Pudsters14 vs MBNA

[Peterbard]

Hi

Yes the agreement is based on the earlier 1983 regs the curent one wil lhave the extra sections in it due to the 1482 ammendments, It may also be a distance agreement which means it will have additional section one info in the key information I notice that there is a sig in the creditors box marked reps name so presumablythis wasn't a distance agement.

 

 

Regards

Peter?

[Peterbard]

HI Ompletely dissagree with Pam

Nothing unusual ther then

This is an agreement

Is it enforceable Yes as long has it has been signed

all the prescribed erms are ther although not in the right place,unfortunatlythe positioning of these is not a prescribed term.

You could say it was enforceable by court order only.

The only possibillity of making it unenforceable is the cancellation rightes diid you recieve ae after the agreement was executed if not you could go for unenforceability under section127(4).

IMO

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

HI

Yes the regulations do state that the terms have to be together in one block.

However the possitioning of the prescribed terms is not in itself a prescribed term, and cannot therfor be used under 127 to make it unenforceable.

 

REgards

petr

 

Regards

Petr

[Peterbard]

Hiya Peter, i'm not disagreeing with you but trying to get my head around it all.

 

If the prescribed terms are not in the signature doc, don't they have to print a statement in the financial & related particulars to draw your attention to the prescribed terms? that is how i understood it and have been advised before. The terms and conditions on the back are purely that, terms and conditions... surely the prescribed terms have to be included in the application or 'agreement' itself... they are not meant to spread them into the other T+Cs coz isn't that confusing/unfair? It kind of defeats the object of having prescribed terms coz they could print an essay and expect you to have read all of it?!?

 

Also as you stated b4, if it is only enforcable with a court order because it is improperly executed... what does that mean for me?

 

As i said peter i'm not trying to disagree and am literally bouncing ideas off you because im not really sure who else to ask...

 

Thanx for all ur advice and comms it is much appreciated...

 

Pudsters14

x x x x x x

HI

Don't worry about dissagreeing i could be wrong and if nobody pointed it out i would carry on in a fools parridise.We are all friends here.

 

The prescribed terms are placed at various points in the agreement and have their own heading (usually like payments or credit limit.etc)

They should however be in one block and on the same page of the signature block. In post 2004 agreements they should be contained within the Key finantial information block.

Any other information about t and cs can be refered to in the text.

Yes the Prescribed terms do have to be with the signature doc and should be in the same block as the signature. The regs just say

"section 61(1)(a) of the Act, containing all the prescribed terms of the regulated agreement,

and of the information contained in that document for the purpose of conforming to these

Regulations shall—

(a) apart from any signature, be easily legible and, where applicable, be of a colour

which is readily distinguishable from the background medium upon which the

information is displayed; and

(b) apart from that inserted in handwriting, be of equal prominence, except that

headings, trade names and names of parties to the agreement may be afforded more.

 

The actual placing of the individual terms set in Scedule 1 of the regulations.

 

Not sure whether that answers your question or not.

In short the prescribed terms should be readilly legible and contained within the same document you sign, reference to another document that is with the agreement would be aginst the form requirements of the cca but would IMO not render it unenforceable, reference to anther form that is not with the agreement would render it unenforceable.Clear as mud

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

Hi

Unfortunately the APR is not a prescribed term on this kind of aagreement. It is required and could be used to challenge the agreement in that there was insufficiant information pre-contracually ,but this at best would just enable the judje to modify the contract under 127 . In reality this approach has rarely been successful.

RE the cancellation details, i am sure they will say have been sent with the card and it is very difficult to prove otherwise,unfortunately the court will rule on the ballance of probabilities and again from experiance they invariably come down on the side of the creitor unles you have a cast iron case.

Sorry to be such a wet blanket

Best regards

Petr

Edited May 20, 2008 by Dodgeball
spelling still rubbish