Toxic.. Banker has just replied on my cap 1 thread... the info on the subject of responses to cca requests could well clear things up for you.. take a look at the link he gives... further down the page is a post by peterbard which has a great letter highlighting the issues... FOTN

Thanks BRW.. From what i can understand this gives me scope to dispute the validity of their response on the grounds that there are omissions (as evidenced by the bleed thu)... I'm pretty certain that thye sig page they have supplied has been condensed from other docs too.. but i can't see clear evidence of that on what they've sent.. I can't ever remember signing a doc looking like that and it's layout seems to stray from the normal too.. that and the fact they've got 2 bar-codes on it leads me to suspect it's hookey..but i can't be sure.. i think my only way forward is to continue the dispute till i have a proper copy of all of the agreement.. do you know any one who has sililar paperwork of this vintage (2005) ? I'd like to see how they've got on.. thanks again..your reply will also be of help to Toxic and the others taking an interest in this thread... FOTN

Toxic.. IMHO this should be your plan. from your post:- 1) The prescribed terms and my signature are not on the same side of the two sided form. Does this make it unenforceable or improperly executed given that there is no link from one side to the other? 2) On the rear, section 1.4b referrs to conditions in sections that are not on the form. Does this make it unenforceable / improperly executed? 3) The terms and conditions i was sent were a simple printout of their current ones. Does the fact I have not received the original T&C's enable me to place in dispute under a section 77-79 request Section 11(g) SI1983/1557 If iot were me i'd confine the argument to whether they have properly responded to your cca request - whilst that is still disputed it buys you time..whether the agreement is enforceable or not (and i don't think it is) is impossible to judge until you have all the info they are required to produce... and their response clearly falls short of their obligations.. with hindsight the legibility issue on that single date looks a bit weak... but your other points are good. fistly to have correctly responded i think they needed to have sent the original t&c's in force at the time you entered into the agreement...they haven't -- so your request remains outstanding and the account in dispute.. secondly, the rear section 1,4b referes to t&c's which are not included...so again their response is incomplete and not sufficient to satisfy your request. Thirdly, there appears nothing to connect the front of the form to what they claim is the back. Could they please point out how they are connected so that you can be sure that the rear of the form contains part of your agreement and not any other. Lastly, thery have sent you 2 documents (both incomplete) but both they contend are your cca... for the avoidance of doubt can they confirm which is the "true copy" and which they would rely on in the case of any future action by eitrher party.. Whilst these issues remain unresolved, there is clearly uncertainty and dispute between you. I'd leave the issue of the dates for later on -- as i've said before i think this could really help you in a court room (if it ever gets to that - which i doubt)...I wouldn't be in any rush to cpr them -- you never know they might just come up with something.. and if your circs are anything like mine ... what we really need is time... good luck and keep us posted.. FOTN

Think so as I say I picked this up on another thread in a bit of frantic copy. And pasting. I will try and retrace my steps and post a link. Not suggesting any police involvement. But I think its worth pointing out the position to them and copy that letter to the FSO or trading standards and leave it to them. FOTN

Also, here's a bit from another post on the same thread -- subject of discussion was, if the creditor had created a "frankenstien" doc in response to a cca request.. effectivley if they'd cut and pasted from other docs to give the appearance of a valid cca--- as i believe they've done in my case.. The Fraud Act is small as it contains only 16 sections plus 3 schedules. All Theft Act deception offences are abolished to be replaced by 3 new fraud offences: fraud by misrepresentation.......f raud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of position.. Under section 1 a person is guilty of fraud if they are in breach of any offences in sections 2,3,4. Under Section 2 representation must be made dishonestly which is established under the two-stage test as set out in Rv Gosh (1982) QB 1053, 75 Cr App R 154 in which the defendant was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people Subsection (1)(b) requires that the representation is made with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing a loss or risk of loss to another. Loss and gain are defined in section 5 as being money or property Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information 18. Section 3 makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of "legal duty" is explained in the Law Commission's Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29: "7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal). 7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non-disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it." More specifically, section 3 states: 3 Fraud by failing to disclose information A person is in breach of this section if he- (a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b) intends, by failing to disclose the information- (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss Gain and Loss Specified 5 "Gain" and "loss" (1) The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance with this section. (2) "Gain" and "loss"- (a) extend only to gain or loss in money or other property; (b) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent; FOTN

Toxic... whilst trawling other threads i came across this posted by a hugely experienced cagger..can't recall the thread now.. but it looks interesting, may be of help to Muffin and tracey too... it's my opinion FWIW that a creditor can provide a 'reconstructed' agreement to satisfy the CCA but it must not be 'conjectured' it must be a true copy of the original in as far as it goes in that it can 'exclude' addresses & Sig as per the 83 regulations Nevertheless if rather than 'reconstruct' an agreement wouldn't it be much less time consuming if the creditor where just to send a copy of the original in their possession rather than faff around making one up. No if they send you a 'reconstructed' agreement chances are it's because they don't have the original Also I suggest if they don't admit at the outset that the agreement provided is 'reconstructed' they risk falling foul of the 2006 Fraud act However, & this is the crux of the matter they must be able to produce a 'signed' true copy of the original including the original T's & C's if they intend enforcing the agreement. The problem for the money lenders is that many are no longer on possession of the originals as in an effort to maximize profit they have disposed of the hard copies in the mistaken belief that they could enforce an agreement on the basis of the account alone. This of course completely ignores their CCA obligations & it's only because of their avarice that they are now suffering the consequences. The great tragedy is that this valuable protection, as afforded under sec 127 of the 74 Act, has been removed from the 2006 Act by this government on the disgraceful pretext that it's in the interest of the consumer when in fact it's a sop to the finance industry after their bloody nose in Wilson v Secretary of State __________________ FOTN

Toxic, don't panic.. I sympathise totally, Like you i'm self employed... income has evaporated..I've paid this lot plenty for years.. but now they've got to take a hit ... as I have done... I've spent loads on lawyers unsuccessfully trying to recover money owed to my biz ... so i know how hard it is to get someone to pay if they don't want to.. These co's operate on a fundamentally imoral biz strategy... first they offer you "free money"... they encourage you to get to your limit quickly... then they hike the rate so that you've no hope of reducing the balance and they can recover all they've lent and more...tot up what you've paid back and see... So i'd have no compunction about taking them to the cleaners... in their rush to stitch us all up they've not kept their house in order... now that they've been found out they're using bully boy tactics.. Like you my rating is still good, but about to go bad..there's nothing i can do about that...and we won't be the only ones.. we need to get the battle won step by step... once we've established that these cca responses aren't good we can then get on the attack and repair our credit ratings ....who knows biz might have picked up by then and we can do a full and final deal.. If not, i wouldn't worry about court action, if it were that simply they'd produce the paperwork and just get on with it..and there are very few examples of the co's actually going to court and winning.. No judge will award them more than you can afford to pay in that event either... so relax.. and deal with what you can as it arises.. Do like the measured and reasonable tone of your posts...but IMHO best to write letters when you're not angry.... Stay with it.. FOTN

Thank you people... I feel a letter coming on..along these lines that they have now had 2 attempts at complying with my reasonable an legal request for the information. the first was woefully short of what they are required to produce. and the second, clearly put them to some trouble to put together a document that gave the impression that they did in fact have an enforceable agreement..but again clearly not sufficient to fulfill their obligations.. falling short in 2 respects.. in that neither was it "true" nor was it a "copy"... what could possibly be the reason for this subtefuge ? a/. They don't have an agreement but want to give the impression that they do ? b/. In an effort to save paper they've condensed another document onto a single sheet ? c/. They are being deliberately awkward and hiding behind the latitude they have under regulation 3 d/. They do have a copy - but it is archived elsewhere and not readily available, and they've worked hard to comply with my request from the information they have to hand.. Which do we think is the most likley answer ? In any event, I do not believe they have dealt with this in a straightforward and honest manner. If they have a good agreement - then why not just copy it and send it.? If they can get one from an archive, then why not say that ?...I'm in no rush.. FOTN

Not sure i agree ... having read Toxics posts I think he's got a handle on just whats required ! But reassurance is a powerful thing.. I'm no expert, as I'm sure you've gathered by now... But, I would draft the letter slightly differently, focussing on just one issue -- the legibility perhaps as that is enough to kill it stone dead.. I'd leave the other deficiencies for later as this then gives scope for a further dispute if they solve the legibility issue -- and there's always the chance that they will send an entireley different document later on and really give themselves problems.. The issue of the dates on the second agreement I would shut up about... for now at least... because if this ever came to court it's the silver bullet that will have their counsel gasping for words and expose them to any judge as the t$%*s they are...there is also the possibility if it came to it that the contract - if it exists - could be void for uncertainty -- that uncertainty being which agreement they are seeking to rely on.. So, my view is - keep it short -- confine the complaint to one issue.. keep in the bits about harrassment, and legal action and leave it at that...for now at least.. and definately keep your trump card firmly up your sleeve....just in case.. I'd be really grateful for your views on my cap 1 scenario..If you've time... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/178832-cap-one-agreement-recieved.html FOTN

Hi, Falco, Tracey... I've had the same response from capone as you, though their last response is a bit of a departure... take a look if yo've time.. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/178832-cap-one-agreement-recieved.html#post1930202 FOTN

Received these today, after a previous copy of some current t&c's arrived a few weeks ago. On the surface they look good and enforceable, and helpfully Ellie has included the sig box and my name and address. But... where they've pasted my printed name and address and the sig box these clearly either weren't present on the original or were in a different position. Because, once scanned looking at the back of the agreement you can see the ghost of the image of the front. This ties up at the bottom...."inst for ppi etc". but at the top the image is entirely different. it shows the standard "application for etc..." and "employment details etc... Clearly it's a copy of an agreement... and a seemingly valid one..But it's not the one i signed... or if it is it's been edited some.. Also the code at the bottom is "PREAG/0505" so presumably it's a pre agreement.. Ellie says cap 1 will not correspond further on the matter and they do not consider the account to be in dispute.. What's my next move d'ya think ? links below... http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj404/fangio/cap1agback001-1.jpg[/img] http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj404/fangio/cap1agfront001.jpg[/img] Any other comments on the artwork ? Ta.. FOTN

don't think it matters...i think the prescribed terms are contained in 1 & 2.. the box below "loss and misuse of card" refers you to other t&c's elsewhere.. Still have a problem with the dates though.. if these docs are correct then on 26/6 you signed the application form on 27/6 the executed it. THEN on 10/7 the then executed a blank agreement without your sig and sent it to you.. 18 days later on 28/7 you signed it and returned it to them.. Sorry, but i simply cannot believe they signed that before you did.. from their point of vie i can't see why they'd need a 2nd agreement.. and even if they did i can't imagine that they'd sign it befotre you... so either its a mistake on the dates.. or its a cut and paste job ? can you remember signing 2 application forms for the same account ? FOTN

yes they are... or they could be provided they can prove that that was actually the back of the agreement.. BUT.... and perhaps another cagger can confirm.. within the 4 corners" i take to be somewhere between the title and the sig box... not necessarily on the same page but certainly before the sig box.. there's nothing on the front to draw your attention to them ... nothing to confirm you've read or seenn the t&c's overleaf... so as far as i'm vconcerned thats outside the 4 corners... can anyone clear this up ? FOTN

Asiude from my last post other issues title not strictly correct --- missing the word "card" nothing to connect the sig page and the prescribed terms Prescribed terms not within "4 corners of the agreement" no reference on the front to any t&C's on the back reference numbers ---the JAQ no's on front of agreements different...if you've only one card they can't both be right... FOTN

Wow !....not one but two......are those really genuine ? Cos if they are I think you might want to have a chat with the fraud squad... not been thru it in any huge detail but on CCA2front..it seems to have been signed and excecuted by them on the 10th july 2002... Your signature is dated 28/7/02 Have i missed something or are they really trying to pretend that they executed your signed document 18 days before you signed it ? Something is not right... are you sure of the dates ? FOTN

just had identical paperwork thru after a cca request....oddly mine was poste 1st class but only recieved toay despite the letter from the notorious Ellie Renshaw being dated 15th Dec...post office never that bad in my experience... so something hookey there... any way i've disputed as you've done...I'll sub if you dont mind and see how you get on... FOTN

HI, looks similar to mine, which i'm disputing on the basis that the copy they've sent is illegible.. but, could be wrong and someone please correct me if i'm am.. Front seems just a copy of an application form, the title is lacking the words "credit card agreement" so thats not strictly correct. There's nothing connecting the front and the rear...no notice that terms are overleaf etc. so you can't be sure that they were ever overleaf.. the act requires that the prescribed terms are within the "4 corners of the agreement" ... in my opinion the fact that they are not between the title and the sig box the agreement fails in this respect. If the agreement was filled in by an agent (as mine was) and the prescribed terms were on the back there is nothing to draw your attention to them on the front and it is therefore entirelky possible that you may never have been aware of them... Also the code numbers on the bottom of the page are different... by no means conclusive but does not give any comfort that it was ever part of the same doc.. otherwise .. looks like it's been properley excercised, and the prescribed terms look to me to be sufficient,,. so if they've got the original.. and this looks to be a good copy, and they can convince a judge that the prescribed terms were part of the document and thast the error in the title does not matter... then you could be on a sticky wicket.. IMHO the other t&c's don't matter... so long as they can provide a copy of what was in force ast the time they're ok.. FOTN

Sorry Steven, can you spell that out for me... not sure whether you agree with my post or if you think i'm mistaken.. can you clarify please ? FOTN

we'll have to wait and seen what they send you back..scan it after blocking out your personal info and post it here and you'll get an opinion.. while you are waiting for them to respond have a look at my thread and others with similar agreements and see if we've anything in common... FOTN

not vastly experienced in these...the partially sighted leading the blind i'm afraid.. but..it looks pretty solid to me ..the prescribed terms appear to be there.. they've signed it as have you presumably blocked out ..so it's executed.. all that i can see that is wrong is that the title should be "credit card agreement" rather than just credit agreement. I've seen some posts that claim that this may make it unenforceable...but i think it's a bit of a technicality myself...not aware of any court rulings on the subject... see if you can get more learned help from another cagger FOTN

do you mean statutory demand or formal demand, ? a stat demand if undefended is i think usually a precursor to a winding up order if served on a company or bankruptcy proceedings if served on an individual... not sure what a formal demand is... i think it's just ... asking niceley.... FOTN

Fascinating thread people, I've very similar agreements myself.. and have justed disputed them, simply on the grounds that they are not the front and back of the originals.. in my opinion. Also, I understood that the prescribed terms needed to be "within the 4 corners of the agreement" and i understand this to mean that they need not necessarily be on the same page but that they did need to be somehere between the title and the signature box.. Now on Sherrys..(and mine) they are on the back... there is no reference on the front (where it is signed) to any terms "overleaf" ...My agreements were simply filled out by an agent and signed by me, and i don't remember ever seeing the back of the form... certainaly not before signing, and there is nothing on the front ...even in the smallest of print to draw attention to them...this can't be right surely...? Grateful for any comments on my cca's at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/174485-fangio-mbna-etc.html In the meantime i'm subbing.. FOTN

Lolly, I'm still learning myself... it's a more up to date agreement than the one i have, and it does appear to contain the required terms before the signature box.. But what bothers me is the £25 default charge.. I'm sure by this time there was legislation limiting these charges to £12... More experienced caggers will i hope give you a more reliable opinion on the rest.. but this does make me smell a rat... worth looking at further...sorry i can't be more help FOTN

Here's one i sent to one of mine the other day...perhaps adapt it to your circs hope it helps....

I sympathise, very much in the same boat and i've followed your postings... I'm new to this myself but .... Suggest you send the "account in dispute" letter as you believe the cca's are not compliant with the act. Once the account is in dispute the can't sell the debt on (but they try,) and they can't enforce collection - (which thety try too)... seems to me from reading other threads ..if they are confident that their cca is good they will take you to court at some stage and win... if it's not good then they may still threaten court action in the hope that you don't defend it.. or they will fold on the steps or they get into court and lose.. But seems to me that a judge can only awatrd them what you can afford to pay ,... which may be negligable and it's not really in their interests to bankrupt you - unless you have significant other assets... Judges don't like awarding charging orders for unsecured debt esp when there are dependents.. so basically ... dispute the accounts and see what happens..I'll keep an eye on how you get on... you may also want to have a look at my threads and progress as we're inm the same boat... FOTN