Aktiv Kapital and Trading Standards

[elsinore]

If you refer to recent posts on my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/12020-elsinore-aktiv-kapital.html you will read that TS are stating that a DCA is not required to supply a signed true copy of an original credit agreement. This is contrary to what I and many others have been given to understand. If true, it means that the CCA letter to a DCA needs modifying and, presumably, leaves us with a weakened case.

Perhaps an authoritative eye (Zooman?) would look and advise.

 

Elsinore

[jimfishybob]

According to the CCA 1974, section 189:-

 

 

 

“creditor” means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement

or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor;

 

Doesn't even seem open to interpretation to me.

 

It has come up before with Trading Standards though,

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/28242-consumer-credit-act-1974-a.html

 

perhaps it needs some clarification in writing as to why they think the above does not apply.

[elsinore]

Quite agree with you JFB, but I think I'm guilty of lack of clarity!

It's not that the DCA doesn't need to produce it at all, but that they don't need to provide a signed, true copy.

 

Elsinore

[jimfishybob]

Well........

78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the

prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and

payment of a fee of [£1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement, (my bold)

And according to section 189:-

 

“executed agreement” means a document, signed by or on behalf of the parties

 

 

Seems fairly cut and dried to me. But i'm only a simple country boy

[jimfishybob]

The problem with all this legal gubbins is that it's not black or white, it's more...mauve.

 

I think it will always boil down to who can present their case bestest or who blinks first. Consequently TS are only advising on their own INTERPRETATION of the law, but this doesn't make it any more valid than mine or yours.

 

I would say that the above is a good first step though.

 

Also, they are only a regulatory body with little legal clout, they would still have to take the matter to a court to get it resolved. The problem is, this eats into their budget so if they can get away with not going, they won't.

 

Just my opinion.

[elsinore]

Yes, ask ten people what an executed agreement is and guess how many different answers you'll get!

 

I agree that just because they are Trading Standards they are not bound to be right. Certainly the wording of 78(1) and 189 is persuasive in our favour. In the absence of anything more concrete I'll use it when I eventually reply.

 

Perhaps future letters to DCAs should request just that i.e.

"You are obliged to provide a copy of the executed agreement signed by, or on behalf of, the parties" and quoting the Act.

 

Thanks for the input:)

 

Elsinore

[jimfishybob]

Perhaps future letters to DCAs should request just that i.e.

"You are obliged to provide a copy of the executed agreement signed by, or on behalf of, the parties" and quoting the Act.

 

I think that might be prudent.