currys 0% finance 12 months, they gave me all the paper work!

hullight

Also, couldn't they just look at the CCTV to show the OP taking the goods but not paying for them?

zppp

mabski wrote: »

blah blah blah blah
im assuming the op has all the paperwork and currys have none at all, and if the goods were collected from store how can they prove he's had recieved any goods whatsoever
he could just write a bemused letter asking what they are going on about and currys wouldnt be able to do sod all about it.

Not only would it be on CCTV, but the OP's details will ahve been taken for the warranty. Plus, the debt is the finance company can reconstitute the agreement if the OP wanted it in the future to argue it is stature barred. End of.

never-in-doubt

zppp wrote: »

Not only would it be on CCTV, but the OP's details will ahve been taken for the warranty. Plus, the debt is the finance company can reconstitute the agreement if the OP wanted it in the future to argue it is stature barred. End of.

CCTV wouldn't come into it, you cannot just go and use it for things willy-nilly you know - there is such a thing as DPA which protects us against such nonsense taking place!!

Regards to the reconstituted agreement, you've been misled - even after the recent McGuffick (v RBS) and Carey (v HSBC) judgments the lender must still be able to prove without reasonable doubt that the form contained the prescribed terms and was signed by both the debtor and creditor - lack of any paperwork would render this impossible so no, they would not be able to make and produce a recon.

However as Euro clearly stated, the OP is sending back the paperwork so pointless really arguing the finer points of morality... ;)

never-in-doubt

mabski wrote: »

blah blah blah blah
im assuming the op has all the paperwork and currys have none at all, and if the goods were collected from store how can they prove he's had recieved any goods whatsoever
he could just write a bemused letter asking what they are going on about and currys wouldnt be able to do sod all about it.

To be fair, brock knows his stuff and what he says is quite factual... maybe blah blah blah, cos it isn't what you wanted to read, but he's spot on (as usual).... :p

Particular attention should be paid to his comment regards to Tort (Interference with Good Act 1977) - this does supercede CCA - however I explained the CCA side above..

~Brock~

never-in-doubt wrote: »

To be fair, brock knows his stuff and what he says is quite factual... maybe blah blah blah, cos it isn't what you wanted to read, but he's spot on (as usual).... :p

Aww thanks NID, I'm almost blushing....... :kisses3:

Most people seem to be of the impression that the lender is involved at this stage. They are not. Without a signed agreement they will not have paid Currys and the Consumer Credit Act will therefore have no relevance at the moment. There is therefore clearly no '50% settlement' to negotiate with the lender.

At this stage what we have is simply £1400 worth of goods that have been removed from a store with no consideration exchanged so the choice is simple a) return the forms (as the OP says he will) b) offer to pay by alternative means c) try and keep the goods without paying and face the potentially unpleasant consequences.

Those who advocate (c) above present a very good example why people should not rely on advice given for free on internet forums.

never-in-doubt

~Brock~ wrote: »

Aww thanks NID, I'm almost blushing....... :kisses3:

Most people seem to be of the impression that the lender is involved at this stage. They are not. Without a signed agreement they will not have paid Currys and the Consumer Credit Act will therefore have no relevance at the moment. There is therefore clearly no '50% settlement' to negotiate with the lender.

At this stage what we have is simply £1400 worth of goods that have been removed from a store with no consideration exchanged so the choice is simple a) return the forms (as the OP says he will) b) offer to pay by alternative means c) try and keep the goods without paying and face the potentially unpleasant consequences.

Those who advocate (c) above present a very good example why people should not rely on advice given for free on internet forums.

Morning Brock

You blush? Never :rotfl::rotfl:

As previously stated, the above advice is spot on (again) and option "A" is obviously the ONLY real thing to do here :D