PPI Reclaiming discussion Part III

dreamer33

marshallka wrote: »

I dish all this advice out and don't do any of these myself..:o

Do you not find its easier to give advice to others, than it is to take your own advice.

I do the same things sometimes lol

dreamer33

marshallka wrote: »

Di, if its a loan then they need not supply an executed agreement (section 77/78 of the CCA) if the loan is nothing owing and the only way of getting these is by a SAR. I found this out, under section 77/78 its states that if there is nothing owing (no debt outstanding) and I assume the credit card has no debt then just requesting the agreements they need not supply BUT if you request a SAR then they have to.



I don't think Robbie requested these in a SAR so cannot make a complaint to the ICO yet.

I had a SAR from EGG (card and loan) both closed in 05 contained my credit agreements.

Cheek of these companies:mad:

di3004

Wow Marshallka your a genius at everything:T , well I think so anyway and I know others here will agree with me as well.;) :A xx

marshallka

dreamer33 wrote: »

Do you not find its easier to give advice to others, than it is to take your own advice.

I do the same things sometimes lol

I just say nice things that I think help but looking at myself I would not be helped by any of these things....so really useless advice for me...;)

If you know what I mean...

dreamer33

di3004 wrote: »

Dreamer

Don't know if you've had the chance yet hun, because I know you have had lots to sort out, but if you do get a min, check out all the Boo posts from a few pages back.......you will know what we're getting at eventually lol:o :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: this should give you a giggle lmao:D

Am frightened to go and look cause I can't keep up with yous 2 tonight lol

marshallka

Just a bit more useless information.

If you request an agreement for a credit card its section 78 (running account) and if you request for a loan then its section 77 ...;)

I think

dreamer33

Took a lucky guess at the page of Boos and got it.

My how confusing, I've never saw the Boo34 on here before, maybe missed this one:rotfl: the convo was all going well too, it fitted perfectly with Boo666, until you all realised lol.

di3004

dreamer33 wrote: »

Am frightened to go and look cause I can't keep up with yous 2 tonight lol

oh dear lol.......:o :rotfl: , okay well what happened was, Boo34 had posted up with some good news of their claims, so I posted and said well done your wife will be happy (in so many words) when she arrives home......I thought this was the regular Boo......:o , anyways Boo34 posted back and said, in her own words that she was Mrs Boo........:eek: , and she had a giggle, bless her....:A , then I refrased my response and said "sorry"....:eek: , she got back and told me she was having a right giggle and said she would show her Mr Boo when he comes on from work......;) .

Now then, from here I taken it - it was Boo666.......when Boo666 came on here he claims it was not his wife......:eek: , so you can imagine the shock lmao:rotfl: :rotfl: , it was Boo but nothing to do with Boo666 lmao:rotfl: :rotfl: , it was so confusing

di3004

dreamer33 wrote: »

Took a lucky guess at the page of Boos and got it.

My how confusing, I've never saw the Boo34 on here before, maybe missed this one:rotfl: the convo was all going well too, it fitted perfectly with Boo666, until you all realised lol.

Lol, you've got it :T lol, and you posted the same time as me lol:D x

marshallka

It states here

3) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
(a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by
the debtor, or
(b) a request made less than one month after a previous request under that

subsection relating ~o the same agreement was complied with.

So requesting under these if nothing is owing they do not need to comply...