I changed the APR on small print on Barclaycard application

antrobus

chattychappy wrote: »

You seem very sure. Which provision?

It would have to be one of these;

(a)section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b)section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c)section 4 (fraud by abuse of position)

I can't see that the OP has a position to abuse. I suppose you could argue that the OP has a legal duty to disclose the fact that he has altered the agreement, and that it would be fraud not to mention it, or that by returning the altered agreement he was being dishonestly misleading and thereby guilty of a false representation.

Don't know what a court would make of it.:)

TBeckett100

The sticking point may be that you have to sign to their terms and conditions. If you alter it, you are signing to accept your own

If it ends up in court, bear in mind Mr Barclaycard will probably hire the dearest commercial lawyers and you'll be wishing you hadn't ventured into this

g6jns_2

antrobus wrote: »

It would have to be one of these;

(a)section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b)section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c)section 4 (fraud by abuse of position)

I can't see that the OP has a position to abuse. I suppose you could argue that the OP has a legal duty to disclose the fact that he has altered the agreement, and that it would be fraud not to mention it, or that by returning the altered agreement he was being dishonestly misleading and thereby guilty of a false representation.

Don't know what a court would make of it.:)

I agree section 2 seems most likely. I think the Court would take a dim view particularly as the OP has clearly done it deliberately with intent to gain an advantage.

pompeyred

g6jns wrote: »

I agree section 2 seems most likely. I think the Court would take a dim view particularly as the OP has clearly done it deliberately with intent to gain an advantage.

None of this constitutes fraud. A contract is designed to be negotiable and there is as much a requirement for each party to review each others terms.


Should the bank not review what it receives back from prospective customers then it is at their risk. How else would a customer negotiate lengthy consumer credit terms other than making changes and sending them back. Granted - notification on the part of the customer would be polite but I don't think it's a legal requirement.


All of this said. I think the bank almost certainly has terms in the vary same contract to overrule changes the customer makes, which in itself is a pointless exercise. Closing the door on a financial institution like Barclays by trying to be 'smart' will almost certainly cut off a significant number of credit products in the future.

g6jns_2

pompeyred wrote: »

None of this constitutes fraud. A contract is designed to be negotiable and there is as much a requirement for each party to review each others terms.


Should the bank not review what it receives back from prospective customers then it is at their risk. How else would a customer negotiate lengthy consumer credit terms other than making changes and sending them back. Granted - notification on the part of the customer would be polite but I don't think it's a legal requirement.


All of this said. I think the bank almost certainly has terms in the vary same contract to overrule changes the customer makes, which in itself is a pointless exercise. Closing the door on a financial institution like Barclays by trying to be 'smart' will almost certainly cut off a significant number of credit products in the future.

You are quite wrong. The bank issues standard terms and conditions and customers can choose to accept thm or not. If a potential customer wants to try and negotiate different terms then this has to be done in an open and aboveboard manner. What the OP has done is set out to deliberately deceive in the hope the bank will not notice so that he gains a financial advantage that is clearly attempted fraud. Hopefully the bank will spot this and report him.

SuperAllyB

Wonder how the OP would have reacted if Barclaycard had written offering a card at 12.9% APR but used 23.9% APR in the small print?

lendusaquid1

No fraud at all, they should have read the small print. Then they would have had the opportunity to reject the new terms. If you want to talk about real Banking fraud then watch the film "Money as debt" on you tube.

g6jns_2

lendusaquid1 wrote: »

No fraud at all, they should have read the small print. Then they would have had the opportunity to reject the new terms. If you want to talk about real Banking fraud then watch the film "Money as debt" on you tube.

You have no understanding if the offense at all. As soon as the form has been completed and sent off the offense has been committed. Whilst the scale of fraud may be different and involve different legislation it does not alter the fact that an offense has been committed. Many offenses are not detected for some time, or even at all, but that does not mean they have not been committed.

callum9999

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but don't they send the forms out pre-signed by them?

If they didn't, how would you be able to have a copy of the contract? They certainly don't send them to you, make you send it back then send it out again (or I've never seen that across the dozens of applications I've made).

meer53

They won't even look at the form when it's sent back to them. A card will be issued with the APR as stated on the original documents.

The OP will have to argue with them about the interest rate. Good luck with that one OP.