Guidelines - Requests For An Original Agreement Under The Consumer Credit Act 1974

[stapeley]

hi everyone , just recieved a reply to my letter to the DCA about a SKY CARD application form . Sorry i cann,t post it i,m really hopeless on a pc . But i will give jist of reply letter.

 

It says ," we have sought legal advice, and it has been confirmed that the documentation is a true copy of your agreement .It is enforceable as SKYcard have stamped the copy of the agreement which is legally sufficient. It also clearly states that the documantation is a credit card agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974."

 

Firstly, Surely a stamp is not a signature !

Second, The form has at the top in big capitals SKYCARD APPLICATION FORM . under that in much smaller letter it says ,credit card agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974.

Thirdly , further into the form ,and under the box for customers signature

the DCA have highlighted , By signing above ,you authorise us, when considering your application, to telephone you etc

So it states " when considering your application "

 

Any comments most welcomed .

[stapeley]

I ,ve sent a copy of the form to CCCS , not sure if they will be much help .

[car2403]

hi everyone , just recieved a reply to my letter to the DCA about a SKY CARD application form . Sorry i cann,t post it i,m really hopeless on a pc . But i will give jist of reply letter.

 

It says ," we have sought legal advice, and it has been confirmed that the documentation is a true copy of your agreement .It is enforceable as SKYcard have stamped the copy of the agreement which is legally sufficient. It also clearly states that the documantation is a credit card agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974."

 

Firstly, Surely a stamp is not a signature !

Second, The form has at the top in big capitals SKYCARD APPLICATION FORM . under that in much smaller letter it says ,credit card agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974.

Thirdly , further into the form ,and under the box for customers signature

the DCA have highlighted , By signing above ,you authorise us, when considering your application, to telephone you etc

So it states " when considering your application "

 

Any comments most welcomed .

 

They can seek whatever advice they want - if they don't have a signed agreement containing prescribed terms, they can't enforce the debt against you.

 

A stamp probably would suffice as a signature - remember, that the "legal" definition of "signature" is different to our understanding of it. (A legal signature is a undertaking to perform some act - a signature can be verbal, in practise)

 

Best off starting your own thread on this one, stapeley.

 

I ,ve sent a copy of the form to CCCS , not sure if they will be much help .

 

No - they will tell you to pay it because you owe it, regardless of its enforceability or otherwise, sadly.

[JonCris]

Yup CCCS will cite the 'moral' argument:rolleyes:

[car2403]

Yup CCCS will cite the 'moral' argument:rolleyes:

 

I don't disagree with you, JC, but this isn't a moral argument - it's a "self preservation" argument! CCCS are "paid" by creditors to manage debt - if there is no debt, (read = "enforceable debt") there is no "payment" from creditors to keep 'em going.

 

Having a charity that is capable of Debt Management without charging debtors is clearly in the interests of the financial industry as a whole. Having that charity promote non-payment on an "unenforceable debt" is counter to those interest, hence their view.

 

It's highly commendable that they see it as being a duty to pay debts owed legitimately - one I tend to share, in most cases - but to further people's misery unneccessarily because of an "office view" like this is dispicable in my book.

 

(Disclaimer: This is my opinion which is given without prejudice and does not reflect that of CAG)

 

[JonCris]

car the smiley I attached to my post is the sarcastic one.

 

Doesn't that tell you something about my views on the 'moral' argument

[moggieb]

Have read somewhere that CCCS do not get involved in cases where the debtor is challenging the creditor.

[stapeley]

Just sent 2 1/2 hours going through the OFT guide lines ! Still no wiser ! Is there any point sending them a copy ?

[car2403]

Just sent 2 1/2 hours going through the OFT guide lines ! Still no wiser ! Is there any point sending them a copy ?

 

Not really, just say they are in breach by continuing and should know why they are in breach - it's not for you to tell them how to manage their business, after all;

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/oft298.pdf

[roast beef]

all I read is what a judge may or may not do. Has anyone actually been to court to test the 1974 act with relation to signed areements or any other technical points that may be omitted on the agreement?

[JonCris]

all I read is what a judge may or may not do. Has anyone actually been to court to test the 1974 act with relation to signed areements or any other technical points that may be omitted on the agreement?

 

Yes as in Wilson v First County Trust - which you will find referred to all over this & other similar sites

[roast beef]

Ok thanks. It's clear that unless the agreement is signed by the creditor it is NOT a properly executed agreement. Does this mean that the agreement could still be enforced by a court order though? Or is it case dismissed? Other threads I've read seem to indicate a judge would be unlikely to dismiss the case on grounds of no creditors signature.

[car2403]

Ok thanks. It's clear that unless the agreement is signed by the creditor it is NOT a properly executed agreement. Does this mean that the agreement could still be enforced by a court order though? Or is it case dismissed? Other threads I've read seem to indicate a judge would be unlikely to dismiss the case on grounds of no creditors signature.

 

A missing creditors signature would make the agreement improperly executed, not irrevocably unenforceable, IMO.

 

The reason I think that is that the legal definition of a signature is an undertaking to perform some task, usually in return for a benefit in an agreement like this, and not a "scrawl" of someone's name - it's clear there was an agreement between a debtor/creditor when the creditor advances the benefit under the agreement, therefore, if the agreement isn't signed by them, it's improperly executed under the Act. However, a Court would take a hollistic view of the agreement, probably determine that there was an agreement because the debtor signed it and the creditor advanced the benefit under the agreement, so should be able to recover their part of the bargain. Also, as this legal definition of signature is so wide ranging, the Court may decide that something as simple as a Company Logo is sufficient to identify them as being the creditor under the agreement - while that makes the agreement improperly executed, it would be unjust to NOT grant a Court Order to allow enforcement, IMHO.

 

Having said that, check this out; (post #247)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/103383-agreement-enforceability-13.html#post1307327

[homespun]

very interesting thread.

would someone please clear this up for me.

i have a charge already against my home.

nasty pests solicitors told me after i had sent the standard letter to them,they have acted under the ccj guidelines and do not have to produce the c.c. agreement.

surely i am still entitled to see the agreement whether they have acted with in the guidelines or not.

i have sent a s a r request to.

help needed please

many thanks

alan

[car2403]

very interesting thread.

would someone please clear this up for me.

i have a charge already against my home.

nasty pests solicitors told me after i had sent the standard letter to them,they have acted under the ccj guidelines and do not have to produce the c.c. agreement.

surely i am still entitled to see the agreement whether they have acted with in the guidelines or not.

i have sent a s a r request to.

help needed please

many thanks

alan

 

Responded on your thread; (or the one that looks most appropriate, as you seem to have more than one on this subject? Maybe a mod can help you combine them, perhaps?)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/137331-rats-nest-cca.html

[hsbcfiddled]

Has anyone actually taken HSBC to court to claim the payments they have made should be returned?

[andrewman]

regardless of ccj being issued,i beleive you are still entitled to information. best option is to use the consumer credit act 1974 and request all relevant information on your original agreement, companys can not deny a request that is lawful and just. use one of the template letters found on this site or moneysavingexpert site, post it first class recorded delivery with £1.00 fee,do not forget to keep copies of all communication between yourself and the company you are contacting. keep up the presure you are after all entitled to the details acording to the consumer credit act 1974, other people will give you the same reply. do not let the establishment win. power to the people.

[gordonsanderson]

HSBC FIDDLED,

With regards to your question, I AM ON THE WAY, and i aint and wont stop until those bar stewards return every penny of my hard earned cash with sweat and determination.......FCUK em.

 

Kindest regards

Gordon.

 

PS, Stand your Ground!!!!!!!

[hsbcfiddled]

Just had a phone call from the Banks legal department stating that;

 

"legal- have now received the advice they were waiting for, and they now need to take instruction from their clients, before they can respond to me"

 

Anyone had a similar experience?

What do we think?

[patrickq1]

probably means they have no agreement ?

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

i would like to request that the mods only allow private e mails from new caggers after they have made a few postings on here dont know how the rest of you feel about that but i am not pleased about receiving e mails from someone who has not made a single posting

patrickq1

[car2403]

i would like to request that the mods only allow private e mails from new caggers after they have made a few postings on here dont know how the rest of you feel about that but i am not pleased about receiving e mails from someone who has not made a single posting

patrickq1

 

I don't think thats possible with the software used on the forum.

 

They should only have your email address if you've provided it and made it publicly available.

 

Have you consider a CAG email, which you can use privately?

[photoman]

Just had a phone call from the Banks legal department stating that;

 

"legal- have now received the advice they were waiting for, and they now need to take instruction from their clients, before they can respond to me"

 

Anyone had a similar experience?

What do we think?

 

Or it could mean that the "copy an paste" job that they've been working on, has now sat in old tea for long enough to pass off as authentic !

[hsbcfiddled]

hi PM,

 

The bank have agreed that the agreement isnt enforceable and I have requested the return of payments with CI.

 

So its a bit late for the old t-bag routine...hehe.

 

Any other imputs? Please?

[patrickq1]

apoligies CAR i meant PMs ,i seem to get them a lot,i have a strong feeling it has come from a solicitor who possibly does engage themselves with the scumbagHFOs,but hey they can research me all they want i owe nout lol as MORGAN STANLEY have now entered a NiL BALANCE to my account.....

also got a thread that needs proper guidance if you have time to look and can help in anyway cause i always fear i may mis lead someone with even the slightest bit of wrong advice and that i would find terribly difficult and would hate the responnsibility that someone has put a lot of faith in advice that is wrong

i"ll quit parrotin on lol

patrickq1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/130275-hfo-services-limited.html