Unenforceability & Template Letters III

jen_br

Had a response from lloyds after your letter NID (the snotty one LOL) they said they are passing it to a different dept. and they will get back to me in 28 days!

never-in-doubt

yorkieboy1508 wrote: »

Hi,
I received a terms and conditions agreement with my name and address on it from capital One via DCA NCO in response to my CCA request. The agreement looks enforceable according to the flowcharts except there are no signatures or signature boxes anywhere on the agreement. Capital One stated they have fulfilled my CCA request and will not be entering into any more correspondence with me.

I sent the CCA Dispute - Copy Document Suppliedto Capital One and received a response last week saying they are looking into my query. Still haven’t received anything back from them with my signature on it.

The Credit Card is already defaulted and I had a repayment agreement in place with the DCA. The DCA have now sent me a letter saying I’m in breach of my repayment agreement, the full balance is now outstanding and if I don’t contact them to arrange another repayment agreement they’ll be taking legal action to recover the full outstanding debt.

What’s my next move? Do I accept the agreement as enforceable even though there are no signatures and arrange another repayment plan or should I respond to the DCA with another template and continue not making any payments?

Thanks In Advance

Not having a signature does not make a debt unenforceable arghhhhh - please read the thread a little I only answered the same thing earlier today on the last page!

#3830

What you do now is up to you......

never-in-doubt

jen_br wrote: »

Had a response from lloyds after your letter NID (the snotty one LOL) they said they are passing it to a different dept. and they will get back to me in 28 days!

Yea, good - they should be passing it on to account cancellations :rotfl: - unless they really wanna fight - they will lose, they cannot win cos they are wrong - pure and simple.

jen_br

No unfortunatley its gone back to Card services!

never-in-doubt

Cashola wrote: »

My biggest concern is if they can do anything to my credit file now 10 years have elapsed since the last acknowledgement. I'm in th process of buying a flat you see and if the mortgage fell through I will feel dreadful to my OH :-S

As this is so old nothing can ever be added to your credit file and no ccj can ever be added - the account (note it is called account and not debt) is statute barred.

Finished - forget it and move on with your life, if they continue to hassle you then report them to the FOS: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

See this as well: http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/cca/debt-collection

chinawhite_2

Hi Nid

sorry for this question in advance because I know its probably gonna make you scream but I am a little confused. I have looked at the checker and FAQ's and I cant see where it says signature not required, I thought it said that a signature from both parties was required ???? Right, scream away !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

never-in-doubt

chinawhite wrote: »

Hi Nid

sorry for this question in advance because I know its probably gonna make you scream but I am a little confused. I have looked at the checker and FAQ's and I cant see where it says signature not required, I thought it said that a signature from both parties was required ???? Right, scream away !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I presumed it was common knowledge.... sorry, but yea - after McGuffick v RBS / Carey v HSBC no signature is required.... Actually McGuffick allows them to report a default to the CRA whilst Carey allows them to produce a recon (unsigned) - however what you have to bear in mind is that for the lender/dca to take any formal (court) action against you, then a signature is necessary as they need a compliant agreement (original) otherwise s.127 & s.65 come into play and protect you.

Regards to a recon - under the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 a lender is able to omit a signature and date box from the copy document.

I'll add details so everyone knows what these two judgements actually means - I thought posting the links on post 1 would suffice, I guess nobody has read them (the court judgements)??

Back in morning - laters :beer:

chinawhite_2

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I presumed it was common knowledge.... sorry, but yea - after McGuffick v RBS / Carey v HSBC no signature is required.... Actually McGuffick allows them to report a default to the CRA whilst Carey allows them to produce a recon (unsigned) - however what you have to bear in mind is that for the lender/dca to take any formal (court) action against you, then a signature is necessary as they need a compliant agreement (original) otherwise s.127 & s.65 come into play and protect you.

Regards to a recon - under the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 a lender is able to omit a signature and date box from the copy document.

I'll add details so everyone knows what these two judgements actually means - I thought posting the links on post 1 would suffice, I guess nobody has read them (the court judgements)??

Back in morning - laters :beer:

Aaaaahhhhh, I thought you were meaning that ultimately no signature was required, didnt realise you were meaning on the CCA they are allowed to send - Did actually know this fact from reading the info (thanks to you ) , just got a little confused - scared myself a bit there :eek:

Thanks, have a good night :beer:

handyman123_2

Hey Niddy, I've just found wee Jock Mctavish of the 23rd half way down page 2.
I've threatend to report him AWOL. He promises it wont happen again.

Cheers Handy.

BigCraigJohn

Hi NID just have a little question as I stumbled upon a certain piece of paper from 2005 while clearing out.

If a creditor has told you in writing that something is a reconstituted copy. Then you found the original which contained about 5% of the information in the reconstitued copy. Would there statement that it was a reconstituted copy be legally binding?(not that thats of much relevance) as surely a reconstituted copy should contain exactly what was in the original.

It seems that in making the reconstituted copy they merged the agreement and t&c into 1 lot and called it "original agreement" so that it makes some sense where the original refers to none existant conditions on the reverse and misses out default charges etc.