Cap1 & CCA return

[tamadus]

Un1boy, your right the terms and conditions at that time form part of the agreement.

 

Their was definite specifications at one time regarding font sizes but these where withdrawn in a Statutory Instrument (I can't recall which one but I'll find it again)

 

I repeat. As long as the application form carries the prescribed information that must appear on the agreement then it can become the basis of the agreement along with T&C etc.

 

A credit limit is a variable which is prescribed in the terms and conditions. I can't imagine any Judge not enforcing an agreement because your idea of a credit level and theirs didnt agree.

[un1boy]

A credit limit is a variable which is prescribed in the terms and conditions. I can't imagine any Judge not enforcing an agreement because your idea of a credit level and theirs didnt agree.

 

Thanks Tamadus, but please can you explain the above? How would our idea of a credit level differ?

 

I have recieved an "agreement" with no T and C;s and no mention at all of the rate - am I right in thinking that it is not correct?

[FANTASY CHARGES]

http://aycu17.webshots.com/image/8936/2005697507630670019_rs.jpg

 

(IF it does not work please paste it into your browser)

I

The above is a link to the scanned "alleged" header on the form the RBS have sent me on the right for comparison is a pound coin -- anybody got any views on this ?

 

the words Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are one MILLIMETRE ( ONE TENTH OF A CENTIMETRE )TALL

[meagain]

Only that I can't see it. Fourohthree.

 

As for the sizes, as far as I am aware, there is nothing anywhere that says a heading has to be bigger than the text following it. "Heading" is a purely semantic concept. The text does have to be legible, though. I assume that the one millimetre is a reference to the x-height, but even then an x-height of 1mm is terribly small.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Only that I can't see it. Fourohthree.

 

As for the sizes, as far as I am aware, there is nothing anywhere that says a heading has to be bigger than the text following it. "Heading" is a purely semantic concept. The text does have to be legible, though. I assume that the one millimetre is a reference to the x-height, but even then an x-height of 1mm is terribly small.

 

new image added !

[meagain]

By my reckoning, that text is roughly the same size as the text on the back of the coin. I don't have a 1985 pound to hand, but going by the size of the 1990 pound I do have (rather smaller than the text on C21 pounds), that is small. Not shockingly small, but certainly small.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

By my reckoning, that text is roughly the same size as the text on the back of the coin. I don't have a 1985 pound to hand, but going by the size of the 1990 pound I do have (rather smaller than the text on C21 pounds), that is small. Not shockingly small, but certainly small.

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhh but the words on the pound coin are in CAPITALS but the words "Consumer Credit Act are in Lower case" by definition they thought it more important that we see the WORDS IN CAPITALS ABOUT A BLACK PEN etc ................ than our rights.

 

that is the point i hope some banana would pick up on !

one millimetre is the height of the letters in capitals ...... the lowercase are about half this height that is 0.5 mm tall ...........

[un1boy]

Ahhhhhhhhhhh but the words on the pound coin are in CAPITALS but the words "Consumer Credit Act are in Lower case" by definition they thought it more important that we see the WORDS IN CAPITALS ABOUT A BLACK PEN etc ................ than our rights.

 

that is the point i hope some banana would pick up on !

one millimetre is the height of the letters in capitals ...... the lowercase are about half this height that is 0.5 mm tall ...........

 

To be honest, as far as i understand it the CCA used to specify font sizes however this was amended and now the font sizes no longer matter.

 

Not what you wanted to hear, sorry.

[FANTASY CHARGES]

To be honest, as far as i understand it the CCA used to specify font sizes however this was amended and now the font sizes no longer matter.

 

Not what you wanted to hear, sorry.

 

but the form they produced is from 1994 so is there any mileage in it ?

 

Because as you say "font" conditions did apply at some time in the past then ( possibly in 1994) and perhaps they broke them ?????

-----------

 

so the form (they sent me) or whatever it be is invalid ???

.......

also the data protection act 1998 of course didn't exist then

[un1boy]

but the form they produced is from 1994 so is there any mileage in it ?

 

Because as you say "font" conditions did apply at some time in the past then ( possibly in 1994) and perhaps they broke them ?????

-----------

 

so the form (they sent me) or whatever it be is invalid ???

.......

also the data protection act 1998 of course didn't exist then

 

check some earlier posts in this thread - they mention the date that they changed, I can't remember how far back etc, sorry.

[twoofus]

Hi all, I've like many others been reading this thread with my mouth open. Its got more drama than Eastenders on here, you've got nice people, best buddies, the obligitory clever guy and even your own nasty Nick (AKA meagain). Just kidding Meagain your points are generally very valid and I think you just slow the train a bit and stop it running away with itself.

 

I really wish I understood half of what you are all talking about but I am learning bits (slowly but surely). I am going to try your approach with my Catalogue as I am damn sure that I never signed any agreement and they are close to sending my account to DCA.

 

I am also trying to get to grips with the CCA 1974 and have noticed that the act is being amended to CCA 2006 and that some say its in affect now and some say not till 2008. I come across this The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2006 and it states that parts of the act are being updated at dates starting from June 2006. Does any of this have any bearing on me sending that template letter from an earlier page to request my executed agreement from Littlewoods.

 

Keep it going boys and girls it is truly the educational thread I have ever read.

[twoofus]

Also does anyone knoe what this is for Act of Sederunt (Consumer Credit Act 1974) 1985 (Amendment) 1995

[meagain]

1995 No. 1877 (S.124)

 

The S-series is for SIs applicable to Scotland only (IIRC).

[FANTASY CHARGES]

If I recall correctly a 'small agreement' is one under £50. The difference between a 'new token' anbd a replacement needs clarifying further I think. Personally I suspect that having to 'activate' a replacement card makes it different in and electronic aspect as the replacement wont work untill such time as it is activated, even though the account numbers remain the same. Also small changes occur which are visible, namely expiry dates, security number, and signature strip has to be signed again. I suppose they could even claim that by signing a replacement card that we actually verify the original agreement.

 

I would definitely class the latest 'chip and pin' cards as new tokens though as they use different technology and no longer require a signature at point of sale. Those IMHO should require totally new agreement as the customer (debtor) is now very vulnerable to fraud usage with no comeback on the creditor.

 

 

Sorry for going back on old ground I think I have been reading the consumer credit act 1974 anyway I got it from the link below (note at the very end there are some examples which I presume to originate from the government ? ---- and not be johnantell‘s own examples )

http://www.johnantell.co.uk/CCA1974.htm

----------------------------------------

 

POINT 1

 

EXAMPLE 16

Facts. Under an unsecured agreement, A (Credit), an associate of the A Bank, issues to B (an individual) a credit-card for use in obtaining cash on credit from A (Credit), to be paid by branches of the A Bank (acting as agent of A (Credit)), or goods or cash from suppliers or banks who have agreed to honour credit-cards issued by A (Credit). The credit limit is £30.

----------------------------------------

Analysis. This is a credit-token agreement falling within section 14(1)(a) and (b). It is a regulated consumer credit agreement for running-account credit. Since the credit limit does not exceed £30, the agreement is a small agreement. So far as the agreement relates to goods it is a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(b), since it provides restricted-use credit under section 11(1)(b). So far as it relates to cash it is a debtor-creditor agreement within section 13© and the credit it provides is unrestricted-use credit. This is therefore a multiple agreement. In that the whole agreement falls within several of the categories of agreement mentioned in this Act, it is, by section 18(3), to be treated as an agreement in each of those categories. So far as it is a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement providing restricted-use credit it is, by section 18(2), to be treated as a separate agreement; and similarly so far as it is a debtor-creditor agreement providing unrestricted-used credit. (See also Example 22.)

----------------------------------------

 

Now I know for a fact that in the period 1971 to 1974 my check guarantee card would “back” a cheque up to £30 . So I feel sure this is how this cut off monetary value “came about” (£30 was a lot of money then ) hence the up to £30 being defined as a “small agreement”

----------------------------------------

Since this FORMAL example refers to a credit token being the same as a credit card to me by quoting this example it has proved the point that a credit token de deemed to be a credit card. Has anybody thought what percentage of the population had a credit card in 1974 ….. i would guess at 1 percent (ask your dad !!!! Or grandad)

----------------------------------------

I also believe that at that time the credit card limits would only be around the £30 limit. (Somewhere I have tucked away a totally mint NEVER USED ACCESS card that was never used by a friend and when access ceased to exist he gave it to me that was issued by the midland bank credit card and I shall see what his credit limit was ]

----------------------------------------

I shall post my other observations of the above credit act shortly.

 

 

NOTE FOR TAMADUS when the credit limit for cheque guarrantee cards was increase from £30 it went to £50 could the small...... bit be shadowing the guarantee limit ?

[FANTASY CHARGES]

Point 2 of my Continuing my reading of the consumer credit act 1974 that I got from the link below

http://www.johnantell.co.uk/CCA1974.htm

----------------------------------------

 

 

 

Making the agreement

60 Form and content of agreements

(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of—

(a) the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement,

(b) the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement),

© the protection and remedies available to him under this Act, and

(d) any other matters which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is desirable for him to know about in connection with the agreement.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular—

(a) require specified information to be included in the prescribed manner in documents, and other specified material to be excluded;

(b) contain requirements to ensure that specified information is clearly brought to the attention of the debtor or hirer, and that one part of a document is not given insufficient or excessive prominence compared with another.

So looking at the one millimetre high (and that is for the capitals) words Consumer Credit act 1974 …… see the link below ……. This to me looks like a naughty remember we are talking about the year 1994 ……. To me this looks like a naughty by the bank..…

Comments please

http://aycu17.webshots.com/image/8936/2005697507630670019_rs.jpg

 

 

 

so if rbs are saying this is indeed the correct form they have broken the rules ......... views please

[tamadus]

Sorry for going back on old ground I think I have been reading the consumer credit act 1974 anyway I got it from the link below (note at the very end there are some examples which I presume to originate from the government ? ---- and not be johnantell‘s own examples )

http://www.johnantell.co.uk/CCA1974.htm

----------------------------------------

 

POINT 1

 

EXAMPLE 16

Facts. Under an unsecured agreement, A (Credit), an associate of the A Bank, issues to B (an individual) a credit-card for use in obtaining cash on credit from A (Credit), to be paid by branches of the A Bank (acting as agent of A (Credit)), or goods or cash from suppliers or banks who have agreed to honour credit-cards issued by A (Credit). The credit limit is £30.

----------------------------------------

Analysis. This is a credit-token agreement falling within section 14(1)(a) and (b). It is a regulated consumer credit agreement for running-account credit. Since the credit limit does not exceed £30, the agreement is a small agreement. So far as the agreement relates to goods it is a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(b), since it provides restricted-use credit under section 11(1)(b). So far as it relates to cash it is a debtor-creditor agreement within section 13© and the credit it provides is unrestricted-use credit. This is therefore a multiple agreement. In that the whole agreement falls within several of the categories of agreement mentioned in this Act, it is, by section 18(3), to be treated as an agreement in each of those categories. So far as it is a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement providing restricted-use credit it is, by section 18(2), to be treated as a separate agreement; and similarly so far as it is a debtor-creditor agreement providing unrestricted-used credit. (See also Example 22.)

----------------------------------------

 

Now I know for a fact that in the period 1971 to 1974 my check guarantee card would “back” a cheque up to £30 . So I feel sure this is how this cut off monetary value “came about” (£30 was a lot of money then ) hence the up to £30 being defined as a “small agreement”

----------------------------------------

Since this FORMAL example refers to a credit token being the same as a credit card to me by quoting this example it has proved the point that a credit token de deemed to be a credit card. Has anybody thought what percentage of the population had a credit card in 1974 ….. i would guess at 1 percent (ask your dad !!!! Or grandad)

----------------------------------------

I also believe that at that time the credit card limits would only be around the £30 limit. (Somewhere I have tucked away a totally mint NEVER USED ACCESS card that was never used by a friend and when access ceased to exist he gave it to me that was issued by the midland bank credit card and I shall see what his credit limit was ]

----------------------------------------

I shall post my other observations of the above credit act shortly.

 

 

NOTE FOR TAMADUS when the credit limit for cheque guarrantee cards was increase from £30 it went to £50 could the small...... bit be shadowing the guarantee limit ?

 

Back in 71-74 £30 was roughly the average weekly wage so yes it was a lot of money. I agree the 2 things do seem to parallel each other.

 

A credit card is clearly defined in the act without the examples being needed, they mostly point out what sort of agreement would be applied in those examples.

 

A debit card / cheque guarantee card is somewhat different to a credit card as it doesnt specifically promise a line of credit, it promises payment from an account which *should* have the neccessary funds (including any overdraft facility)already in place. If you use either knowing the funds are not there to cover the expenditure it could constitute obtaining a pecuniary advantage.

 

The overdraft is the only part that should fall under the CCA

[FANTASY CHARGES]

When debt becomes unenforceable (one month after the company default- so according to the Act that is one month after the 12 working days)there is no agreement, i believe that they would need to go to court now if they produce the agreement. The signed agreement has the part about agreeing to your details being passed onto credit reference agencies......so if there is no agreement, then they cannot and should not have passed on your details and are in violation of the Data Protection Act. NO agreement= no debt=no right to pass on your details or issue default

 

 

ecobabe ..... what are your views on this please ...

 

Quick background to my case for you

 

the alleged form/agreement RBS sent me (which i dispute) to fulfill my cca request is dated 1994 . I was just wondering if experian or similar companies existed then . in the capacity they do now (i can see experian existed in 1960)

-------------------

Because if not then anything i might have signed in 1994 in my view should not be passed to credit reference agencies ??

[FANTASY CHARGES]

ecobabe ..... what are your views on this please ...

 

Quick background to my case for you

 

the alleged form/agreement RBS sent me (which i dispute) to fulfill my cca request is dated 1994 . I was just wondering if experian or similar companies existed then . in the capacity they do now (i can see experian existed in 1960)

-------------------

Because if not then anything i might have signed in 1994 in my view should not be passed to credit reference agencies ??

 

well i've just found out from wilkipedia.org

 

 

http://en.wilkepedia/

and enter EXPERIAN there are some JUICY BITS ABOUT them !!!

----------------------------------------

Experian is a business information company. The main subsidiary, Experian North America, is a consumer credit reporting agency, considered one of the "big three" in that business in the United States. Experian's principal line of business is providing consumer information, chiefly by using credit ratings, but it collects other information such as company records, insurance information, vehicle details and lifestyle data.

Experian employs approximately 12,500 in 30 countries and as of 2005 had clients in 60 countries. Its headquarters is in Nottingham, United Kingdom, and Costa Mesa, California. According to its corporate site, Experian's annual sales exceed $3.1 billion USD (£1.4 billion) and it has assets of $7.644 billion.

Experian was demerged from the British company GUS plc in October 2006. The new company, Experian plc, is listed on the London Stock Exchange under the abbreviation EXPN [1] The company is part of the FTSE 100 Index.

Experian acquired its credit reporting business from TRW{ TRW Incorporated was an American corporation involved in a number of businesses, mostly defense-related, but including automotive supply and credit reporting. On December 12, 2002, Northrop Grumman acquired the defense business, and TRW Automotive Holdings, formerly LucasVarity (However John C. Plant still retaining major ownership) became a separate company, soon afterwards acquired by The Blackstone Group. Goodrich Corporation acquired TRW's Lucas Aerospace group. The credit reporting business, which was spun off in 1996, is now called Experian} in 1995,.

[ecobabe]

to be honest I'm not particularly hot on the data protection act, i assume this debt is from way back in early 90's? itake it you have acknowledged it by paying it? if not then the Limitations Act 1980 would render it unenforceable, sorry if this has been discussed i'm just popping in briefly and don't have time to read back just now, will do so later

[FANTASY CHARGES]

to be honest I'm not particularly hot on the data protection act, i assume this debt is from way back in early 90's? itake it you have acknowledged it by paying it? if not then the Limitations Act 1980 would render it unenforceable, sorry if this has been discussed i'm just popping in briefly and don't have time to read back just now, will do so later

 

no the credit card account was opened in 1994 (they are calling the agreement monthly revolving credit) and we have a difference in opinion whether what they sent me [for my £1 payment CCA] is an application form or the agreement. they have simply sent the form with a complements slip no other communication. So thinking about it we don't have a difference of opinion as they have not formally said what it is and i have no copy of the "conditions of use" : i quote from the form " which are set out overleaf and as may be amended from time to time to the principal cardholder at the entire discretion of the bank (Conditions 6 & 15) "

 

Also it says which i think is very interesting (this was in 1994)

------------------

"The information requested on this form may be used by the Bank to assist us in providing you with the service you are applying for, and to confirm update and enhance our customer records We may use the Information requested to assess your credit rating which may involve a check with a credit reference agency : the agency will maintain a record of any such enquiry . We will however only disclose data to a credit reference agency in the event of default on a debt in certain circumstances or occassionally for fraud prevention purchases. the information may also be used to advise you of other services provided by the royal bank of scotland companies. i you do not wish to receive information about these services please tick this box."

NOW the text in ORANGE SAYS TO ME THAT iTHEY WILL NOT PASS on my monthy "0" 's or "1" 's because i reckon this system did not exist then ---- SO SUPPLYING THE INFO breaks the agreement (it if is an agreement ???)

 

update my research shows that in the year 2000 one credit card issuer had under the heading data protection added "The details of our searches and your application will be kept by credit reference agencies . We may also use a credit scoring or other automated decision-making system"

[JULI99]

Wonder if anyone can help?

 

Cahoot and BCW (a dca) recieved letters asking for the Credit Agreement in August but it was the dca who sent the copy of the credit agreement. 2 1/2 months later.

 

Am I right in thinking that because the CA was not produced within the 12 working days and then the following 30 days it will now take a court order to reinstate this debt.

 

They still have not sent a copy of the original default notice.

 

Cahoot appear to have handed this account on to another dca, Moorcroft.

 

Do I need to tell Cahoot and Moorcroft they need a court order to reinstate this debt. Anyone know of a good template letter anywhere.

 

Also Cahoots version of what I owe seems to fluctuate. do I need to say anything about the variation in the amounts I am supposed to owe.I have now recieved a letter from Moorcroft telling me that they intend to take legal action to recover the debt.

 

Any comments will be most gratefully recieved.

 

juli99

[un1boy]

Wonder if anyone can help?

 

Cahoot and BCW (a dca) recieved letters asking for the Credit Agreement in August but it was the dca who sent the copy of the credit agreement. 2 1/2 months later.

 

Am I right in thinking that because the CA was not produced within the 12 working days and then the following 30 days it will now take a court order to reinstate this debt.

 

They still have not sent a copy of the original default notice.

 

Cahoot appear to have handed this account on to another dca, Moorcroft.

 

Do I need to tell Cahoot and Moorcroft they need a court order to reinstate this debt. Anyone know of a good template letter anywhere.

 

Also Cahoots version of what I owe seems to fluctuate. do I need to say anything about the variation in the amounts I am supposed to owe.I have now recieved a letter from Moorcroft telling me that they intend to take legal action to recover the debt.

 

Any comments will be most gratefully recieved.

 

juli99

 

Hi Juli,

 

You need to establish you now owns this debt; if the DCA's cannot provide a deed of assignment then it needs to go back to the original lender, as they have legal right to collect the money as they do not own it.

 

You're right that now they need a court order, yes, so stop your payments. I guess it would be courteous to write to them, but I don't think you need to....make sure you always refer to the debt as alleged.

[JULI99]

Thanks for that. I know cahoot still own the debt.

 

juli99

[un1boy]

Ok, well I'm confused - morrcroft are syaing they are taking legal actiona gaisnt a debt that is owned by cahoot? That's not possible!

[JULI99]

So you think that Cahoot have sold the debt.

 

This could produce an interesting scenario as Moorcroft have the debt as some £2000 more than a previous dca Cahoot instructed and at least £500 more than Cahoot themselves say the debt is.

 

juli99