SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[chezt]

Hi chez,

 

I don't think there are any templates for this, I worte them a VERY explicit letter though explaining that the agreement id completely unenforcable......no reply form them at all and they are still processing my data - I am gonna get the FOS, FSA involved and the TS are investigating it at the moment....

 

I'm fed up with them....they have been investigating my case since October 2006!!!

 

(so, the APR is a prescribed term then?)

 

So you haven't really got anywhere so far then?

 

The APR should be mentioned on the signed agreement as far as I'm aware

[un1boy]

So you haven't really got anywhere so far then?

 

The APR should be mentioned on the signed agreement as far as I'm aware

 

Not at all, I've sent them another letter (well, it's going tomorrow) and it's a final one- if they don't reaspond to this one then im issuing n1......

 

My original sec 78 was sent in aug 2006, then the letter telling them it is unenforcable was sent in oct 2006 - they will have a lot of damages to get me, espceially as i have had banking facicilties withdrawn purely because of the default markers entered!!`

[humbleman]

(Just posted this on another thread)

 

Recently sent a CCA req. to HFC, last day today got a letter stating

 

sorry for the delay, as req. pleae find enclosed copy of legal agreement for this account. We note that the copy is not too clear, since we had to obtain this form our Archives as a/c opened in 1998.

 

We also return your cheque for £1 as there is no charge for this service.

 

There was a 1 page copy with this letter apart from my writing (like name address employer tel. no. etc)and signatures and dates, 95% of the pre-printed stuff is illegible. No T&C, no interest rates. at the top of this paper I can just about make out credit agreement regulated by cca 1974 but half of it is missing.

 

Any comments whether this is acceptable.

[JonCris]

humbleman it's a con........They haven' t complied........Send the £1 back pointing out it is a statutory requirement that under the CCA 1974 you must pay for your S 77-79 request otherwise it could be invalidated ......Remind them that the time is still running from the time of your original request on ****

[humbleman]

thanks, JonCris

[ecobabe]

InKognito, where did you find all the prescribed terms? i'm helping a young woman with 4 kids under 6 & on benefits, absent father.....she has loan with provident and they have sent bad photocopy of agreement, but i need to check tht everything is there or not(hopefully). thanks

 

doh! just spotted it!

[ecobabe]

sorry! jumped from page 76 to 78 and that's why i missed the info!!!

[un1boy]

I have contacted Trading Standards to let them know that the bank have not sent me the terms etc within the prescribed time and also that the agreement does not contain the relevant prescribed terms.....therfore they have commited a criminal offence and the agreement cannot be enforced.......I wanted an update becasue they have had my case for about 6 weeks now and I've heard nothing.

 

He asked me if I am saying that the debt exists or not, to which I replied that is not a conversation I am having with him, I want them to take against agaisnt the bank's criminality....he told me that they look at the whole picture, and not just the fact they have commited an offence!!

 

What is all that about?

 

Imaigine if the Police took that view:

 

Police: " I am arresting you for burglary"

Thief: "Please Sir, no, it's just I don't have money, I'm homeless and can't be bothered to work....I just wanted to get some things so I could buy them to get some mone to eat"

Police: "Oh, ok then mister, off you go"

 

What is the point of them commiting a criminal offence if trading standards will let them get away with it?

[humbleman]

 

He asked me if I am saying that the debt exists or not, to which I replied that is not a conversation I am having with him, I want them to take against agaisnt the bank's criminality....he told me that they look at the whole picture, and not just the fact they have commited an offence!!

 

What is all that about?

 

 

As mentioned before TS don't have a clue in respect of these kind of actions, and the irony is that we are supposed to take them as the last word on such matters. Thats why they take a lot of time responding, they are probably searcing the forums for advice.

[m55dlc]

We need to devise a multiple mechanism for this sort of action and hit TS with a number of similar positions from lots of different people. We need a single point of contact and we need them not to half heartedly investigate these on a single basis. They need to know there are going to be hundreds of these coming through, and that there could well be hundreds of thousands of these by the summer.

 

In general, we need a single vision of the truth coming from CAG. It is all well and good that we discuss these and are knocked back on a one to one basis, we should prosecute this through to TS with the full force of CAG behind it. This point of law is like a mosquito buzzing in the night to them, you just fend it away when it gets too close. If you put 10, 500 10,000 mosquitos in the room and see how quickly they would dance.

[Peterbard]

Hi

I have had dealings with provident.

 

I found their inerestrates to be extortionate in accordance with section 138 of the act and asked them to close the account and review the amount of interest charged. This thy did i then aranged a sensible repayment schedule. They know that if they won't do it you can make the court do it for them.

Peter

[Peterbard]

Good morning Peter!

 

Where have you been? I've so missed our friendly debates! :grin:

 

Not a prescribed term eh?

 

text below is No. 7 in the list of what an agreement MUST contain:

 

7 The APR which must be denoted as ‘annual percentage rate of the total charge for credit’, ‘APR’ or ‘annual percentage rate’. The only case in which the APR need not be shown is in a fixed-sum agreement for credit to be spent on specified goods or services where the total amount payable is the same as the total cash price (that is, there are no credit charges). In that case there must be a statement indicating this.

 

 

Regards, Pam

 

Incorrect APR and total charge for credit different things APR not a prescribed term Agreement can be enforced without it all be it with a court order unless it in inpinges on sectio127(1)

As i have sai before read the legislation.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

HI Pam sorry to be sharp

Right in the middle of the Bailiff stuff.

read

8.13 Do I have to state the APR?

The APR is not included in the list of prescribed terms in Sch 6. This means that if the APR is missing or incorrect, the court is not precluded by s127(3) from making an enforcement order, provided that the rate of interest is stated if required (see Q8.6).

However, the agreement would be improperly executed (see Q1.19), and so would be enforceable against the debtor only with a court order. S127(1) requires the court to dismiss an application for an enforcement order if it considers it just to do so, having regard to prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it – see Q1.20.

 

Office of Fair Trading Consumer Credit (Agreements etc) Regs draft FAQs 96

8.8 How must the rate of interest be expressed?

The interest rate must be expressed in the manner required by Sch 1 para 10, as amended, if the agreement is to be properly executed. Under Sch 1 para 10(2) if there is more than one rate of interest on the credit to be provided, the agreement must indicate all the rates applicable together with details of when each rate applies – see Q3.34. All rates must be quoted on a per annum basis – see Q3.39.

However, Sch 6 was not itself amended by the 2004 Regulations, and in the OFT’s view there was therefore no extension of the categories of absolute unenforceability. As such, agreements may satisfy the ‘prescribed terms’ requirements of Sch 6 even if they do not also meet the new standards imposed by Sch 1 para 10(2). Failure to meet those standards will render the agreement improperly executed, and so enforceable against the debtor only with a court order, but will not in the OFT’s view make it wholly unenforceable.

[Peterbard]

Hi Jon Chris

Sorry Incorrect

[m55dlc]

Is this linked to the new AER that appeared recently?. What is clear from what you have posted is that some sort (APR or AER or whatever) of statement and / or prescribed term regarding interest is required.

 

Peter, I've had a look for these FAQ's. Could you post q8.6 for us to look at

 

Many thanks

 

Matt

[Peterbard]

Hi Pam

just beem browsomg fpr a rest saw this

So this means that only some credit agreements signed at home will be cancellable.

Credit card agreements are actually non-cancellable according to this criteria but the CC companies have chosen to give cancellation rights so the following applies:

 

What u talkin bout.

 

All Credit Card Applictions filled in away from trade premises have a 14 day cancellation period.

All together now

 

Read the legislation

And rest

Peter

[Peterbard]

Glad to

But i downloaded them so i will give you the title i am sure that it will turn up on google

Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as amended by the 2004 Amendment Regulations

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

sorry missunderstood the request is this what you want

1. 8.6 What is meant by ‘rate of interest’?

Sch 6 para 4 applies to all running-account credit agreements, together with certain fixed-sum credit agreements, namely those:

1. • which do not specify the intervals between repayments or the amounts of repayments;
    
   
2. • under which the total amount payable may vary according to a specified formula by reference to an index or other factor; or
    
   
3. • which provide for variation of the amount or rate of any item included in the total charge for credit.
   

In such cases the agreement must include a term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided. This is also required by Sch 1 para 10 in respect of such agreements – see Q3.32.

[Peterbard]

sorry missunderstood the request is this what you want

1. 8.6 What is meant by ‘rate of interest’?

Sch 6 para 4 applies to all running-account credit agreements, together with certain fixed-sum credit agreements, namely those:

1. • which do not specify the intervals between repayments or the amounts of repayments;
    
   
2. • under which the total amount payable may vary according to a specified formula by reference to an index or other factor; or
    
   
3. • which provide for variation of the amount or rate of any item included in the total charge for credit.
   

In such cases the agreement must include a term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided. This is also required by Sch 1 para 10 in respect of such agreements – see Q3.32.

[un1boy]

sorry missunderstood the request is this what you want

1. 
   
2. 8.6 What is meant by ‘rate of interest’?

Sch 6 para 4 applies to all running-account credit agreements, together with certain fixed-sum credit agreements, namely those:

1. • which do not specify the intervals between repayments or the amounts of repayments;

1. In such cases the agreement must include a term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided. This is also required by Sch 1 para 10 in respect of such agreements – see Q3.32.

    

   Ok Peter, so if my agreement only says "I agree to be bound by the terms and condition attahced" but the sig box mentions nothing about the amount of interest, the amount of credit card balance etc then it is unenforcable even with a court order, is that right?

   
   
2. 
   
3. • under which the total amount payable may vary according to a specified formula by reference to an index or other factor; or
   
   
4. • which provide for variation of the amount or rate of any item included in the total charge for credit.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Very Interesting,

 

A post I put up on this thread this afternoon regarding J D Williams has been unapproved without further explanation.

 

I thought the thread was about Loan companies not providing Agreements and nothing I said was libellous as I have posted the letters from these people on the threads.

 

Would the Mod who unapproved the posting please contact me and explain. I can't reply because the PM was a do not reply.

[m55dlc]

Battleaxe, the email had a footer that opened you (and the site) up to grief for posting information without the consent of the people who sent you the email!

 

Re-read the email and you'll see why it was CAGBOTted

[Guest Battleaxe]

Ah, that explains it. It would have been nice to be given an explaination rather than just a curt email to say it had been unapproved. I wouldn't have minded if the MODS had edited it and removed the footer.

 

I have been given the run around by this crowd (not the MODS) and they realised that I was serious hence the email stating that I would get a letter by the end of the week. They still have not complied with the Section 77-78 request.

 

Fair enough about opening the site to grief. There was nothing in the email of a confidential nature and I was trying to highlight the number of companies this lot hide behind and their stalling tactics

 

Funny thing about emails and the footers , the footers even though they are there are, put there to cover the senders in case the ADDREESSEE complains about the contents falling in to the wrong hands.

[m55dlc]

Very true BA, I did try and PM you, but I don't have Skype and I didn't want you prejudicing any court action against these people.

[Guest Battleaxe]

I have given up on the PM's for personal reasons.

 

Court action? This lot are so scared of court it is funny. This is why the emailed me, because I have already brought the wrath of on lot down on their heads and they nearly forgot that 4pm to day was the deadline for their reply, hence the email to me/ They are now using their Company Secretary to write to me. They have had to call off their dogs, they are not allowed to phone me and it is they who are in trouble. they have broklen every rule in the book and FSA is now breathing down their necks. For so long they have concealed their practises and now we have the expertise to play them at their own game and they definitely don't like it.

 

What am I supposed to do, be magnanimous and allow two more days? No way, everything goes tomorrow morning to the FSA, ICO and Trading Standards. They have had three deadlines and each has been flaunted. they have not kept this dealine, so the gloves are off.

 

I appreciate what you tried to do M55. Thank you for you concern.