Signature required for CCA request

[alienskumm]

Hi All,

 

I hope you can help me with a letter I have received from Tesco Bank.

 

I have defaulted on a Tesco Credit card and this debt was passed to MDRL.

 

I requested proof that MDRL were legally allowed to claim on this debt and they passed on the CCA request to the original lender.

 

After many months and as far as I am concerned a default on my CCA request,

 

Tesco have replied. The letter is attached.

 

Please answer these questions if possible.

 

Are they right, should the CCA request be signed, bearing in mind it was sent to MDRL?

 

If they have done nothing wrong and are not in default of my request, why offer compensation?

 

What would be my best course of action to reply, is there a template or a quote I could use?

 

Do I need to send off the signature request?

 

Any advise will be appreciated.

 

Many thanks.

 

AS

[Annie71]

Signature is not required

[Bazooka Boo]

Firstly they are misguided and there is NO requirement for you to sign a CCA request, the ICO is very clear on this,

and they are simply stalling you.

When was the account opened and how?

Have you sent them the failed letter yet?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?405830-Letter-for-a-Failed-CCA-Request

[alienskumm]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I cannot remember when this account was opened or how, I no longer have the records. I think I might eventually DSAR Tesco and get full details, I also believe PPI was charged at first, but cancelled later.

 

I have sent Robinson Way (2nd DCA) and Tesco Bank the serious dispute letter, that is why they have now replied.

 

I think that my first course of action is to reply to them stating signature not required, they have sent many unsigned sensitive documents to my address, I have lived in the same place for 12 years.

 

Please advise if there is a better way.

 

AS

[dx100uk]

Select committee on Trade and Industry minutes of evidence (1996 Legislative working party)

 

2. The working party looked at the legal issues regarding the terms document, writing, signature, instrument, and records of transactions and originality. The Government's current proposed legislation focuses particularly upon the issue of signature. The working party considered the leading case in English law on signature methods, Goodman -v- J Eban Limited.

That decision established that:

2.1 mechanical signatures using rubber stamps, printing or typewriting were valid in english law;

2.2 a signature can be by a mark rather than a name as long as evidence can be given to indentify the placer of the mark and the intention to sign; and

2.3 words other than a name can amount to a signature if the necessary intention to sign can be proven

 

Now although this working party was looking into the Electronics Commerce Bill it points to . .

Goodman v J Eban Ltd (1954)

 

A solicitor signed a solicitors bill with a rubber stamp which contained the name of the law firm. In the judgment it was determined that the rubber stamp was a valid signature, even theough the Solicitors Act of 1932 required a solicitors bill to be signed; it was established that it is enough to demonstrate that the rubber stamp was affixed by the solicitor with the intention to sign the solicitor's bill.

 

So now taking the highlights above I go to:

Interpretations act 1978

Schedule 1

1973 c.37.

 

"Writing" includes typing, lithograpgy, photography or other modes of representing or reproducing words in a visible form and expressions refering to writing can be construed accordingly

 

Also;

[/i][/b]

Data Protection Act Good Practice Notes:

 

2. Do you have enough information to be sure of the requester’s identity?

Often you will have no reason to doubt a person’s identity. For example, if a person with whom you have regular contact sends a letter from their known address it may be safe to assume that they are who they say they are.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/checklist_for_handling_requests_for_personal_information.pdf

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8861&d=1242456802

[alienskumm]

Brilliant thanks dx100uk just what I needed and I knew that someone would have my answer,

 

the original request was electronically signed from a person at an address where comunication has previously occurred .

 

I will type something up tomorrow and send it in Tesco's direction as a serious complaint.

 

Underlying all this is the fact that I do want to pay the debt what and when I can afford,

 

I just want to know if they have enough ammo to use it against me in court,

their delaying tactics,

offer of compensation and abuse of DCA's leads me to doubt they have a CCA,

 

they will send out a reconstituted one eventually if I am not mistaken.

 

The offer of £50 compensation is a joke,

they have breached all sorts of guidelines and may I be so bold as to say even the law

and £50 only just covers their charges for one over limit and missed payment charge.

 

Once I get my teeth into ALL of the charges and PPI I will go after them.

 

AS

 

Thanks everyone.

[alienskumm]

An obvious thought on this is that if they require a signature to verify who I am, why have they sent the letter I attached to this post? If they don't believe I am who I say I am, they must be in breach of data protection laws for doing that as well.

 

But worst of all and completely unforgivable in a written letter from a such a big company is the typo in paragraph 5 "before we REALISE any documents". Unbelievable!

 

I have previously spent many years working in the aircraft industry, in many places the "technicians" sign off safety critical work on passenger carrying aircraft using a rubber stamp with their works number on it, instead of a signature, the stamp is legal and can be used in court against them if necessary.

 

AS

Edited December 5, 2013 by alienskumm

[dx100uk]

the account has been terminated so the agreement is no longer valid/applicable as such anyhow.

 

what does your cra file say

Tesco still own it?

 

ardens solicitors GPB have recently been struck off

so the poor little darlings are probably suffering legal matters.

 

TBH: you need to SAR tescos and get those PENALTY charges & PPI done!

 

dx

[Annie71]

I think tesco credit cards are actually RBS and it seems a common tactic from them to demand a signature. My opinionis that so long as you tell them it is wrong and why you would be covered.

 

When were GPB struck off, I had read they had been suspended pending investigation.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I think tesco credit cards are actually RBS and it seems a common tactic from them to demand a signature. My opinionis that so long as you tell them it is wrong and why you would be covered.

 

When were GPB struck off, I had read they had been suspended pending investigation.

 

Tesco Bank!

[renegadeimp]

Apart from it being an obvious stalling tactic, could they transfer the sig to the cca if none exists? I know we had a report about MMF doing it.

[citizenB]

If you are concerned about "lifting" of signature, you could, either,

 

You could make a grid as follows.. Change the font colour to light yellow or mid grey and sign over the top.

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

citizenBcitizenBcitizenB

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

citizenBcitizenBcitizenB

 

Or simply make your signature slightly different to your usual one..

 

Or you could draw a couple of lines through your signature after you have signed it.

 

However, dx has already provided sufficient information to provide to Tesco, that you simply do NOT have to sign your request by hand, anyway

[alienskumm]

Tesco Bank used to be run by RBS, not sure they still are. I got a PPI refund from an old Tesco Loan and an old Lombard Loan, they paid these back almost straight away and both refunds were from RBS.

 

I have sent an unsigned recorded letter to Tesco Bank and escalated my request to a DSAR and popped in a PO for £10 with "for DSAR use only on it".

 

I will keep this thread updated.

 

AS

[fletch70]

Tesco bank was 50% owned by RBS and I think (but am not sure) they still underwrite the lending.

 

Renegade , you say there are reports of Motormouth lifting signatures , do you have a link (I am not questioning your statement )

[renegadeimp]

Do a bit of googling fletch, its on a few other forums. MMF is under close investigation right now as well, as they seem to use unlawful/borderline illegal business practices.

[fletch70]

Thanks

I think you are being rather nice to motormouth saying they use borderline practices. From personal experience and from what I have read on here they read the law as they want to, as I must say do the CSA

[fletch70]

No luck on the google front but nothing would surprise me

[PRBrown]

For every CCA request I've made I just get my partner to sign my name on the request letter in her hand. The signature has been nothing like my own but it hasn't stopped anyone sending whatever paperwork they can drag up, and if anything dodgy ever did occur with the signature then it would be easy to show it wasn't mine.

[May Fly]

Select committee on Trade and Industry minutes of evidence (1996 Legislative working party)

 

2. The working party looked at the legal issues regarding the terms document, writing, signature, instrument, and records of transactions and originality. The Government's current proposed legislation focuses particularly upon the issue of signature. The working party considered the leading case in English law on signature methods, Goodman -v- J Eban Limited.

That decision established that:

2.1 mechanical signatures using rubber stamps, printing or typewriting were valid in english law;

2.2 a signature can be by a mark rather than a name as long as evidence can be given to indentify the placer of the mark and the intention to sign; and

2.3 words other than a name can amount to a signature if the necessary intention to sign can be proven

 

Now although this working party was looking into the Electronics Commerce Bill it points to . .

Goodman v J Eban Ltd (1954)

 

A solicitor signed a solicitors bill with a rubber stamp which contained the name of the law firm. In the judgment it was determined that the rubber stamp was a valid signature, even theough the Solicitors Act of 1932 required a solicitors bill to be signed; it was established that it is enough to demonstrate that the rubber stamp was affixed by the solicitor with the intention to sign the solicitor's bill.

 

So now taking the highlights above I go to:

Interpretations act 1978

Schedule 1

1973 c.37.

 

"Writing" includes typing, lithograpgy, photography or other modes of representing or reproducing words in a visible form and expressions refering to writing can be construed accordingly

 

Also;

[/i][/b]

Data Protection Act Good Practice Notes:

 

2. Do you have enough information to be sure of the requester’s identity?

Often you will have no reason to doubt a person’s identity. For example, if a person with whom you have regular contact sends a letter from their known address it may be safe to assume that they are who they say they are.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/checklist_for_handling_requests_for_personal_information.pdf

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8861&d=1242456802

 

I quoted this and more to my bank when they refused to process my CCA and SAR request. At the time I had recently been injured and had limited use of my arm/hand so my efforts at a signature didn't match the one given 9 years ago when the account was opened and with the advent of switch cards hadn't been used for several years anyway.

 

The excuse the bank gave was that a signature was required to compare with that of the account holder as part of their procedures to prevent account info being released to the wrong person.

 

I complained to the ICO pointing out that the bank was sending statements to my address which was the same one used for my requests, and that the ICOs guidelines to banks was that proof of identity may not be needed if they are corresponding to the address normally used for the account (as mentioned in dx's point 2 above), and that (if I remember correctly) a signature wasn't sufficient proof of ID for sensitive info, so relying on a signature in this instance for identification purposes didn't comply with the guidelines for the DPA.

 

The ICO accepted that comparison of signatures was part of the banks procedures in place to comply with the Data Protection Act and therefore the bank wasn't doing anything wrong. I pointed out that as a disabled person I couldn't make a signature I was effectively being discriminated against but they didn't want to know.

 

A signature isn't proof of anything other than that the signer is in agreement with the contents of the document he is signing.

 

I think there has been many arguments over the requirement for a signature over the years and I think a lot of it is sheer awkwardness from the banks because they don't want the work of looking for the documents and if the cannot supply them it puts you in a good position. So they stall. Sadly, the IDC is weal on this and ,any of points because as they told me the clock on the request only starts when they accept it, if they refuse it because of the signature, the clock hasn't started. Mind you, that was about 2 years ago so maybe the ICO's position has changed some since then...

[dx100uk]

you should always sign an sar request

[alienskumm]

Update,

 

I have just received in the post a very large bundle from Tesco Bank (credit card). It looks like it contains all the requested documentation and information. I DID NOT provide a signature I replied to their delaying tactics saying I would not be signing and that if they did not believe who I was why where they sending sensitive information to my address.

 

Any way it proves they will send DSAR and CCA request without a signature. Unfortunately all the data they have sent looks good, I will now have to arrange to pay and clear the debt.

 

Thanks for all your input, could a site member please close this thread.

 

AS

[Bazooka Boo]

"Looks good" BUT is it?

[dx100uk]

well you need to look at those charges & ppi first.

 

so now tell us the history please

 

and the results of the CRa file too?

 

dx

[alienskumm]

Sorry probably wasn't very clear in my last,

 

I mean it looks good as a CCA and DSAR request.

 

There are charges that I will reclaim and no PPI.

 

They have sent all statements so I will trawl through and tot up the charges.

 

The CCA and application both are genuine copies with clear signatures,

there are also copies of internal and external comms between Tesco and MDRL,

the account is with Tesco at the moment MDRL returned it

when they failed with the original CCA request.

 

Unfortunately the debt is real and I know it needs to be paid.

 

I am on a roll with charge reclaims, success with ACM & Blackhorse and a claim in with Santander at the moment.

 

AS

[dx100uk]

and the questions in post 23?

 

dx