SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[ian1969uk]

The agreement would be regulated by the CCA 1974. The fact that the heading is wrong is just another thing wrong with it and another thing to challenge.

[noomill060]

Just checked-

 

It does actually say in the wee sig box: "This is a Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974". :o I'll scan it at the library tomorrow.

[noomill060]

Still, none of the prescribed terms on the signature document, though.

[zubo]

Still, none of the prescribed terms on the signature document, though.

 

shame,

 

completely unenforceable

 

z

[JonCris]

Whilst an agreement of 25K or under SHOULD state it is a regulated agreement if it doesn't it's still a regulated agreement. The fact that it doesn't state that it is is just another reason that it is unenforceable;)

[JonCris]

I would add to Zubo's excellent post that the only reason creditors & DCA's have in the past successfully obtained judgment against debtors for unenforceable agreements is because those debtors didn't dispute the claim.

 

In other words most CCJ's have, in the case of regulated credit, been awarded by default. The difference now of course is because of sites such as this consumers are becoming aware of their rights & as a result are now empowered to take on the bully boys:D

[Peterbard]

Hi

I am afraqid that there is nothin in the 1983 regs to say the signature box must accompany the schedue of finanfcial requirements if fact tothe contrary the OFT says

 

Signatures

All agreements are to be signed by both customer and trader, or their representatives, and the date of signature entered. The customer’s signature and its date must be inside a box. This box can be of any size and appear anywhere in the agreement, but the wording inside it must be easily legible and must follow that for the appropriate type of agreement as set out in Appendix 2. The signature of the trader and its date must be

outside the customer’s signature box. Similarly the signature of any witness, and its date, must also be outside the customer’s signature box.

Regards

Peter

[The cobbett slayer]

The agreement would be regulated by the CCA 1974. The fact that the heading is wrong is just another thing wrong with it and another thing to challenge.

 

That's cleared that up then:D

[Peterbard]

That's cleared that up then:D

Hi

Absolutely

The other thing about the heading is that it is missleading the debtor into signing something he is not .

This may be used in conjunction with section 127(1)(ii) with a view to unenforceability.

 

Regards

Peter

[spiritgirl59]

I would add to Zubo's excellent post that the only reason creditors & DCA's have in the past successfully obtained judgment against debtors for unenforceable agreements is because those debtors didn't dispute the claim.

 

In other words most CCJ's have, in the case of regulated credit, been awarded by default. The difference now of course is because of sites such as this consumers are becoming aware of their rights & as a result are now empowered to take on the bully boys:D

 

Just to add to JonCris's comments here, I also believe that the vast amount of people who are unfortunately not aware of their rights and therefore proceed to pay these bully boy DCAs without making a stance, must seriously offset the amount the DCAs lose by the challenges they do receive from folks "in the know" due to sites such as this one....and so the DCAs back down time and time again when they are seriously challenged by folks who ARE in the know as it just isn't worth the time and money to argue the case.

 

Many of them are probably not even bothered that they cannot provide properly executed agreements because the majority of the population will never ask for one...if you see what I mean. Sorry to have waffled but hope you'll know what I'm getting at

 

Love Spiritgirl x

[zubo]

Just to add to JonCris's comments here, I also believe that the vast amount of people who are unfortunately not aware of their rights and therefore proceed to pay these bully boy DCAs without making a stance, must seriously offset the amount the DCAs lose by the challenges they do receive from folks "in the know" due to sites such as this one....and so the DCAs back down time and time again when they are seriously challenged by folks who ARE in the know as it just isn't worth the time and money to argue the case.

 

Many of them are probably not even bothered that they cannot provide properly executed agreements because the majority of the population will never ask for one...if you see what I mean. Sorry to have waffled but hope you'll know what I'm getting at

 

Love Spiritgirl x

 

I know exactly what you mean!!!

 

go spread the gospel - I despair that the people who really really need our help are not here... these are the most vulnerable and regretably (in the nicest possible way) the most ignorant.

 

If you meet anyone like it, then tell them help is available - at no cost!!!

 

Z

[joesoap]

I had a CCj awarded against me because of ignorance. Although due to fall off my credit file next Feb I've written to Amex demanding (if you don't ask, you don't get) that it should be removed immediately as it was placed there illegally (perhaps I should have used unlawfully) as there was and still is no agreement in existence hence there is no debt and if there is no debt how can a CCJ be applied for? At their own admission, all they have provided me with is a copy of the original application form. I now Gizmo reckons that it is pointless trying for this but who knows? In addition, I've also got Amex over the barrell regarding the non compliance of a full SAR!

[JonCris]

Joe I assume you mean a County County Judgement if so they can't remove it, you must apply to the court for a set-aside.

 

If you didn't admit the debt or defend it it will be pretty straight forward

[noomill060]

"Application Agreement"

 

Shot at 2007-07-09

[noomill060]

Bit illegible, but just asks for name, address, salary, length of time at address, job, bank account details.

 

No APR

 

No repayment periods

 

No credit limit.

[joesoap]

JonCris, That was the problem. I did admit it but didn't defend it. I knew no better. We're talking Feb 2002 here. Debt collectors ruled then, they don't now. There were other anomalies that came to light recently when I looked at paperwork eg. no default notice. I know it will be difficult but it's worth a try.

[noomill060]

Shot at 2007-07-09

 

 

Shot at 2007-07-09

[noomill060]

Sorry aboit the size, I'll try to reduce it.

 

Just noticed that yes, the credit limit is mentioned.

 

However its not mine!

 

The T&Cs state that credit limit will be £150, £500, £1000, £1500 or £2500.

 

My original credit limit was £1400.

[joesoap]

JonCris, That was the problem. I did admit it but didn't defend it. I knew no better. We're talking Feb 2002 here. Debt collectors ruled then, they don't now. There were other anomalies that came to light recently when I looked at paperwork eg. no default notice. I know it will be difficult but it's worth a try.

 

JonCris

 

Following on from what you said yesterday, I have written to Amex asking them to take the County Court Judgement off. I bow to your superior knowledge ( I am aware of your occupation) so can I assume that if I ask for a Set Aside, Amex could oppose it, or am I barking up the wrong tree?I'd hate to waste sixty five quid or whatever it is!

[noomill060]

Oh flip, how the f can I delete my gigantic photocopy (of the photocopy) of the 1999 Barclaycard T&Cs?

[gill5blue]

Hi Noomill060

I am trying to place a copy of my CCA here, how did you place a copy here?

Gill

[gill5blue]

sorry did not work

[gill5blue]

i think ive done it

 

no too small

[gill5blue]

is this better

 

no too big

[noomill060]

go here:

 

ImageShack® - Hosting