Cap1 & CCA return

[wittsend]

we have received exactly the same letter as napoleon100. but as we have a letter dated 2002, stating that they have closed the account, and also one in 2003 saying they have closed the account, and they have sent statements to us with a ballance available on them , and some times added interest where they say our arrangement has come to an end,

I would like to see the new signed agreements that we must have for them to do this

In dispute letter in the post tonight.

[wittsend]

forgot to say our letter said that as the original account was before May 1985 they do not have to send me a copy of my signed agreement so only sent me the recent terms and conditions,recent account balance, and arrears owed.

 

no statements containing payments made, or charges to the account.

[napoleon100]

Do you think that this constitutes a valid CCA then? My letter and CCA make it sound as though I do not have a valid dispute, but they have only provided me with a copy of the agreement that I have signed. What constitutes a valid CCA? I know from above that it has to have the signature, amount of interwest etc. but does this have to be in a certain format? The interest etc. on mine is shown on another page and not on the page that I have signed.

[wittsend]

I could not say

 

Try opening a new thread under Lloyds, and I ame sure someone with more expertese will be along to show you the way.

 

welcome to the club

good luck

[northdesk]

Could somebody please let me know if the attached agreement is enforceable.

It took over 4 months to receive copy of loan agreement and the quality is so poor there are words that are illegible.

 

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/IpjnNdBOhOpuouKuQFV2tA?feat=directlink

 

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/9XBXYbgF5v2ai2Wl96qBmQ?feat=directlink

 

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/PVw

[silverfox1961]

Morning,

Your third link is broken. can you try again

[northdesk]

Morning,

Your third link is broken. can you try again

 

 

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/lh/photo/PVw6iqPGVke3q8uv8nopVQ?feat=directlink

 

thanks for letting me know

[paulwlton]

Due out this week.

 

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/news/news-item.cfm?news=1979#content

[Bigdebtor]

Doesn't sound like good news for debtors?

 

However after many recent perverse judgements and other FOS/OFT actions favouring the establishment we shouldn't be surprised.

 

I hope the Scottish Courts will be able to retain some semblance of independence in the forthcoming Unfair Charges cases.

 

BD

[Dotty50]

Perhaps we should just start waving the white flags now!

[Bigdebtor]

I still have faith in the Scottish Justice system. It was hammering the Banks in the Small Claims Courts pretty well every time the subject of unfair bank charges reached them - before the OFT stuck its oar in and screwed it up for us last year.

 

BD

[the_shadow]

If it sticks close to the draft guidance then I reckon it'll remain close to DJ waksmans description used in Carey vs HSBC, i.e. reconstructions are in as long as the agreement hasnt been varied, if its been varied the original plus the varied details need to be sent... plus on all responses the original name/address of the debtor has to be on the form.

 

S.

[manchestman]

Hi all

Forgive me if this has already been asked and covered but 800+ pages frightened me and I am panicking a little now. I'm in court for SJ app by Rectums, this Monday. I have completely illegible copy of Marbles application form from 1999 together with T&C claimed to be the back of of app form and therefore a executed agreement, but shown by me to be from 2003 at minimum, with original interest figures either tippexed out or altered and the 'right' figues inserted by hand instead of typed (Can only be seen when magnified several times). This is now part of the claimant's exhibits. Rectums witness statement claims that when originally signed the agreement would have been in pristine condition and completely legible.

I have been back to read CCA 61 (1) ©

 

61 Signing of agreement

 

(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

 

My question is how do I counter this argument as they seem to be correct in that it is commonsense that the document is, WHEN PRESENTED or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

Any help or pointing in the right direction will be much appreciated. Thanks.

(The link to my 'agreement' is http://i49.tinypic.com/1235xu9.jpg)

[Bigdebtor]

I am sure the law means anything given to you NOW must be totally legible and a TRUE copy of the original. I think they're bluffing! See them in court (if they turn up) - but be well prepared!

 

BD

[manchestman]

I am sure the law means anything given to you NOW must be totally legible and a TRUE copy of the original. I think they're bluffing! See them in court (if they turn up) - but be well prepared!

 

BD

Thanks BD.

The illegible argument was a non starter because the reconstitution they turned up with was legible. However, judge did concede I had a point of law that no one has been able to get beyond as yet and adjourned for upto 28 days to hear submissions on this point. It was all possible because of being well prepared beforehand and using Carey in my own arguments.

[the_shadow]

Thanks BD.

The illegible argument was a non starter because the reconstitution they turned up with was legible. However, judge did concede I had a point of law that no one has been able to get beyond as yet and adjourned for upto 28 days to hear submissions on this point. It was all possible because of being well prepared beforehand and using Carey in my own arguments.

 

Yes I think we all need to be prepared for reconstructions and use carey as much as we can.

 

S.

[alisindebt]

I think a "very well done" to you, as many have been assuming that reconstructions mean the end of challenging the agreements, but you have proved otherwise so far. Keep us updated after the 28 days have passed!

[means2anend]

Hello fellow caggers...been a while since I posted..but I have been reading....

 

Anyway..this morning Lowells c/o Cap one have closed my account...yeeehaaaa!!!..''due to the length of time'' of the credit agreement they cannot find ...in archives

 

m2ae

[means2anend]

King Soloman said in proverbs..''words are like apples carved in gold'' and it worked for him..so I simply follow 'Higher Rules''

 

m2ae

[Bigdebtor]

M2AE

 

Well done! How much are they writing off?

 

BD

[Dotty50]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?192818-cupcake68-Vs-Monument&p=3162846&viewfull=1#post3162846

 

That's two now this week.

 

Good news M2ae!

[alisindebt]

Hi, same result as i got last year. Well done!

 

Interestingly, they did not go down the reconstructed CCA route, although I believe that they are allowed to do so if they want. However, if the OC did not keep any records, it may be that the original T+C, etc. were not recorded.

[andrew1]

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/news/news-item.cfm?news=1989#content

 

If they have the paperwork there's no problem, if they don't - there is. Guideline or no guideline without it they're stuffed from what I can see...any takers?

[means2anend]

On the other side of that letter at the top right hand corner there are faq's relevant to the circumstances existing....in this letter they have said my default will be removed from the Bureaix within 6 wks...wow little effoert there then...but i will confirm just to put pressure on.

 

BD..do not want to disclose...but I believe that they cannot find the 'original' due to varied terms as mentioned above...even though I simply asked for a copy of the original...

 

My advice is that WHENEVER a copy is asked for one should also mention 'any terms that have been varied since the inception of the alleged agreement' this according to one of the posts above may well involve HHJ WAksman's directive that the original must be produced...I think that in my case although I did not ask....the terms must have been varied and therefore this could have been a criticaL FACTOR...

 

RGDS M2AE

[means2anend]

wHEN /I HAVE THE TIME i WILL SCAN AND POST UP ...if we r still allowed to do this?

 

m2ae