Jump to content
HSBCandMe

Enforceable Recon CCA?

Recommended Posts

I have a reconstructed credit agreement from Barclaycard. It relates to a 'Masterloan' I took out with them in 2003. It Defaulted 2006, and I have been repaying Barclays on an AP ever since. It was never re-assigned or sold on.

It contains prescribed terms, states the amount credit; the rate of interest; and the number and amount of repayments to be made.

However:

1. the reconstruction contains no date;
2. it does not contain my address when I took out the loan;
3. the bank’s telephone number is different;
4. there are no cancellation rights in the small print
5. The stated APR is 10.9%. I have run that past 2 separate websites and they came out with an APR of 10.526%. However, on another website it appears that with an APR of 10.9% interest would be only £60 out– so does such a small amount make any difference to the validity of the recon CCA?)
6. I have obtained a SAR from Barclays containing screen shots of thir internal email that says “This is an old Masterloan and there is no copy on Edostar.”
7. Another internal email that says: “There was no foa in Edostar we need to reconstruct the agreement.”
8. An internal email that says: “Need to refer to Legal re CCA issues. I’m doing the CRA request again at this point, just looking into the validity of the agreements he has had so don’t make any promises about getting new documentation.”
9. An internal email that says: “The information is correct…The Masterloan was for £15,000, drawn on X 2003 and £4,236 interest was immediately applied. This was apparently common practice for this type of loan. When the loan went to recoveries at Barclaycard, we believe the proportion of interest which did not apply – i.e. the amount relevant to the loan after the date the loan was charged off – should have been refunded. Looking at the entries to the Masterloan this was not done. Whilst there is no PPI premium to refund or any issue of a mis-sell, it would appear there will have to be some refund of interest. The exact amount will need to be calculated at the 10.9% rate….The reconstructed credit agreement is therefore correct as per the s.77 request.”
10. An internal email that says: “What do we normally send for Masterloans where the original document is not available... At this moment this could result in us having to write-off the balance.”
11. An internal email that says: Interest does not appear to have been refunded when the loan went to recoveries at Barclaycard, calculate amount due and apply.”
12. An internal email that says: “as a refinance arrangement, this agreement was exclusively conducted by post and phone, in which case no cancellation rights would have applied at that time. There is no cancellation rights in the agreement because there would not have been any cancellation rights in this case. Our refinance loans have always been transacted either at branch offices or totally through the post following telephone conversations."
13. A letter from Barclays stating: "At the time this agreement was entered into, there would have been no cancellation rights applicable in either of these circumstances. We therefore consider that the copy agreement we sent to you in response to your s.77 request contains all the relevant terms, complies with all requirements applicable at the time the agreement was entered into and is therefore a true copy for the purposes of s77. Our agreement with you is therefore legally enforceable.”

I do not have a copy of the original agreement. But I do recall how I applied for it – by post. The loan offer came in the post as promotional ‘cheque’ drawn out to me, which I had to return to Barclaycard in the post.

When I complained some years after the Default, they re-scheduled the debt with approx. £4,356 interest they charged up-front being taken off the debt. My original loan was £15,000 plus £4,356 interest (£19,356 in total payable in monthly £322 over 5 years). The balance is now approx.. £5,000 and on an AP. 

I started a thread on MSE about this, but I'm not 100% convinced what I was told there is quite right?   I may be wrong and would really value input from the CAG. 

My thread and the replies to it are at https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5973956   If they are right and I have absolutely no leg to stand on with Barclays, its probably best I know it before I even begin taking them on.  I would welcome a second opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The confusion arises with reconstituted version of agreements in that it has two purposes.

1.To comply to a request using section 77/78/79 requests.......then yes they have complied and it will suffice.

2.Do they wish to enforce using the above if ever they issued a claim against you...

When providing a copy of an executed agreement in response to a request under section 78(1) of the Act:

a.     must a creditor provide a photocopy (or other form of complete copy) of the original agreement that was signed by the debtor or at least provide a copy which is derived directly from the original agreement or complete copy thereof? or

b.     can a creditor provide a document which is a reconstitution of the original agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself?

It was held that a creditor can satisfy its duty under section 78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself.

The judge accepted that as a matter of law, section 78 does not itself require any particular explanation as to how the copy was made. However, as a matter of good practice and so as not to mislead the debtor, it is desirable that the creditor should explain that it is providing a reconstituted as opposed to a physical copy of the executed agreement. This will also explain why the copy might otherwise look a little odd. The creditor can also explain in the letter that this procedure is satisfactory under the Act.

The judge also provided that the following information needs to be included in the reconstituted copy agreement (assuming of course that it was present in the original):

1.     Heading: Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

2.     Name and address of the debtor

3.     Name and address of the creditor

4.     Cancellation clause applicable to the executed agreement.

All of the above may be provided on a sheet which is separate from the full statement of terms and conditions which also forms part of the reconstituted agreement. The creditor may, however, decide to reconstitute the agreement in a different way so that, for example, the information above is populated electronically onto the same sheet as that which sets out the terms and conditions, or some of them. The judge stated that he did not intend to prescribe the precise form of the reconstituted agreement. The key point is what information it should contain, subject to the point that its format should not be such as to mislead the debtor as to what he agreed to.

The judge also considered whether a statement like the one appearing in the reconstructed application form in Carey referring to the agreement to the terms and conditions "attached" needs to be included in the reconstituted copy. Alternatively if the application form had said "I agree to the terms overleaf", should that statement be included. The judge held that this aspect of the form is not necessary for the purpose of the section 78 copy, although there is nothing to stop a bank from putting it in or indeed from furnishing a copy of the type of application form or signature page that the debtor would have signed, as some banks have done. The statement referring to terms and conditions is not itself prescribed information and the supply of the terms and conditions which were applicable at the time will tell the debtor what he needs to know in terms of the content of what he signed up to, including the presence (or otherwise) of the prescribed terms.

In practical terms what this is likely to mean is that if the creditor chooses to use as the section 78 copy the section 63 copy, which would have been provided to that particular debtor at the time following execution of the agreement, this will be sufficient provided that the information referred to above is supplied. This exercise is not a mere formality. The creditor will need to check carefully that the details of the debtor at the time are correct and that those are the particular terms (including prescribed terms) that he/she agreed to. This is to ensure that it is an honest and accurate copy.

Must a creditor provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Regulations) as to form, as at the date the agreement was made in order to comply with section 78?

A creditor need not, in complying with section 78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Regulations as to form, as at the date the agreement was made.

Must the copy provided under section 78 include the debtor's name and address as at the date when the agreement was made, and if so in what form?

The section 78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself.

If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, is a copy of the executed agreement as varied, a sufficient copy for the purposes of section 78(1), or must the creditor provide a copy of the original agreement as well?

If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms.

 

Does a creditor's breach of section 78(1) of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A of the Act?

If a creditor is in breach of section 78 this does not of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A.

 

If there is a breach of section 78(1), is that sufficient without more to make a declaration to that effect appropriate, in particular:

a.     where the creditor admits the breach but did not admit it before the issue of proceedings?

b.     where the creditor denies or does not admit the breach?

A court has jurisdiction to declare whether in a particular case there has been a breach of section 78. Whether it will be appropriate to grant such a declaration depends on the circumstances of that case. If there are proceedings on foot and within them the creditor formally admits non-compliance with section 78, there is no point in maintaining the proceedings just to obtain a declaration to that effect.

 

Does the document signed by the debtor contain the prescribed terms for the purposes of section 61 and/or section 127(3) if:

a.     they are on a sheet which is referred to on the piece of paper that was signed by the debtor; or

b.     that sheet is attached to the piece of paper signed by the debtor; or

c.      that sheet is separate from but was supplied with the piece of paper signed by the debtor?

The judge held that in assessing whether prescribed terms are "contained" in an executed agreement the following principles are relevant:

·        it is not sufficient for the piece of paper signed by the debtor merely to cross-refer to the prescribed terms without a copy of those terms being supplied to the debtor at the point of signature

·        a document need not be a single piece of paper

·        whether several pieces of paper constitute one document is a question of substance not form. In particular a physical connection between several pieces of paper is not necessary in order for them to constitute one document

·        a physical connection (or one or more physical connections) between several pieces of paper does not necessarily constitute them as one document

·        where the debtor's signature and the prescribed terms appear on separate pieces of paper, the questions of whether those pieces of paper together constitute one document is a question of substance and not form.

He added that he would not seek to answer the questions in issue 5 in their current state because the scenarios postulated all require some further elaboration before a simple "yes" or "no" answer can be given.

 

If it were not established, at trial, that there was a document signed by the debtor containing the prescribed terms, would that of itself entail an unfair relationship?

The judge held that the answer to the question was no.

 

Andy

 


We could do with some help from you.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

    Donate button something to the Consumer Action Group   

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Reading that, I surmise I'm screwed then? It does seem odd that a bank need not retain copies of a financial contract and have such flexibility in what they can reconstruct.

In my instance, I was hoping that the absence of a cancellation clause applicable to the executed agreement in their recon CCA might, perhaps, have given me some leverage.  However, reading the bank's internal emails (quoted in bold, above) their legal team advise that because no such clause was used in 2003, for that type of loan, they therefore have a legally binding contract.  However, how could I or any consumer for that matter, know if what they are saying is accurate in that regard?

 

Edited by HSBCandMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends.....did you take out and sign for the loan on the Banks Premises ?

You state it does not contain your address  from the time of inception..therefore its unenforceable in Court.


We could do with some help from you.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

    Donate button something to the Consumer Action Group   

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The address on the recon is not the one I was living at when I took out the loan. it was an earlier - and also - later address.

The loan was taken out through the post. I received a mock-up 'cheque' for £15K made out to me in a marketing promotion that came with my Barclaycard statement. It had to be sent back to them.  The contract was posted out and returned. that's all i remember and back then I didn't keep copies of everything.  There was no face to face and no telephone aspect whatsoever.  However, it was back in 2003 ...

However, unenforceable is not irredeemably unenforceable gather, so they could reconstitute another CCA with the address I used at that time, surely?

 

Also, presumably the burden if proof is on me to prove it was taken out through the post?

 

Edited by HSBCandMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pre 2007 they need the original one with all terms/conditions and any changes afterwards.  A recon wont do.

  • Like 1

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, renegadeimp said:

pre 2007 they need the original one with all terms/conditions and any changes afterwards.  A recon wont do.

Wow, hang on, that's kind of a big thing.  I have a letter from the bank's legal team stating the recon CCA is legally enforceable.

Can you point me in the right direction to find the legal basis for the pre-2007 CCA rule?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, is it true that if I stop payments to Barclaycard there is little they can do to enforce, because the debt was formally Defaulted in 2006 and although I have paid them on a DMP these past 16 years, after all this time court action would be unlikely given that more than 6 years having elapsed since the cause of action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HSBCandMe said:

Wow, hang on, that's kind of a big thing.  I have a letter from the bank's legal team stating the recon CCA is legally enforceable.

Can you point me in the right direction to find the legal basis for the pre-2007 CCA rule?  

They still have to supply everything with it. They cant just make some rubbish up and say thats it.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

a recon being enforceable under the consumer credit act does not mean it is necessarily enforcable in a court of law

original creditors don't do court

they'll sell it on to a DCA debt buyer.

being more than 6yrs old makes no odds [[an account, paid or not, paying or not is removed from your credit file when a default reaches its 6th birthday - never to return]

does not mean its not owed mind, a CCJ if attained WILL show for 6yrs


PLEASE DONT USE REPLY WITH QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?




  • Tweets

  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • I was talked into signing up with Future Comms (future-comms.co.uk) who cold-called me to change my mobile contract to them, via 02, rather than EE. I have a small business (only me!) and it's a business contract. True, the 4G network is better for my area. This company seemed to be a marketing set-up for various telecoms companies, so I assumed anything I signed would be with 02 and didn't think it might be a problem.
       
      They sent an email whilst I was on the phone to set up the direct debit mandate with my bank which I signed electronically. That was the first, of many, problems I found. Apparently THAT was my contract, binding me to 3 years and no 'cooling off' period, because I was a 'business' (meaning any consumer rights did not apply). When I subsequently asked in writing for a copy of my contract, that is what they sent - when I argued it was a DD mandate they insisted it was my contract!
       
      2 days later they asked for my phone details to get it unlocked which I sent. 10 days later, EE closed my account, so I changed the SIM card to 02 that had come a few days before. No network! They had done nothing about unlocking it. Fortunately I was lucky with EE who managed to give me the right codes, rather than the usual 10 days to go through Samsung.
       
      By this time I was suspicious of their set-up and wanted to cancel. As I said earlier, I found myself trapped into a 3 year contract with no 14 day cooling off period (they don't offer that). Promises to deal with my complaints never happened, promised return calls neither....and on and on.
       
      Ofcom's rules apply to consumers and small businesses (under 10 employees), yet this shower don't acknowledge that. They just repeat and repeat that I am a business so it doesn't apply. To cancel the contract I have to pay the full 3 year's fees!!
       
      I would like to know if others have had similar experiences? Or does anyone know how I can maybe declare the 'contract' unenforceable? I have never before been locked into something without a clear written contract, with t&c's! And, yes, I have asked, and yes, I have been ignored.
      • 84 replies
    • Future comms!. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415706-future-comms/
      • 10 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...