Reconstituted agreement

glentoran99

Just a quick confirmation, A reconstituted agreement is not acceptable from a pre 2007 account, is that correct?

National_Debtline

Hello there,

A reconstituted agreement would satisfy an information request under sections 77-79 Consumer Credit Act 1974. It may not prove, however, that the agreement is legally enforceable. We often come across reconstituted agreements that are missing the signature of the applicant for example - Pre 6th April 2007 they are likely to be irredeemably unenforceable.

Best wishes,

David @ National Debtline.

Tixy

Hi
Acceptable for what?

It is acceptable to fulfill a CCA request under the consumer credit act.
It may not be sufficient to successfully take court action to enforce the debt (assuming the court action was defended).

sorry x-post with David

glentoran99

National_Debtline wrote: »

Hello there,

A reconstituted agreement would satisfy an information request under sections 77-79 Consumer Credit Act 1974. It may not prove, however, that the agreement is legally enforceable. We often come across reconstituted agreements that are missing the signature of the applicant for example - Pre 6th April 2007 they are likely to be irredeemably unenforceable.

Best wishes,

David @ National Debtline.

Thank you,

Im not even sure they have sent a reconstituted agreement, they have sent an application form (with my signature) and some terms and conditions, from then and from now, am i right in saying that an application form is not a CCA?

fermi

Agree with the above except for one slight caveat.

A pre April 2007 agreement without a signature may not always be irredeemably unenforceable.

The wording of 127(3) is:

(3)The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

That is not the same as saying an actual signed agreement must be provided to the court.

If the creditor can present enough evidence to convince a judge that on the balance of probability a compliant agreement was signed, then a judge can make an order enforce it if they wish.

In practice that could be very difficult for many creditors to swing, but it must be born in mind that it is a possibility.

glentoran99

fermi wrote: »

Agree with the above except for one slight caveat.

A pre April 2007 agreement without a signature may not always be irredeemably unenforceable.

The wording of 127(3) is:

That is not the same as saying an actual signed agreement must be provided to the court.

If the creditor can present enough evidence to convince a judge that on the balance of probability a compliant agreement was signed, then a judge can make an order enforce it if they wish.

In practice that could be very difficult for many creditors to swing, but it must be born in mind that it is a possibility.

Thank you, Im hoping though not get that far but the possibility of it being unenforcable meaning they will agree a reduced settlement

fermi

There are a few more specialised forums where you should be able to get an opinion on the agreements you have been sent. legalbeagles.info for one.

An application form can be a valid credit agreement if the correct things are there, and copies of forms and terms can be a valid reply to a s78 request as well depending on what has been sent.

It hinges on some technicalities you will need to get checked out.