I changed the APR on small print on Barclaycard application

SnowTiger

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

What does that prove?
You could have doctored it at any time.
To work your scheme needs them to accept the change in interest rate - to do this you need to bring it to their attention and see what they do.

Reconstituted, unsigned, agreements appear to be acceptable.

Why not a copy of a real, signed, agreement?

Presumably this is all part of the negotiation process, so this isn't a change to an existing contract.

We keep telling borrowers to read and understand T&Cs before signing. Shouldn't the same apply to lenders?

An interesting legal point. There's probably case law.

CKhalvashi

SnowTiger wrote: »

Reconstituted, unsigned, agreements appear to be acceptable.

Why not a copy of a real, signed, agreement?

Presumably this is all part of the negotiation process, so this isn't a change to an existing contract.

We keep telling borrowers to read and understand T&Cs before signing. Shouldn't the same apply to lenders?

An interesting legal point. There's probably case law.

It's an interesting point, and I'd love to see it tested if it hasn't been already, but this surely wouldn't make it socially acceptable for the majority to do this IYSWIM.

The main issue we may have here if it's through the county court, is that the ruling won't be binding, merely advisory.

chattychappy

I think that the OP will fail - but it depends on the exactly how the application is handled.

If a CC offers you an account on certain T+Cs and you change them, then effectively you are rejecting their offer and are making a counter offer based on your version. If they send you a card then you have a good case to say they have accepted your terms. However, if they resend their T+Cs with the card and say that use of the card is subject to their T+Cs, then effectively they have rejected your modified version and have reimposed theirs - which you agree to by using the card.

Biggles

thundyuk wrote: »

Yeh I've read that before that's why I did it. I didn't want to actual write all over it as I thought they might spot it.

There lies your downfall. You admit you didn't want them you know about your change to their original terms, yet you expect them to be bound by it.

That's not how contracts work; both parties need to know and to find the terms agreeable.

biglugs

I think you need to refer to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts laws - you can't hold either party to the small print if the clause is important and you didn't bring it to the attention of the other party. You might also find that they report you for an attempted fraud. They could also cancel your card, demand repayment in full and put a marker on your credit file to show that you had been refused credit.
Messing with companies like this is usually just not worth the effort.

StuC75

Also consider that when they then sent you the card, the covering letter and subsequent statements would advise the actual rate that they offered you, and that by then using the card you were then accepting what could be see as an amendment to the amended rate you went with..

If you were that set about receiving the rate that you had proposed you ought to have queried that right at the beginning when they could have then just closed the account down.

g6jns_2

thundyuk wrote: »

And it was accepted.

I've just had a CCJ pass it's seven year limit (for a whole £150 on a mobile phone). I've never bothered with credit as I honestly don't need it.

Anyway, the CCJ expired and I've been inundated with pre-approved credit card apps and what not so I just randomly applied for one -a BarclayCard - but before I sent it in I scribbled out part of the % APR on the back small print and changed it to 4.9%


My question is - is that now my agreement? I can't see why not surely that's the whole reason for it.

I photo'd it all too

Thanks

This is a breach of the Fraud Act 2006.

derps

Nice job admitting to deliberately attempting to defraud someone, OP :money:

chattychappy

g6jns wrote: »

This is a breach of the Fraud Act 2006.

You seem very sure. Which provision?

g6jns_2

It is the clause that covers what used to be called "obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception" but tightens the rules. I don't have a copy to hand but will look it up when I have time though you can do so as well.