Grace & anr -v- Black Horse ltd - major headache for CRAs???????

[citizenB]

Subject Access Request should be sent to the Original Creditor. When they sell/assign a debt very little "data" gets transferred.. eg..

 

£ value

Name and address and any contact numbers

Date of Default

Date of inception of the agreement.

 

If however, you need to obtain information relating to the time the new owner has had the debt.. eg telephone calls/other communications, then you would need to send one to the new owner as well.

[bustthematrix]

Thanks for this folks.

It's another useful outcome for the wee guys.

[bustthematrix]

Hi Dodgeball

I've found your posts on this topic quite helpful.

 

How best to use/what uses would you say this ruling accomplishes for debtors/defaulters?

 

Thx in advance...

[pat5y]

Subject Access Request should be sent to the Original Creditor. When they sell/assign a debt very little "data" gets transferred.. eg..

 

£ value

Name and address and any contact numbers

Date of Default

Date of inception of the agreement.

 

If however, you need to obtain information relating to the time the new owner has had the debt.. eg telephone calls/other communications, then you would need to send one to the new owner as well.

 

Thank you

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball

I've found your posts on this topic quite helpful.

 

How best to use/what uses would you say this ruling accomplishes for debtors/defaulters?

 

Thx in advance...

 

I think for those who have irredeemably unenforceable agreements whose credit reports were defaulted after they were accepted to be so, the marker should be removed or modified.

 

For those who accounts went into default after they claimed the agreement was IU, and then they were subsequently found to be correct, there is a strong argument that these also should be deleted.

 

To repeat what ha been said, the danger is that people will go into court and say that this judgment overturned the ruling in Mcguffick, if the person did this would have there action thrown out, a the judge went to great pains to say otherwise. That is not to say that this judgement may not be useful.

 

In McGuffic the issue was if the placing of a default marker constitutes enforcement as prescribed by the consumer credit act. If it did then it follows that placing a maker would not be allowed on an agreement which had been declared unenforceable under the act.Tthe kind of unenforceability which was examined was the one which occurs if copy agreement are not sent in good time or in the prescribed manner.

 

In Grace the enforceability examined was the kind which occurs due to breach of section 127 and this renders the agreement completely unenforceable for ever, perhaps more importantly the issue in grace was the correct recording of the default as regards the provisions of the data protection act and principles.

 

From this you can see that the issues regarding the status of the account(being unenforceable) could also be challenged as a breach of DPA using the same arguments on the temporary unenforceablity of agreements, however this was not tested in Grace.

 

I am sure that the solicitors involves will be pursuing this, unfortunately, it is generally true that we do not get to hear about lost cases, no one want to advertise their failures, which is a a shame IMO, because sometimes they can be of more use than the "wins ".

 

If someone wanted to pursue an action for damages based on the placing of a default on agreement whilst if was unenforceable under sections 77-79, there would need to be s great deal of thought given.

 

Firstly you would have to make it absolutely clear to the court that the issue is a data protection one and not a C CA related, then you would have to convince them that the placing of the unqualified marker represented a similar breach as that in the case mentioned in Grace.

 

Of course it is pointless doing any of this if you cannot claim damages, or there is some reason why you desperately need rid of the marker.

 

Claiming damages would be problematic for reasons already gone into, proving consequential losses is very difficult as illustrated in several cases, and general claims are a none starter, unfortunately.

[ahmed35]

um..if a service contract is defaulted i.e mobile contract, tv etc and no credit agreement is signed other then accepting terms/condition of the provider. A default is placed for outstanding monies.

can this be removed as its unenforceable in courts for not signing a cca.

I have a default with VM for last outstanding bill which I still dispute.

[Peterbard]

um..if a service contract is defaulted i.e mobile contract, tv etc and no credit agreement is signed other then accepting terms/condition of the provider. A default is placed for outstanding monies.

can this be removed as its unenforceable in courts for not signing a cca.

I have a default with VM for last outstanding bill which I still dispute.

 

Unenforceability only applies to credit agreements, service contracts are not normally covered by the CCA.

[citizenB]

Unenforceability only applies to credit agreements, service contracts are not normally covered by the CCA.

 

I thought they were now covered by the CCA ?

[Peterbard]

I thought they were now covered by the CCA ?

 

Not unless something has happened which I am unaware of CB (which is not impossible). Service agreements usually do not involve credit and phones in ,particular. as far as i know are covered by the distance selling regs.

[citizenB]

Not unless something has happened which I am unaware of CB (which is not impossible). Service agreements usually do not involve credit and phones in ,particular. as far as i know are covered by the distance selling regs.

 

 

I will have a look through the CAG Newsletter, because I am sure I saw something that said that the "credit" part was now covered.. it could have been wishful thinking on my part.

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?425080-O2-New-Agreements-Falling-Under-The-Consumer-Credit-Act&p=4539035#post4539035

 

Link to thread.

 

Yes.. they are

[fkofilee]

To Clarify, the Credit Agreements only Apply to O2, Tesco & Giffgaff etc as they have 2 accounts, one for airtime and one for the phone. The phone one is covered under a CCA agreement. The airtime still falls under utilities if i remember rightly.

[citizenB]

To Clarify, the Credit Agreements only Apply to O2, Tesco & Giffgaff etc as they have 2 accounts, one for airtime and one for the phone. The phone one is covered under a CCA agreement. The airtime still falls under utilities if i remember rightly.

 

Thanks for clarifying, fkofilee

[Peterbard]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?425080-O2-New-Agreements-Falling-Under-The-Consumer-Credit-Act&p=4539035#post4539035

 

Link to thread.

 

Yes.. they are

 

AH yes that is if the phone is bought on credit in addition to the service hire. Most contracts are just for the service hire and the phone is "thrown in"(actually the cost is included in the hire ). But it seems that some are now separating part of the contract into the cost of the phone on credit and the hire, the credit part would of course be covered by the act. I must admit the whole phone thing is a mystery to me, i get mine from Tesco for £15

[fkofilee]

It only applies on the refresh contracts and others from the other companies etc. Giffgaff do finance through a 3rd party.

Im going past O2 today, Ill find out and let you know as to be fair its a while since this came up. I had Lowell write off £3000 worth of Phone Contracts because they couldnt supply the Agreements which i asked for (Not CCAs, but Utilities Agreements)

The point being is that I specifiaclly said I wont accept statements etc from them and it had to be the original agreements.

 

They soon fell over only able to supply a CCA for a Cap One account which was deffo mine

[xfox]

Hi guys,

 

Is there any template letter I can use for this matter?

I want to send letters to CRA's and creditors about unenforceable debts on my credit file.

[dx100uk]

Hi guys,

 

Is there any template letter I can use for this matter?

I want to send letters to CRA's and creditors about unenforceable debts on my credit file.

 

 

to what end?

 

 

doesn't mean they have to remove them if they are un-en

[Ihatebanksandbankshateme]

nope

only the OC can issue a default notice - true default.

[but they don't 'have' to register it mind!]

Wrong, the High Court confirmed this in Jones v Link Financial Limited.

 

The assignee becomes the creditor for the statutory purposes.

[Ihatebanksandbankshateme]

1. I agree with Professor Guest that this would apply to the statutory duties under ss.77, 78 (duty to give information to the debtor), ss.76, 87, 98 (duty to serve enforcement, default and termination notices), s.97 (duty to supply settlement figure), s.103 (duty to provide termination statement), and the restrictions on enforcement imposed by ss. 90 and 92. I also agree with him that different considerations may well apply to a pre-assignment liability such as that as may be imposed under ss75, 75A.
   
2. In my judgment the "duties" referred to in section 189 are therefore those statutory duties under the 1974 Act which the assignee has to perform in order to enforce his assigned rights. These duties have "passed by assignment" in the sense that it is by reason of the assignment that the assignee becomes obliged to fulfil them.
   

 

For completeness, the above is taken direct from the High Court ruling.

[Peterbard]

In fairness on defaulted accounts most agreement are terminated before being sold to debt collection agencies, so the section 87 notice would have been sent by the original creditor.