RBS Credit Card CCA request-fulfilled?

happy_bunny_2

Hi all,

I recently sent a CCA request to RBS for a credit card account opened in the mid 90s.

They sent back a copy of an agreement that has an address 5 years after I opened the account. It is certainly not a copy of the original.

When I queried it, they said that they "can provide a 'true copy' that does not need to contain all the personal information of the borrower or a signature box or dates of signatures." They basically say they have done what they legally have to and that I can take any legal redress I like but they won't discuss the matter further.

Well, I know that pre 2007 in court if they don't have the signed original they couldn't get a CCJ.

Should I SAR them? Would they then have to send a true copy if they had it?

Thanks

nottoolate

they can reconstitute an agreement as long as it contains all the info that would have been in the original. it doesn't have to be a signed copy

technically they haven't complied as any reconstituted agreement should contain the address that was current when you first took out the agreement

if everything else is correct then that would be a very simple thing for them to correct though

a long read but explained in detail here

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT1272.pdf

happy_bunny_2

Hi nottoolate,

Thanks for the info.

Sorry: didn't see your link the your post, will take a look now

It kinda looks like an agreement which comes with a new card rather than anything else.

It contains:
-my address (as mentioned, not the one when it was opened)

-the credit limit (not the original one when the account was opened)

-interest rate (hard to say if its the same as 5 years earlier)

-list of fees (e.g. £12 for overlimit, late payment). In 1996 I'm sure it would have been more, not sure when they changed it to £12.)

-loads of standard looking sections

Anything else it should have?

Thanks

nottoolate wrote: »

they can reconstitute an agreement as long as it contains all the info that would have been in the original. it doesn't have to be a signed copy

technically they haven't complied as any reconstituted agreement should contain the address that was current when you first took out the agreement

if everything else is correct then that would be a very simple thing for them to correct though

a long read but explained in detail here

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT1272.pdf

nottoolate

doesnt sound good enough but its very hard to tell just from a description of the documents

what was required was clarified in the high court in this case

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

the key points here are highlighted in blue

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The following is a brief summary of the principal findings and conclusions set out above:

(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;

(2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself;

(3) The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made;

(4) If an agreement has 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;

(5) If a creditor is in breach of section 78 this does not of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A;

(6) The Court has jurisdiction to declare whether in a particular case, there has been a breach of s78. Whether it will be appropriate to grant such a declaration depends on the circumstances of that case;

(7) In assessing whether Prescribed Terms are "contained" in an executed agreement the principles set out at paragraph 173 above are relevant. On the assumed facts set out at paragraph 177 the Prescribed Terms were so contained;

(8) The claims that there was an unfair relationship and an IEA in Adris should be struck out or dismissed. The claim that there was an IEA in Yunis should be struck out or dismissed. The absence of any positive pleaded case or evidence as to the circumstances of the making of the agreement by the debtor concerned was fatal to the IEA claims. The absence of any positive plea or evidence as to particular facts relied upon in support of the unfair relationship claim other than failure to provide a s78 copy, was fatal to that claim.

nottoolate

so perhaps a SAR is worth a go?

they cant hide behind regulations for that allowing them to reconstitute

happy_bunny_2

nottoolate wrote: »

so perhaps a SAR is worth a go?

they cant hide behind regulations for that allowing them to reconstitute

Thanks, will get an SAR sorted.

Ans oner final question, I read somewhere on here that interest stops if an account is defaulted.

I found the following sentence in the agreement which kinda contradicts this:

"Ending the agreement
We may end the agreement at any time by giving you reasonable notice in writing
When the agreement ends, we will continue to apply interest and charges until you have paid everything you owe under the agreement
If we end the agreement, we may give information about you and your account to the credit reference agencies."

Thanks

nottoolate

happy_bunny wrote: »

Ans oner final question, I read somewhere on here that interest stops if an account is defaulted.

it does, unless there is a term in that agreement that allows otherwise

happy_bunny_2

nottoolate wrote: »

it does, unless there is a term in that agreement that allows otherwise

Thanks, does the extract in my previous post sound like it would allow interest to be added post default?

nottoolate

sounds like it.