Credit agreement NOT, regulated under the consumer credit Act 1974 what does it mean?

[jackreacher]

I have just seen a RBS agreement from 1992!!

 

At the top it does'nt have the usual bumf of 'this is a Credit agreement regulated under the consumer credit Act 1974' (or similar)

 

I thought this was a must! What legal implications does it have?

 

There are other faults but I can't remember what not having the above means.

 

Its not mine so I can't post it up.

 

Kind Regards jack

[unclebulgaria67]

Where was the CCA issued. Scotland or England ?

 

Might just be a mistake.

 

Was this a credit card or personal loan ?

[jackreacher]

Hello uncle B.

 

England, Credit card..

 

Not a mistake....Amazingly it is a photocopy of the actual signed agreement. Not a put together thing to comply with s78.

[unclebulgaria67]

The CC must be subject regulation under the CCA1974 anyway and perhaps there was some other document signed, which they don't have. Usually a signature box under the terms and conditions,

[jackreacher]

NFORMATION TO BE CONTAINED IN DOCUMENTS EMBODYING REGULATED CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENTS OTHER THAN MODIFYING AGREEMENTS

 

TYPE OF AGREEMENT INFORMATION

(1) (2)

Nature of agreement

1. All types. (1) A heading in one of the following forms of words shown prominently on the first page of the document—

(a) “Hire-Purchase Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974”;

(b) “Conditional Sale Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974”; or

© “Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974”,

as the case may require.

(2) Where the document and a pawn-receipt are combined, the words “, and Pawn-Receipt,” shall be inserted in the heading after the word “Agreement”.

(3) Where the document embodies an agreement of which at least one part is a credit agreement not regulated by the Act, the word “partly” shall be inserted before “regulated” unless the regulated and unregulated parts of the agreement are clearly separate.

[Guest]

as you said in yr first post, it wld prob go down to whether an alleged agreement as a whole has been properly executed as required for enforcement purposes. if a J says not, then no enforcement.

[jackreacher]

as you said in yr first post, it wld prob go down to whether an alleged agreement as a whole has been properly executed as required for enforcement purposes. if a J says not, then no enforcement.

 

I should have added the form only has , in big capital letters ' APPLICATION FORM'. Everything in the filling in process is the same as an Agreement form , including the right to cancel notice etc in the signature box.

 

I think there is a fair case to argue

[jackreacher]

I may well reply with something like this

 

1. The Claimant has failed to produce a copy of an original agreement. It has produced a document headed “ Application Form” which in the course of its’ text refers to it being “an agreement” however there is no cogent evidence of any execution of the alleged agreement ,it refers to “this or any future application”. It cannot both be an application and an agreement. Under the terms of the 'contra proferentum' rule any ambiguity should be construed against the party that seeks to rely upon it. Here the document was not drafted by the defendant and it is the Claimant who seeks to rely upon it as being an agreement. Consequently it is submitted that the document should be construed as not being an agreement.

 

2. In such eventuality the absence of a written agreement is fatal and consequently as the alleged agreement was entered into before the 6th April 2007, being the date when s15 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came into effect. By operation of Schedule 3 of the 2006 Act the terms of S127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 are not repealed in respect of this alleged agreement and therefore render it unenforceable.

[Guest]

how about a cca request, see what they come back with..

 

edit, i see you have already done that post #3

[jackreacher]

Hi ford.. thanks for staying with me.. this is part of the CCa request... The usual inept try at compliance including, No FRC prescribed terms or the original agreement varied terms. So as a whole as it stands, plenty to fight with.

 

I will probably advise leaving it for now... however they have a habit of playing bloody letter tennis with the DCA lowells.

[Guest]

letter tennis is not a good idea

presume lowell now own the matter?

[AndyOrch]

I may well reply with something like this

 

1. The Claimant has failed to produce a copy of an original agreement. It has produced a document headed “ Application Form” which in the course of its’ text refers to it being “an agreement” however there is no cogent evidence of any execution of the alleged agreement ,it refers to “this or any future application”. It cannot both be an application and an agreement. Under the terms of the 'contra proferentum' rule any ambiguity should be construed against the party that seeks to rely upon it. Here the document was not drafted by the defendant and it is the Claimant who seeks to rely upon it as being an agreement. Consequently it is submitted that the document should be construed as not being an agreement.

 

2. In such eventuality the absence of a written agreement is fatal and consequently as the alleged agreement was entered into before the 6th April 2007, being the date when s15 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came into effect. By operation of Schedule 3 of the 2006 Act the terms of S127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 are not repealed in respect of this alleged agreement and therefore render it unenforceable.

 

I wouldnt......dont give them advance warning of its faults.

 

Andy

[jackreacher]

I wouldnt......dont give them advance warning of its faults.

 

Andy

 

Ok! I will go with your advice. I was pretty undecided before so thanks.

[Guest]

What legal implications does it have?

proper execution, as mentioned.

and, any cca request response has to be accurate.

for court enforcement.

 

agree, dont get into letter tennis about it.

(in one for eg, a letter was sent back following a cca request saying it was rubbish. the creditor didnt even respond, and continued with their collection activities)