Cap1 & CCA return

[Guest Battleaxe]

Ok, I have to admit it, I went to tesco's today and there at the check out are the applicationforms for the Tesco Credit Card, One side is the application for credit, on the reverse is the Credit Agreement regulated by the CCA 1974

Two bold red croesses for you sign and all the penalty charges are at £12.00. No where is a signature box for Tesco or their adminstration .

 

It makes interesting reading and the way everything is worded it is in favour of Tesco and RBS

[un1boy]

To be honest though, it really seems to me to be irrelevant, as by stopping payments one likely outcome would be a court action, and I have already said that I believe a judge would allow the agreement to stand - providing it is properly executed, along with all the mandatory information.

 

Hi Alan,

 

I understand what you are saying, however, as long as we stop payments for a alid reason (ie, they haven't provided the agreement, or T and C's etc in the relevant time) the agreement becomes unenforcable, so, if they decide to take action to enfore it - like takign court acton to recover "missed" payments - then surely they are commiting a criminal offence?

 

Whether a Judge would, or would not enforce an agreement is surely irrelevant - if the "punishment" of the lenders not complying with the request in time is that we do not have to make payments, then that's what should happen.

 

It is then up to the lender whether they want to get a Judge to enforce it....onc a criminal offence has been made, it cannot be ignored, and I know that if the lender whom I have stopped paying because they are in default tries any actiona at all, then both TS and the Police will be forwarded details of any correspondence.

 

And the lenders are not allowed to profit, nor to enforce the agreement from the date of the default until they get a court order, so even if the court order is granted, any charges/interest would hav to be refunded.

[maybelline]

Hi Maybelline

 

Have you posted in the right thread. This should really be in the mortgages section.

 

Regards, Pam

thanks Pam, you are right and I have a thread re Welcome Finance, under other institutions and it seems we are all just discovering how unenforceable our agreements may be, no offence meant and maybe I have not read all the Welcome threads that have been appearing, but have scouted around and am still a bit unclear as the correct way to proceed.

 

popped in here earlier re the agreement format:)

[angry cat]

Hi Guys-

sorry to interupt the debate but I have a question.

 

I recently made a request under the CCA 1974 to Egg for a copy of my Agreement and a copy of the true certified copy of the default registered against me with the CRA's.

 

This is the reply-

"Further to your recent request, I have pleasure in enclosing a copy of your signed Credit Agreement in accordance with your rights under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

In respect of your request for a copy of the default notice, whilst we are under no obligation to provide a copy of this default notice, I can confirm that the default was registered in accordance with the correct procedure.

 

Your Account is now being handled by DLC and all further correspondence should be directed to them".

 

Firstly, Egg have supplied a copy of the original Credit Agreement that I signed (the only agreement that I have ever signed with Egg) the agreement is for a Boots Advantage Credit Card, powered by Egg dated 11/07/2001. Now Egg changed my card in 2002, it changed to an Egg green card, obviously the affiliation with Boots ended. The Boots card was settled by Egg and my balance was tranferred to the new Egg card. Egg changed my card again in 2005 to an Egg card blue, once again the balance was settled by Egg and transferred over to the new Egg blue card.

When you look at my CRA file it shows 3 Egg cards, two of which show settled.

 

Now here is the crux of my question, I have been provided with a credit agreement for a Boots Advantage Credit card, which no longer exists and not an agreement for my existing Egg credit card. After check the original Egg T&C's I have noted the following:-

 

"CARD - means any Boots Advantage Credit Card we give you which is linked to the Account".

 

"USE - We will send a card to you as soon as we have opened your Account and will renew it from time to time with the same type of card or replace it with a different type of card which you then qualify for and which is covered by thiis Agreement".

 

Okay, I have only signed one Agreement back in 2001 but have had three different cards. I believe that the above "USE" could constitite unfair terms UTTCR's, as I only signed for a Boots card!

 

Any thoughts would be welcome

 

AC

 

Okay Guys...

the point is though, that I did not apply for an EGG credit card, I applied for a Boots Advantage Credit Card. I realise now that the added words...powered by Egg have an implication, but when I signed the Application form I was applying for a Boots Card.

 

Surely, the applied terms for that card could not be reasonably expected to go on add infinitum and I am of the opinion that those terms could be viewed as Unfair (UTCCR's)

 

I am still battling with Egg.

 

Groannn.

 

AC

[InKogneeToh]

 

popped in here earlier re the agreement format:)

 

Hi again

 

Yes this thread has some eye-opening info. on it and I think all CAG members should read it!

 

Unfortunately, mortgages are not currently regulated by the CCA so most of the info here re: agreements etc does not apply. This will change when the relevant part of the revised CCA2006 comes into force though, but only for mortgages entered into after that date.

 

Good luck with your claims.

 

Regards, Pam

[alanfromderby]

Hi Alan,

 

I understand what you are saying, however, as long as we stop payments for a alid reason (ie, they haven't provided the agreement, or T and C's etc in the relevant time) the agreement becomes unenforcable, so, if they decide to take action to enfore it - like takign court acton to recover "missed" payments - then surely they are commiting a criminal offence?

 

 

Of course, but that wasn't the question I was asked.

 

My response is where a properly executed agreement HAS been provided - but after the 12 working days + 1 month.

 

The act states that the default continues until the document is provided - and remains unenforceable whilst the default continues. It does not state that the after 12 working days + 1 month the default is permanent.

[maybelline]

it is not a mortgage - that is the problem, a secured loan under 25K is a secured loan and whats more the finance company seem to think it is HP?? its a mess!

[InKogneeToh]

Okay Guys...

the point is though, that I did not apply for an EGG credit card, I applied for a Boots Advantage Credit Card. I realise now that the added words...powered by Egg have an implication, but when I signed the Application form I was applying for a Boots Card.

 

 

Hi angry cat

 

I think that what you will probably find is that Boots plc did not actually have an appropriate consumer credit licence (at that time at least) and did not offer credit. There was probably a commercially negotiated agreement between the 2 companies whereby a credit card would be offered in Boots, with their branding on it but supplied and administered by Egg.

 

As I say, you will need to check the small print on the original agreement/application form or T&Cs to verify this but I am pretty sure this will have been the case.

 

This does not affect the s85 situation in any way though.

 

Regards, Pam

 

Regards, Pam

[un1boy]

Of course, but that wasn't the question I was asked.

 

My response is where a properly executed agreement HAS been provided - but after the 12 working days + 1 month.

 

The act states that the default continues until the document is provided - and remains unenforceable whilst the default continues. It does not state that the after 12 working days + 1 month the default is permanent.

 

Ahhh, I see, well I am sorry then!! :-/

[tamadus]

Okay Guys...

the point is though, that I did not apply for an EGG credit card, I applied for a Boots Advantage Credit Card. I realise now that the added words...powered by Egg have an implication, but when I signed the Application form I was applying for a Boots Card.

 

Surely, the applied terms for that card could not be reasonably expected to go on add infinitum and I am of the opinion that those terms could be viewed as Unfair (UTCCR's)

 

I am still battling with Egg.

 

Groannn.

 

AC

 

I actually agree with you Ac., I used to have a BOS credit card which MBNA suddenly started administering. Then they changed the card to an MBNA card. I only took the card in the first place because it was a BOS affinity card and some money was paid to a charity I support. Of course that stopped once MBNA took it over.

 

Trouble is what can we do when the original company re assign it to a company to administer it.

[InKogneeToh]

it is not a mortgage - that is the problem, a secured loan under 25K is a secured loan and whats more the finance company seem to think it is HP?? its a mess!

 

Hi again

 

Oh, I see!! :o Well in that case perhaps you could give more details - e.g what does your actual agreement say (if you have a copy)? Where was it signed, at their premises or at home? etc. etc.

 

Regards, Pam

[JonCris]

Of course, but that wasn't the question I was asked.

 

My response is where a properly executed agreement HAS been provided - but after the 12 working days + 1 month.

 

The act states that the default continues until the document is provided - and remains unenforceable whilst the default continues. It does not state that the after 12 working days + 1 month the default is permanent.

 

 

NO Alan it doesn't say its permanent but it doesn't say it isn't either. I think that as a result of Wilson - v _ Secretary of State we might like to look at this legislation from a slightly different viewpoint.......namely that unless expressly stated then the legislation falls in favour of the consumer

[maybelline]

Hi again

 

Oh, I see!! :o Well in that case perhaps you could give more details - e.g what does your actual agreement say (if you have a copy)? Where was it signed, at their premises or at home? etc. etc.

 

Regards, Pam

 

hello, I do feel rather guilty as have already had some good replies on my original query about my agreement (thanks to all) It was indeed signed on their premises, the original being HP signed at a dealership and the following agreements signed in their offices further down the line when I got into difficulties, each time they have applied MIG, plus other unknown figures that appeared later, it does state it is a CCA agreement but no t&c's, I have done the SAR and requested copies which I am referring to here.

 

it is these charges that I am challenging starting with the penalty charges, they have already replied to say all their fess, charges etc are legal and no refund will be forthcoming.

[alanfromderby]

NO Alan it doesn't say its permanent but it doesn't say it isn't either. I think that as a result of Wilson - v _ Secretary of State we might like to look at this legislation from a slightly different viewpoint.......namely that unless expressly stated then the legislation falls in favour of the consumer

 

In this case though, it clearly states:

 

he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

[JonCris]

I'm aware of that Alan....I'm refering to the point at which it becomes criminal

[InKogneeToh]

Hi all

 

Just another cat amongst the pidgeons -

 

I have vaguely been aware for some time that s75 of the CCA also applies to credit card agreements and according to my OFT doc (my bible:D) the agreement should also include the following statement:

 

(Agreements where, if a supplier of goods or services is in breach of contract, the borrower may sue either the supplier or the creditor under section 75 of the Act) (Not this bit)

 

IMPORTANT – YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY

YOUR RIGHTS

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 covers this agreement and lays down certain requirements for your protection which must be satisfied when the agreement is made. If they are not, the creditor cannot enforce the agreement against you without a court order.

The Act also gives you a number of rights. You have a right to settle this agreement at any time by giving notice in writing and paying off all amounts payable under the agreement 1. If you have obtained unsatisfactory goods or

services under a transaction financed by this agreement [, apart from any purchased out of a cash loan,]2 you may have a right to sue the supplier, the creditor or both. Similarly, if the contract is not fulfilled, perhaps because the supplier has gone out of business, you may still be able to sue the creditor.

 

This is confirmed by the OFT here:

 

Press release: Court judgment on credit card consumer protection

 

Does yours have this statement on the signature doc.??

 

Regards, Pam

[JonCris]

s 75 applies to all finance agreements not just CC's.........the exeptions are personal loans (in which case there is no lein on the purchased asset) or if you arrange your own finance to say buy a car then you are not covered...........The finance must be dealer introduced.

 

Any HP company (of which there are some) which provides personal loans through dealerships & then regisiters the car with HPI......or snatches it back without a court order claiming they still own it are trying to have their cake & eat it. On the one hand when they take it back they are claiming that the agreement is 'controlled' but on the otherhand if you try to enforce your rights under the 'controlled' agreement they will claim you don't have such rights as personal loans are not covered......this deception is practiced by some very large lenders

[InKogneeToh]

Hi JonCris

 

Yes, I was aware that it covered other agreements also but not sure how many people on here with 'so-called' credit card agreements aka application forms knew that this information box should be on their agreement - along with a lot of other prescribed information that obviously isn't in many cases.

 

Regards, Pam

 

P.S. don't you ever sleep either - you seem to be nocturnal like me!

[zubo]

Hi JonCris

 

Yes, I was aware that it covered other agreements also but not sure how many people on here with 'so-called' credit card agreements aka application forms knew that this information box should be on their agreement - along with a lot of other prescribed information that obviously isn't in many cases.

 

Regards, Pam

 

P.S. don't you ever sleep either - you seem to be nocturnal like me!

 

Pam

 

I don't like your reference to aka application forms. Any reference to an application form to me means just that. I think we have covered this well in earlier posts - the proper executed agreement should make clear reference that it is an agreement regulated by the Act and the agreement must comply fully with S60-66.

 

An application is none of this.

[m55dlc]

Pam

 

I don't like your reference to aka application forms. Any reference to an application form to me means just that. I think we have covered this well in earlier posts - the proper executed agreement should make clear reference that it is an agreement regulated by the Act and the agreement must comply fully with S60-66.

 

An application is none of this.

 

Zubo

 

I have an application form supplied by a credit card company that they have supplied to me as an agreement. But there are two statements which mean it isn't an agreement, it is an application form. If they try to claim it is an agreement they are in default of the DPA 1998 and therefore the agreement is invalid. They cannot have their cake and eat it.

[m55dlc]

And, in fact, they are in breach of the DPA 1998 anyway!

[zubo]

Zubo

 

I have an application form supplied by a credit card company that they have supplied to me as an agreement. But there are two statements which mean it isn't an agreement, it is an application form. If they try to claim it is an agreement they are in default of the Data Protection Act 1998 and therefore the agreement is invalid. They cannot have their cake and eat it.

 

Agreed.

 

I too have a CCA request responded to by the CC company with the words - please find a copy of your signed application form. The copy they sent was the Internet copy I signed and dated the section which clearly states - sign this application. They sent this back to me - also the detail was illegible... they havent a cat in hells chance of getting that past a court to enforce. I think that is why they have gone quiet on me.

[InKogneeToh]

Pam

 

I don't like your reference to aka application forms. Any reference to an application form to me means just that. I think we have covered this well in earlier posts - the proper executed agreement should make clear reference that it is an agreement regulated by the Act and the agreement must comply fully with S60-66.

 

An application is none of this.

 

Hi zubo

 

I think you have mis-interpreted my meaning. I said 'so called agreements aka application forms', meaning the ones they say are agreements but aren't!

 

Regards, Pam

[zubo]

Hi zubo

 

I think you have mis-interpreted my meaning. I said 'so called agreements aka application forms', meaning the ones they say are agreements but aren't!

 

Regards, Pam

 

Sorry Pam, didn't mean to be such aggressive... I just am a bit nervous about people thinking these are agreements... I know we are singing from the same hymn sheet and I completely missed your tongue in cheek reference...

 

sincere apologies!

[m55dlc]

On the reverse of my application form it does say 'Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974', but this is on the reverse, not where I signed. The crux of my issue is that there is a specific statement which makes it either an application form, or in breach of the DPA 1998. One or the other, clear cut, black and white, no arguement