CCA and when i asked for it, after several stalling attempts, they wrote to say that there was no copy on record and they closed the account. Had I not asked for a copy of the CCA, I would be still paying to this day, rather than enjoying, as of now, the fact that i have written off 10500 pounds.

 

What is wrong with the system is that it was me that had to learn how to ask for the CCA and thereby find out by accident that it didn't exist, rather than that the onus being on Abbey/MBNA to disclose that they did not have a copy of the original CCA.

 

Furthermore, Egg have failed to supply me with a copy of my credit card CCA since May of this year! Despite numerous letters, they obviously don'y want me to see it. It is an agreement going way back to 1999 or so, which is when nearly all of their credit card CCAs were incorrectly drawn up. OK, the account is in dispute but that has not stopped them getting two different DCAs to write to me. Obviously on each occasion I have sent them a "dispute with OC template letter which tells them to sod off. But why should I have to do it?

 

The legislation that you refer to, if it does come to fruition, would stop all of this nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Zion and Scrapper - Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 08 -

that letter you got from MBNA Zion looks as though it could be caught here in that misleading statements which cause another to take a transactional decision they wouldn't otherwise take - see that legislation - I cant remember now where i saw the OFT 's planned move and it may be well into next year but again would be worth looking on here searching the net and if so simply sitting back and waiting for it ..........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zion it is my understanding that the recent Mcguffic ruling has re inforced the cccs freedom to still report your status to the CRA. This is not considered by the court to be "enforcement" as stupid as that sounds.

G

 

Agreed! I have two cases where my account has been closed. One was with Lowell's, because they could not produce a copy of the original CCA-apparently Abbey National (the OC) did not keep records going back that far.

 

Also, CapQuest, they closed my account after I had made several payments over a period of time during which I was bombarded with letters and emails demanding payments, only after i pointed out to them a previous dispute with the OC. the OC was Egg and the prior dispute was that the account had been set aside by the county court.

 

Despite in both cases being forced to close the accounts, both parties have still recorded defaults with the CRAs and have refused to remove the defaults.

 

If you read my threads on here, getting CRA defaults removed is ridiculously difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe that a criminal offence could accrue if a creditor misleads a debtor into believing that they have an executed agreement when in fact they know they have not!

Under CPUTR it is indeed a criminal offence, as is not having your registered office address on all of your forms ( companies act 1985 ) :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scrapper - I have got this info from a chat today with a no fees claim handler/auditor I am using - I was aware that these cases were coming up from somewhere or someone on this web site - and when I mentioned it to the claims co. they confirmed MBNA had withdrawn and in doing so had annoyed the court as a test case that had been expected was suddenly not going ahead. It seems the reason was - 'yes it could open the floodgates' ! This is all hearsay and third party but the circumstances in which it was explained to me were genuine and gave me no reason to disbelieve them - the judgement of the others which did go ahead is expected first week in Jan. You may also have seen that the OFT are looking at or are even going to force creditors to reveal whether they have any agreement or an enforceable agreement as part of some sort of new found honesty like a truth and reconciliation process in nations ! Sounds good !

The McGuffick case is being appealed. The 2 MBNA cases, that were agreed by MBNA to go forward as test cases at Manchester Mercantile Court, were stopped by MBNA a couple of hours before the cases. The reasoning behind that is obvious. If you ask a solicitor, what will it take to make these cases go away, you cannot be too convinced of a win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Does anybody know of the top of there head what section of the CCA1974 does it say the Debt Collector has to provide the credit agreement not the Original collector

 

Cheers

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4986 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.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...