SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[Number6]

If they do this though, can't you counter claim for them to repay all interest etc paid while the agreement was "in force"?

 

You can try but the short answer is that until someone tries, it goes to court and there's a ruling we don't know. Each case will no doubt be different anyway. In Blackrain's case the lender has supplied a copy of a document that (presumably) Blackrain has signed, this could be an application form or something else, we don't know. So the lender has then complied with the CCA S77/78 1974 as modified by the Consumer Credit(Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983; the copy supplied does not have to be signed, or indeed even have a signature box. Now, he could write back to lender and say "the document you've sent does not comply with the CCA 1974 Section 61 and I do not acknowledge any debt with you" and then the lender can do one of the four things I outlined in my previous post. The fact that there is a signed document does leave the door open for the lender to go for enforcement under CCA S127.

 

Pete

[Stuart_in_the_red]

Having a problem with NatWest, I asked them for a copy of my credit agreement with them for a credit card which they have supplied (I think, it is an application for credit?) and also a signed true and certified copy of the original default notice.

 

They have sent me a standard letter generated from there system because they say this is how they hand out default notices. because of this, they are unable to supply me with a copy of the original default notice as these are not kept.

 

They said that they feel that they are not in breach of section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act, I think they are but am looking for some clarification before sending them another letter, any help would be very much appreciated.

 

Stuart

[Number6]

Having a problem with NatWest, I asked them for a copy of my credit agreement with them for a credit card which they have supplied (I think, it is an application for credit?) and also a signed true and certified copy of the original default notice.

 

They have sent me a standard letter generated from there system because they say this is how they hand out default notices. because of this, they are unable to supply me with a copy of the original default notice as these are not kept.

 

They said that they feel that they are not in breach of section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act, I think they are but am looking for some clarification before sending them another letter, any help would be very much appreciated.

 

Stuart

 

Default notices are not covered under S77 / 78 of the CCA 1974 and in any event the 1983 regulations allow for an unsigned copy of any document to be sent to the debtor.

 

If they haven't provided a copy of the credit agreement and the 14 working days + 1 calendar month is up then that's a different matter. That is a breach of S77 / 78 of the CCA.

 

Pete

[un1boy]

Default notices are not covered under S77 / 78 of the CCA 1974 and in any event the 1983 regulations allow for an unsigned copy of any document to be sent to the debtor.

 

If they haven't provided a copy of the credit agreement and the 14 working days + 1 calendar month is up then that's a different matter. That is a breach of S77 / 78 of the CCA.

 

Pete

 

So this means that they can send an example of a Default Notice and that's deemed sufficient evidence of the one that was sent? Does that not defy the point of the CCA stipulating exaclty what should be included in a Default Notice?

 

What if they can't even produce an example?

[Mike220359]

You can try but the short answer is that until someone tries, it goes to court and there's a ruling we don't know. Each case will no doubt be different anyway. In Blackrain's case the lender has supplied a copy of a document that (presumably) Blackrain has signed, this could be an application form or something else, we don't know. So the lender has then complied with the CCA S77/78 1974 as modified by the Consumer Credit(Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983; the copy supplied does not have to be signed, or indeed even have a signature box. Now, he could write back to lender and say "the document you've sent does not comply with the CCA 1974 Section 61 and I do not acknowledge any debt with you" and then the lender can do one of the four things I outlined in my previous post. The fact that there is a signed document does leave the door open for the lender to go for enforcement under CCA S127.

 

Pete

 

I would argue that the creditor hasn't complied with section 77/78.

 

Although he has been sent documentation complying with section 3 of the 1983 statutory instrument. If there is no signature from either party it does not comply with section 61 of the 1974 act and therefore is not executed. The creditor must go to court to get the form recognised under section 127 of the act, but what judge is going to approve a non executed piece of paper as a contract. In addition the judge must be informed as to why he should enforce a document when the creditor has broken the law.

 

I agree that the money paid in interest should be reclaimed since in shouldn't have been apllied in the first case.

 

Mike

[Mike220359]

So this means that they can send an example of a Default Notice and that's deemed sufficient evidence of the one that was sent? Does that not defy the point of the CCA stipulating exaclty what should be included in a Default Notice?

 

What if they can't even produce an example?

 

The CCA prescribes how a default notice is issued. If they can't produce the default notice then they are in trouble. Defamation under the DPA I think its called

 

Mike

[Number6]

Mike and un1boy

 

the 1983 "copies of Documents" Regulations S3 allows for any copy of any document issued under any section of the CCA 1974 (therefore including S77/78 ) to omit certain information that would of course be required on the original; this includes any signature box or signature. So by sending an unsigned copy they have complied with the CCA S77 / 78.

 

Of course there must be a fully and properly executed agreement in place in order to validate the agreement but the point is that the lender is under no obligation to send a copy of the original signed agreement under a S77 or 78 request.

 

In my opinion it's not in the lenders interest to supply an unsigned copy where the signed executed agreement exists because that does leave them open to challenge by the debtor; then in order to enforce the agreement the lender would have to go to court and produce the original agreement anyway and I forsee most judges not being too pleased with the lender as they could have avoided using court time by producing the agreement in the first place.

 

But the lender can produce an unsigned copy and comply with S77 / 78. If they do this and you challenge them to produce a copy of the original then there is no statutory timescale under which the lender has to produce it.

 

A copy default notice is not obtainable under the CCA, that's a Data Protection Act request.

 

Pete

[un1boy]

Thanks Mike, I thought this too - The last few posts have just confused me a bit, that's all.....

 

My old bank cannot provide a copy of the DN's bcause they only have aflag on their system saying that it was issued......they also haven't put the interest rate, or t&c's on the agreement.

 

they reckon they are in the right as regards to the Default, but I never received the notices and if I now do an N1, they will have to prove to the court they isued them, which they can't.

 

Am I right in my understanding?

[tamadus]

Sheeesh I take a couple of days to catch up on my personal claims and everything goes crazy lol.

 

Defaults are indeed covered by the CCA 1974 particularly the format of them. For a company to issue a default and not keep a copy of it would be insane.

 

I had a call from a DCA 2 days ago to let me know that GEMoney have just sold the account to them and that a default notice has been recorded. Now this account is under a DMP with CCCS and I haven't heard anything from them regarding it in over 12 months. Not even the annual statement of account. No warning that it was about to default and no default notice itself.

 

In addition they are also in breach of the DPA SAR so all told they have problems coming to them.

[Number6]

Sheeesh I take a couple of days to catch up on my personal claims and everything goes crazy lol.

 

Defaults are indeed covered by the CCA 1974 particularly the format of them. For a company to issue a default and not keep a copy of it would be insane.

 

I had a call from a DCA 2 days ago to let me know that GEMoney have just sold the account to them and that a default notice has been recorded. Now this account is under a DMP with CCCS and I haven't heard anything from them regarding it in over 12 months. Not even the annual statement of account. No warning that it was about to default and no default notice itself.

 

In addition they are also in breach of the Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) so all told they have problems coming to them.

 

Hi Tam, long time no speak (well it seems like a long time, lol).

 

I know the format etc of default notices is covered by the CCA but you're not entitled to request a copy under a CCA section request, I believe that's covered by the Data Protection Act?

 

[off-topic mode] I read your Abbey thread! Interesting defence eh?! [/off-topic mode]

 

Pete

[tamadus]

Mike and un1boy

 

the 1983 "copies of Documents" Regulations S3 allows for any copy of any document issued under any section of the CCA 1974 (therefore including S77/78 ) to omit certain information that would of course be required on the original; this includes any signature box or signature. So by sending an unsigned copy they have complied with the CCA S77 / 78.

 

Of course there must be a fully and properly executed agreement in place in order to validate the agreement but the point is that the lender is under no obligation to send a copy of the original signed agreement under a S77 or 78 request.

 

In my opinion it's not in the lenders interest to supply an unsigned copy where the signed executed agreement exists because that does leave them open to challenge by the debtor; then in order to enforce the agreement the lender would have to go to court and produce the original agreement anyway and I forsee most judges not being too pleased with the lender as they could have avoided using court time by producing the agreement in the first place.

 

But the lender can produce an unsigned copy and comply with S77 / 78. If they do this and you challenge them to produce a copy of the original then there is no statutory timescale under which the lender has to produce it.

 

A copy default notice is not obtainable under the CCA, that's a Data Protection Act request.

 

Pete

 

As strange as it sounds this is apparently correct. the 1983 regulations apply to ANY request for copy documents under the CCA including sec. 77/78 and 85. The copies DO NOT have to show any signature boxes. This is one thing I am trying to get clarified now as it's obviously a devils charter.

 

I can see that it is going to open another floodgate of people being forced to use court time just to get sight of legal documents they have signed. I can't imagine the judiciary being very happy with any company forcing people into a court and then producing the paperwork.

[un1boy]

Sheeesh I take a couple of days to catch up on my personal claims and everything goes crazy lol.

 

Defaults are indeed covered by the CCA 1974 particularly the format of them. For a company to issue a default and not keep a copy of it would be insane.

 

I had a call from a DCA 2 days ago to let me know that GEMoney have just sold the account to them and that a default notice has been recorded. Now this account is under a DMP with CCCS and I haven't heard anything from them regarding it in over 12 months. Not even the annual statement of account. No warning that it was about to default and no default notice itself.

 

In addition they are also in breach of the Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) so all told they have problems coming to them.

 

Hello Tamlad!

 

I thought that were too, whoa - I wasa getting really confused then, lol.....I think I should be a bit more confident in my knowledge sometimes!!

 

How are your things going anywho?

[Number6]

Oh and by-the-way...

 

As of today I have 5 credit card accounts now in S78 "criminal" default

 

Can't find a smiley for "rubs hands together with glee!"

 

Pete

[tamadus]

hi everyone

 

Your correct Number6 there is no recourse under the CCA for copies of default notices, so it will have to be made under the DPA as I see it.

 

Fantastic defence isn't it lmao. After they send the settlemenbt cheque I plan on having serious words over the defamation and blatant lies in section 6 of it

[tamadus]

Hello Tamlad!

 

I thought that were too, whoa - I wasa getting really confused then, lol.....I think I should be a bit more confident in my knowledge sometimes!!

 

How are your things going anywho?

 

Going great Un1, November could be another bumper month

[tamadus]

Oh and by-the-way...

 

As of today I have 5 credit card accounts now in S78 "criminal" default

 

Can't find a smiley for "rubs hands together with glee!"

 

Pete

 

LMAO your getting greedy now I only have 2

[sam19677]

Oh and by-the-way...

 

As of today I have 5 credit card accounts now in S78 "criminal" default

 

Can't find a smiley for "rubs hands together with glee!"

 

Pete

 

Hi Pete, so what would be the next step for anybody that's in the same situation as you? Sam x

[Number6]

Hi Pete, so what would be the next step for anybody that's in the same situation as you? Sam x

 

Hi Sam

 

Well for me personally some fun writing nice sod-off letters to them and then see what happens!

 

After that I'll see what they have to say for themselves.

 

Pete

[sam19677]

Hi Sam

 

Well for me personally some fun writing nice sod-off letters to them and then see what happens!

 

After that I'll see what they have to say for themselves.

 

Pete

 

Thanks x

[un1boy]

hi everyone

 

Your correct Number6 there is no recourse under the CCA for copies of default notices, so it will have to be made under the Data Protection Act as I see it.

 

Fantastic defence isn't it lmao. After they send the settlemenbt cheque I plan on having serious words over the defamation and blatant lies in section 6 of it

 

Yes, I agree - I did a SAR request to HSBC and they sent me all the info, LOADS of it (free and couriered!) inside was an A4 piece of papaer saying something like: "Default notice issued" and that's it!! lol

 

Hmm...can you PM me the link for the Abbey thread you're talking about?

[Number6]

Hi Pete, so what would be the next step for anybody that's in the same situation as you? Sam x

 

In a more serious vein though....... (sigh).. ah well

 

I shall attempt to open negotiations with them to see what they'll offer me NOT to issue proceedings for non-compliance with the Consumer redit Act!

 

A 50% rebate on the outstanding balance + my charges repaid should do very nicely thanks

 

Pete

[un1boy]

In a more serious vein though....... (sigh).. ah well

 

I shall attempt to open negotiations with them to see what they'll offer me NOT to issue proceedings for non-compliance with the Consumer redit Act!

 

A 50% rebate on the outstanding balance + my fees repaid should do very nicely thanks

 

Pete

 

Are these settled accounts?

[Number6]

Are these settled accounts?

 

No

 

Pete

[un1boy]

Cool - I've just realised that that was a stupid question, sorry!! I'm doing a million other things at the mo too - you said that you'd go for 50% reduction etc....im do dipsy,. sorry mate!

[tamadus]

Yes, I agree - I did a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request to HSBC and they sent me all the info, LOADS of it (free and couriered!) inside was an A4 piece of papaer saying something like: "Default notice issued" and that's it!! lol

 

Hmm...can you PM me the link for the Abbey thread you're talking about?

 

If you mean my Abbey thread Un1 its Tamadus v Abbey ERC.