SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[Peterbard]

Peter

completely disagree.

My reference is (p'''ssed off many people) SURLYBONDS - he has sound logical arguments based upon Data Protection Act.

 

The essence of the argument is based upon common law, Data Protection Act and the CCA. Let us consider just the Data Protection Act - YOU are the centre of this and all the regulations cover os how YOUR information is held. One of YOUR fundamental rights is to provide YOUR permission to hold YOUR data. any data controller requires YOUR permission... get it? its about YOU.

A CRA must respond to YOUR requests about YOUR data NOT the creditor.

There is absolutely NO legislation which allows them to retain YOUR data for 6 years. An industry standard agreed has NO place in law. Similarly, IF you give permission in your agreement then THAT is the only mechanism which provides a CRA the permission to hold data re you and then ONLY through the life of a properly executed agreement.

Finally at the end of the agreement unless there is good reason to keep that information in the public domain (CCJs) there is NO reason to keep your information on their systems. They are simply a third party subject not exempt to same legislation..

 

and this all is ONLY if permission is granted (as specifically required - NO exceptions by the Data Protection Act) within the context of afully executed agreement as defined by the CCA.... mmm see where I am coming from???

ok???

 

Don't scare me i have sparred with Pam.

 

Think i see where you are coming from could it be to much tostesterone.

 

You are saying that if the agreement is not properly executed it is not properly exectuted it is void therefore there is no permissin to disclose data.Yep

This would be the case if you were persuing under the none compliance with the precontractual terms and conditions.

 

If howecver you are asking for a copy under 77 you are simply asking for a copy and therefore the agreement exists and the permission exists.

If you are contending that the agreement does not exist then the permission obiously does not apply. But just because after the 12 days the agreement has not ben produced unless you are wiling to say there was never any such agreement the permission stands. It is only the entitlement for the debtor to persue the debt that is curtailed by the default. By the way did i say any thng about the six year rule.I remember saying if the agreement was void the permission didn't apply.

 

Finally

A CRA must respond to YOUR requests about YOUR data NOT the creditor.

There is absolutely NO legislation which allows them to retain YOUR data for 6 years.

 

I believe you as i have said i am no expert on the Data Protection Act fact remains thoughthat they so hold data for that long even after surlybond and others valiant eforts to prove otherwise .

 

Peter

 

NOw calm down

Peter

 

 

[zubo]

Nice try m55, first there is no contract - the agreement is an essential part of the contract - the pre-contract process requires that you enter into a contract on the basis of the agreement, prescribed terms your consent et al

 

...

[m55dlc]

Nice try m55, first there is no contract - the agreement is an essential part of the contract - the pre-contract process requires that you enter into a contract on the basis of the agreement, prescribed terms your consent et al

 

...

 

But at what point does a non-executed agreement stop being an agreement? Don't think that the CCA and the DPA are the only acts that apply

 

...

 

PS Any movement on GE Capital pointers?

[Peterbard]

PETER

IT MAY BE OBVIOUS TO YOU BUT NOT TO US "NON LEGAL seagulls" (UNTIL WE READ YOUR POST ABOVE

 

No Alterior motive

I am simply asking the location of the legislation that says that credit card agreements were non cancellable pre 2004.

 

Peter

[zubo]

Peter

completely disagree.

My reference is (p'''ssed off many people) SURLYBONDS - he has sound logical arguments based upon Data Protection Act.

 

The essence of the argument is based upon common law, Data Protection Act and the CCA. Let us consider just the Data Protection Act - YOU are the centre of this and all the regulations cover os how YOUR information is held. One of YOUR fundamental rights is to provide YOUR permission to hold YOUR data. any data controller requires YOUR permission... get it? its about YOU.

A CRA must respond to YOUR requests about YOUR data NOT the creditor.

There is absolutely NO legislation which allows them to retain YOUR data for 6 years. An industry standard agreed has NO place in law. Similarly, IF you give permission in your agreement then THAT is the only mechanism which provides a CRA the permission to hold data re you and then ONLY through the life of a properly executed agreement.

Finally at the end of the agreement unless there is good reason to keep that information in the public domain (CCJs) there is NO reason to keep your information on their systems. They are simply a third party subject not exempt to same legislation..

 

and this all is ONLY if permission is granted (as specifically required - NO exceptions by the Data Protection Act) within the context of afully executed agreement as defined by the CCA.... mmm see where I am coming from???

ok???

 

Don't scare me i have sparred with Pam.

 

Think i see where you are coming from could it be to much tostesterone.

 

You are saying that if the agreement is not properly executed it is not properly exectuted it is void therefore there is no permissin to disclose data.Yep

This would be the case if you were persuing under the none compliance with the precontractual terms and conditions.

 

If howecver you are asking for a copy under 77 you are simply asking for a copy and therefore the agreement exists and the permission exists.

If you are contending that the agreement does not exist then the permission obiously does not apply. But just because after the 12 days the agreement has not ben produced unless you are wiling to say there was never any such agreement the permission stands. It is only the entitlement for the debtor to persue the debt that is curtailed by the default. By the way did i say any thng about the six year rule.I remember saying if the agreement was void the permission didn't apply.

 

Finally

A CRA must respond to YOUR requests about YOUR data NOT the creditor.

There is absolutely NO legislation which allows them to retain YOUR data for 6 years.

 

I believe you as i have said i am no expert on the Data Protection Act fact remains thoughthat they so hold data for that long even after surlybond and others valiant eforts to prove otherwise .

 

Peter

 

NOw calm down

Peter

 

 

 

Peter

 

I wouldn't have the b===s to spar with Pam....

[zubo]

But at what point does a non-executed agreement stop being an agreement? Don't think that the CCA and the Data Protection Act are the only acts that apply

 

...

 

PS Any movement on GE Capital pointers?

 

It doesn't vanish - its unenforceable and I do disagree with Peter if you have no copy agreement to demonstrate your consent, then how on earth can a DCA state - but you have given consent. Prove it I say.

 

GE - reviewing my email...

[m55dlc]

It doesn't vanish - its unenforceable and I do disagree with Peter if you have no copy agreement to demonstrate your consent, then how on earth can a DCA state - but you have given consent. Prove it I say.

 

GE - reviewing my email...

 

But remember:

 

6. - (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

Making others aware that you are a bad risk is a legitimate interest to the bank. Are you going to argue with a judge that the processing is unwarranted? Do you think the judge will accept this? He'll say 'I can't make you pay, but you are not getting off scot free!'

[zubo]

But remember:

 

6. - (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

 

Making others aware that you are a bad risk is a legitimate interest to the bank. Are you going to argue with a judge that the processing is unwarranted? Do you think the judge will accept this? He'll say 'I can't make you pay, but you are not getting off scot free!'

 

NO! it is YOUR data you have the express right which regardless of how bad you are for removal. The judge has to abide by the act whatever he thinks of you - the DCA have no reference to show your consent - no matter what other reasons the DCA provide (EXCEPT CCJS AND NATIONAL INTEREST) then your overriding interest MUST be satisfied.

[Peterbard]

I wouldn't have the b===s to spar with Pam....

vbrep_register("587361")

Wise beyond your years.

Peter

[weaver440]

I am really sorry to bump this thread but could someone please take a look at my thread Weaver440 British Gas Loan charges in General consumer. Am really desperate. Has been there now for about 2 weeks but with no reply. Please help.

[m55dlc]

And we're talking at cross purposes. The DCA cannot prove a thing without an executed agreement, but there are always clauses in the contracts / agreements they sign with the banks (I am guessing here, but an educated guess) that would purport to bestowe on the DCA the same rights as the bank has regarding the contract.

This is what you would have to challenge. You only have deemed to have 'agreed' (used 'cos I don't have my contracts dictionary head on) to the contract, so the whole passing on of this in contractual terms is shaky.

 

You may have limited success against removal of a default notice (bank, not DCA), but removal of balance, start date, missed payments etc will be very hard to remove. And under the DPA you in essence have the right to get all personal information removed from a CRA, but that is tantamount to immediate credit refusal from ANY credit search. That's why it's hard to get credit if you haven't got any credit.

[un1boy]

But remember:

 

6. - (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

 

Making others aware that you are a bad risk is a legitimate interest to the bank. Are you going to argue with a judge that the processing is unwarranted? Do you think the judge will accept this? He'll say 'I can't make you pay, but you are not getting off scot free!'

 

Ah but, don;t foget, the Judge would have to take into effect the fact that the bank has committed a criminal offence would he not?

 

If an agreement is unenforcable due to having the correct prescribed terms then, would you not think that the "legitimate" (ie lawful) interests and rights of the data subject have been prejudiced because the bank/lender has encouraged them to sign an agreement which is, in essence illegal?

[Peterbard]

Originally Posted by zubo

It doesn't vanish - its unenforceable and I do disagree with Peter if you have no copy agreement to demonstrate your consent, then how on earth can a DCA state - but you have given consent. Prove it I say.

Because they have a copy.

Peter

[zubo]

The DCA cannot prove a thing without an executed agreement, but there are always clauses in the contracts / agreements they sign with the banks (I am guessing here, but an educated guess) that would purport to bestowe on the DCA the same rights as the bank has regarding the contract.

 

NO most definitely not.

 

Their contractual relationships are in no way affected by you and the creditor and your own agreement.

 

The linkage is if you have given consent in your agreement can they then provide them with relevent information and I repeat only during the lifetime of a fully executed agreement.

[m55dlc]

The DCA cannot prove a thing without an executed agreement, but there are always clauses in the contracts / agreements they sign with the banks (I am guessing here, but an educated guess) that would purport to bestowe on the DCA the same rights as the bank has regarding the contract.

 

NO most definitely not.

 

Their contractual relationships are in no way affected by you and the creditor and your own agreement.

 

The linkage is if you have given consent in your agreement can they then provide them with relevent information and I repeat only during the lifetime of a fully executed agreement.

 

Thanks for not also quoting the previso I put in the next paragraph, during which I said this link would be argueable in court, but hey.

 

I agree, if a DCA cannot provide the agreement they are going to have a very hard time proving to a judge that they are allowed to process your data. But lets not forget, if a DCA doesn't respond to a s77/8, they normally shut up anyway, and will generally go away, so that part of the discussion is very limited and narrow.

[m55dlc]

The linkage is if you have given consent in your agreement can they then provide them with relevent information and I repeat only during the lifetime of a fully executed agreement.

 

Wrong, for the lifetime of the debt, not the agreement! Do not confuse non-enforceability = does not exist.

 

Zubo, can we agree to disagree. We're going round in circles and neither of us have moved an inch.

 

PS. GE? I haven't offended you have I

[zubo]

Originally Posted by zubo

It doesn't vanish - its unenforceable and I do disagree with Peter if you have no copy agreement to demonstrate your consent, then how on earth can a DCA state - but you have given consent. Prove it I say.

Because they have a copy.

 

Peter

 

REALLY????

 

so if you issue them with a request to see the permission they should be able to provide one??? and then if NOT they will HAVE to comply with your lawful request for removal.

 

The reason I say this is because I am convinced that there are a huge number of cases where there simply is NO agreement.

[saxon]

Hello, for Battleaxe alternitive phone number for call credit 0113 2441555

[InKogneeToh]

Peter

 

I wouldn't have the b===s to spar with Pam....

 

What?? Sweet little old me?

 

Damn - I made that figure a bit big - I'll have to buy some more wax now!!

[InKogneeToh]

 

I am simply asking the location of the legislation that says that credit card agreements were non cancellable pre 2004.

 

 

Hiya Peter

 

I'm back!

 

What legislation?? Well strangely enough it was the CCA 1974 - surprised you there didn't I!

 

Cancellation of certain agreements within cooling off period

67. A regulated agreement may be cancelled by the debtor or hirer in accordance with this Part if the antecedent negotiations included oral representations made when in the presence of the debtor or hirer by an individual acting as, or on behalf of, the negotiator, unless—

(a) the agreement is secured on land, or is a restricted-use credit agreement to finance the purchase of land or is an agreement for a bridging loan in connection with the purchase of land, or

b) the unexecuted agreement is signed by the debtor or hirer at premises at which any of the following is carrying on any business (whether on a permanent or temporary basis)—

(i) the creditor or owner;

(ii) any party to a linked transaction (other than the debtor or hirer or a relative of his);

(iii) the negotiator in any antecedent negotiations.

 

Further explained in the OFT doc:

 

Points to note

For an agreement to be cancellable, discussions about the prospective agreement must take place in the presence of the customer. If all the negotiations take place over the telephone or by post, the agreement is not cancellable.

 

So, agreements sent and returned by post prior to Distance Marketing Regs and Distance Selling Regs. - were not cancellable BUT CC providers nevertheless chose to make cc agreements cancellable.

 

Okay Yah!!

[InKogneeToh]

 

If an agreement is unenforcable due to having the correct prescribed terms then, would you not think that the "legitimate" (ie lawful) interests and rights of the data subject have been prejudiced because the bank/lender has encouraged them to sign an agreement which is, in essence illegal?

 

Hi

 

NO -it is NOT illegal - just badly drawn up! The CCA was enacted to protect borrowers from loan sharks etc. so sanctions were put in place for instances where certain omissions or errors in agreements would be likely to cause harm, confusion or prejudice to the borrower. The sanction in such cases is that the creditor cannot force you to pay BUT the contract still exists and is valid.

 

Regards, Pam

[JonCris]

HOT OFF THE PRESS!!!

 

Just got off the phone to ICO.

 

Apparently a lender does not require any agreement for processing your data, so if people are requesting agreements for a loan or cc and the lender is unable to produce this, they are quite within their right to report the account activity to the CRA's.

 

 

Yes they do & whoever told you that should really be considering another career.

 

When you telephone a lender or other finance institution to borrow money or arrange insurance the clerk will tell you that they will be doing a credit check & if you don't agree that will be the end of that.

 

If you complete an on line application you will tick to agree that they may process your data with a CRA........

[Peterbard]

Hi Pam Nice to have you backOwq did the service go on your brroostick.

 

Thought that was the one you were refering to .Doesen't apply of course on a distance contract.

 

Peter

[InKogneeToh]

Hi Pam Nice to have you backOwq did the service go on your brroostick.

 

Thought that was the one you were refering to .Doesen't apply of course on a distance contract.

 

Peter

 

Hi Peter

 

My broomstick doesn't need a service - it's always kept in tip-top condition. I was actually at a convention for 21st century witches - most enlightening!

 

Doesn't apply to a distance contract/credit agreement made after the various distance regs. came into force - true, but does apply to distance agreements entered into before the new regs. That is the point!

 

However, credit card agreements entered into by post/phone before the regs., although non-cancellable by definition, were given cancellable status by the lenders. I'm not sure when this practice started though so it is possible that some very old credit card agreements may not have been cancellable.

 

Regards, Pam

[tumble]

In the case of a bank loan where the money was debited into your account , then the monthly payments were made , would this not be considered evidence that the loan was in place in the absence of a agreemant and used in the loan providers defence. If you coninue with the repayments is this not acknowledgement that there is an awareness of a contract being in place.