Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

CCA and time limit


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6210 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

I'm new to the site but have been reading posts on it for a few months. Have started to claim charges back and am also trying to sort out defaults on my credit file.

I'm having trouble with one in particular and could do with some advice if anyone can help. I have a credit card debt which I defaulted on a couple of years ago. Intrum Justitia were dealing with it but when I asked for the CCA I never heard from them again. I then heard from Wescot and the same happened again. I went direct to the card provider Natwest for the agreement and they have sent me the statements but have said that as the account was opened 7 years ago they don't have the agreement and there is no legal obligation to have kept it. They have also threatened to take the outstanding balance from a savings account I have with them.

 

Can they do this and does it make any difference about how old the account is?

 

Any help would be very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi

 

Regarding your second question, yes Nat West can do this, this is called the "right of Set Off." Look here for more information banking: firms' right of 'set off'

 

Now, back to the issue of the original debt, why did you write to the debt collectors and then to the bank for a copy of the credit agreement?

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

A debt is considered Statute Barred if a creditor has not contacted a debtor for a period of 6 years and no action has been taken on the account.

 

Although the debt is still legally acknowledged as being owed, the creditor is not able to take any legal action against the debtor in order to recover the debt.

 

Under the Limitations Act 1980 the time limits are

  • in simple contracts, 6 years
  • in contracts under seal, 12 years.

If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or makes a part payment within the original limitation period, then the time limits start to run again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment.

 

From the original post it would appear that contact has been made at some point during the last six years and therefore any time period under the Limitation Act would have to begin again from that point.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Now, back to the issue of the original debt, why did you write to the debt collectors and then to the bank for a copy of the credit agreement?

 

The Debt collectors passed it on every time I requested it from them so someone suggested I go direct to the bank for a copy.

 

Contact has been made within the last 6 years and sporadic payments made after threats from the collection agencies so the statute barred doesn't count for this.

What I need to know is can they keep harassing me even though they don't have the agreement or can I just write to them and tell them no agreement, no further payments????

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to look at two very long thread in the General forum

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/10900-loan-company-cannot-supply.html

 

You are looking at sections 77 to 79 of the Act and S61 about an enforceable agreement

 

The basic rule here is that if the bank or the DCA do not have a copy of the agreement they cannot enforce the debt. So get your money out of the savings account and start writing to them about their default!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly it is not quite as simple as that. The original agreement is probably already void, in particular if you defaulted on it. That does not mean that the money is no longer owed or that the bank can no longer prove that it is owed.

 

If you make a credit agreement unenforceable by making a CCA request. The agreement ie relating to terms and conditions such as date of payment, interest rate etc is unenforceable but the debt remains. You have had the money and have not given anything in return. Therefore the money is still in law regarded as belonging to the creditor. Without the agreement in place allowing for monthly payments the creditor can request this money at any time. You may be able to negotiate a new payment arrangement.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to disagree with the contents of this thread as it may very well be right. I am no expert. I am only reporting what I have read and researched my self.

 

Bubbles - when you have a look at this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements.html

 

have a look at posts 1173 onwards.

 

My reading of your post is that you have made an application under s77-79 of CCA74 and have been told the agreement is no longer held. If that is the case the debt becomes unenforceable as they cannot supply a copy of an agreement that complies with S61. If they try to take you to court for the debt and you do not acknowledge the debt they would have to prove its existence. They cannot do that without the agreement.

 

If I am wrong in my understanding of your situation can you let us know so that some accurate advice can be given. In the meantime I think you really should get your money out of the savings account and put somewhere else.

 

Incidentally if they do not have the agreement they can no longer prove they have the right to pass your information to any third party. That includes either a DCA or a credit reference agent. They will need to rectify this as well.

 

good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the original agreement has already been terminated, for example because you fail to meet the original contractually agreed payment dates, this amounts to a breach of a major term of the contract which gives the bank the right to end that contract. If it is governed by the CCA the bank must give 7 days notice before terminating the contract.

 

So there is no point in doing a CCA as the original agreement no longer exists. It's pointless trying to render an agreement unenforceable if it doesn't exist and no criminal offence is committed by the bank if they do not supply a copy of the agreement.

 

A debt is a property right referred to in law as a chose in action. Statements are admissible evidence in court to prove transactions going through an account. Therefore they are evidence that a person has received money or purchases under an account. You can dispute these but would need to give a convincing explanation as to why you did not receive such goods or money.

 

Therefore, it is not necessary for a creditor to supply the agreement in order to prove the debt exists or that you, as the borrower have to pay it back.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this right?

 

I have read loads of posts on here but have never come across this.

 

 

Surely if the agreement is terminated then no agreement exists, and surely the creditor forfeits any agreement to process data to 3rd parties i..e CRA's.

 

Can anyone confirm?

GE Money S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 21/11/06. Responded 01/12/06. Prelim sent 05/12/06 £406. Response 12/12/06- **SETTLED IN FULL** (£396)

HSBC S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 05/12/06. NO charges in last 6 years.

Lowell CCA issued 21/11/06. Further reminder sent 8/12/06. Now commited criminal offence no response.

Capital One S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 08/12/06 Responded 03/01/07-Prelim Sent 16/01/07. LBA issued 06/02/07- N1 served 07/03/07- acknowledged 14/03/07.

Scotcall CCA issued 16/01/07. Criminal offence committed.

HFC Prelim sent 16/01/07. LBA sent- Final Correspondance issued with time limit of 29/03/07.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of processing data is not being discussed, this thread was started regarding whether or not a debt is still owed when the original agreement cannot be located.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still wondering if your comment is correct, as I say this is the first time I have seen this written, most other threads seem to suggest that if no credit agreement can be shown, no enforcement of the debt can be made, whether or not the agreement has been defaulted.

 

What information is there to confirm this?

GE Money S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 21/11/06. Responded 01/12/06. Prelim sent 05/12/06 £406. Response 12/12/06- **SETTLED IN FULL** (£396)

HSBC S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 05/12/06. NO charges in last 6 years.

Lowell CCA issued 21/11/06. Further reminder sent 8/12/06. Now commited criminal offence no response.

Capital One S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 08/12/06 Responded 03/01/07-Prelim Sent 16/01/07. LBA issued 06/02/07- N1 served 07/03/07- acknowledged 14/03/07.

Scotcall CCA issued 16/01/07. Criminal offence committed.

HFC Prelim sent 16/01/07. LBA sent- Final Correspondance issued with time limit of 29/03/07.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue of processing data is important. If there is no agreement because it was voided, then the data could not be passed to a third party at all. That's because it can only be passed with the agreement of the individual. This means it could not be passed to either a DCA or to the likes of Experian.

 

In addition what's the basis for saying there was a debt to repay without the agreement. If the debtor said I understood this was a non-returnable gift, how would the lender prove otherwise. I know you would argue there is a statement etc but I am not convinced that shows the debtor agreed to repay the capital, interest or charges.

 

I am not doubting your word, I am just not sure what you are saying is correct. Can you give us some legal backing to your advice. Also what's your background/expertise, are you involved in debt collection and recovery?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If one has made 'A REQUEST UNDER THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974'

for a copy of the original signed executed agreement, enclosing the stautory £1 fee and the creditor fails to supply this document within 12 working days plus one calender month, then the creditor has commited a criminal offence.

 

I am given to understand that the debt is unenforeable until the creditor can provide the copy of the said agreement. This information was provided to me by Trading Standards.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, joneshousehold I believe that is the correct position.

However, in bubbles case the situation may be more complicated due to the rules of limitation - meaning the debt is over 6 years old but when and if, the debt is refreshed by means of a payment then the clock starts to tick again - refreshing the debt.

 

This is a very complex area but I personally find it odd/curious that apparently no credit agreement exists between bubbles & the Creditor.

 

My advice would be...bubbles contact your local TS for advice!

 

Maybe, some other BAG member can provide you some help/advice.

 

Love AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Hagen states is correct.

 

S.77 /78 only apply during the lifetime of an agreement and therefore there is no obligation to supply the agreement. Have a look at the CCA in the statutes template library. You will see that s.77-8 come under part V of the act which only applies to matters arising in the lifetime of an agreement. It is always best to read the actual law itself.

 

If you want to get a default removed you will need to either use s.14 of DPA 1998 if the data is incorrect (eg if it was made up of any bank charges) or s.10 of DPA on the grounds that it is causing you substantial damage and or distress which is unwarranted.

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi zootscoot!

So U R saying that if a Bank or CC Comp. Unilaterally says that U have Defaulted on an account it alleges that U had with them and then processes the Default with a CRA, U have NO right to try to obtain a Copy of the Original Agreement under the CCA?

Even to try to establish such matters as whether or not unlawful PPI debits had been agreed to, which MAY have lead to the alleged account Default in the 1st place?

Surely the Bank or CC Comp. would have to establish that a Default had taken place for it to process that information?

To establish the Default it would have to prove that, in fact, a Contract existed at the time of the Default, between the alleged Defaulter and the Bank/CC Comp.

...Which it could ONLY do by supplying a Copy of the Original Agreement as per the CCA?

Otherwise, how could the Bank or CC Comp. have the right to process Data about the alleged Defaulter?

To say that s77/78 ONLY applies during the lifetime of an agreement gives Banks or CC Comps. a HUGE let off, if THEY rush to end the agreement unilaterally.

Yet still allows them to pursue a potentially unlawful debt?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

both hagenuk and zootscoot are saying here that just because a bank does not have an agreement does not mean they cannot ask for their money back ....

 

so if a DCA will not provide a deed of assignment or the original agreement under a CCA request, then what is the point of that request, especially the wording "I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act creditors are unable to enforce an agreement if they fail to comply with a request for a copy of the said agreement under the relevant sections of the Act."?

 

This seems to throw water on the flames of a lot of claims?

 

Also means DCA's can just tell people to bugger off, we can't supply any documentation but the fact you took the money means you owe it to us.

 

this issue needs clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Hagen states is correct.

 

S.77 /78 only apply during the lifetime of an agreement and therefore there is no obligation to supply the agreement. Have a look at the CCA in the statutes template library. You will see that s.77-8 come under part V of the act which only applies to matters arising in the lifetime of an agreement. It is always best to read the actual law itself.

 

If you want to get a default removed you will need to either use s.14 of Data Protection Act 1998 if the data is incorrect (eg if it was made up of any bank charges) or s.10 of Data Protection Act on the grounds that it is causing you substantial damage and or distress which is unwarranted.

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot

 

If this is the case, why have the CCA request letter in the tmplates library. Most people use this to enquire if DCA's have copies of the agreements. However, the reason most DCA's are chasing accounts is because they have been defaulted. So almost all the threads that have been posted advising how people can get rid of DCA's are incorrect?

 

I have looked through the CCA and cannot find anything to suggest that once an agreement has been defaulted it becomes a terminated agreement.

 

Please can one of you post some information to confirm this?

GE Money S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 21/11/06. Responded 01/12/06. Prelim sent 05/12/06 £406. Response 12/12/06- **SETTLED IN FULL** (£396)

HSBC S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 05/12/06. NO charges in last 6 years.

Lowell CCA issued 21/11/06. Further reminder sent 8/12/06. Now commited criminal offence no response.

Capital One S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 08/12/06 Responded 03/01/07-Prelim Sent 16/01/07. LBA issued 06/02/07- N1 served 07/03/07- acknowledged 14/03/07.

Scotcall CCA issued 16/01/07. Criminal offence committed.

HFC Prelim sent 16/01/07. LBA sent- Final Correspondance issued with time limit of 29/03/07.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator

13th January 2007, 14:45 #1140 (permalink) peterbard vbmenu_register("postmenu_485913", true);

Classic Account Customer

 

avatar47971_2.gif

 

Join Date: Jul 2006

Posts: 295

reputation_pos.gifreputation_pos.gifreputation_pos.gif

 

 

icon1.gif Re: Consumer Credit Act Agreements

Hi

Below is a copy of the letter sent from Ian Mcartney after a arepresentation made by me to my MP, sorry about the delay in posting but I was awaiting my MP OK.

 

It is not complete as ihave removed refernce to certain issues not relavant to this thread. I have underlined some interesting points and have added some comments at the end.

 

dti

 

21 December 2006

 

Re consumer credit act 1974

 

Thank you for your letter of the 7th of December on behalf of your constituent Mr Peter Bardsley of******************* about a possible irregularity in the Consumer Credit act 1974.

 

The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations apply to all the situations that ate listed in the Schedule to the Regulations and this include Sections 77 and 78 of the Act, which are about copies of the executed agreement and not pre contractual information

 

The Cancellation Notices and copies of Documents Regulations are made under Section 180 of the Act ) power to prescribe the ford etc of documents) and Section 180 enables Regulations to be made to provide for including/excluding certain information from copies sent out under the Act. The Regulations apply to all copies sent our under the Act unless specifically excluded in the Regulations themselves.

 

Mr Bardsley describes a situation in which he was sent a copy of a company’s standard Terms and Conditions when requesting a copy of a signed agreement form. Just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement**

 

If Mr Bardsley feels that the rules are being flouted he should report the companies concerned to Trading standards and the Office of Fair Trading. It is also a breach of the Act and the Regulations to send the application form rather that a “true copy” of the Agreement.

On the point that Mr Bardsley makes about unscrupulous companies adjusting agreements, If there were a dispute about an agreement, the lender would need to prove to a court that there was an agreement and, it is highly likely that the lender would have to produce the original signed document to prove they had and agreement with the consumer to start with,

The lender should need to prove to a court that there was and agreement **and, it is highly likely that the lender would have to produce the original signed document to prove they had an agreement with the consumer to start with. If the lender can’t prove the existence of the agreement, winning any court case would prove difficult.

 

 

Approved By the Minister and signed in His presence

 

Pp Ian Mc Cartney

 

 

**This confirms that the burden of proof is on the creditor to provide proof of the existance of an agreement and not on the debtor to prove it's none existance.

 

My response to this letter is posted earlier in this thread.

 

Peter

 

 

 

thanks to PETER on the cca thread

__________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

Lots of people have viewed this Thread since the last post (...incl. numerous Moderators and Site helpers!).

...Yet no-one seems to be able to post a Clarification of the position, that I'm quite certain many Claimants would be interested in knowing?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree tifo & MilkTrayMan and I am not sure we have got to the bottom of this yet.

 

If an agreement is terminated or voided by the default then surely the creditor no longer has the permission of the debtor to process any information about them. How then can the creditor sell the debt if they cannot give the personal information about the debtor?

 

Please don't get me wrong, I am not just arguing here, I really don't understand how this operates. I am wondering if your advice is based on something else. That's why I asked for someone to explain the legal backing for the advice and to give some idea of expertise. I can see a certain logic in the idea that the agreement is terminated on default but that then presents other problems. Those problems suggest the agreement is not actually terminated. Most of the terms and conditions I have seen do not say the agreement is terminated if the debtor defaults. What they actually say is that the creditor has the right to collect all the debt immediately rather than in accordance with the agreement.

 

I have read most of the CCA several times and I know that if the agreement is ended a copy of the agreement cannot be requested. What I am questioning is the rationale for saying the agreement is terminated when a default occurs. Perhaps if this can be clarified it would help me to understand.

 

Anyway I see we have not heard from bubbles again and I fear we may have frightened him/her off. Please come back bubbles!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi joneshousehold!

Anyway I see we have not heard from bubbles again and I fear we may have frightened him/her off. Please come back bubbles!

What concerns me is not that bubbles has gone walkabout (...we ALL have lives other than on CAG apparently!...lol), but the fact that there are TWO distinct viewpoints on the issue.

ONE by zootscoot and hagenuk

...and ONE by all the OTHER posters!

ONE viewpoint is right and ONE is wrong...

The Terminator has provided documentary supporting evidence.

...Where is the rebuttle???

I made the point of numerous views of the Thread in my last post. Yet still NO posts either way by other Moderators or Site Helpers!!!

Do they not have views on this topic???

...Preferably backed up with Case Law examples etc!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...