Zubo v Egg

[Dave777]

This is useful information that I have been perusing myself. I cannot, however, find a single piece of legislation anywhere that says a creditor failing to comply with a request made under sections 77-79 can be imprisoned for non-compliance.

[zubo]

This is useful information that I have been perusing myself. I cannot, however, find a single piece of legislation anywhere that says a creditor failing to comply with a request made under sections 77-79 can be imprisoned for non-compliance.

 

CCA S78.1

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within

the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor

and payment of a fee of 15 new pence , 1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed

agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement

signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it

is practicable for him to refer,

 

CCA 78.6

If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)--

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

 

CCA 167 - Penalties

 

167.--(1) An offence under a provision of this Act specified in column 1 of Schedule

1 is triable in the mode or modes indicated in column 3, and on conviction is punishable

as indicated in column 4 (where a period of time indicates the maximum term of

imprisonment, and a monetary amount indicates the maximum fine, for the offence in

question).

(2) A person who contravenes any regulations made under section 44, 52, 53, or 112,

or made under section 26 by virtue of section 54, commits an offence.

 

Now cross reference BAs Wiki link for details.

 

Now do you see?

 

Z

[Dave777]

All I see in Schedule 1 of the CCA, where it says that the penalty is summarily, a maximum of £2500 (level4) on the standard scale. There is no mention of imprisonment for non-compliance of a request(77-79).

With all respect, Wikipedia entries can be made by anyone such as you or I, in the same way we post on this forum.

 

This may seem clear to you, but it doesn't seem clear to me at all. There is no legislation to say that the penalty for non-compliance may result in imprisonment. If you can find me a source except from Wikipedia, I would be very grateful.

 

Many Thanks.

[zubo]

All I see in Schedule 1 of the CCA, where it says that the penalty is summarily, a maximum of £2500 (level4) on the standard scale. There is no mention of imprisonment for non-compliance of a request(77-79).

With all respect, Wikipedia entries can be made by anyone such as you or I, in the same way we post on this forum.

 

This may seem clear to you, but it doesn't seem clear to me at all. There is no legislation to say that the penalty for non-compliance may result in imprisonment. If you can find me a source except from Wikipedia, I would be very grateful.

 

Many Thanks.

 

Not ideal but best I can do

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-261.html#post696335

 

 

#5206

 

Maybe you would like to pm Paul??

 

Z

[Dave777]

Thank you Zubo for making them checks.

 

I have noted that you have asked another cagger (paul) with regards to the 'imprisonment'.

 

I will ask him myself personally.

 

Many Thanks

[Mistermind]

Slightly to my surprise, yes Zubo is right, porridge is on the cards. I did an Advanced Search on "imprisonment" and it returned too many threads to read, so I narrowed it down to poster "Bankfodder" and it returned a more manageable 2, including the onelink pasted below.

 

Not only RBS, but Barclaycard also has been notorious with noncompliance. The prospect of porridge ought to concentrate their minds.

 

Anyone with time could do worse than a quick skim-read of all threads started by Bankfodder. So much stunning info below the surface. Trouble is, there must be over a million postings in CAG forum by now, you need 4 weeks just to read through them once.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/48237-non-disclosure-imprisonment-threat.html?highlight=imprisonment

[Dave777]

Slightly to my surprise, yes Zubo is right, porridge is on the cards. I did an Advanced Search on "imprisonment" and it returned too many threads to read, so I narrowed it down to poster "Bankfodder" and it returned a more manageable 2, including the onelink pasted below.

 

Not only RBS, but Barclaycard also has been notorious with noncompliance. The prospect of porridge ought to concentrate their minds.

 

Anyone with time could do worse than a quick skim-read of all threads started by Bankfodder. So much stunning info below the surface. Trouble is, there must be over a million postings in CAG forum by now, you need 4 weeks just to read through them once.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/48237-non-disclosure-imprisonment-threat.html?highlight=imprisonment

 

I think you may be slightly confused Mistermind; this link is in relation to non-compliance with the Data Protection Act, not the Consumer Credit Act.

[angry cat]

Sorry to hijack your thread zubo!

However, I am reliably informed by my TS Fair Trading Officer that the penalty is £2,500 and/or up to 6 months in prison

 

Love AC

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/10900-loan-company-cannot-supply-68.html?highlight=angry+cat#post515330

[Mistermind]

Hooray, porridge for Shylock.

[zubo]

Sorry to hijack your thread zubo!

However, I am reliably informed by my TS Fair Trading Officer that the penalty is £2,500 and/or up to 6 months in prison

 

Love AC

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/10900-loan-company-cannot-supply-68.html?highlight=angry+cat#post515330

 

 

 

AC

 

Nice of you to pop in, you just sit there and I'll pour you a glass - red or white???

 

We have been having a little debate with Dave on the main CCA thread. He actually wants the reference as to where it says imprisonment. So it would be really really nice if you TS Officer could research that little gem and let us know....

 

In the meantime, can I tempt you with another glass...

 

Z

[Dave777]

I have provided my own examples and interpretations as requested by you in the main CCA thread. I would welcome your views.

[ian1969uk]

Hi Zubo, it would seem that we can't use the lack of a cancellation statement in this case as these Egg agreements would, strictly speaking, come under non-cancellable agreements. Therefore, this doesn't need to be there.

 

We still have valid issues with the form of the agreements and the lack of a description of default charges though.

[zubo]

Hi Zubo, it would seem that we can't use the lack of a cancellation statement in this case as these Egg agreements would, strictly speaking, come under non-cancellable agreements. Therefore, this doesn't need to be there.

 

We still have valid issues with the form of the agreements and the lack of a description of default charges though.

 

ian,

 

not so - all credit card agreements ARE cancellable agreements.

Who told you otherwise?

 

Z

[ian1969uk]

OFT guidance on non-cancellable agreements:

 

Non-cancellable agreements

A regulated agreement can be either cancellable or non-cancellable. Both types are

subject to rules as to content, form and copies. Cancellable agreements are those where

the trader (who, in this case, may be the creditor, the credit broker or the supplier)

discusses the credit arrangements (and/or goods) in the customer’s presence and the

customer signs the agreement off trade premises (see the booklet Cancellable

agreements). If these conditions are not met, the agreement is non-cancellable.

These Egg agreements are not discussed in the customer's presence. They are done over the phone/internet and therefore are classed as non-cancellable agreements.

[Dave777]

OFT guidance on non-cancellable agreements:

 

[/color][/size][/font]

 

These Egg agreements are not discussed in the customer's presence. They are done over the phone/internet and therefore are classed as non-cancellable agreements.

 

The agreements that your refer are not executed agreements as defined in Section 61 of the CCA. I would have then thought that by sending a request for a copy of your agreement (77/78), and then waiting a while, the debt would be unenforceable anyway.

[ian1969uk]

The agreements that your refer are not executed agreements as defined in Section 61 of the CCA. I would have then thought that by sending a request for a copy of your agreement (77/78), and then waiting a while, the debt would be unenforceable anyway.

 

Can you elaborate as to why you feel they are not executed agreements?

[Dave777]

I only caught you post regarding phone/internet discussion, and thought that this was what was purported to be an executed agreement.

 

After reading page 1 of this thread it seems that you have been sent a signed copy. I apologise for my prior comments, they are the ramblings of a mad baboon.

[zubo]

Had a response from Egg.

'What my findings are':

The credit agreement would not detail information in conjunction with defaults. This information is explained in your Egg Card Terms & Conditions that are available via Eggs website at New Egg Home and this is mentioned in your credit agreement.

So two points - (a) looks like egg NEVER supply any T&C (see comments later) relying on their online T&C and (b) they cannot provide your original T&C - what does the CCA say - agreement and any other document.

 

Interesting: I just re-read the agreement and it does say -'and that you have read and accept the Egg Card Credit Agreement Conditions, a copy of which is enclosed especially conditions 1.2 and 16 (Personal Information). This sets out how we will use the information we obtain about you including information about the type of payments you make with your card.

 

So where are my T&Cs sent when I joined and can they prove they were the originals?

 

We do not have to provide you with proof that Mr Az Alibhai worked for Egg or was authorised to sign the credit agreement

 

61.(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless--

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms

and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed

manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or

owner, and

So how do I know he worked for you when I entered into the agreement and was authorized by you. He is after all only a product manager OR is he a computer name?

 

I do not feel that Mr Az Alihbai (dontcha think that sounds like alibi) signed the agreement in a non-subscribed manner. It looks to me like a computer image - and I did not say subscribed - it was prescribed - anyone able to find exactly what the signature should be?

 

Final footnote - had a phone call chasing payment, I declined my personal details. The lady then said, please call us I declined, she then said use the online service - there is a message - I said - no I want all communications in writing. She said - no - we are an online company you signed up so that all comms would be online.... mmm dont think so.

 

Z

[joneshousehold]

I can see two areas that need some action here.

Firstly according to the OFT guidelines the default charges must be included on the signature doument. Without it the agreement is unenforceable without an order from the court.

Secondly the T&Cs. If these were sent to you at the time you signed the agreement then a copy should be sent to you now to fully comply with any S78 request. This is caught by the phrase 'and any other document referred to'. The agreement implies the T&Cs were sent with the agreement although you seem to suggest they weren't. If they weren't then I would suggest you had a lot of other things missing from the agreement when you signed. In addition presumably the current T&Cs online are now changed from when you signed your agreement so they need to send a paper copy of the relevant T&Cs to fully comply with S78. If they were sent at the time then there is still a default position because they haven't sent you a copy in response to your S78 request yet.

[zubo]

Thanks Jones, having ploughed through the last 4 pages of the main thread I think you are absolutely right.

The defaults MUST be in the agreement - they are not (they were in Pam's agreement) so somewhere they screwed up.

 

So it looks like YAMS!!

 

In the meantime I also got my SAR, so LBA here I come..... not much £80ish but that is mine....

 

Z

[joneshousehold]

Be careful here Z, are you not accepting there is a valid agreement if you claim the charges back? Would it be better to do that if the agreement is proved to be enforcable?

[ian1969uk]

Whatever Egg say, those OFT guidelines are very specific about the things that actually should be in the signature agreement. The default charges should be there, but aren't. They have since levied many of these charges on me, and this is a clause of the agreement that I never agreed to because it wasn't on the document I signed.

 

They will try to tell us that it isn't so, but I will just keep linking them to the OFT document and asking why they feel they can act outside of the Act.

 

I also have another stick to beat them with in terms of my Egg Money card, for which all they have is an application form with none of the prescribed terms and not even signed by them.

 

Looks like some interesting negotiations ahead.

[zubo]

Ian isnt yours headed up agreement??

 

Z

[zubo]

Be careful here Z, are you not accepting there is a valid agreement if you claim the charges back? Would it be better to do that if the agreement is proved to be enforcable?

 

Well from what Pam suggests, there IS an agreement - albeit unenforceable.

However I have been thinking that since there was no properly executed agreement then they were in default from the outset, so ALL their charges, interest, penalties should be repaid incl appropriate interest on those charges. They are not allowed to enrich themselves whilst in default.

 

Comments?

 

Z

[angry cat]

Hi zubo

 

the default charges are not shown in my egg agreement either.

 

My agreement is dated 11/05/2001, it has a different computer image signature:-

A J Hibbert credit card manager

 

AC