Unenforceability & Template Letters II

ddontheweb

Hello. I wonder if anyone out there can offer some advice. I have an unsecured loan out with RBS (taken out in 2003) and I've been unhappy with the way they are operating things, customer service, huge charges, contacting me etc. I wrote to them to request a copy of the CCA and they sent back a two page document that had details of the loan, signatures etc. However, the second page of the document which included all the terms and conditions was useless - it looked like a poor photocopy of an already damaged and torn page.

I wrote back with a "CCA Dispute - Illegible Copy Document Supplied" letter. They have now written back today - surprise surprise - stating that they have provided a legible copy and (I quote) "another copy is attached for your information". However, this second copy is different. The suspect second page is now miraculously intact.

My question is: can they do this? They have obviously just created or recreated the dodgy page of the CCA. Anyone with eyes can see that they are not the same.

Any advice on how I should repsond?

Many thanks.

cejsmith

Afternoon all

Please find below the lastest cca I've been sent by egg, could someone give me their views on unenforcability. They have already defaulted me so I don't have much to lose!!!

fermi

VERY hard to read that first page, but it does seem to contain the prescribed terms.

So could well be enforceable.

never-in-doubt

Well, i've just had an interesting meeting with someone actively involved in said test cases The *rumour* is - it appears that our friendly judge has decided that 'if an agreement exists the lender should copy it and send it; why spend the time reconsituting one when it would easier and cheaper to photostat the original'....

Make of that as you will but it is music to my ears and what i'd argued all along. However, I do think they will allow the OC/DCA to report negative behaviour activity at the CRA's which is wrong, I mean if the agreement is unenforceable then technically our authorisation to share data is also unenforceable - i.e. the void contract (agreement) voids our authority...

I do hope they see sense and award judgement in our favour with this

Thanks Blind & Fermi for dealing with Gemmzie problem - :T :T

fermi

Ruling @ 10am tomorrow isn't it?

never-in-doubt

fermi wrote: »

Ruling @ 10am tomorrow isn't it?

Well this is the thing, apparently they are assuming that there will be no appeals so the judgement may well come out tomorrow but as far as we know this will be specifically for the ruling on the reconstitution of agreements. I believe the rest will follow in due course.

Again, apparently they reckon the reason judgement will be made so soon is because it is basic law - the judge believes there is no maneuvre for argument being the law is there in black and white.

I do hope my contact is not talking !!!!!! cos he had pretty much confirmed that judgement will be made in our favour tomorrow!

never-in-doubt

Oh, apparently the ruling will be given to BBC first @ 09.45 - why? God only knows

The secrecy scares me a little - you never know what could be going on (this could be a wild goose chase to get our hopes up?). :rolleyes:

sorry for using the word apparently all the time but it is just rumours at the moment! Also tomorrow i'm tied up from 8am-3pm so will miss judgement - gutted at that!

fermi

There are similar indications on that CAG thread, so fingers crossed.

However, as always, I'll only believe it when I see it. There have been too many delays and bizarre count decisions lately for anything else. :rolleyes:

fermi

These things are often given to the press first, then "embargoed" until a set time.

Government depts do that all the time so that info goes out in a coherent fashion, rather than a press sudden press scramble to work out what it actually means.

never-in-doubt

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

I know what you two are on about, but have not got a clue as to the details of what you too are on about:o:rolleyes::D

Stupid question, but is there a condenced version you can link me too, i need to catch up, but dont have hours spare right now to do so:o

Basically we're talking about the agreements and the fact that lenders can constitute one, i.e. make a copy assuming the details that would have been used at outset. Our argument has always been that if they had the original they should copy it and send it, not least with a SAR - but they don't. As such the ruling, we hope, will tell the lenders to use the original and scrap this silly constituted version.

There are 12 test cases, this forms one of them (well 3 but 1 in the count) and so it will have a major impact, on this thread alone not one person has yet been sent a copy of the original agreement therefore you can imagine the trouble it will case lenders - rightly so, they should keep their paperwork in roder like the rest of us do!

Regards to the judgements, there should be several but we expect to hear this - the second main one - tomorrow. The main one itself should be the reporting of data to CRA's with an unenforceable agreement.

Does that help? See this mate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8393768.stm