Unenforceability & Template Letters III

never-in-doubt

Locke wrote: »

Where do people stand on internet application, NID?

Could they just draw up a new CCA and pass it off as one from back then?

Was there a certain date that they still had to have a signature to make a CCA enforceable? I know they changed the law a few years back but if you opened an account before that date over the internet would they still need a signature?

Thanks for your help.

Mate an internet application is deemed enforceable if the prescribed terms are intact, this includes a signature. However when you look at the prescribed terms for a signature, it has provision for a 'tick in the box' which is classed as the same as a physical ink signature.

In a nutshell, if you signed online then chances are you'll lose with unenforceability claims because they are easy to fabricate - anyone can copy/paste a tick in the box can't they? Its a shame but unfortunately the way it is.

Locke

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Mate an internet application is deemed enforceable if the prescribed terms are intact, this includes a signature. However when you look at the prescribed terms for a signature, it has provision for a 'tick in the box' which is classed as the same as a physical ink signature.

In a nutshell, if you signed online then chances are you'll lose with unenforceability claims because they are easy to fabricate - anyone can copy/paste a tick in the box can't they? Its a shame but unfortunately the way it is.

But would it be unenforceable if say I opened the account in 2002 on the internet?

The rule change didn't come in until 2004 I think? So was that a cut off date and everything before had to be signed for (like the 2007 rule change) or can they go back as far as they like without a signature?

never-in-doubt

Locke wrote: »

But would it be unenforceable if say I opened the account in 2002 on the internet?

The rule change didn't come in until 2004 I think? So was that a cut off date and everything before had to be signed for (like the 2007 rule change) or can they go back as far as they like without a signature?

Its after December 2004, so if it has a tick in the box or a signature it is deemed to be correct. I cannot say yes or no to whether it is unenforceable mate cos just lacking a signature will be hard to fight in court, thus you really rely on other things - not that!

Why the interest, are you worried yours were applied for online?

From my FAQ Page mate:

Q. What if the agreement they send me has a 'tick' where my signature should be?
A. For agreements made online after December 2004, the Consumer Credit (Electronic Communications) Order 2004 allows the signature in the signature box to be replaced by a tick box.

Locke

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Its after December 2004, so if it has a tick in the box or a signature it is deemed to be correct. I cannot say yes or no to whether it is unenforceable mate cos just lacking a signature will be hard to fight in court, thus you really rely on other things - not that!

Why the interest, are you worried yours were applied for online?

From my FAQ Page mate:

Some of them were, not sure how many.

I'm just trying to get as much information together as possible.

never-in-doubt

Locke wrote: »

Some of them were, not sure how many.

I'm just trying to get as much information together as possible.

Mate lol - just send the CCA's and see what they respond with, don't worry! Lloyds were a nightmare, very few are enforceable so stop worrying........ lets see what they send back!

roadster

Evening Mate

Hows things ? another cracking letter, theres another bank employee with a face like a smacked ar*e when it gets opened.

Any joy with the Mint thing.

Cheers

never-in-doubt

roadster wrote: »

Evening Mate

Hows things ? another cracking letter, theres another bank employee with a face like a smacked ar*e when it gets opened.

Any joy with the Mint thing.

Cheers

Mate i've chased him again tonight - no joy as yet (he's busy unfortunately)..... No rush, just hold fire for a bit - I can't force him to check it over, but i'd like him to have a look and just confirm what I think - or even better, disagree...... Because of the link i'm undecided as to the enforceability, as you know. Its the actual wording that concerns me, however it does link - see my dilemma?

Of course I want him to come back and say the wording is wrong - but I can't second guess that.... just sit tight, we'll get there soon enough (frustrating I know but can't do much)....

roadster

No probs mate will sit tight till we know for sure, really appreciate all your help. Will catch up with you later.
:beer:

BigCraigJohn

Hi again, slightly off subject question if you dont mind, i'm trying to dispute 2 of my agreements but have got a fair amount of charges and fees to try and claim back from about 6 or 7 different credit agreements. Is there any harm in me requesting SAR's for the accounts i'm disputing? And can these come in as any ammo in any way?

never-in-doubt

BigCraigJohn wrote: »

Hi again, slightly off subject question if you dont mind, i'm trying to dispute 2 of my agreements but have got a fair amount of charges and fees to try and claim back from about 6 or 7 different credit agreements. Is there any harm in me requesting SAR's for the accounts i'm disputing? And can these come in as any ammo in any way?

Any charges that get refunded go to reduce the overall balance, so if you're pursuing unenforceability then why waste a tenner sending SAR's? Basically it doesn't matter if the balance is £2 or £20k - if it is unenforceable!

Its not like you get the money, if you thought so then sorry - no, it goes toward the balance of debt.

If the debt ends up being enforceable, then you would SAR them as you'd want the debt balance lowering, wouldn;t you? Cos you'd have to repay it.

See the logic and methodology with what i'm suggesting ?