Credit card taken over by another company, no new agreement signed.

chattychappy

As for legalities, two principles are coming together:

1) A debt is a "chose in action". Common law allows the transfer of a chose in action. This right goes back years.

2) Contractual - you can generally contract to "do what you like" within the constraints of statute and common law - this includes transferring accounts.

Remember also that if one company takes over another, then despite a name change, the legal parties are the same for the purpose of the contract you entered into.

So in principle they don't need your permission. Regs/CCA1974 govern how they actually do it in the case of consumer credit.

oknow100

Hello,

It may be possible to wipe the entire debt – you might be in for a bit of a fight though.

Regardless of takeovers or mergers, they still have to provide you with a copy of the credit agreement, under section 77/78 of the consumer credit act 1974. They may not even have the agreement – in which case they cannot enforce a debt through the courts. Since the Carey vs HSBC case, they may try and get away with sending a reconstituted agreement, but its possible they will not even have sufficent documents for that.

And Judge waksman concluded "[108] Accordingly, I conclude that Reg. 7 requires a copy of the executed agreement in its original form as well as a statement of the terms as they are at the time of the request”

I would send a section 77/78 request, asking for the agreement, there are templates and other resources for that which you can find online.

All the best

redpete

oknow100 wrote: »

<stuff suggesting the OP doesn't pay back what they owe>

Why bother providing all that advice when the OP has clearly said they will be paying back the money they borrowed?

endora

oknow100 wrote: »

Hello,

It may be possible to wipe the entire debt – you might be in for a bit of a fight though.

Regardless of takeovers or mergers, they still have to provide you with a copy of the credit agreement, under section 77/78 of the consumer credit act 1974. They may not even have the agreement – in which case they cannot enforce a debt through the courts. Since the Carey vs HSBC case, they may try and get away with sending a reconstituted agreement, but its possible they will not even have sufficent documents for that.

And Judge waksman concluded "[108] Accordingly, I conclude that Reg. 7 requires a copy of the executed agreement in its original form as well as a statement of the terms as they are at the time of the request”

I would send a section 77/78 request, asking for the agreement, there are templates and other resources for that which you can find online.

All the best

You have the general idea but it doesn't work exactly as you say. The debt wouldn't be *wiped*, that just doesn't happen, what could happen is that the debt could be unenforceable if the creditor doesn't supply an agreement that complies with the Consumer Credit Act. Unenforceable doesn't mean it gets wiped, the debt still exists but the creditor won't be able to obtain judgment in their favour should they decide to take action in court, provided you defend and know how to do so.

Most of the time, if the creditor hasn't got an enforceable agreement AND you challenge them (if not they'll assume you don't know anything about it and may go on to court anyway), they will not attempt court action as they will focus on those who are easier to beat. In that case the debt will just become Statute Barred 6 years after the last payment, provided you don't acknowledge it in writing.

Sending a CCA request (also known as a S78 request for CCs) is a start but once you get a response you need to know what to look for in an agreement and how to respond. How much of a 'fight' it is depends on the creditor and the circumstances. If they are unable to provide you with anything then it'll be much easier, if they provide you with a quasi-compliant copy then you'd need to know what points to argue. I know all about this because I've got both a debt with no CCA and one where they've sent an application form.

Creditors are free to buy and sell accounts both live and defaulted at will, there's no law against it nor is there a requirement to provide you with a new agreement - this may actually work in your favour as anything after April 2007 is likely to be enforceable. However, when creditors buy accounts they sometimes neglect to obtain the agreements, the probabilities of them not finding it are greater in this case. I hope this clarifies the point.

oknow100

Hello,

Yes it was just a brief idea of the way it works, I have been through the courts with this (and won) so know the framework. The debt will still remain, however they will not be able to enforce it through the courts, further, you can get it written off with what is known as a “consent order” if both parties agree.

It's not an easy process, and you would probably have to take it to the court level, and would need a lot of research. I'm not encouraging anyone to not pay their debts - I’m just encouraging consumer law to be followed, which means the consumer has the right to a signed copy of their agreement – if the bank have failed to follow the rules and keep that agreement – that is their problem.

redpete

oknow100 wrote: »

I'm not encouraging anyone to not pay their debts - I’m just encouraging consumer law to be followed, which means the consumer has the right to a signed copy of their agreement – if the bank have failed to follow the rules and keep that agreement – that is their problem.

I'm surprised that a statement can be so pompous and dishonest at the same time. Of course you are encouraging people not to pay their debts. The OP made no suggestion that they didn't use the CC to buy stuff and they haven't yet paid the money back.

If the law made any sense then it would insist that, in the case of an agreement not being able to be proved to have been made according to the relevant law, then both parties should be returned to a position they were in before they made and acted on the agreement, i.e any money owed should be returned.

What would be reaction if a CC company started refusing transactions because it couldn't find a signed agreement that the customer might have signed several years ago?

oknow100

Hello,


I am simply letting the OP know the situation, they can use, or not use that information as they wish. They were asking, presumably in relation to a possible invalid agreement, so it seems very relevant to me. As far as being dishonest, I am simply stating the facts, in the end it would be up to a court to decide. But do not get me started on the dishonestly of the banks, losing fortunes and having the taxpayer bail them out, stealing peoples houses (see USA, banks foreclosing on people with no mortgage), MF Global "losing" client assets and gold, then claiming they have no idea where those assets are, Goldman Sachs with their influence not only guiding democracy but with their people running the US treasury and FED.

Not to mention getting people in debt with excessive charges and interest making it impossible to pay back loans, dishonest PPI selling and much more. One is not an excuse for the other, but the banks will bend and skew every rule in the book to their own ends, the consumer needs to know the rules as well so they can know their rights and make their own minds up. I am doing my best to give useful information.

There is a lot of good advice here, but some posts are surprisingly negative, hostile, and leave out key facts, replaced with something like “banks are god, pay them ,you have no rights!” and when I inform people of some of their rights, the attitude is “Why did you tell them that?!” I have to say I wonder how many work for a bank here, but that is fine, I do not believe in keeping people in the dark, I believe in giving people all the information, then it's up to them to make their choice. I will continue to do this regardless of the hostile attitude and posts from some.

All the best

endora

oknow100 wrote: »

It's not an easy process, and you would probably have to take it to the court level, and would need a lot of research.

Not necessarily. That idea was promoted by Claims Management Companies that acted as claimants to have agreements ruled enforceable. Whilst this worked in some cases, after the Carey judgment (in which the debtors were claimants), this course of action has got a lot harder to win.

That doesn't mean you can't use the CCA to your advantage to stop a creditor obtaining judgment against you. In most cases, when a debtor challenges the debt and there is either no agreement or a poor recon, the creditor prefers not to take it to the courts and just pass it from one DCA to another.

There are also cases where the debtor has been taken to court and won. I know about some recent ones.:j

oknow100 wrote: »

But do not get me started on the dishonestly of the banks, losing fortunes and having the taxpayer bail them out, stealing peoples houses (see USA, banks foreclosing on people with no mortgage), MF Global "losing" client assets and gold, then claiming they have no idea where those assets are, Goldman Sachs with their influence not only guiding democracy but with their people running the US treasury and FED.

Don't get ME started on this either! :mad::mad::mad: The banks have been the biggest crooks and have been responsible for the global financial crisis that has left not only individuals, but whole countries, deeply in debt! I'm also well acquainted with all the dodgy deals that took place in the USA/Wa££ $treet and the ripple effect around the world.

oknow100 wrote: »

I have to say I wonder how many work for a bank here, but that is fine, I do not believe in keeping people in the dark, I believe in giving people all the information, then it's up to them to make their choice. I will continue to do this regardless of the hostile attitude and posts from some.

Same here! :T:T:T
By the way, I used to work in the financial sector, which is why I know very well what they get up to.

Gromitt

I never signed an agreement for at least 3 of the credit cards I currently hold. All that was required was a few clicks of the mouse. The first item of mail from them was the card itself along with the T&Cs booklet.

You don't need to sign a form now, you just need to agree, and you can do that in various forms (ie, "By using this card, you are bound to the T&Cs, blah blah") or a mouse click (Ticking a checkbox saying "I agree to the T&Cs below" or similar).

endora

Gromitt wrote: »

I never signed an agreement for at least 3 of the credit cards I currently hold. All that was required was a few clicks of the mouse. The first item of mail from them was the card itself along with the T&Cs booklet.

You don't need to sign a form now, you just need to agree, and you can do that in various forms (ie, "By using this card, you are bound to the T&Cs, blah blah") or a mouse click (Ticking a checkbox saying "I agree to the T&Cs below" or similar).

Yes, the tick box is valid for online applications from Dec 2004. Although it is your right to request a copy of your agreement regardless of the age of the account, it's really only worth challenging the agreement for accounts taken out before Apr 2007.