MSE News: High Court 'closes debt write-off loophole'

fermi

Yep. It is crystal clear.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]1) A creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself; [/FONT][/FONT]

You are misinterpreting the phrase "original form" as meaning an exact copy of the original.

It doesn't. It means that copy, which can be reconstituted, of the original agreement containing the original provisions (prescribed terms, T&Cs etc) must be supplied along with the current terms and conditions if they have been varied from the original.

fermi

blueback wrote: »

:beer:ORIGINAL

Not relevant.

This Act requires that a "true copy" of the original is supplied. Not an original copy.

In case you missed it..................

This WHOLE JUDGEMENT is about what such a "true copy" should be.

As the judgement says, it may be a reconstituted copy where the details do not need to come from a copy of the original.

blueback

Yep

Which means they cannot provide a copy of an agreement with the heading "Running Account Credit Agreement" when the Application Form you signed was clearly headed "Credit Card Application Form"

113. It seems to me that the following information needs to be included in the reconstituted copy agreement (assuming of course that it was present in the original):
(1) Heading: Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Mr Mitchell accepted that it should be there as a matter of description and it is always in the copy terms and conditions provided anyway;
(2) Name and address of the debtor: I have already held that this must be provided in the copy;
(3) Name and address of the creditor: there may be little interest on the part of the debtor in seeing this but the creditor is a party to agreement and it would look odd


Basically, ALL credit card obtained using a form headed "Application Form" are now IEA's and if a creditor, in producing a "true-copy" attemps to change the heading to one such as the one above they are in doh-doh

fermi

blueback wrote: »

Which means they cannot provide a copy of an agreement with the heading "Running Account Credit Agreement" when the Application Form you signed was clearly headed "Credit Card Application Form"

Basically, ALL credit card obtained using a form headed "Application Form" are now IEA's and if a creditor, in producing a "true-copy" attemps to change the heading to one such as the one above they are in doh-doh

Yep. They are not allowed to alter that retrospectively.

Not all "improperly executed" agreements are unenforceable by the courts though.

Only ones where the prescribed terms or signature are missing in the actual genuine original.

As that heading is not a prescribed term then a court would still be entitled to enforce an agreement where that is misstated.

fermi

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Soooooooooo........................


Where exactly did all this get us


No Where:rolleyes:

Which is exactly why it has been said that nothing much has changed really.

May be interesting to see what the OFT publish.

If they keep in the alleged section where they say that a creditor should not mislead the debtor by:

• hiding or disguising the fact that there was never a proper signed agreement in the first place
• providing only a copy of the current terms and conditions, not the original ones
• confusing the borrower as to who they should send an information request after selling the debt to a debt collection company
• failing to preserve data so the borrower cannot be given an up to date statement of account.

...................................
...................................

"For the purposes of considering whether a company is fit to hold a consumer credit licence, the OFT can take into account any practices which we consider to be oppressive, misleading or improper, whether they are unlawful or not," an OFT official said.

The OFT's draft guidance says: "No communications or requests for payment should in any way threaten court action or other enforcement of the debt where the creditor or owner is aware that it cannot and will not be entitled so to enforce the agreement."

"The creditor or owner should make it clear in communications to the debtor that the debt is in fact unenforceable," it adds.

The guidance goes on to warn that: "To mislead debtors into making payment may in certain circumstances amount to an unfair commercial practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008."

But as we know, the creditors ignore the OFT when it comes to debt collection, so I'm doubtful what difference the above would make even if it does make it into the final version the OFT publishes. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

never-in-doubt

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

I know, i was just putting into simple terms for numpty monkey, before they asked:p

Leave the poor lad alone lol - it's not all Yorkshireman that are thick lol - just well, ermmm Numpty lol :rotfl::rotfl:

never-in-doubt

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Being a Yorkshireman, im not going to argue with that, am i:rolleyes::p:rotfl:

I never knew that! I know where numpty lives etc, in fact he knows my old house in the same area... Are you another Leeds lad than? There a few of us here.....

Numpty_Monkey

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

I know, i was just putting into simple terms for numpty monkey, before they asked:p

Thanks Bat:D I'm getting close to maybe, sometime soon, getting closer to understanding it:cool:

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Leave the poor lad alone lol - it's not all Yorkshireman that are thick lol - just well, ermmm Numpty lol :rotfl::rotfl:

I'm not thick just not as slim:p:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I'm proud to be a Numpty:j:j I keep the clever ones busy:D:A

Ames

Are lasses included in the Leeds club?

And numpty, I don't really get it all either.

never-in-doubt

Ames wrote: »

Are lasses included in the Leeds club?.

Hmmm, now that depends on whether you can handle a group of rowdy red blooded men :eek: :eek: