NatWest CCA.

oscar52

Agreement was either 98 or 99, csnt remember exactly, but was a student card taken out around the same time as my account which was november 98.

I have a copy of my current agreement, which contains all prescribed terms, and is post 2006 as it lists default charges being £12

The barely legible copy, dates from either 98 or 99 as makes reference to millenium bug. It appears at first glance to contain all the terms, but also appers to relate to numerous cards - it states under section 1 "definition of account" - these conditions of use apply to the use of any mastercard, visa, visa gold, ..... cant make out much of the rest.

3.2 states credit limit ....as indicated in condition x.x .... or as notified from time to time.

There is also an APR box, for several cards with "sample limits" giving details of any card fees, the interest rates relating to each product.

Seems to be generic rather than relating to my specific card.

fermi

The copy of the current agreement is irrelevant to the request and in no way satisfies it.

If it is just a copy of old terms and conditions that they have supplied rather than a copy of the actual agreement as executed then that isn't sufficient either.

This is the OFT's response to someone else:

A ‘true copy’ of an agreement principally consists of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the statutory content of the agreement. The name, address and signature of the debtor do not have to be provided.

Additionally, the creditor must supply the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor; the total sum which has become payable under the agreement but remains unpaid; and the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor (the latter two must include the various amounts comprised in that total sum and the date when each is/was due).

However, the copy must be a copy. It need not be exact on immaterial points, but it cannot be a conjectured reconstruction.If the trader has no original copy, the trader will have difficulty showing that he has complied with the regulation by supplying a ‘true copy’, since nobody would know what was in the original. When the trader comes to enforce the debt in court, he needs to have a signed copy of the agreement in order to enforce. As the law stands currently he cannot otherwise.

In the absence of a copy of the original agreement someone's liability for a debt can only lead to further query. However in circumstances like this we would view it is as unfair practice under section 25(2) (d) of the Act and relevant to licence fitness if a trader failed to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate when a debt is queried or disputed.

Note: The part above regarding a supplied agreement not needing to show your name and address is incorrect. That is for an unexecuted agreement only. Apparently the OFT's lawyers have confirmed that slight mistake in the above. It's clear from reading the regulations that this is the case as well.

Natwest (part of RBS) have a bit of a reputation for "reconstructing" alleged agreements that they can't be asked to look for or simply can't find.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/feb/02/banks.consumeraffairs

That link makes interesting reading.

oscar52

Starting to think it may be an idea to hit them with a full SAR request and force them to privide a signed agreement.

oscar52

Very interesting those last two posts Fermi, thank you.

Think I may try a quick phone call first, let them know they havnt complied and also let them know who I work for and that I am aware of their responsibilities.

oscar52

Well, my quick conversation went well. Said I wasnt happy as had not fulfilled request - pointed out original terms and conds wernt really legibe (which she agreed) but spouted same as letter that under S78 blah blah. Then told her who I worked for and that I was well aware what had to be supplied.

response? - "You'll have to write in and a Manager will contact you"