SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[Mike220359]

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?

 

Well they would say tha wouldn't they!

 

I totally agree, if they can't produce the document (or a copy thereof) they can't prove that it was issued. Obviously they haven't sent it recorded delivery otherwisw they woould have said so. As is usual with these things you have to go to court to get them to cave in, stupid, it costs them money. What do they say about accountants, "they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing".

 

Mike

 

ps like my picture? I love ferrets! Used to have two but the wife won't let me have anymore, says they smell. They smell better than her anyway, and they don't bite as much!

[Mike220359]

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.

 

I totally agree.

 

We've seen on other threads how the judiciary are getting snowed under. I've also read that a test case would make the fast track system alot less congested. However, as we've seen with Citi and LTWFB it only takes one case to knock everyone back, and in the high court that has major ramifications.

 

Mike

[un1boy]

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

 

yup - thanks tam.....I'll check it out tomorrow!!

[darling]

Bloody hell peeps its just taken me over an hour to scan this thread. Anyway I've had a reply from Thames Credit, in which they say that they cannot supply agreements etc and have indeed written off my account, and there will be no further contact from them. I would dearly love to now try to claim back the money that we have already paid them and get default (if there is one) removed. Is there a template letter for this, as I dont wan't to send one written by me, as my letter writing skills are not up to the 'standard' that is in the library and I don't want to mug myself off by saying, hello you owe me £...... give it back oh and by the way remove any default etc. I just think that something a little more polished will work wonders.

Thanks in anticipation guys.

[JonCris]

Simply start your claim in the normal way using the template letters & following the procedure as specified.

[pcr1]

Been absent for a little while for various reasons. Good work, including on s85. (They've knocked my local library down and I can't get to the makeshifts for now... bunch of hampton-lickers)

 

 

Right... thinking in the case of a credit card (not loans or any other form of credit), let's say:

1. You do a s77 request

2. They reply with a copy without signature, thus complying

3. You right back and challenge the authenticity, asking for a copy with a signature so you can verify this

4. They say "bugger off can't find it"

5. You presume they don't have it. Apparently the debt is still owed.

(a) How do they prove the debt in relation to a credit card (and could I knock together a credit agreement, random list of transactions and sue someone for it)

(b) Surely if they can't prove an agreement ever existed, they can't have charged interest? So you can counter-claim this ALL back (which, if the account has been running for some time, will no doubt exceed the balance owed anyway).

 

Scenario 2: the card has been defaulted but you don't think they have a signed agreement. How can you check and, if they don't have one, how can they prove the debt? (That is, is the agreement still current?)

 

How can they justify the balance including interest? Could you counter-claim all interest?

 

I think one of the Unis has a copy of Goode so I'm going to try to get in but it won't be until the end of next week at the very earliest as I'm so busy. This should explain all. :grin:

[kateandpete]

Well, I for one would love to know, pcr1. I gave HSBC 10 days to comply with my very generous offer and their time is up. I need to start constructing a convincing N1.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/24736-default-removal-katenandpete-hsbc-4.html

 

Goode? Is this a text on consumer and contract law? If you give me details i'll try and find a copy.

[tamadus]

Time I got my nose back to it and put together a convincing claim against Barclaycard for not supplying the agreement under my s77/78 request. Although they have been incredibly quiet of late.

[pugsley]

Been absent for a little while for various reasons. Good work, including on s85. (They've knocked my local library down and I can't get to the makeshifts for now... bunch of hampton-lickers)

 

 

Right... thinking in the case of a credit card (not loans or any other form of credit), let's say:

1. You do a s77 request

2. They reply with a copy without signature, thus complying

3. You right back and challenge the authenticity, asking for a copy with a signature so you can verify this

4. They say "bugger off can't find it"

5. You presume they don't have it. Apparently the debt is still owed.

(a) How do they prove the debt in relation to a credit card (and could I knock together a credit agreement, random list of transactions and sue someone for it)

(b) Surely if they can't prove an agreement ever existed, they can't have charged interest? So you can counter-claim this ALL back (which, if the account has been running for some time, will no doubt exceed the balance owed anyway).

 

Scenario 2: the card has been defaulted but you don't think they have a signed agreement. How can you check and, if they don't have one, how can they prove the debt? (That is, is the agreement still current?)

 

How can they justify the balance including interest? Could you counter-claim all interest?

 

I think one of the Unis has a copy of Goode so I'm going to try to get in but it won't be until the end of next week at the very earliest as I'm so busy. This should explain all. :grin:

 

i got to stage two with Littlewoods and haven't written back yet, not really sure what to do, so have left it to see what they do. I do know they haven't got a credit agreement though. I think alot of people are just stalled now.

[Number6]

i got to stage two with Littlewoods and haven't written back yet, not really sure what to do, so have left it to see what they do. I do know they haven't got a credit agreement though. I think alot of people are just stalled now.

 

Things are stunningly quiet with me. None of my CC companies has written to me..... yet!! They've all had my "sod off" letter for a week now and total silence.

 

It won't last - I'm waiting for the avalanche of summonses to pour through my letterbox!

 

Pete

[Mike220359]

I rarely write about personal experiences on here, but I must admit to feeling very alone at the moment regarding my CC.

 

I slapped a section 85 on the bank since I know I wasn't sent a copy of the executed agreement when I was issued with a new card under chip and pin last year and I now know the ramifications of them not doing so. Got a reply back 'looking into your complaint' blah, blah it said. Started getting 'phone calls three or four a day told the gent on the other end of the 'phone that I don't talk to anyone over the 'phone regarding bank matters, and confirmed this in writing.

 

At the same time slapped a section 77 (I know, I know wrong section) with a £1. Got a reply back from some gent called 'Humphrey'. Looked 'into your complaint, blah, blah, we know the CCA, blah, blah, we always issue terms and conditions with new cards so here is a generic copy which is free of charge'.

 

The reply to the DPA, produced statements back to 2004, no complement slip or anything. Now out of time frame.

 

Just wrote asking for the copy under section 78 with the original cheque attached and telling them to stop phoning, your in default etc. Also asked them to send any more data in five days otherwise off to the IC

 

I cannot believe the arogance of these tw**ts ignoring the complaint, meanwhile piling more pressure on me and the family. I rang the police today, they said they couldn't do anything since the bank will say they have a legitimate right to contact me should they contact them. I know that I need to go to court to get these wazzocks of my back, but I just can't afford the court fees at the moment. I know thay won't because they know that they are in the wrong.

 

I know I'm doing everything right but at the moment I feel very alone.

 

It must be said, that although you can offer advice left right and centre at times like these when you are so close to a situation you can't see the wood for the trees.

 

Mike

[Number6]

I rarely write about personal experiences on here, but I must admit to feeling very alone at the moment regarding my CC.

 

I slapped a section 85 on the bank since I know I wasn't sent a copy of the executed agreement when I was issued with a new card under chip and pin last year and I now know the ramifications of them not doing so. Got a reply back 'looking into your complaint' blah, blah it said. Started getting 'phone calls three or four a day told the gent on the other end of the 'phone that I don't talk to anyone over the 'phone regarding bank matters, and confirmed this in writing.

 

At the same time slapped a section 77 (I know, I know wrong section) with a £1. Got a reply back from some gent called 'Humphrey'. Looked 'into your complaint, blah, blah, we know the CCA, blah, blah, we always issue terms and conditions with new cards so here is a generic copy which is free of charge'.

 

The reply to the Data Protection Act, produced statements back to 2004, no complement slip or anything. Now out of time frame.

 

Just wrote asking for the copy under section 78 with the original cheque attached and telling them to stop phoning, your in default etc. Also asked them to send any more data in five days otherwise off to the Information Commissioner

 

I cannot believe the arogance of these tw**ts ignoring the complaint, meanwhile piling more pressure on me and the family. I rang the police today, they said they couldn't do anything since the bank will say they have a legitimate right to contact me should they contact them. I know that I need to go to court to get these wazzocks of my back, but I just can't afford the court fees at the moment. I know thay won't because they know that they are in the wrong.

 

I know I'm doing everything right but at the moment I feel very alone.

 

It must be said, that although you can offer advice left right and centre at times like these when you are so close to a situation you can't see the wood for the trees.

 

Mike

 

Mike, I sympathise, especially with your final paragraph.

 

Don't know what else to say but stick with it which is really all that I'm doing. You are not alone.

 

Until LTSB settle with me then cash is non-existent here also.

 

Pete

[breadline]

HI Mike

Sorry you feel so alone i have not long explained the feeling to a friend of mine. It unbeliveable who these banks get so deep under our skin. Money is the root of all evil for sure.

I cant see the wood for the trees alot of the time with these wazzoks.

Its fustrating that everything has go in steps and also fustrating that there is no higher bodie that real cares baout what is happning.

 

You stand your ground and some thing will click and the woods will part

 

have you tried the telegraph act to stop them calling you.

Previously, I requested that my telephone call with one of your members of staff be confirmed in writing, given the serious nature of this matter. However, I was informed that as a rule you do not confirm telephone calls in writing, even if an agreement has been made. I find this highly unprofessional and incompetent to find that a large banking institution, like Halifax, can proceed carte blanche.

 

I demand the phone calls stop immediately. I have enquired about the legalities of your actions, which can be classed at harassment, and I am familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act, Protection from Harassment Act 1970, Article 8 of the Human Right Act 1990 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.

 

 

Me I just changed my numbers it was wonderfull

 

BL:)

[Peterbard]

Just been looking through the 2006 cca and it seems that according to section 15 all the criterea for autmatically rejecting enforcement of a contract will be removed. The date for the application is 6 April 2007. It seems that from that date section 127 will allow the court total discrimination on the matter of weather a contract is enforced or not,weather it is signed or has the prescribed terms will be for the court to decide and will not stop the agreement from being enforced.

The only thing that i can see that willl stop enforcement despite any court ruling will be the new section 77a which relates to the annual issuance of statements whch doesent't come into effect untill 2008.

I came accros a reasoning for this that revolves around the amount of money that is being lost by businesses because they can't produce the documentation.

 

Am currently arguing with the powers that be about the absurdity of the section 77 issue this just seems like another slap in the face

Peter

[kateandpete]

And I thought the consumer credit act was about protecting consumers:-x

From a labour goverment too. But then we've all grown used to that now.

 

My local blair's babe sent me a reply on the 77/78 issue - forwarded to DTI. Not heard from them yet though.

[alanfromderby]

My understanding is that the new section 127 will not effect sections 77/78 - it is more to do with errors in drafting etc., as opposed to whether an agreement actually exists.

[Mike220359]

Thanks number 6 & breadline, I'm going to try and get some money together to take on Mr Humphrey et al.

 

Mike

[Mike220359]

Just been looking through the 2006 cca and it seems that according to section 15 all the criterea for autmatically rejecting enforcement of a contract will be removed. The date for the application is 6 April 2007. It seems that from that date section 127 will allow the court total discrimination on the matter of weather a contract is enforced or not,weather it is signed or has the prescribed terms will be for the court to decide and will not stop the agreement from being enforced.

The only thing that i can see that willl stop enforcement despite any court ruling will be the new section 77a which relates to the annual issuance of statements whch doesent't come into effect untill 2008.

I came accros a reasoning for this that revolves around the amount of money that is being lost by businesses because they can't produce the documentation.

 

Am currently arguing with the powers that be about the absurdity of the section 77 issue this just seems like another slap in the face

Peter

 

I don't think that is how it's meant, in some ways the 2006 act is better than the 1974, because no matter whether the bank has the documentation or not they cannot enforce it without court intervention should a dispute occur.

 

I think that the banks know that they will lose even more money from not screwing the poor in 'debt' as they see it because they will have to use more legal work. Maybe thats why they are starting to bring in annual fees for current accounts (BBC TV this morning)

 

Mike

[Number6]

Thanks number 6 & breadline, I'm going to try and get some money together to take on Mr Humphrey et al.

 

Mike

 

Mike, have you investigated whether you can get a court fee exemption, or mitigation? Do you receive Tax Credits? Even if you are *just* on a low income there is a form you can fill in to apply for a partial fee waiver.

 

Pete

[Peterbard]

don't think that is how it's meant, in some ways the 2006 act is better than the 1974, because no matter whether the bank has the documentation or not they cannot enforce it without court intervention should a dispute occur.

 

Section 15 2006 Act

In section 127(of the 1974 act parts subsections 3to 5 shall have no effect.

 

Section 3- 5 of 127 instruct the court wnen they cannot enforce an action.

 

Removing the sections means the court are able to enforce without the information stipulated in sections 60(1)-64

 

Previosly the court could not enforce without the afore mentioned.

 

 

 

[tamadus]

Mike,

 

Just throwing my pennyworth in here.

 

Stick with the programme and it will all turn around soon. I've had 3 more successes but they were relatively simple ones. The toughies now for me are Barclaycard and GEMoney, who don't seem to care about the legal aspects as they are getting deeper and deeper into the mire, but I still don't seem to be making progress with them.

 

I know how you feel and I often feel the same, but I try top remember that we are right and they are wrong in this mess that they have created.

 

What really annoys me now is the media continually reporting that they will start charging for accounts and increase interest rates to recover the profits they are losing through claims.

 

Let's never forget these claims are for charges levelled UNLAWFULLY. The profits they are losing are also UNLAWFUL. The authorities should be telling them to chargedifferently just to recover unlawful profits is also unlawful IMHO.

[Peterbard]

My understanding is that the new section 127 will not effect sections 77/78 - it is more to do with errors in drafting etc., as opposed to whether an agreement actually exists.

 

Not Directly but due to the current situation regarding signatures and section 3 of the S.I.1557.

If you refuse to accept the copy of the agreement then the creditor could take you to court under 2006 and there would be no clause 127 3-5 to stop them.

Peter

[Peterbard]

Just found some of the info i refered to earlier.

 

Yes ther is some good stuff in the act regarding default and account informatio plus the "unfairness tests"that will replace the extortianate bargaining rules.

"6. Section 127, subsections (3)-(5) of CCA 1974 have been repealed so as to give courts a discretion as to whether agreements should be deemed unenforceable. The CCA 1974 automatically renders agreements unenforceable where, for example, certain prescribed information has not been included in the agreement. This discretion will certainly be helpful to lenders in light of the increased prescribed information to be provided under the CCA 2006."

[Number6]

Just found some of the info i refered to earlier.

 

Yes ther is some good stuff in the act regarding default and account informatio plus the "unfairness tests"that will replace the extortianate bargaining rules.

"6. Section 127, subsections (3)-(5) of CCA 1974 have been repealed so as to give courts a discretion as to whether agreements should be deemed unenforceable. The CCA 1974 automatically renders agreements unenforceable where, for example, certain prescribed information has not been included in the agreement. This discretion will certainly be helpful to lenders in light of the increased prescribed information to be provided under the CCA 2006."

 

This is not yet on the statute books though is it?

 

Pete

[Peterbard]

This particular section comes into force om the 6th of April 2007.

Peter