CCA Agreements (Mark II) PLUS any other topic

[angel49]

Hi,

Not sure how to post a link to my thread in HFC/Household/HSBC forum and would be grateful if anyone could spare a mo to look through.

 

I have a concern re CCA. Both accounts with HFC have been rewritten to accommodate reduced payments and they have provided me with the current agreement only.

 

HFC will have committed an offence on May 3rd. I am currently tring to get back PPI premiums also but to no avail.

 

I'd like to know if there is any arguement if the credit agreements are not produced.

 

Many thanks.

[joneshousehold]

Ian, I think it was because of S85 (yes I know that's the one they all ignore) because that requires them to send a copy of the agreement with the new card and if they send the agreement with the signature then it would be easy enough to be used fraudulently if intercepted through the post.

 

I have generally moved these sorts of situations on with a comment that whilst they may have fulfilled S77-79 on this point it has highlighted to me that they may be trying to use an unexecuted agreement which is unenforceable. I ask for a copy with the signatures and failing that I shall consider the agreement unenforceable. If it goes to court they would have to produce the signed version and so I stick to the line that this is in dispute and they cannot do anything until court orders the agreement is enforceable. The court would be very unhappy if the creditor refused to give such a copy to me but turned up with it at court so they might just as well send me a copy now. Stress it's not a S77-79 request now but a legitmate question on the validity of the documentation they hold

Mind you so far I have only been told they are not prepared to talk to me anymore and I consider that's a case of the toys are now out of the pram!

[davefirewalker]

Hi Jones

 

thanks for the help.....one point raised elsewhere is that it doesnt have or make any reference to an interest rate (although the apr is there)

 

The T&C supplied are the same as my original copy and are pretty comprehensive. they include defaults, early settlement, charges for breach, etc. They are printed on the reverse of the agreement so could be construed as part of the same doc.

 

will give them another reading

 

rgds

Dave

[InKogneeToh]

Ian, I think it was because of S85 (yes I know that's the one they all ignore) because that requires them to send a copy of the agreement with the new card and if they send the agreement with the signature then it would be easy enough to be used fraudulently if intercepted through the post.

 

 

Hi all

 

It's the CCA s85 'Devils' Advocate' here again!

 

I am still not convinced on the current interpretation of the requirements and consequences of s85.

 

Here's my latest thoughts on the subject:

 

1) The copies and docs. regs. permit the omission of signatures/name/address from any 'copy' agreement.

 

2) Assuming it is a 'copy' of the original agreement document that is required under s85 then the creditor is only legally obliged to send out the body of the agreement, which (significantly) in the case of most credit card agreements will in fact be a universal/generic template of the exact same agreement sent to every other customer, from any particular provider at any given time.

 

3) This is because the body of most credit card agreements are not 'individual specific' - they normally have credit limits expressed as 'to be determined', a range of interest rates depending on status, or one based on assumptions (both permitted), and repayments expressed as a percentage of the balance or a standard minimum monthly payment. So all the prescribed terms (and all other terms/statements) are generally universally expressed.

 

4) The copies and docs. regs. state that for s85 copies, the agreement must 'comprise' a legible copy of the CURRENT terms and conditions. It is likely at this point that the interest rate (after initial establishment) has been changed and the credit limit will be an individual one, so the latest T&Cs will be 'individual specific'.

 

5) Since the word 'comprise' means 'include' or 'made up of' then the 'copy' of the original agreement (if it is the original document that is required) must now include in it the latest T&Cs. So how can this still be an exact replica of the document that was signed?

 

6) As the current T&Cs are now required to be in the 'copy' for s85 purposes, what is the point of also having the original ones on the document as well, especially as the original ones are usually generic anyway?!

 

7) All statements in these regs (except this and one other) that explain what type of 'copy' is required use the words 'include' or 'contain'. There are therefore only 2 provisions in the whole of these regs. where the word 'comprise' has been used instead, including the one relating to s85.

 

8) I have read somewhere (will have to find) that the drafts-men of the Act and associated regs. were very particular in their choice of language/terms used in order to convey the precise meaning of a section/requirement.

 

So, the 6 million dollar question is: why have they chosen to use the word 'comprise' for the s85 requirement' if 'include' is what they actually meant?!?

 

Answers on a postcard please!

 

P.S - I have my body armour back on!! :o:D

 

Regards, Pam

 

 

 

[ian1969uk]

I see your point Pam, and will give it some thought, but surely if it was that easy for them, this same logic would apply to S77/78 requests as well, and they would not be required to provide a copy of the original executed agreement.

 

However, one thing is sure imo. Where the agreement has never been executed due to a lack of signatures, or if it doesn't contain all of the prescribed terms, then there is no way that a creditor could possibly have complied with Section 85, is there?

[Cornucopia]

Hello people, sorry for being a bore, can I just run this by you :

 

Had a "true copy of my executed agreement" from Goldfish. Account opened circa 1992 when I lived at home and wasn't married.

 

This agreement has my current address on it. Is dated 17 April 2007. As I have been through this before with somebody else:rolleyes: I can assume same applies, that the agreement should have my name, date and address in 1992.

 

It comprises :

 

Wording of CCA 1974. Then T&C's :

 

Key financial info : credit limit, payments, APR (which is current as of today's date!).

 

Total charge for credit.

 

Allocation of payments.

 

On reverse :

 

Variable rates.

Charges

Missing Payments.

Important - read this carefully about yoru rights.

 

Theft loss and misuse of card.

 

Your right to cancel.

 

Cancellation form (complete and return only if you wish to cancel).

 

No signature boxes, therefore no signatures and no credit limit.

 

Lastly, it says "this is a copy of your Agreement for you to keep. It includes a notice about your cancellation rights which you should read".

 

Can anybody confirm I am dealing with another Frankensteiner? Pam & Ian, you will know this (I think I do but just want confirmation!)

 

Thanks,

 

Regards,

 

Corn x:)

[ian1969uk]

Corn, if it doesn't have your address details on that were correct at the time of opening the account, how can it be a copy of your original agreement?

 

Sounds like another case of a lender cobbling together an agreement to send, which would be highly illegal imo.

[angel49]

bump....anyone please

[Peterbard]

HI

Been out of the loop on this thread but any way the key information wouldn't i think be on an agreement from 1992 so it is i would say unlikely to be a true copy of the orriginal.

I am a bit confused as you say there is a credit limit and then at the end you say there isn't,there of course has to be in order to be properly executed as it is aprescribed term.

I do not know what you mean by the term "frankenstiener".

Personally i think that Clique terminolligy is counter productive in a forum that is intended to help people who may not be contributing but are nevertherless looking for simple guidance.

Perhaps it is just me with my grumpy head on

 

Regards

Peter

[InKogneeToh]

I see your point Pam, and will give it some thought, but surely if it was that easy for them, this same logic would apply to S77/78 requests as well, and they would not be required to provide a copy of the original executed agreement.

 

However, one thing is sure imo. Where the agreement has never been executed due to a lack of signatures, or if it doesn't contain all of the prescribed terms, then there is no way that a creditor could possibly have complied with Section 85, is there?

 

Hi

 

For a s77/78 they are required to supply a 'true' copy of the agreement but the fact is that for many credit card agreements, where the signatures/name etc are omitted, all that is left of the 'original executed agreement' is a generic document - and by sending this they are complying, IMO.

 

Also, if my interpretation is correct then they will be complying with s85 by sending a document containing all of the current T&Cs, irrespective of whether or not the original agreement was 'properly' executed.

 

Of course, if the original doc. is unenforceable then a complaint s85 'copy' isn't going to help them in any way and won't make the original agreement compliant in retrospect. Plus the effect of non-compliance with s85, whatever is actually required, is that they are not entitled to enforce, so the result is the same.

 

Regards, Pam

[Cornucopia]

HI

Been out of the loop on this thread but any way the key information wouldn't i think be on an agreement from 1992 so it is i would say unlikely to be a true copy of the orriginal.

I am a bit confused as you say there is a credit limit and then at the end you say there isn't,there of course has to be in order to be properly executed as it is aprescribed term.

I do not know what you mean by the term "frankenstiener".

Personally i think that Clique terminolligy is counter productive in a forum that is intended to help people who may not be contributing but are nevertherless looking for simple guidance.

Perhaps it is just me with my grumpy head on

 

Regards

Peter

 

 

 

Thank you Ian for your response - I agree!

 

Peter,

 

Apologies for the frankensteiner term, it has become the term we have used to explain cobbled together agreements. I am sorry if this caused offence, non was intended you GRUMPY so and so!

 

Also, I did not say there was a credit limit, there are details of apr's but the credit limit is missing and it was very low in 1992. What I meant to say is the wording under the term "credit limit", it says we will set a credit limit and tell you what it is before we send you your card. We may change it blah blah. I realise they are allowed to put this.

 

However, it still doesn't explain how it is dated 17 April 2007 and has my current address on it. I have moved 4 times since!!

 

Also, whilst I realise they are allowed to omit signatures, there is no room for this in any event for either me or them to have signed. There are no signature boxes at all.

 

Regards,

 

Corn:)

[davefirewalker]

Hi,

Not sure how to post a link to my thread in HFC/Household/HSBC forum and would be grateful if anyone could spare a mo to look through.

 

I have a concern re CCA. Both accounts with HFC have been rewritten to accommodate reduced payments and they have provided me with the current agreement only.

 

HFC will have committed an offence on May 3rd. I am currently tring to get back PPI premiums also but to no avail.

 

I'd like to know if there is any arguement if the credit agreements are not produced.

 

Many thanks.

 

right click on the post number (top right) and copy

 

paste to new edited page

 

If you have taken out a new loan or or had one re written you may have lost your chance to claim. the current agreement is the one they will be concerned with.

 

you may still have a case if the ppi was misold in the first place, but getting proof will be hard. you may have to sar them for any and all data held including old agreements. but if they dont have the old agreement (likely) then there is no way to prove it. An SAR may show something......

 

sorry cant help much

 

rgds

 

Dave

[physicsgraduate]

Hi

 

But if each new agreement is a 'top up' of the previous one (where the balance from the earlier one gets transferred to the new one) then each previous agreement becomes settled as the next one is entered into.

 

If this is the case then there is no debt outstanding from the 1990 agreement itself - it is the balance left on the last agreement that is repayable.

 

I'll check that and get back to you.

[davefirewalker]

Just tried entering my details into the free checker provided at

 

https://www.financialagreementsolutions.co.uk/usr/basicchecker.aspx

 

The only thing that keeps coming back is no interest rate shown

 

I dont think that this is a "prescribed term" but is it enough to make it unenforceable?

 

60 Form and content of agreements

 

(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of—

 

(a) the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement,

 

 

(b) the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement),

 

 

© the protection and remedies available to him under this Act, and

 

(d) any other matters which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is desirable for him to know about in connection with the agreement.

 

 

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular—

 

(a) require specified information to be included in the prescribed manner in documents, and other specified material to be excluded;

 

(b) contain requirements to ensure that specified information is clearly brought to the attention of the debtor or hirer, and that one part of a document is not given insufficient or excessive prominence compared with another.

 

 

Dave

[robert_harper_2000]

How come the website can produce reports, could someone perhaps work on one for us?

 

Probably already mentioned ( A LOT ) lol

But if these contracts contain unlawful charges doesn't that make them void.

Could we use misrepresentation as a way or argument?

 

Oh and my OD never mention interest rate etc so guess could fire off a CCA request/

[davefirewalker]

How come the website can produce reports, could someone perhaps work on one for us?

 

eh.......?

 

run that by me again...Ive had most of a bottle of shiraz and i'm not quite thinking straight

 

please explain

 

Dave

[robert_harper_2000]

The previous post to mine recommended a website where you entered in the details of your agreement and it will say if it is worth fighting it or not.

 

Would be handy to rule out the myth if we could produce something similar

[davefirewalker]

oh I see......

 

something along the lines of

 

https://www.financialagreementsolutions.co.uk/usr/basicchecker.aspx

 

Now then that WOULD be a good idea

 

well thought out

 

Dave

[robert_harper_2000]

Well would be handy as I was advised the agreement was probably right and I thought ... well OK... but that website suggested the agreement wasn't qutie perfect!

 

Argh a legal mindfield! Still a new thing I guess

[davefirewalker]

mind you we have a ready made site.......

 

why reinvent the wheel

 

use that website to check and this site to discuss / claim

 

Dave

[robert_harper_2000]

good point lol I'll use the manual £30

[davefirewalker]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

dont pay........

 

just get it checked

 

if anything turns up discuss it here

 

 

Dave

[Perseus]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

dont pay........

 

just get it checked

 

if anything turns up discuss it here

 

 

Dave

 

Just gone through it with all details received by Crap1.

Although it does give some initial findings, and the sample report looks as if it will ellaborate(?) with sections paras and schedule quotes, the initial report gives very lmited info.

If you have £30, and no other way of confirming the details for yourself - I would imagine it's a good service.

As I say, no fee - no see!

 

Bloody good idea tho!

 

P

[Peterbard]

Thank you Ian for your response - I agree!

 

Peter,

 

Apologies for the frankensteiner term, it has become the term we have used to explain cobbled together agreements. I am sorry if this caused offence, non was intended you GRUMPY so and so!

 

Also, I did not say there was a credit limit, there are details of apr's but the credit limit is missing and it was very low in 1992. What I meant to say is the wording under the term "credit limit", it says we will set a credit limit and tell you what it is before we send you your card. We may change it blah blah. I realise they are allowed to put this.

 

However, it still doesn't explain how it is dated 17 April 2007 and has my current address on it. I have moved 4 times since!!

 

Also, whilst I realise they are allowed to omit signatures, there is no room for this in any event for either me or them to have signed. There are no signature boxes at all.

 

Regards,

 

Corn:)

 

Hi Sorry for the grumpy old man impression, I had just been trying to decipher the Hansard on the bailiff thread, and had, had it up to here with looking up terms and references so i could find out wht peope where on about. By the way did you know that the new bailiff law stil enables bailliffs to take pets against a debt despite several attempts to get that particular attrocity amended,sorry off thread.

 

Yes i am afraid they are allowed to leave off signature boxes on "copy" docs,i will double check this but i am fairly sure it is the case.

 

Your best argument imo is that it cannot be a true copy because it is in the wrong format for the time you signed also it would be an idea to check the arithmatic i have found that they are invariably sloppy in calculating repayment tc and tcc charges.

A i am sure Pam has already advised you i would send them a letter asking tor a true copy of the orriginal agreement and remind them that they would not be able to enforce the debt without producng a true signed copy in court.

Regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Just tried entering my details into the free checker provided at

 

https://www.financialagreementsolutions.co.uk/usr/basicchecker.aspx

 

The only thing that keeps coming back is no interest rate shown

 

I dont think that this is a "prescribed term" but is it enough to make it unenforceable?

 

60 Form and content of agreements

 

(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of—

 

(a) the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement,

 

 

(b) the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement),

 

 

© the protection and remedies available to him under this Act, and

 

(d) any other matters which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is desirable for him to know about in connection with the agreement.

 

 

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular—

 

(a) require specified information to be included in the prescribed manner in documents, and other specified material to be excluded;

 

(b) contain requirements to ensure that specified information is clearly brought to the attention of the debtor or hirer, and that one part of a document is not given insufficient or excessive prominence compared with another.

 

 

Dave

Hi Just helpping pam out

 

prescribed terms (schedule six 1983 regs) these were not ammended by the 2004 ammendments

 

• amount of credit • credit limit • rate of interest • repayments Regards

Peter