Court Summons from Howard Cohen / GE Money

[Josie8]

It will not show on the credit reference agencies, but the slow payment / default entries from GE Money will

If they can't produce a true copy of the executed agreement (not the application form) containing all prescribed terms then they don't have your daughters agreement to process her data and share the information with third parties i.e. CRA's. In that event you will need to send a letter instructing them to stop processing data and remove any entries they have made against her............................

[Josie8]

Hi Robert,

 

I think it would be unwise to pursue this dispute on the basis of the age your daughter gave when she applied for the card. Whilst the assistant may have persuaded/coerced your daughter to lie, there is no way of proving it and ultimately your daughter took the decision to fib on the application. It is true that a debt is unenforceable against a minor but any relief enjoyed by getting rid of the debt, may be short lived, given the possible ramifications of having not told the truth on the form.

 

I think it is better to use other arguments to get rid of the debt, which will obviously be to your daughter's advantage, without there being any sting in the tail!

 

Regards,

 

 

Laiste.

 

 

Totally agree with the others - you could lay your daughter open to possible theft/deception charges which would have worse consequences than a DN

 

I would be very suprised from experience if they are able to produce a true copy of the executed agreement (not the application form) with the prescribed terms and conditions in and if they can't the court will throw it out make sure you quote Wilson and others v Secretary of Trade and Industry. This was a House of Lords ruling which upheld s127(3) of the CCA1974 and is therefore binding on the lower courts.

[Guest Mincemeat]

Howard Cohen will not enter a court room to collect this debt at all if you tell them the person who signed for the agreement was under age. The lender has a duty of care to ensure who they are lending to are eligible for credit. It is irrelevant whether or not the assistant played a part in this at all. They are guilty of offences under the CCA but also of money laundering. This will go away if you make them aware (GE) that the person in question was underage when the agreement was signed and therefore they are in the wrong.

 

A quiet nudge to GE would be the most appropriate course of action.

 

Oh, and what exactly do you think they are going to do with regards to a minor who has mistakenly misquoted their age on an application form? The lender holds all of the fault here in the eyes of the law. They may well huff and bluff, but the action will be dropped and the account wiped. How much would an investigation cost GE? How much negative publicity could be brought to bear against GE? Once the stat bodies get involved, ANY action GE brought against the person who THEY failed to ensure wasn't a minor would backfire 100 fold against them. We're talking about a few hundred quid here, absolutely nothing. I'd be tempted to blackmail them for providing credit to minors (THAT WAS A JOKE! )

[Josie8]

you may well be right & they won't pursue the money obtained by the daughter fraudulently completing application form but you stand the risk that they will then pursue the matter through the criminal courts or alternatively pursue the parents who remain legally responsible for their underage daughters actions. I know parents who

[Guest Mincemeat]

The basis of the court action they are currently pursuing is based on an agreement signed by a minor. A minor cannot sign an agreement of this type. Following on from the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Money Laundering Regulations 2003, any financial institution has to be able to show they have verified the validity of any applicant that appears to them through the course of their business with respect to opening accounts and applying for credit. IMO the chances of GE pressing for criminal charges are less than 0 as this opens them up to all sorts of issues and difficult questions they will have to answer with regards to their whole account opening process, which they will not like.

 

I would be interested to hear about anyone you know about who signed a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 whilst under age where the parents are subsequently held as liable.

[Laiste]

With respect Mincemeat, you don't know what this Company might do if they find out that Robert's daughter signed the agreement as a minor. Most people on here have tales to tell of the spiteful and vindictive actions of Companies they have had dealings with. You know the maxim, ignorance of the law is no defence and there is every chance they will report it, with a view to prosecution. You highlighted the risks that the Company would potentially expose itself to; but I have to say given the flagrant breaches of the law that Companies engage in constantly, I very much doubt that the OFT would be interested in the case with a view to withdrawing their credit licence! Some offences committed by Companies are of the utmost seriousness, but they go largely unpunished!

 

None of us are in the position to know what the fallout for Robert's daughter might be, if we seek to get rid of the debt by declaring that she signed the agreement as a minor! What on earth would we say to Robert if having told him to pursue this dispute on the grounds you are suggesting, he advised us a few months down the line that his daughter was being prosecuted? If that did happen she would carry that marker for a long long time and it would affect practically every area of her life. As you rightly say, it's only a few hundred pounds, but if it came down to getting a CCJ (which hopefully it won't) or being prosecuted for fraud, I know which of the lesser of two evils I would choose in a heartbeat! Robert's daughter made a mistake, but if she's prosecuted the Courts will only be interested in the fact that she broke the law and it really isn't the sort of experience any father wants for his daughter!

 

The Company might do nothing, but do you really want to recommend a very high risk strategy that might have disasterous consequences? I have dealt with a lot of legal disputes and I always approach them from the same perspective, never ever underestimate your opponent! You never know how they might behave and in this situation they might delight in ruining a young woman's life, if they can't enforce the debt. Their way of getting "even" if you will. I certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience. My way of hopefully getting rid of the debt will take longer, but it won't have any potential dire consequences! A logical and measured approach is required here, not a solution that may result in a pyrrhic victory!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[tomterm8]

I am no longer welcome on CAG

[Laiste]

If you want to look at this situation form a really cynical point of view, consider this; if the OFT punished every single Company for offences committed and withdrew licences regularly, the Government wouldn't be at all happy. Wealth creating Companies are required for the economic well-being of the country and if licences were routinely taken away, that would stop Companies from trading. That's the last thing the Government wants to see happen! Hence why the banks, credit card companies, DCA's and other financial organisations get away with unlawful and illegal conduct! Any sanctions metered out amount to a rap on the knuckles, nothing more! Never mind the law being on their side, the Government is!!!

 

So I think it is a very naiive view that GE's world would collapse around them on the basis of a minor signing an agreement! They would tell the OFT it was an isolated incident, the OFT would believe them and that would be an end to it! It wouldn't even amount to a storm in a teacup for them! It might however ruin a young woman's life! She has infinitely more to lose by disclosing this information than GE do, that's a fact! Companies will try any way possible to get their pound of flesh, so why would this situation be any different? The answer is, it isn't! They might even try to use a little underhand leverage and say that if Robert's daughter pays the bill, they won't report the matter! Whose to say they wouldn't try that, in a telephone conversation for example? Disclosing the info is far too risky and the eventual outcome in doing so cannot be predicted.

 

Laiste.

[Guest Mincemeat]

I think you'll find that there isn't an agreement as an agreement cannot be entered into as a minor. If anyone has any stories with respect to minors signing for credit and being granted that end in prosecution, please let me know as I will gladly change my tune. Read what I've written again more objectively.....

[Guest Mincemeat]

No agreement = no permission to process data

No agreement = no debt

[Guest Mincemeat]

So I think it is a very naiive view that GE's world would collapse around them on the basis of a minor signing an agreement!

 

Where did I say this?

 

She has infinitely more to lose by disclosing this information than GE do, that's a fact!

 

No agreement = no debt = unenforceable

 

Do you honestly believe a company such as CL Finance, who don't have all of the rights of the original lender, are going to pursue someone for signing an agreement when they are under age for £250? What rights would they be executing there?

[Guest Mincemeat]

Lets not forget they don't even have consent to disclose information to DCA's or CRA's

[tomterm8]

Lets not forget they don't even have consent to disclose information to DCA's

 

If she wrote information on the credit agreement which was incorrect (e.g. her age) in an attempt to secure money and then tried to use this as a reason for refusing to obey the terms of the contract... if I were a judge, i would regard it as theft. And I would consider any money gained by it as unjust enrichment and would be prepared to order the repayment of this money plus punitive damages, on the basis of a civil claim even if the theft were not prosecuted.

[Guest Mincemeat]

She was underage, so the agreement doesn't stand

[tomterm8]

She was underage, so the agreement doesn't stand

 

She was underaged, so the agreement does not stand... true.

 

She was underaged, so by knowingly entering into a contract on the basis of false information (a court isn't going to believe she didn't know her age) she was unjustly enriched to the extent of the benefit she gained while operating the void contract... also true.

 

And she doesn't come to this with clean hands, so the court will award damages based on the amount of money that the creditor could have made by entering into a valid agreement with the same terms with another debtor.

 

edit: To explain what I'm saying further, a civil court is required to consider equity (fairness) in a case, and a court would be very unhappy if it allowed someone to escape their obligations on the basis that they lied to the other party of a contract. There are many ways to slice a lemon, but they all end up tasting sour.

[Laiste]

Minor enters into credit agreement=possible prosecution for fraud!

 

Thanks for the tip Mincemeat, but I have no problem with reading posts objectively! A minor cannot as you say, enter into a credit agreement, but for the purposes of avoiding prosecution this case has to be dealt with as though Robert's daughter was 18! For the very reasons I have already stated!

 

I would be very interested to hear of any situations such as this that you know of, that haven't resulted in prosecution. Are you privvy to the decisions taken in all banks and credit card companies re prosecuting for fraud, in circumstances such as these..? Err what was that, a no?

 

The bottom line is you have no idea what this Company might do if they find out and yet you are recommending that Robert proceeds on this basis! It really is the most absurd suggestion! Like I've already said, if they do prosecute, what would you say to Robert then? "Sorry mate, things just don't always work out the way you expect". You cannot give Robert a 100% guarantee that it won't happen, or if you can give that absolute, unequivocal assurance say so and let him decide!

 

Lets face it, there are no consequences to be shouldered by you if your advice is followed and it doesn't work out! My primary concern is Robert's daughter, the person you seemed to have forgotten about in all this! Would you be prepared to expose a daughter of yours to possible prosecution for fraud even if the risk was tiny? A parent's job is to protect their children and I'm damn sure if I had children I wouldn't expose them to such a risk, even if there was only a 0.1% chance it would happen!

[Laiste]

Please point to any of my posts where I said that you said that GE's world would collapse around them? I haven't. You were the one that stated how bad the consequences would be for the Company and I countered it by saying that this idea that they would be severely punished and that effectively the sanctions would be extremely serious is utter nonsense! You should read my posts a bit more carefully...and objectively!

[tomterm8]

Where Mincemeat is right however, is that once you've repaid the loan it is a very valid reason for forcing them to remove any data / defaults etc.

[Guest Mincemeat]

OK, lets get some realism here. We are not talking about GE Finance here, they are out of the picture. We are talking about a debt derived through a minor filling out a credit application at the behest of a shop assistant. The shop assistant is easily identifiable as their name is on the agreement. The shop assistant undergoes a set of tasks to verify that the person is credit worthy, which includes checking for something that states the person is over 18 (like a credit or full debit card). They then contact GE Finance to check to see if they are able to provide credit, at which point GE Finance give the nod to the sales person. If this is given, the person who signs the agreement is allowed the 10% discount and they walk away with the goods. Do I still have you here? Excellent. Now, IMO if you can prove by means of the agreement that the person who entered the information as to the proof of age of the applicant has entered and accepted something as proof of age that is not specifically listed on the agreement, who is at fault? They must receive many applications (as anyone who purchases something is offered credit) where the person is under age. It is the process of identification that is wrong, not someone who follows the person on the till. You can easily prove that the person who entered the information onto the agreement did so knowingly and therefore who commits the fraud? And, following on from the money laundering statutes and regs listed earlier (that are about as interesting as reading translated stereo instructions) the onus is on the lender to ensure they are dealing with the person listed on the agreement.

 

With respect to unjust enrichment and fraud, at what point did the person fall under difficulties to repay? Was it at the time the account was opened? No it wasn't, so that arguement is easily diffused. Did the daughter make payments to the account? Yes they did. Fraud? Not applicable I am afraid. That leaves us with a debt built up by someone who was illegally given a card, by a company who has a duty of care to ensure they do not provide credit to minors. Do CL Finance have an agreement they can enforce? No they do not.

 

Like I said earlier, I've been dealing with a similar problem with my OH with the same companies here. I am accutely aware of the way the agreement works and of the sales tactics employed by the staff of the various companies of the group. Lambasting a different point of view is pointless and counter productive. Editing posts after an additional post has been made to change a point of view is also a tactic that should be frowned upon here.

[lemma1968]

I did not realise when i raised this as a caveat earlier that it would end up in a debate. I have prosecuted people and defended them under the theft act for obtaining a service by deception. Any false information on a form could lead you open to prosecution. Minors are not exempt from that although their ages would be taken into consideration by the CPS when decisions are made on whether to prosecute or not. She's over 13 so there is no issue over criminal responsibility.

 

The other issue already covered is that in any civil claim you have to go to court "with clean hands".

 

I said it before and i shall say it again, it may be true that the agreement is unenforceable due to her being a minor at the time, but if this defence is to be run they should take advice first from a suitably indemnified practitioner.

[Laiste]

Yes, he's right about that Tomterm, but I wasn't addressing such issues, I am more concerned about the advice he was giving in respect of dealing with this case.

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[Guest Mincemeat]

if this defence is to be run they should take advice first from a suitably indemnified practitioner.

 

Erm, I said this before people started getting on MY case!

[lemma1968]

Erm, I said this before people started getting on MY case!

 

Once a lawyer.......

[angel49]

Hi,

They claim "persuant to clause 7".

A judge will want to see the agreement if the issue is raised as they have used part of the contract as claim.

 

Hi,

Sorry for the intrusion-not wanting to hijack your thread.I too have been issued a court claim courtesy of CL Finance/Cohen but in the POC there is nothing stating pursuant to anything.This is for Dorothy Perkins/Ge Money account. I have the application/agreement form which is posted on the Credit Agreement Forum.

What sort of agreement are they referring to? Sorry if that sounds a dumb question.

[spiritgirl59]

Hi Robert

 

I hope its OK to subscribe to your thread as I am dealing with H Cohen & Co myself right now and they are slippery as an eel Much of your thread will be of a great help to me if they attempt to take me to courtx

 

I can't really advise you about your question of your daughter's age, but I am sure someone more in the know will be able to do so.

 

Best wishes

Spiritgirl