SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[hsbcfiddled]

Thats brilliant thank you spirit.

 

hsbcfiddled

[soli2006]

Hi everyone. Just getting back to the original thread topic – loan company not supplying a copy of agreement. I need some advice please. It concerns a credit card company & an alleged debt of about £620 or so. I sent a CCA request to the DCA acting on behalf of the credit card company. Their 12 days to comply came and went a while ago – in fact it was due to reach the “criminal offence” stage on 30th June. On Saturday (23rd June) I received what I’d been asking for (sigh….) & it appears to be genuine. So, they have now supplied a copy of the original agreement, all properly signed & everything BUT obviously after the 12 day period. Where does that leave me? Do I now have to make arrangements to pay, or do they now need to get a court to “re-enforce” the agreement that became unenforceable after the expiry of the original 12 day? What advice would other forum members with more knowledge than me give? Also – I requested a deed of assignment. What they have supplied is a copy of a letter from the original credit card company saying that they’ve sold the debt to the DCA. Does that constitute a deed of assignment, or is there an actual legal document I should be demanding? Finally, the DCA have also provided a statement of account – most of the “debt” is made up of interest charges, late payment charges, etc. imposed by the credit card company. The original debt is little more than £200 (I only had a credit limit on this card of £250). Finally, if it reached the point of settling, I’ve read somewhere that most DCA’s buy debts at about 5 to 7% of their value – so this one probably cost them £30 - £70 maximum. Would it be worth making a seemingly ridiculous offer of payment? All advice gratefully received.

 

 

Has anybody got any advice on this please? Really struggling. Thanks.

[spiritgirl59]

Has anybody got any advice on this please? Really struggling. Thanks.

 

Hi soli

 

From what I have understood by reading other threads on here, if a properly executed agreement DOES appear, albeit a bit late, then there is not a lot you can do about it. If you are 100% sure that it IS a properly executed agreement (best to have a good read up on other threads to find out what a proper one does consist of) then you are best to move on to the next step.

 

The next step would be to S.A.R. them so that you can find out the total of all the charges and then claim these back; then make repayment offers on what you only lawfully owe by way of the debt which in your case appears to be in the region of £200. However it sounds as if they already sent you all the information you need for you to work out their hefty and unlawful charges so you have no need to S.A.R. them and can save yourself the £10 fee.

 

I personally feel the way the CCA legislation is being used by the consumer is really to weed out those who can lawfully chase us for alleged debts and do in fact have a properly executed agreement and those who cannot - i.e., those DCAs who are "shooting in the dark" who don't have an agreement and never have had or are likely to have.

 

In your case the DCA have complied with your request between the default and criminal offence stage, a pain in the proverbial I know, but they have complied. I've found out the ones who I am sure don't have anything like an agreement have not got in touch at all - I am still waiting and we are talking 3 to 4 months of no contact whatsoever now!

 

As for the Deed of Assignment, well again the fact the DCA have provided you with a properly executed copy of an agreement I personally would not push this any more BUT this is just my own personal opinion Soli, others may have differing advice and a more proactive approach than me.

 

For my own part Soli, I would send a preliminary letter to the DCA now regarding the charges - there are templates in the library on here. I seem to recall one of the members on here saying that if there is a properly executed agreement in place its an idea to offer them about 40 to 50% by way of full and final settlement so in your case once the charges are deducted that would be about £100 at most.

 

I'm not legally qualified or anything, and am sure that if I am wrong in any of this someone on here will correct me. I'm only advising you as if I were in your shoes what I would do

 

Good luck!

 

Spiritgirl x

[Jeff2000]

Hello soli,

 

 

Can you scan and post the copy of the agreement?

 

Then you will get some very good opinions of whether it is the genuine article or not!

 

 

Best wishes, Jeff.

[karen654321]

Hiya, Just a quick question, a couple of the companies i have sent a cca request to have replied in writing that they cannot find the agreement. Do i still wait the extra 30 days now as the 12 days are up?

Also you mentioned reporting them but im not sure who to.

 

thanks

 

karen

[joneshousehold]

No need to wait. Write and tell them that without the agreement they cannot enforce the agreement. You can stop payments if you wish.

 

Read back over this thread for some good ideas for the wording of your letter

[karen654321]

Hiya thanks for that, Do i have to let them know that im going to stop paying them?

 

karen

[joneshousehold]

If you want to. They will find out soon enough but it is always best to fully explain for the avoidance of any doubt. Then when they try to pursue you, you can point to a wealth of evidence of where you kept them fully informed and they ploughed on regardless. It will support your arguments and give more scope for a complaint to the regulatory authorities.

[rhsymonds]

Well i CCA'd Metropolitan and the 12 day deadline expired on friday. I got a letter & phone call that day, thanking me for my £1 repayment and asking me to set up regular funding !!!

 

I explained to the lady on the phone, that the £1 Postal order was the fee for a copy of my agreement, not a repayment & she replied ' HSBC supplied you with the best information they have, and we are just acting on their behalf, we dont have to supply you with anything'.

 

Rather amused, i asked how she felt the law did not apply to Metropolitan, and seeing as i have still not recieved a legitimate copy of my agreement from HSBC or Metro, how they expected to collect this debt.

 

She kept saying 'How would you like to make repayments ? We will be taking this matter to court if it is not resolved !', until i asked her to stop repeating herself and informed her any claim would be met with a counter-claim under the Data Protection Act.

 

Silence for literally a minute,

 

After another 5 minutes of poor excuses and long silences, I asked if there was anything else i could help her with and she said no, and hung up !!

 

Here is my thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/89914-rhsymonds-hsbc-managed-loan.html

[The cobbett slayer]

Can I just throw in a cautionary note here for anyone who thinks that they can just stop paying until a copy of the original agreement is supplied.

 

In my opinion, if the lender took you to court, even without the agreement, a judge would have reasonable grounds to make an order against you if the lender could demonstrate that you had made payments to them. After all, you wouldn't randomly send money to someone that you didn't owe money to. By making repayments you are acknowledging the debt and a judge would be reasonable in seeing this. The only thing in question would be the amount of the debt, not whether it actually exists.

[meshi]

Can I just throw in a cautionary note here for anyone who thinks that they can just stop paying until a copy of the original agreement is supplied.

 

In my opinion, if the lender took you to court, even without the agreement, a judge would have reasonable grounds to make an order against you if the lender could demonstrate that you had made payments to them. After all, you wouldn't randomly send money to someone that you didn't owe money to. By making repayments you are acknowledging the debt and a judge would be reasonable in seeing this. The only thing in question would be the amount of the debt, not whether it actually exists.

 

I don't know where to begin but your post from start to finish is completely inaccurate and full of falsehoods

[The cobbett slayer]

Really? - since you are such an expert perhaps you would enlighten me and the rest of the population.

 

As I said, it is an opinion and based on advice, I do believe that a Judge would consider sudden avoidance of repayments where they had previously been made to determine that the debt had been acknowledged. The agreement is supplied to both parties and despite of the requirements of the CCA, the creditor could reasonably demonstrate acknowledgement of the debt by virtue of previous repayments.

 

Bear in mind that the burden of proof in the civil court is only 51% (the balance of probabilities) and personally, I wouldn't want to bet against the lender if you have already made repayments.

[meshi]

Really? - since you are such an expert perhaps you would enlighten me and the rest of the population

 

Are you really a "gold account customer"? enlighten you well if the countless threads and posts are not enough to enlighten you to the fact that contract law is superseded by the consumer credit act and no agreement makes the debt unenforceable (i.e the Wilson case) then there really is no help for you.

 

I'm no expert but for sure I don't have to eat bull sh1t to know that it doesn't taste nice.

 

Really your post and each sentence and paragraph contained therein can be shot down in flames.

 

gold account customer:eek::eek::eek:

[ian1969uk]

meshi is right, you're talking nonsense. I suggest you read the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in particluar sections 60, 61, 65 and 127.

 

If there is no agreement (or an agreement lacking prescribed terms) a judge is prohibited from making an enforcement order.

 

It wouldn't matter if the debtor had a t-shirt on saying 'I owe the money', the law is the law and a judge must implement it.

[meshi]

Really? - since you are such an expert perhaps you would enlighten me and the rest of the population.

 

As I said, it is an opinion and based on advice, I do believe that a Judge would consider sudden avoidance of repayments where they had previously been made to determine that the debt had been acknowledged. The agreement is supplied to both parties and despite of the requirements of the CCA, the creditor could reasonably demonstrate acknowledgement of the debt by virtue of previous repayments.

 

Bear in mind that the burden of proof in the civil court is only 51% (the balance of probabilities) and personally, I wouldn't want to bet against the lender if you have already made repayments.

 

There is one correct thing you have said amongst the utter rubbish you have just spouted. A civil court is on the balance of probability.

 

By the way have you nicked someone else's avatar

[The cobbett slayer]

meshi is right, you're talking nonsense. I suggest you read the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in particluar sections 60, 61, 65 and 127.

 

If there is no agreement (or an agreement lacking prescribed terms) a judge is prohibited from making an enforcement order.

 

It wouldn't matter if the debtor had a t-shirt on saying 'I owe the money', the law is the law and a judge must implement it.

 

No, I'm not talking nonsense and yes Meshi - Gold Account Customer with a very big win under my belt. So far, one of the few people to actually sit in a court room with a bank and win!

 

If you bother to read and digest what I have said, I am saying that I would not advocate the sudden avoidence of repayments on the basis that the agreement cannot be supplied. I am very familiar with the terms of the CCA 1974 (which was incidentally amended in 2006 - have a read because the amendments are relevant) but this does not alter the fact that a Judge is required to consider ALL of the facts and previous repayments would SUGGEST the existance of an AGREEMENT.

 

It is a long way from being a water tight case if payments to the creditor can be proven.

[The cobbett slayer]

There is one correct thing you have said amongst the utter rubbish you have just spouted. A civil court is on the balance of probability.

 

By the way have you nicked someone else's avatar

 

Keep reading and by the way - I've had this avatar for over a year. Try and keep to topic please.

[ian1969uk]

No, I'm not talking nonsense and yes Meshi - Gold Account Customer with a very big win under my belt. So far, one of the few people to actually sit in a court room with a bank and win!

 

If you bother to read and digest what I have said, I am saying that I would not advocate the sudden avoidence of repayments on the basis that the agreement cannot be supplied. I am very familiar with the terms of the CCA 1974 (which was incidentally amended in 2006 - have a read because the amendments are relevant) but this does not alter the fact that a Judge is required to consider ALL of the facts and previous repayments would SUGGEST the existance of an AGREEMENT.

 

It is a long way from being a water tight case if payments to the creditor can be proven.

 

See, you're doing it again!

 

Right, first things first. The 2006 amendments are not retrospective in terms of S127, so if an agreement was made before 6th April 2007, it is still covered by S127 and is completely unenforceable if no agreement exists.

 

So, are you actually saying that if a creditor takes a debtor to court and no agreement exits, and the debtor points this out to the judge, then the judge may still make an enforcement order simply on the basis that payments have been made?

[The cobbett slayer]

See, you're doing it again!

 

What's that then?

[ian1969uk]

Giving misinformation.

 

And you didn't answer my question.

[JonCris]

Sorry Cobbet Slayer as Ian states your advice is just plain wrong :o

 

The CCA 2006 is NOT retrospective & a court CANNOT, under any circumstances, make an order without the creditor producing a 'properly executed signed agreement' if that agreement was entered into pre April 2006

 

Why on earth do you keep insisting your correct when you not. Are you employed by a creditor or DCA

 

Take the time & trouble to read some of the threads on this site & you will see many members who have had debts canceled as a result of the OC or DCA not being able to produce a valid agreement

 

As a matter of fact even if the agreement is post 2006 then the OC still has to produce a valid signed agreement in order to enforce.

 

The difference is that the court can now enforce a debt even if the agreement is not technically correct. A signature is still required

[The cobbett slayer]

If you take the trouble to read my original post again, it is neither advice, nor is it misinformation. It is an opinion and that is that an agreement MAY be inferred by virtue of previous repayments.

 

I am fully aware of the terms of the CCA - 1974, 2002 and 2006 regarding the production of an agreement - I am simply throwing another point of thought into the pot and that doesn't make me wrong - it means I'm opening up the debate.

[hsbcfiddled]

Question.

 

If the original document cannot be supplied and the 12 working days plus the following calender month (approx 43 days) has expired.

 

Can I request return of payments made?

 

or

 

Can I request refund of interest paid on loan? plus interest at same rate as charged?

 

Yes i know I can ask but have I or would I have a case?

 

Thanks in anticipation.

[ian1969uk]

But what debate??

 

It's black and white, no agreement = no enforcement.

[hsbcfiddled]

ian1969uk or joncris

 

Question.

 

If the original document cannot be supplied and the 12 working days plus the following calender month (approx 43 days) has expired.

 

Can I request return of payments made?

 

or

 

Can I request refund of interest paid on loan? plus interest at same rate as charged?

 

Yes i know I can ask but have I or would I have a case?

 

Thanks in anticipation.