Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Agreement Enforceable?

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3916 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

can anyone plz help?? have cap1 credit card and sent 3 letters requesting CCA.More than 30 day s elapsed in time and still they keep writing to request a signature(which i have been advised not to give!!!) Is debt now unenforcable???? shall i proceed with next stage??? Any help would be really appreciated :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly won't be unenforceable if you continue to refuse to provide your confirmation of identity (signature). This is a basic requirement - and to refuse to do so in the mistaken belief that it could be misused will disadvantage you.

Link to post
Share on other sites


You place yourself in a situation that disadvantages you, and you object to me pointing this out? I've pointed this out before - and it looks as though, for you, I have to do it again.


Since the reason put forward NOT for providing said signature is to 'prevent it being copied' (misused), shows a naive disregard for how this works, making the complainant appear (at best) ill-advised, and (at worst) a nutter.


Even if you believe the signature will be copied - the legal term for this is 'forged' and is a crime punishable in the criminal courts, wouldn't it be great if the offending firm did this? Not only can you involve the police, it makes the matter a criminal one whereas before it was only you Vs them. If you think a firm is going to risk everything simply to defraud the OP, you've lost your grip on reality.


No two signatures are the same, but it becomes VERY easy to modify your signature in a way that is distinctive to you (if copied) especially as all you have to do is retain a copy and refer to it to 'prove' that it was done,

Indeed, of the 7 times I have done this as part of a dispute process, I got the information I required and nobody attempted to misrepresent my signature (shame, as I wanted it to happen).


So, thanks for your vote of no-confidence. Coming from you it gives me all the vindication I need. And I don't need to be as disrespectful as you were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that there is no legal reason why you have to sign a s.78 request.


Therefore, a company is not acting reasonably in using this as an excuse to fail to comply with your statutory request.


They clearly dont want to or cant comply.


Nothing to do with forging sigs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how would you convince the company you are apply to, that you are indeed the person stated in the letter? It is more than just a courtesy to sign, it signifies (!) that the person signing is requesting the information. To type such a signature, or not do so because there 'is no requirement' means that as there is no verification that the requestor is who they say it is, anyone - a private investigator, nosey neighbour could no the same, and following your premise - get the info without fear or favour.


Since the DPA provides safeguards additional to the S78 request, the firms must be satisfied that the requestor is the data subject, and to provide a signature is the way this is done.


On a tangent. I have in the last week been asked to provide my date of birth three times in order to purchase products. Previously, a statement of 'Over 21' (then 'Over 18') was enough. Not now. No valid reason is provided, but usually 1/1/01 is enough.... Tried to sign up for a mobile phone contract? No DoB, no phone. Yes there's no legal requirement, other than to be 'of age' to enter into such an agreement.


Of course, the REAL reason is so that they can correctly allocate your data to your credit reference file so mistakes are minimised. Therefore their reason for the additional data has nothing to do with the use of the handset or the purchased services. But folk happily give a DoB on request. Are they mad, or just desperate for a phone?


As to the topic at hand - if a firm does not satisfy itself that the s78 request id from the data subject, they are in breach. Why you want to make so much of NOT providing same is still incomprehensible, and results in the needless refusal to supply - and a perfect excuse not to comply with their terms of supply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not being funny, but don't they already have your signed application forms for the credit card?


I mean you must have signed something taking out the card? why are you worried about sending your signature to a company that probably already has a copy of your signature on file?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And TAKE A COPY of how you signed it, so you can easily spot if they;re trying to re-use it. (However the chances of that happening are indeed slim).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

hi there very useful info thanks, know thread is quite old now but have had the same rubbish sent through by cap1!!!! have sent letter shown above but in addition have had a photocopied sheet of paper with heading credit agreement reg by cca 1974 saying this agreement between ......(name) of.......(address)and a letter from cap1 saying that they are currently in the process of retrieving a copy of my current agreement and will send it shortly!!! A statement s78 is also enclosed and set out at end of letter!!!they also say they will not be entering into anymore correspondence regarding provision of copy agreements and agreement is enforceable??????They also say to look at Carey v HSBC (2009) 3417(QB)??? Any help would be very much appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I have recently received some paperwork from crap 1 titled credit agreement regulated by cca 1974......the first papragraph states terms and conditions as says this is an agreement between........of(address).........etc.It states no credit limit by says we will notify you of this, it does state apr but is just a couple of printed pages with no sig???? Is this enforceable????Can anyone help or know what next step will be??/Letter sent with it says its a reconstituted agreement of orginal.The card was taken out in 2001 but the date is smudged on accompanying letter so you cant read it???


It also says refer to Carey v HSBC(no requirement to send photocopy of original agreement)


they will not be entering into further correspondence with me

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Warner

Unsigned ts and cs are not enforceable in a court! Letterl a load of cobblers!:D

I would send them this letter --



Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Thank you for your recent letter sent to me, the contents of which are noted. I appreciate your quick response to my original letter. However, the reply received by me does not fulfill your requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Act demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter.

My request remains outstanding. An unsigned credit agreement with no personal details on it, like the one you sent in your reply, does not constitute a true copy of any credit agreement that may or may not have been signed by me on the opening of this account. A blank agreement neither confirms that I am liable for any alleged debt to you, nor gives me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’.[/font]

I still require you to send me a true copy of the original credit agreement that you allege exists. As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law.

You had until ??/??.2009 (12+2 working days after the request was made) to provide me with the true copy I requested. You are now in default of my request. Any account I hold with you is now in legal dispute. Whilst the account remains in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interestlink3.gif on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agency.

To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the customer to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this.

The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. Any such attempts to share my data without my consent will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office the time limits, which are laid down in the Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 are clear. You must supply an executed credit agreement within 12 + 2 working days of a proper CCA request. If you fail to comply with a legitimate request the account enters a default situation.

To sum up, I will not be making any further payments to you until you provide me with the document I have requested. Whilst you remain in default of my request, you are not permitted to take any action against this account. This includes adding further charges and passing any information to the credit information industry.[/font]

I expect you to write to me confirming that the account has been closed and no further action will be taken.

I look forward to your reply.

Im happy to help with support and my own opinions but as i have no legal qualifications If I offer any thoughts to your problems please take it as from my life experience only and not of any legal standing. Always take further advice from the legal experts in your final action,

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

CrapOne don't answer letters -and that is a fact from one of their ex-employees. They shipped their call centre to India, paid off their admin staff and put what had been their call centre staff into admin. they haven't a clue about anything. They just push buttons that produce templates and add irrelevancies. So no Crap One letter makes sense. Ignore them and they will eventually go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...