Help re no agreement please

[Wolfy]

Ok I could do with some advice on this matter as I really don’t want to let this rest. Its slightly complicated so please forgive my not putting this into the store cards forum.

I had an account with the Burton Group which was administered by GE Money and have had this account for nearly 20 years. It was the type of account where I paid them the sum of £25 per month by D/D regardless of the balance. Unfortunately I managed to get myself into a bit of a mess and missed a number of payments and ended up being chased by a DCA.

To buy myself some time to sort things out I requested a copy of the original agreement under s.78 of the CCA 1974. They wrote back to me and said that they were unable to provide me with a copy as they had not been provided with one when they took over my account in 1990. I queried this as, it appeared to me, that they were not the legal owner of this account. I was told that they had purchased the whole of the business of the previous account holders and as such were therefore the legal owners. I challenged this and asked for a copy of the deed of assignment, I also asked for a copy of my original T & C to check whether this account could be assigned to or bought by a third party. They could not provide the T & C and stated that the deed of assignment formed part of the purchase agreement and as such they would not provide it to me. My request for a copy of the notice of assignment from 1990 was also denied on the basis that they couldn’t find it.

I should point out that I have used the card for a number of purchases from 1990 to date.

My question however is this. If I accept that an equitable contract exists between GE Money and myself, despite their inability to provide any documentation, am I correct in thinking that they are unable to charge interest on the account? If that is the case am I able to reclaim any interest that they have charged me (at 30.3%!!)? This would amount to in excess of £15,000.

Or as I honestly do not think that they have ever been entitled to request money from me and have never been the legal owners of the account do I request 17 years worth of £25 per month back from them as well as the interest?

So far all attempts at discussing the matter with them have been met with a resounding silence.

Any opinions greatly received, and any help with drafting the POC as well as I feel that is now the only way forward.

[Guest strangewayofsavin]

Unfortunately, debt are like companies, if you buy them you get the lot warts and all, if they do not have the original Consumer credit agreement signed by you, then there is no debt.

Most DCA's, buy old debts, and try to reclaim them even if they have no legal right too, as long as they profit is the motto.

No original CCA then no debt, GE money have been operating in the u,k for over 20 years, they know the rules, but they still insist on passing the debt over to companies under the GE umbrella to try and batter the debitor to death. read the consumer credtit act 1974 and the ammendments 2006, get to know your rights.

[Josie8]

No CCA = no debt and the House of Lords ruling in Wilson v Minister of Trade & Industry 2005 stated that in the event of no cca then the Creditor could not recover any monies under ordinary contract law.........basically they are stuffed!

[Wolfy]

Thanks for the advice so far guys but really need an assist as to which of the two paths I should follow. These people made my life a living hell for months phoning up to five times a day and to find out now that they have never had the right to take any money off me just makes me fume. Time for some payback.

[lookinforinfo]

While the debt is unenforceable, that does not mean that you are entitled to

get your money back. The debt does exist by your own admission [i should point out that I have used the card for a number of purchases from 1990 to date.]

 

I suggest you forget about going to Court as the Court would ask you for proof that you had never made an arrangement with Burtons and even if you had, you never owed them that kind of money.

They can show your history of payments as proof that there was a debt

involved, so unless you are prepared to lie in Court [not recommended!] your

chances of getting anything back will be very small. Just be grateful that you

do not have to pay any more.

[nfi247]

While the debt is unenforceable, that does not mean that you are entitled to

get your money back. The debt does exist by your own admission [i should point out that I have used the card for a number of purchases from 1990 to date.]

 

I suggest you forget about going to Court as the Court would ask you for proof that you had never made an arrangement with Burtons and even if you had, you never owed them that kind of money.

They can show your history of payments as proof that there was a debt

involved, so unless you are prepared to lie in Court [not recommended!] your

chances of getting anything back will be very small. Just be grateful that you

do not have to pay any more.

 

Surely the judgement in the House of lords in the wilson case goes against what you are saying.

 

you are not disputing if there is or is not a debt. you are disputing if the creditor has completed their statratory obligations and processed there paperwork correctly.

 

the wilson case quite simply established that without a properly executed agreement in accordance with section 60 of the consumer credit act 1974 and its subordinate legislation being the consumer credit (agreements) regulations 1983, then the creditor has no claim to the debt in contract law.

 

this is the very reason why the act was established if you go back to the white papers and parlimentary discussions about it.

[nfi247]

Thanks for the advice so far guys but really need an assist as to which of the two paths I should follow.

 

neither, at the moment. the civil procedure rules which govern how the courts must handle cases centers heavily on Alternative Dispute Resolution prior to litigation. you must be able to demonstrate that you have exhausted all other means before litigation.

 

These people made my life a living hell for months phoning up to five times a day and to find out now that they have never had the right to take any money off me just makes me fume. Time for some payback.

 

first and foremost, this is not personal. its business. i would write to them explaining that under section 77 -79 of the CCA 1974 you are entitled to a copy of your agreement. this must be provided within 12 days or the agreement is unenforceable. if this continues for a furthur month then they have committed a criminal offense and report the matter to trading standards.

 

Section 60 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 details the ‘Form and Content of Agreements’ through its Subordinate Legislation being the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 by virtue of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 and SI 1983/1553.

The Office of Fair Trading has issued a leaflet concerning Credit Agreements (which they have headed as Non – cancellable agreements) You can find the leaflet at: -

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft019.pdf

bearing in mind of course that section 127 of the CCA 1974 prevents a court from enforcing an agreement if it is not properly executed, regardless of how much you have used the debt/spend the money.

hope this helps.

[lookinforinfo]

nfi, the Wilson case was a situation where Mrs Wilson had pawned her BMW,

and then claimed [rightly] that the debt was unenforceable. As a result, her

BMW was returned to her.But the BMW was not payment for the loan, but used as collateral or security, that should the loan not be repaid, then the car would have been kept/sold in lieu of payment.

I don't believe she had paid any money off the loan at that time, so the question of a refund didn't arise. And as I said in my earlier post, I cannot

see why a Court would order monies to be repaid unless the money had been

overpaid or was not due.

Not sure that Wolfy meant he was going to get his money back anyway-more

that he was going to get some sort of revenge for the hassle they had given him.