marbles,terms & cons, CCA

pepe2008 wrote: »

In effect what they have sent you is the Application Form and some T&Cs that MAY have been in force at that time, but are irrelevant in your requst for the CCA.

Dear Sirs,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

You have failed to respond to my legal request to supply me a true copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement for the above account

I note that you have replied to my CCA Request by sending a copy of the Application Form and not a True Copy of the alleged Consumer Credit Agreement, in line with my formal request. As such, I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act.

To clarify, just sending the Application Form is a breach of the Act and Regulations, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a 'true copy' of the agreement. This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

Section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.” This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of Document Regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be mentioned, which are;

Section 2(2) (a)
A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

And more importantly

Section 2(b)
A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document, the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations. Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed Application Form. It does, however, state that 'all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented'.

In either case, please confirm that you have, in your possession, a credit agreement that is in all ways fully compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as amended, and the subsequent regulations made there under. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are in possession of such a document, but are unable to supply me with a true copy of it, please outline your reasons why you are unable to supply it to me in your reply.

Furthermore, I respectfully request that you provide me by return a copy of the credit agreement which bears my signature. I require this as I have reason to believe that there may be discrepancies within the agreement which may leave it improperly executed.

I look forward to your response within the next 14 days.

Yours faithfully

Sign digitally

DarkConvict wrote: »

If they have failed to supply a valid CCA within the 14 days im sure they are not allowed to pass on the account. If a new DCA has the account you should inform them that the account is in dispute as they have not provided a valid CCA and should be returned to them.

never-in-doubt would know more about this, and if i am right have a template to hand at a guess.

RAS wrote: »

FORMAL NOTICE - ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir or Madam,

Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with the **original creditor/DCA** and has been since DATE.

Not only is this a breach of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Office Of Fair Trading's debt collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998.

As **original creditor/DCA** are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request and OFT Debt Collection Guidelines, I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will not only be fully and vigorously defended, it will ALSO be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the **original creditor/DCA** for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as **New DCA/Solicitors** cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

If **New DCA/Solicitors** chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines and the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

Yours faithfully
Courtesy of Curlyben