Cap1 & CCA return

[Peterbard]

Could I just ask something please, I have an agreement document which appears to have all the prescribed terms and signatures, but I read previously somewhere that the particulars of the loan had to be in some specific order with interest shown before or after the loan figures, not sure which. anyway, this is the order which is on my agreement document and I wonder if someone might confirm this is correct or not: thanks

 

Order on agreement went:

Advance 13k

Credit Care Gold - 5956 ( insurance)

Amount of credit - 18956

Interest - 5296

Total amount payable 24253

 

If the insurance is stated as optional in the agreement then it can be included in the amount of credit if it doesn't and is included in the credit then i believe the agreement is unenforceable.

 

Hi Paul

 

I don't think the order is important although i notice you are missing one of the terms, the prescribed terms are.

 

• amount of credit • credit limit • rate of interest • repayments As to the form it very much depends on which set of SI where in force at the time when was your agreement dated? Best regardsPeter

[un1boy]

Hi

 

I'm not really sure if and how an individual could register a default against a creditor with the CRAs but you could always create a 'notice of correction' that the CRA must add to your file with them (and disclose on any credit check) and put the details there. This way, any further check of your credit file by anyone would display this notice!

 

e.g.

 

TAKE NOTICE THAT THIS CREDITOR (NAME) HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 85 OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 AND AS A CONSEQUENCE IS BARRED FROM ENFORCING THIS AGREEMENT.

 

THIS CREDITOR HAS ALSO COMMITTED A SUMMARY OFFENCE UNDER THE AFOREMENTIONED LEGISLATION BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED.

 

 

 

I like it!!!!

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Regards, Pam

 

 

 

You could write to the Bank of england too, as it is they whom lend to these banks overall!! Worth a try - I'm gonna do it!

[maybelline]

but will a credit ref agency accept such a notice of correction, I have recently had one added to my file and the wording was their choice in relation to my assertion that their info was incorrect, it seems they reworded it to a more 'this maybe so' statement, I am still chasing this up.

[InKogneeToh]

but will a credit ref agency accept such a notice of correction, I have recently had one added to my file and the wording was their choice in relation to my assertion that their info was incorrect, it seems they reworded it to a more 'this maybe so' statement, I am still chasing this up.

 

Hi

 

The CCA says this (Part of s159):

 

 

(4) Within 28 days after receiving a notice under subsection (3) [the correction notice], the agency, unless it intends to apply to the the relevant authority under subsection (5), shall by notice inform the objector that it has received the notice under subsection (3) and intends to comply with it.

 

(5) If—

 

(a) the objector has not received a notice under subsection (4) within the time required, or

 

 

(b) it appears to the agency that it would be improper for it to publish a notice of correction because it is incorrect, or unjustly defames any person, or is frivolous or scandalous, or is for any other reason unsuitable,

 

 

the objector or, as the case may be, the agency may, in the prescribed manner and on payment of the specified fee, apply to the relevant authority, who may make such order on the application as he thinks fit.

 

(6) If a person to whom an order under this section is directed fails to comply with it within the period specified in the order he commits an offence.

 

(7) The Information Commissioner may vary or revoke any order made by him under this section.

 

(8) In this section “the relevant authority” means—

 

(a) where the objector is a partnership or other unincorporated body of persons, the Director, and

 

 

(b) in any other case, the Information Commissioner.

 

 

 

 

 

So, if you're not happy with the CRA's alteration of your notice you need to refer it to the ICO, but I don't know where the info. is regarding the 'prescribed manner and prescribed fee'.

 

 

 

Regards, Pam

[maybelline]

Hi

 

The CCA says this (Part of s159):

 

 

(4) Within 28 days after receiving a notice under subsection (3) [the correction notice], the agency, unless it intends to apply to the the relevant authority under subsection (5), shall by notice inform the objector that it has received the notice under subsection (3) and intends to comply with it.

 

(5) If—

 

(a) the objector has not received a notice under subsection (4) within the time required, or

 

 

(b) it appears to the agency that it would be improper for it to publish a notice of correction because it is incorrect, or unjustly defames any person, or is frivolous or scandalous, or is for any other reason unsuitable,

 

 

the objector or, as the case may be, the agency may, in the prescribed manner and on payment of the specified fee, apply to the relevant authority, who may make such order on the application as he thinks fit.

 

(6) If a person to whom an order under this section is directed fails to comply with it within the period specified in the order he commits an offence.

 

(7) The Information Commissioner may vary or revoke any order made by him under this section.

 

(8) In this section “the relevant authority” means—

 

(a) where the objector is a partnership or other unincorporated body of persons, the Director, and

 

 

(b) in any other case, the Information Commissioner.

 

 

 

 

 

So, if you're not happy with the CRA's alteration of your notice you need to refer it to the ICO, but I don't know where the info. is regarding the 'prescribed manner and prescribed fee'.

 

 

 

Regards, Pam

 

thanks Pam, thats very helpful info, I was just composing a letter to chase this matter up, both with the creditor who issued the misinformation and agency:)

[zubo]

I'm sorry, I need Peter back - I need a very strong white witch spell:

 

http://www.knowledgecommunity.co.uk/cag/goodwife.jpg

[paulwlton]

 

Hi Paul

 

I don't think the order is important although i notice you are missing one of the terms, the prescribed terms are.

 

• amount of credit • credit limit • rate of interest • repayments As to the form it very much depends on which set of SI where in force at the time when was your agreement dated? Best regardsPeter

 

I agree the order isn't important what i'm saying is if the insurance isn't optional then the creditor cannot include this in amount of credit and can only include the insurance in the total charge for credit, anything contrary to this, i believe would make the agreement unenforceable.

 

Peter i've had a drink today so pull me if i'm wrong.

 

Paul

[ncf355]

Argh

 

Another phone call from HBOS call centre regards a Sainsbury's bank card. You speak to one of them and they are allowed to call 5 times a day, speak to another one and they are allowed to speak to you 4 times a day. Speak to another one and they are allowed to speak to you 3 times for each number they hold, yet not one of them have heard of the administration of justice act, or understand harrassment. I had one guy who said Oftel guidelines, but when pressed he didn't know any more.

 

How can we stop these companies from misinforming their workforce with regards to the law?

 

M55 - get BT's choose to refuse service

 

I have and now take great joy knowing every time they call they get "this person has chosen to refuse your calls"

 

Makes me feel all warm and glowy inside, plus means they have no choice but to write giving me loads of nice evidence of their unlawful attempts to enforce unenforceable debts

 

[ian1969uk]

I know I've seen it somewhere, but can anybody point me to where it actually states that the repeal of S127 (3-5) is not retrospective and therefore won't apply to agreements taken out before April 2007.

[alanfromderby]

Appendix III, I think:

 

 

11 The repeal by this Act of-

• (a) the words "(subject to subsections (3) and (4))" in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

• (b) subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

• © the words "or 127(3)" in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

[ian1969uk]

Thank you Alan.

[Peterbard]

 

I agree the order isn't important what i'm saying is if the insurance isn't optional then the creditor cannot include this in amount of credit and can only include the insurance in the total charge for credit, anything contrary to this, i believe would make the agreement unenforceable.

 

Peter i've had a drink today so pull me if i'm wrong.

 

Paul

Hi Paul

 

This is not my area of expertise but in view of this i would say you are correct.

The legislation in question was the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 and in

particular s 127(3) of that Act, which proscribed the enforcement of any consumer credit agreement which did not comply with the requirements of the 1974 Act. Wilson had borrowed £5,000 from First County Trust (FCT) and had pledged her car as security for the loan. Wilson was to be charged a fee of £250 for drawing up the loan documentation but asked FCT to add it to the loan, which they agreed to do. The effect of this was that the loan document stated that the amount of the loan was £5,250. This, however, was inaccurate, as in reality the extra £250 was not part of the loan as such; rather, it was part of the charge for the loan. The loan document had therefore been drawn up improperly and did not comply with the requirement of s 61

of the CCA 1974.

 

Best regards

 

Peter

[alanfromderby]

I have made it clear to the original poster why the posts were removed - this is due to the fact that originally they did not add to any discussion on this thread - initially, they were purely one line posts asking if they had created the 300th page.

 

Since then, several posts have been removed as they were perpetuating a debate as to why these posts had been removed - again, this is totally off-topic on this thread.

 

As far as threats to keep on repeating posts, I must say that this will be met with the thread being put on moderation or closed. This would be a very unfortunate result for what is an extremely useful thread where a lot of extremely worthwhile debates have been held into the CCA, and unenforceability issues.

 

I would hope that we can now get back to concentrating our efforts on fighting the banks/DCA's etc., and discussing CCA issues.

[bill-k]

Thank you Alan.

 

Just re-subscribing, then.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Tam,

 

As the originator of this thread could you make it a sticky, as there is so much information on here and new posters are requesting information we discussed eons ago. it is causing a lot of old ground being gone over again and again

[stebiz]

Being chased for a debt which I dispute in full with Barclaycard. I asked for a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement.

 

This is what I got

 

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u131/stebiz/BARCLAYCARD.jpg

 

Please don't laugh. I know the image is bad but they had to retrieve it from microfiche. I can't read the part on the black either.They also sent me on my request a copy of the terms and conditions from 1995, obviously on a different size piece of paper (it was from their files) and obviously not signed by me.

 

Where I have altered (FOR SECURITY) I have typed in black - obviously!!!

 

What are their chances of enforcing this.

 

Stebiz

[ian1969uk]

I wouldn't have thought they could enforce that. It's impossible to see if the prescribed terms are there and any copy they provide must be legible anyway. That isn't.

[angry cat]

I'm awfully sorry - I know it's Saturday & we're all testing the vino, but none of the last few posts make any sense to me at all. Perhaps I am "in vino veritas"

But if I try to comprehend, AC - a copy of a generic CCmailer hardly cuts the cookie in response to a CCA request.

Other than that - who has drunk the MOST?

I think I will revert to playing Spider Solitaire!

 

Ladybird

 

I have laid out my position very clearly.

 

All of my last few posts had the intention to assist others in the BAG/CAG, when they arrive at the point of discussing a CCA breach with TS...basically TS don't want to know, cannot do anything, they don't have the funds to do anything even if they wanted to...the banks are too powerful...

Hmmm!...So many people in the financial institutions are in 'HIGH PLACES' such as M..P..S. Anyhow, enough said.

 

With the greatest respect to all, it may assist if you go back and re-read just exactly what I am attenpting to convey.

 

Meaning that...Trading Standards will not prosecute...because they (TS) have no case law to refer to, or they do not want to find it?

 

We have argued that a breach/offence of CCA S78 is, or is not, a Criminal Offence. According to TS it is a legislative Criminal Offence if a creditor does not comply correctly to a request under the ("Act") within the given timescale. (dare I say a quasi Criminal Offence) TS are the (only) Enforcement Officers regarding a breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, plus Amendments but they will not Enforce the ("Act").

 

This is nothing to with 'Le Vin' it is more 'Le Pain' and remember the memorable words of Marie Antoinette...Let them eat cake!

 

AC

 

Personally, I made my request under the ("Act) and received nothing within the timescale given under the ("Act"). Therefore I advised the creditor that they were in Criminal Default of the ("Act") and reported the said Offence to TS.

 

The rest is ongoing!!!!

 

I cannot bang on about this anymore, as My thoughts plus TS's opinion has already been stated in recent previous posts.

 

M55 I will pm you tomorrow, or the next day as I am in Court re: Egg on Wednesday...Directions Hearing.

 

Lastly, I am really fed up with all this.

 

GOODNIGHT LONDON...AC

[tamadus]

Tam,

 

As the originator of this thread could you make it a sticky, as there is so much information on here and new posters are requesting information we discussed eons ago. it is causing a lot of old ground being gone over again and again

 

I'll certainl;y look into making it a sticky BA, especially the condensed form when I get around to it.

[tamadus]

Thanks for your view Professor Fate!

 

Morgan Stanley do not have a copy of the alleged Agreement, Last July I made a Request Under S78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a True Signed Executed Copy of the agreement, eventually after approximately 7 months I was sent a copy of a generic Credit Card mailer (credit-token) with no CC and a zero credit limit, it contained the T&C's The mailer purported to be a 2004 issue but was in fact a 2006 issue as the penalty charges shown on it had been reduced from £20 - £12!

 

I reported MS to Trading Standards for committed a legislative offence under the CCA S78...

MS cannot supply the agreement because they do not have it. Therefore they are attempting to get away with the Offence by relying on the Amendments 1983 regs., regulation 3

 

The reason that I asked for comments re reg 3 & reg 7 is that reg 7 appear to be more about the variation of an agreement by credit-tokens...and that as such be appear to be a valid argument.

 

I am interested re: Case DTI v Lloyds TSB as I have been informed by Trading Standards that there is no case law that they can go on, re CCA S78

 

I'm getting ever so confused-

 

Love AC

 

AC don't forget that a variation in T&C can only exists because its allowed for iun the ORIGINal agreement and ORIGINAL T&C's. hence the originals must also be sent along with the NOTICE of variation, not the new T&C. reg 7 refers to the notice of variation and doesn't say that a copy of the new T&C is sufficient.

[maybelline]

i think a sticky is a great idea, i come back to this thread now and again and lose track, there is some great information and minds too but a summary of some kind for us lesser mortals - good :)

[bfb]

reg 7 says include 8 comprise 3 true copy so up to date terms are insuficient for s78/77 as is any generic paperwork

[zubo]

AC

 

You are overstressed - calm down....

 

Lastly, I am really fed up with all this.

 

GOODNIGHT LONDON...AC

 

We all feel down when things are not going to plan, please relax and stay with us we need everyone's help.

 

Z

[Guest The Terminator]

Ive just read the last three days of post's(been away) and will be giving some input tomorrow that will be very interesting.

[elsinore]

Just one question, though. The letter states that we will register the default with the credit reference agencies.

 

Can we actually do this and if so, how? I don't want to send a letter containing an empty threat as I will have no recourse should they just ignore me.

 

 

Ian, JonCris, Battleaxe and InKogneeToh,

 

If we can’t persuade the CRAs to register lenders’ defaults properly, or at all (because we’re not members of their cosy little club), why not start our own agency?

 

It would be very simple to set up, as there are a finite number of CCPs, banks and other lenders.

• Instances of default (and, for that matter, CCJs) would be logged against offending lenders.
  
• Each CAG/BAG member would have access to the register to review the status of a potential lender. This would assist members in making a more informed decision as to which lender to choose when applying for credit.
  
• A potential lender, which failed to meet the borrower’s criteria, would be written to by the borrower informing them of this fact.
  
• Each lender could make an application to the Agency and, upon payment of a significant fee, receive details of its own standing. Information relating to other lenders would not be available, on the grounds of ‘commercial sensitivity’.
  
• A lender which later corrected a default, by complying with the CCA requirements, could apply to have that default removed. All such applications would be refused.
  
• A periodic return could be made to the relevant authorities* in tabular form, with the current worst offender at the top.
  
• The above return would not be available to lenders, as the information contained in it would be deemed to be ‘commercially sensitive’.
  
• A lender would not be able to modify or amend any entry against its name, without the express permission of the Agency management.
  
• The number of defaults/CCJs registered against a lender would count towards a total, to be determined, at which point the lender’s fitness to hold a Consumer Credit Licence would be brought into question with the relevant authorities*.
  
• There would be a special X-rated section for DCAs.

*All of them

 

Els:)