CapitalOne

[CJT52]

I have a debt with CapitalOne and have been sent numerous letters including the offer of a discount and the the doorstop visit. So I sent CapitalOne the letter re data protection Act and Crap Quest the CCA letter with the £1.00 fee recorded delivery. Six days later they sent the orginal letter and fee back with a letter saying that I needed to sign the orginal CCA letter so that they can foward it on to them to deal with my request. I smell a rat? Any advice as CapitaOne hvae not yet replied.

CJT52

[cerberusalert]

There is no legal requirement for you to provide a signature, in fact the ICO have stated that if the creditor has already been in contact with you using your existing address that is enough to satisfy the data protection act.

 

You could send this; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?433-Debt-Letter-When-company-refuse-CCA-due-to-no-signature

[robcag]

There is no legal requirement for you to provide a signature, in fact the ICO have stated that if the creditor has already been in contact with you using your existing address that is enough to satisfy the data protection act.

 

[/url]

 

Hi cerberusalert

 

Would you be so kind as to point me in the direction of where I can read that statement from the ICO, so that I can quote it to NastyWest who I am in a dispute with regarding their insistence that I provide a compliant signature before they will release my data to me under a SAR.

 

Long story short, I didn't sign the SAR letter, received a reply stating NW would therefore not provide my data. I then agreed verbally over the telephone with someone from Joyce Tudors SAR dept to have the data sent to my local NW branch and it would be released to me if I presented my passport.

 

The data duly arrived at the branch and I went along with my current UK passport, whereupon the NW operative refused to hand over the data unless I signed for it. She wouldn't accept a signature which was different than the one in my passport. Stalemate.

 

I don't wish to provide my original signature because with NWs record regarding publicly admitting that it has previously forged customer signatures, I don't want my signature to magically appear on some agreement or suchlike.

 

Apologies to CJT52 for the hijack.

 

Rob

[cerberusalert]

There is no legal requirement for you to produce a signature & in fact even the ICO state that fact;

 

 

Data Protection Act Good Practice Notes:

 

2. Do you have enough information to be sure of the requester’s identity?

Often you will have no reason to doubt a person’s identity. For example, if a person with whom you have regular contact sends a letter from their known address it may be safe to assume that they are who they say they are. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/checklist_for_handling_requests_for_personal_information.pdf

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8861&d=1242456802

 

 

also this report is relevant;

 

Select committee on Trade and Industry minutes of evidence (1996 Legislative working party)

 

2. The working party looked at the legal issues regarding the terms document, writing, signature, instrument, and records of transactions and originality. The Government's current proposed legislation focuses particularly upon the issue of signature. The working party considered the leading case in English law on signature methods, Goodman -v- J Eban Limited. That decision established that:

 

2.1 mechanical signatures using rubber stamps, printing or typewriting were valid in english law;

2.2 a signature can be by a mark rather than a name as long as evidence can be given to indentify the placer of the mark and the intention to sign; and

2.3 words other than a name can amount to a signature if the necessary intention to sign can be proven

 

Now although this working party was looking into the Electronics Commerce Bill it points to . .

 

Goodman v J Eban Ltd (1954)

 

A solicitor signed a solicitors bill with a rubber stamp which contained the name of the law firm. In the judgment it was determined that the rubber stamp was a valid signature, even theough the Solicitors Act of 1932 required a solicitors bill to be signed; it was established that it is enough to demonstrate that the rubber stamp was affixed by the solicitor with the intention to sign the solicitor's bill.

 

So now taking the highlights above I go to:

 

Interpretations act 1978

 

Schedule 1

 

1973 c.37.

 

"Writing" includes typing, lithograpgy, photography or other modes of representing or reproducing words in a visible form and expressions refering to writing can be construed accordingly

[robcag]

Thanks very much cerberusalert.

 

So far my dispute has been on the telephone with 'Joyce Tudor' and another desk jockey at the RBS/NW Edinburgh SAR office, and then face to face on two occasions with the same annoying local operative over the two separate packets which were sent to the local branch. Both times my passport was shown as ID but I was still refused my data.

 

I have good reason to believe they want to obtain my signature having recently won NWs overdraft claim against me. In fact on the first of the two occasions at the local branch I was asked to sign a blank sheet of A4 paper!

 

Now with the info above I will be better armed for a written complaint, firstly to NW, then the ICO if no joy.

 

Rob

[Old Cogger]

Do as I did sign very rough then X!d through it (i.e. identifiable mark), no questions were asked, how would that person know at the time. of course a complaint to FOS would be a waste of time. ?

[robcag]

Do as I did sign very rough then X!d through it (i.e. identifiable mark), no questions were asked, how would that person know at the time. of course a complaint to FOS would be a waste of time. ?

 

I'm not sure even that would have worked as the operative was being particulary pedantic on the second occasion, particularly I think because on the first occasion I'd mentioned the reason why I didn't want to provide my usual signature (including mentioning NWs public admission of forgery!).

 

I'm also very wary of just striking through my normal signature as that can easily be removed using image editing software on a zoomed in screen image of the signature.

 

Rob

[CJT52]

Hi

Thanks for the support and I sent off the letter but today I got a further letter from Cap Quest. In essence they are saying the payments I am making to Capital One are being fowarded on to them (I am paying capital one per month...as my debt advisor said it will stop any court action). Cap Quest then argue that a notice of assignment is not applicable. They want me to pay them directly and have put the account hold for 14 days. They also provided a print off of my payments against a total that goes up with my payments? What is the next step? Still await the the non response of my first request? Then send the dispute letter? What do I do as I do not want to deal with these people. Thanks.

 

CJT52

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Keep paying the way you are now.

[CJT52]

Hi All

 

Thanks for the help. Crap Quest wrote back a day after I had sent the 2nd letter recorded delivery to tell me that they were handing my Capital 1 account back to them...I am still payingCapital 1 monthly but want my charges back and an agreed payment plan. What next?

[CJT52]

I am now completing the OFT complaint form on Capquest...

 

CJT52