Lloyds TSB lost my original CCA

zppp

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

I have decided, no longer to pay the milk man as he hasnt a signed agreement

Quick send the milk police..... :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

PNPSUKNET

no they give us 2 weeks of milk first

zppp

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

no they give us 2 weeks of milk first

Maybe they will reconsitute an agreement under The Sale of Milk Act 1974. :rotfl:

izools

TaxPayingMug wrote: »

Its not a grey area at all.
Just because the debt cannot be enforced, it doesn't make the monies suddenly not owed anymore.

Thought as much. Just wanted to be sure Thanks!

izools

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Did a high court judge not rule that lenders can re-constitute a CCA and do not have to send an original copy?

I knew about this, too, but in this instance the OP hasn't even been sent a re-constituted agreement... Without that there's nothing a court can do Pity.

Locke

Stephen-k wrote: »

I am not sure where I should post this, so perhaps a Mod can move this if its in the wrong place.

I have had this ongoing struggle since March 2010 with Lloyds TSB to give me a copy of my original credit card agreement.
The agreement was made around 2003 and I cannot find it in my records.
I sent to them the templates listed on this site asking for a copy.
The last one I refused to pay any more toward the debt.

They eventually came back with a letter stating that no they could not find the CCA but because I have been paying x amount per month shows that there is a debt to begin with !

They have now passed my debt of £1,500 onto a collection agency who are now demanding it all.

Are LLoyds tsb right ?
As I have made payments does that mean I have no grounds to dispute anything ?

I would be grateful for any guidance with this.

Just send the collection agency the 'account sold whilst in dispute' letter, they will then go to Lloyds and ask them for a copy, when Lloyds tell them they don't have one they will write back to you and tell you they've closed the account before selling it on to someone else.

:cool:

Locke

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Did a high court judge not rule that lenders can re-constitute a CCA and do not have to send an original copy?

They still need the original if they take you to court.:rotfl:

zppp

Locke wrote: »

They still need the original if they take you to court.:rotfl:

Would you like to point out where it says that? Espeially since the ruling in HSBC?

PNPSUKNET

A creditor could satisfy its duty under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to give a debtor, when asked in writing, a copy of the running-account regulated credit agreement and other documents referred to therein, by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement, which might be from sources other than the signed version.
Judge Waksman, QC, sitting as a Queen’s Bench Division judge, so held in the Mercantile Court at Manchester, when considering six preliminary issues of law in eight selected cases concerning requests for copies of credit card agreements pursuant to section 78 of the 1974 Act: Emma Carey against HSBC Bank plc; Shafeel Younis against Barclays Bank plc; Samantha Conniff against Barclays Bank; Mohammed Adris against the Royal Bank of Scotland plc; Brian Backwell against the Royal Bank of Scotland; Rajan Mandal against the Royal Bank of Scotland; Andrew Light against MBNA Europe Bank Ltd; and Robert Atkinson against Bank of Scotland plc, with the Office of Fair Trading intervening in all cases. Additionally, two applications by the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays Bank that the claims of Mohammed Adris and Shafeel Yunis, respectively, had no real prospect of success and should be struck out were granted.
Mr David Uff and Mr James Malam for Carey, Conniff, Backwell and Light; Mrs Zoe Thompson and Miss Laura D’Cruz for Yunis; Mr Julian Gun Cuninghame and Mr Bradley Say for Adris, Mandal and Atkinson; Ms Sonia Tolaney and Mr James Macdonald for HSBC Bank; Mr Andrew Mitchell for Barclays Bank; Mr Bankim Thanki, QC and Ms Julia Smith for the Royal Bank of Scotland; Mr Geriant Howells for MBNA Europe Bank; Mr Fred Philpott for Bank of Scotland; Mr Stephen Neville for the Office of Fair Trading.
HIS LORDSHIP said that the purpose of his judgment was to give general guidance, in the context of the cases before him, in the hope that that would narrow or eliminate the issues arising in the hundreds of other similar claims issued in county courts around the country, many of which had been stayed pending the outcome in the proceedings before his Lordship.
His Lordship reached a number of conclusions on the preliminary issues:
First, a section 78 copy had to contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement but the creditor could provide those details from whatever source it had of those details and not necessarily from the executed agreement itself.
Second, the creditor need not, in complying with section 78, provide a document which would comply, if signed, with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations (SI 1983 No 1553) as to form, as at the date the agreement was made.
Third, if an agreement had been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms.
Fourth, a breach by a creditor of section 78 did not of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A of the 1974 Act, as inserted by section 19 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006.
Fifth, the court had jurisdiction to declare whether in a particular case, there had been a breach of section 78. It would depend on the circumstances of that case as to whether it would be appropriate to grant such a declaration.
Section 60 permitted regulations requiring prescribed terms to ensure that a debtor or hirer was made aware of the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement, the amount and rate of the total charge for credit in the case of consumer credit agreements, the protection and remedies available, and any other matter which it was desirable for him to be aware of in connection with the agreement.
The following principles were correct in the context of section 61 in assessing whether those prescribed terms were “contained” in an executed agreement:
First, it was not sufficient for the piece of paper signed by the debtor merely to cross refer to the prescribed terms without a copy of those terms being supplied to the debtor at the point of signature.
Second, a document need not be a single piece of paper.
Third, whether several pieces of paper constituted one document was a question of substance not form. In particular, a physical connection between several pieces of paper was not necessary in order for them to constitute one document.
Fourth, a physical connection, or one or more physical connections, between several pieces of paper did not necessarily constitute them as one document. Accordingly, where the debtor's signature and the prescribed terms appeared on separate pieces of paper, the questions of whether those pieces of paper together constituted one document was a question of substance and not form.
His Lordship held on the assumed facts of the first claim that the prescribed terms were so contained.

atsoc15

I have not kept up with S78 S61 etc since perhaps March time so things might have moved on since then. However at that time all they had to provide was a a reconstituted copy of your agreement. Even if they couldn't do this the debt still stands although they couldn't enforce it through a court of law.

However the debt would still be reported to credit agencies and they would still be entitled to follow debt proceedings out of court