Cap1 & CCA return

[Guest The Terminator]

Ive just had a thought and without getting anyones hopes up this could be a big breakthrough and it is the wording on a CCA.The most common wording is "this agreement is regulated under the CCA(1974)" but is doesn't say what section and I know from my experience in litigation that the Section must be added to make it valid.Thoughts on this welcome.

[e28bigalbexley]

If they are not then I can really see the sh-t hitting the fan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[un1boy]

Ive just had a thought and without getting anyones hopes up this could be a big breakthrough and it is the wording on a CCA.The most common wording is "this agreement is regulated under the CCA(1974)" but is doesn't say what section and I know from my experience in litigation that the Section must be added to make it valid.Thoughts on this welcome.

 

Hmmm...none of my agreements mention this......is there anywher that states that the section should be included?

[Guest The Terminator]

 

 

 

 

 

That is really funny only the smiley should look like a MIB

[Guest The Terminator]

Hmmm...none of my agreements mention this......is there anywher that states that the section should be included?

I've just been looking at inter alia my tenancy agreement which specifies under what sections of the law it falls under.I know this is a little off subject but like other things it is still an agreement and it actually says this and I quote" This agreement is not valid until it is signed by both parties blah! blah!" meaning the HA and myself.My point here is that how on earth can a CCP use an application form as a properly executed agreement.If in simple terms you have to apply for housing and the application form is say 10 pages long and you sign it doesn't necessarly mean you have entered into an agreement.Using the above as an example may go a long way to proving a point.

[un1boy]

Good point Temrinator!

[Guest The Terminator]

Follow the link and it will give you the 7 elements that make a contract valid and if the MIB are watching don't throw your rattles out of your prams.It's nearly firework night and there's a few more rockets to come yet

 

 

LawTeacher.net | INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF CONTRACT

[tamadus]

I think the correct wording is Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it should be prominent, at one time even the font size was specified.

 

I'm not sure about needing particular sections to be quoted though. The agreement can also be valid under the entire Act and not just particular sections. The Act itself covers a broad spectrum of credit arrangements.

 

The application form as an agreement becomes fully signed when they add their signature after yours. Unfortunately at that point they dont have to send you a fully signed copy so we have no way of knowing if it has been signed and therefore executed.

 

This is why I am concerned about this. I believe the agreement should be sent for signing only after the application has been approved. At the same time they should send copies of all other relevent documents. Only when we have read ALL the documents involved can we make an informed decision and we sign it. Once its been signed by the company they should then have to send us a fully signed copy for our records.

[tamadus]

Looking at that link terminator I'm ready to query the consent part of it lol

 

Do we enter into these things freely? especially where bank accounts and debit cards are concerned I'm not of the opinion we can really refuse now.

 

Example I loathe chip and pin because it's so insecure for the consumer, but do I have any choice but to use it? The answer has to be a resounding NO. I would rather pay by cheque than debit card as it gives me an immediate reciept for the payment if I complete the cheque stub, but more and more retailers (shell for example) are now refusing to accept cheques although they are a legal and valid method of payment. I know see Asda plan to stop accepting cheques soon.

 

It might be worth some of these companies rethinking their strategies.

[un1boy]

I agree that we have little or no choice when it comes to having a bank account - everything, wages etc are all paid direct now......in what way though is chip and pin insecure for the customer?

 

In terms of receipts for debit cards Tam, you have to be issued with a receipt when you use a debit card/credit cad by the retailer......ah, but, thinking about it.....you don't alway get one especailly if you use it over the phone/internet.

 

Is that not what the validation number is for though?

[tamadus]

I agree that we have little or no choice when it comes to having a bank account - everything, wages etc are all paid direct now......in what way though is chip and pin insecure for the customer?

 

In terms of receipts for debit cards Tam, you have to be issued with a receipt when you use a debit card/credit cad by the retailer......ah, but, thinking about it.....you don't alway get one especailly if you use it over the phone/internet.

 

Is that not what the validation number is for though?

 

Agreed but how many of us carry out the mental arithmetic as we carry on with our shopping ? at leats with a cheque I can write down the payment and have a running total of funds available immediately. I dont have to wait until I gat home and go through the till reciept to know if my next purchase is safe.

[un1boy]

Fair enough...

[tamadus]

Agreed but how many of us carry out the mental arithmetic as we carry on with our shopping ? at leats with a cheque I can write down the payment and have a running total of funds available immediately. I dont have to wait until I gat home and go through the till reciept to know if my next purchase is safe.

 

 

Ooops I missed abit.

 

Un1 chip and pin is for the benefit of the bank and nothing else.

 

It was started after they had a lot of fraud claims where retailers had double swiped a card without the customers knowledge. This of course cost them a lot in claims.

 

The theory behind chip and pin is that the retailer NEVER touches the card, not even to see the name on it. Now lets assume somebody manages to get your pin number by whatever means and goes on a rampage. You notify the bank your card is missing and made none of the purchases. Their reply is the correct pin was used so you have either used the card or allowed somebody else to use it, and/or disclosed your pin number. Hence no fraud and they dont have to refund you.

 

They are already claiming its a success because they have paid out less this year in fraud claims. Chip and Pin does nothing to strengthen card security it only places the onus for security and fraud losses onto the consumer

[Guest The Terminator]

I think the correct wording is Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it should be prominent, at one time even the font size was specified.

 

I'm not sure about needing particular sections to be quoted though. The agreement can also be valid under the entire Act and not just particular sections. The Act itself covers a broad spectrum of credit arrangements.

 

The application form as an agreement becomes fully signed when they add their signature after yours. Unfortunately at that point they dont have to send you a fully signed copy so we have no way of knowing if it has been signed and therefore executed.

 

This is why I am concerned about this. I believe the agreement should be sent for signing only after the application has been approved. At the same time they should send copies of all other relevent documents. Only when we have read ALL the documents involved can we make an informed decision and we sign it. Once its been signed by the company they should then have to send us a fully signed copy for our records.

 

Hi Tam, Im trying to look at this from all angles.From some of the research I've done the CCA(1974) is the only act which doe's not specify what section the agreement is regulated under.Going back to my earlier example ie tenancy agreement that specifies the sections of the Act that the terms come under and looking through it as I type it contains the 7 elements so therefore it is valid.My concern is that when the CCA was drafted that it is quite possible for some reason the sections were left out.Why I don't know.This might be going slightly off track at the moment but I'm going to post a link to some housing law which may have some bearing on what I am trying to put across.The CCJ threw the case out because although it made reference to law the revelent section was missing:

 

YCRLA / HARL

 

Not exactly the best example but you may see what I'm getting at.

[tamadus]

Hi Tam, Im trying to look at this from all angles.From some of the research I've done the CCA(1974) is the only act which doe's not specify what section the agreement is regulated under.Going back to my earlier example ie tenancy agreement that specifies the sections of the Act that the terms come under and looking through it as I type it contains the 7 elements so therefore it is valid.My concern is that when the CCA was drafted that it is quite possible for some reason the sections were left out.Why I don't know.This might be going slightly off track at the moment but I'm going to post a link to some housing law which may have some bearing on what I am trying to put across.The CCJ threw the case out because although it made reference to law the revelent section was missing:

 

YCRLA / HARL

 

Not exactly the best example but you may see what I'm getting at.

 

Tha'ts an interesting article and I understand what your getting at and actually agree. We shouldnt have to trawl through the entire act in the case of a credit card. To some extent I think the CCA is very broad and generic in its approach. Maybe it's due for a complete overhaul and renewal

[Guest The Terminator]

Ooops I missed abit.

 

Un1 chip and pin is for the benefit of the bank and nothing else.

 

It was started after they had a lot of fraud claims where retailers had double swiped a card without the customers knowledge. This of course cost them a lot in claims.

 

The theory behind chip and pin is that the retailer NEVER touches the card, not even to see the name on it. Now lets assume somebody manages to get your pin number by whatever means and goes on a rampage. You notify the bank your card is missing and made none of the purchases. Their reply is the correct pin was used so you have either used the card or allowed somebody else to use it, and/or disclosed your pin number. Hence no fraud and they dont have to refund you.

 

They are already claiming its a success because they have paid out less this year in fraud claims. Chip and Pin does nothing to strengthen card security it only places the onus for security and fraud losses onto the consumer

 

Are there any figures to prove their claim I thought that the level of fraud had actually risen since chip n pin came in.

[tamadus]

Are there any figures to prove their claim I thought that the level of fraud had actually risen since chip n pin came in.

 

I seem to recall a thread somewhere (but no idea what it is) that they are claiming fraud has cost something like 35M less since chip and pin.

 

I'll do some searching today.

[tamadus]

look here terminator

 

Fraud falling under Chip and PIN | The Register

[tamadus]

and this explains why retailers have all accepted it

 

Chip & PIN technology combatting card fraud in the UK

[Guest The Terminator]

look here terminator

 

Fraud falling under Chip and PIN | The Register

 

Thanks Tam.It's some of the other stories that raise concern especially the one about Lloyds TSH-TB. Yeah! I've got names for all of them:grin:

[un1boy]

Ooops I missed abit.

 

Un1 chip and pin is for the benefit of the bank and nothing else.

 

It was started after they had a lot of fraud claims where retailers had double swiped a card without the customers knowledge. This of course cost them a lot in claims.

 

The theory behind chip and pin is that the retailer NEVER touches the card, not even to see the name on it. Now lets assume somebody manages to get your pin number by whatever means and goes on a rampage. You notify the bank your card is missing and made none of the purchases. Their reply is the correct pin was used so you have either used the card or allowed somebody else to use it, and/or disclosed your pin number. Hence no fraud and they dont have to refund you.

 

They are already claiming its a success because they have paid out less this year in fraud claims. Chip and Pin does nothing to strengthen card security it only places the onus for security and fraud losses onto the consumer

 

good point, never thought of it like that!

[tamadus]

Thanks Tam.It's some of the other stories that raise concern especially the one about Lloyds TSH-TB. Yeah! I've got names for all of them:grin:

 

LMAO I thought you might have

 

Agreed some of the stories are more than cause for concern. It's not exactly rocket science to clone a card, and the spreading use of wireless terminals is causing a problem with relay cloning now. If I was criminally minded I can produce a clone of almost any chipped card in minutes. Not only do I already have the equipment needed to read and write a card, but the cost of making that equipment is less than £100.00

 

The Shell fiasco cost over 1M and people were paying for petrol in the UK and somebody in Hong kong was debiting their card at the same time lol. Also reports are in about attacks on BP, Esso, Texaco and Tesco teminals.

[Guest The Terminator]

Im the same tam I have the equipment right next to me so I agree technology wise you don't have to be a nucular scientist to clone a card.If I can pull windows apart and re-build to the way I want it and get it to work better than the original then anything is possible

[Guest The Terminator]

There's another post on here about call centres being infiltrated by criminal gangs well worth a read.

[tamadus]

Im the same tam I have the equipment right next to me so I agree technology wise you don't have to be a nucular scientist to clone a card.If I can pull windows apart and re-build to the way I want it and get it to work better than the original then anything is possible

 

LMAO windows isn't exactly the height of technology lol. I thought I was the only person who never had problems with Windows lmao.

 

What has always bothered me is the banks at one time were going to use the same encryption system that SKY TV used in its analogue days, and we all know how long that system lasted Even it's digital encryption isnt secure now.