Tesco Credit Card CCA

[Falcokeith]

Hi,

I have this CCA from Tesco's that I believe is not enforceable

I have tried searching for a that I have seen along the lines of thank you for the CCA but thats not enforceable but I cannot find it

does anyone have a link to it or something similar?

Thanks in advance

[fkofilee]

PDF Plz

[renegadeimp]

If thats all they sent, then its likely not compliant. However, that depends on the date of the original agreement. If its pre april 2007 then its definitely not compliant.

[havinastella]

Dx100 – Instructions on uploading pdfs

 

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

as a picture file

remove all pers info inc barcodes etc using paint

but leave all figures and dates.

go to one of the many free online pdf converter websites

convert the image to pdf format.

or ir you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

NB:you can set where it goes in the post by hitting insert inline.

the hit reply button

[Falcokeith]

Date of agreement is 2005

Hope this is now PDF

Thanks for info on how to do that

[fkofilee]

Good Man!! Well have a look now for you.

[renegadeimp]

Thats definitley not compliant, plus theyd need the original anyway to enforce it. Including all terms at inception, any major changes during the period, and terms at closure.

 

Who supplied this? tesco or a DCA?

[Falcokeith]

Came direct from Tesco's

My guess is just a copy of what is stored on microfilm or computer

[renegadeimp]

Well, its not compliant. Theres no T&c's from inception, any changes etc. Like i said. Theyd need the original. Not just a cobbled together app form.

[SWLABR9]

They're trying it on, IMO.

 

 

I've got one from Tesco from the year 2000.

 

 

I simply stopped paying it.

 

 

They've tried phoning me a gazillion times but I have a call-blocker and I've blocked them.

 

 

They're written to me a gzillion times too, eventually threatening the usual hell & damnation. I ignored them.

 

 

They kept adding interest but eventually they sent an offer to settle for the original amount minus all the extra interest they added.

 

 

Seasoned Caggers will know what that means I ignored that too.

 

 

I'm waiting to see what happens next.

 

 

I've been phoned by Fredricksons, I assume about this though it might conceivably be about another one, but I've blocked them too.

 

 

Tesco defaulted me obviously. I can live with that.

[theoldrouge]

As it stands, it does not comply with the requirements of s78(1) for the reasons others have given

 

And s78(6), would currently apply

 

Hovever, I would not be chasing it, as they could remedy at anytime simply by including

 

in a new return the t&cs at inception and the t&cs at closure ( for s78 purposes)

[SWLABR9]

You mean if you were a DCA or the OC you wouldn't be chasing this?

 

 

Assuming not, if Tesco sent along a set, two sets even, of T&Cs,

 

 

how would they establish that these were related to the agreement in question?

[renegadeimp]

They can't reconstitute. They need the original. Not a mocked up copy.

[theoldrouge]

they can recon to satisfy the requirements of s78, provided it is a true copy

 

and we are talking s78 here, which is only an information request

[theoldrouge]

You mean if you were a DCA or the OC you wouldn't be chasing this? Assuming not, if Tesco sent along a set, two sets even, of T&Cs, how would they establish that these were related to the agreement in question?

 

if they certify it to be a true copy, it would be up to you to show why it is not

[SWLABR9]

How come they don't do that as a matter of routine then? What form would certification take if they tried? Are there examples please?

[renegadeimp]

They can give you it as info. But if they wanted to use court, they need the original. Post 2007 they can just mock up a copy.

[SWLABR9]

I thank you but I knew that, oh Imp, I was hoping for an explanation from the ageing Rouge, who seems to be hinting at something else

[theoldrouge]

as regards this particular agreement, if tesco were to resupply

along with the correct t &cs, the app form does contain all the pt,s

 

and imo you would have extreme difficulty in defending

 

and it will not take alot to match a 2005 agreement

[Falcokeith]

Well I have written to them saying that it is not a true copy, which of course it isn't its just a microfilm or computer image, and asked if they do have one

[theoldrouge]

the requirements to fulfill your request

 

The copy agreement

 

CONC 13.1.4

01/07/2014

FCA

 

(1) The copy of the executed agreement should be a 'true copy' of the original. However, as confirmed in the case of Carey v HSBC Bank plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB), in this context the term 'true copy' does not necessarily mean a carbon, photocopy, microfiche copy or other exact copy of the signed agreement. There is no obligation to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature.

(2) The firm can reconstitute a copy. It can do this by re-populating a template of the relevant agreement form with the details of the specific agreement taken from its records. If the firm does provide a reconstituted copy, it should explain that that is what it has done, to avoid misleading the customer that this is a contemporaneous copy.

(3) The terms and conditions should be those applicable at the time the agreement was executed. The name and address at the time of execution must be included.

(4) The reconstituted agreement should contain a heading prescribed by the CCA and any relevant cancellation notice.

(5) If the reason why no copy is given in response to a request under these sections is that there never was an executed agreement, the firm should acknowledge this in its response.

(6) If the agreement has been varied, the duty is to provide not only a copy of the agreement as originally executed but also eithera) a copy of the latest variation given in accordance with section 82(1) of the CCA relating to each discrete term of the agreement which has been varied; or,

(b) a clear statement of the terms of the agreement as varied.

 

(7) Further, section 180(1)(b) of the CCA and regulation 3(2) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 expressly allow certain matters to be omitted from the copy. There may be excluded from the copy of the executed agreement to be provided under these sectionsa) any information relating to the borrower, hirer or surety, or information included for the use of the lender or owner only, which is not required to be included by the CCA2 or by2 any regulations made under the CCA as to the form and content of the agreement;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature;

© in the case of pawn agreements, any description of the article taken in pawn.

[theoldrouge]

I thank you but I knew that, oh Imp, I was hoping for an explanation from the ageing Rouge, who seems to be hinting at something else

 

in answer to your question, referring to court action, rather than just a s78 reply

 

It would probably be accepted by a Court if a senior member of staff working for the bank in their records dept

 

gave evidence to the court that there was a credit agreement in the banks records,

 

and which type of credit agreement in use at that time ,

 

and their records show that ?? % rate of interest would have applied and the credit limit was £????

 

that a Court is likely to accept such evidence

 

unless there is a positive assertion coming from the debtor as to what he/she ,did or did not sign.

 

Having said that, there are often ways of proving the agreement the bank says is a “true copy” is in fact not a true copy

[SWLABR9]

This being the case, oh Rouge, why don't Tesco do that as a matter of course? Are they simply sloppy?

[dx100uk]

what does you credit file say?

when was your last payment?

 

 

as this is still with the OC

I'd be a wee bit careful here.

 

 

dx

[Falcokeith]

So the assumption that most pre-2007 agreements are un-enforceable is wrong

along with the assumption that pre-2007 court cases cannot proceed without production of original agreement.

 

That seems a fair bit different to a lot of what I have read especially that I have always believed

re-constituted agreements were not acceptable for pre-2007