CCAs for credit obtained after 2007.

patman99

I know that there are rules in place regarding lines of credit taken out prior to 2007 that have defaulted and the ability to get them cancelled-out with a CCA.

Want I want to know is 'do these rules still apply to lines of credit (now in default) taken out after 2007'?.

I have a TPP with StepChange and on the list of creditors are 2 credit cards that are now with PRG Group.

One of these started out as an Egg card that then became City Bank (I think) before becoming Barclays (and now PRG Group). This was taken out prior to 2007.

I have a second card that was Leeds before Barclays took it over. This one is from around 2008.

We are not talking huge amounts here (less than £1,200 all-in), but it would be nice to wipe these off my creditors list once and for all.

sourcrates

Hi patman,

Dosent really matter when an account was opened, if you make a sec 78/79 request, and that creditor can't comply with it, for whatever reason, said account will still be unenforcable until they do comply.

Wether that be 10 days, or 10 years, they still have to send you something, pre2007 accounts should be copies of originals, after that, reconstituted will suffice, but I have known accounts, fairly recent ones, were creditors were unable to comply, simply because the relevant information required to make up a recon, had not been stored.

They can't simply make up information, they can use what they hold on you, from various sources, but if they don't hold sufficient information, they can't simply make it up.

So always worth doing a CCA as creditors can be incredibly stupid at times.

patman99

Cheers for that. Will get on with the job of sending CCAs to the PRG Group for each of the cards now with them.

Lowells have taken-on my ShopDirect account, but as they have not bothered to let me know, I can't do the same to them (yet).

Brogden

I was going to open a new thread to ask a couple of questions on this exact subject so as we are all talking about the same thing I hope Patman doesn't mind if I join in .

I think I am over half way through my self-managed DMP now and I have not so far gone through the 'CCA Process' with any creditor. Please can somebody help:-

What exactly was the change effective in 2007? Being a bit wet.....what exactly is the difference with regards to enforcability on a pre-2007 agreement as against a post-2007 agreement? I have never completely got to the bottom of this.

I am virually certain that my remaining CC debts are all post 2007 which is probably not great news for me. I have no intention of spouting the law or case history/precadents at the predators but would like to just attack this on the basis of 'you cannot produce a signed agreement therefore there is no agreement therefore you can p*ss off (or words to this effect):rotfl:!!'

I take it that if they produce a printed copy of an agreement that has my signature on that I am st*ffed (as I am sure I will be.) Finally....is there anything I should be particularly looking for in any paperwork they send? Are there any pitfalls the predators may have made?

Many thanks all and a Happy New Year whilst we're at it!

sourcrates

Brogden wrote: »

I was going to open a new thread to ask a couple of questions on this exact subject so as we are all talking about the same thing I hope Patman doesn't mind if I join in .

I think I am over half way through my self-managed DMP now and I have not so far gone through the 'CCA Process' with any creditor. Please can somebody help:-

What exactly was the change effective in 2007? Being a bit wet.....what exactly is the difference with regards to enforcability on a pre-2007 agreement as against a post-2007 agreement? I have never completely got to the bottom of this.

I am virually certain that my remaining CC debts are all post 2007 which is probably not great news for me. I have no intention of spouting the law or case history/precadents at the predators but would like to just attack this on the basis of 'you cannot produce a signed agreement therefore there is no agreement therefore you can p*ss off (or words to this effect):rotfl:!!'

I take it that if they produce a printed copy of an agreement that has my signature on that I am st*ffed (as I am sure I will be.) Finally....is there anything I should be particularly looking for in any paperwork they send? Are there any pitfalls the predators may have made?

Many thanks all and a Happy New Year whilst we're at it!

Hi,

Pre-2007 agreements can be challenged for unenforceability on various grounds, dependant on what they send you.

Before April 2007, the creditor is supposed to send you a copy of the original document, after that date, a reconstituted version will suffice.

It can be a minefield determining what constitutes a correct responce and what doesn't.
Best to do a little research yourself, Google is your friend here, as there is too much information to cover all eventualities on this thread.

fermi

Brogden wrote: »

What exactly was the change effective in 2007? Being a bit wet.....what exactly is the difference with regards to enforcability on a pre-2007 agreement as against a post-2007 agreement? I have never completely got to the bottom of this.

s127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was repealed for agreements made after 6th April 2007.

So for agreements originally made before that 127(3) still applies.

That says:

(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).

So for agreements made prior to April 2007, not only does the temporary enforceability of s77-9 under a CCA request apply, but s127(3) above gives a much harder possibility of an agreement being 'irredeemably' unenforceable under those sections if an agreement containing certain information WAS NOT signed.

For agreements post April 2007 s127(3) does not apply, so there is just:

- s77-9 request enforceability, which is temporary until the request can be complied with, and can be satisfied with a reconstituted CCA, so no original required.
- In court, if not unenforceable due to non-compliance with s77-9, then the creditor just has to demonstrate that the debt was borrowed and is due on the balance of probability. No requirements as to an original agreement, or at least the court has discretion to enforce the debt regardless.

fermi

sourcrates wrote: »

Before April 2007, the creditor is supposed to send you a copy of the original document, after that date, a reconstituted version will suffice.

Not really true. For pre April 2007 agreements, to satisfy the s77-9 request a reconstituted copy is still acceptable.

What is acceptable to show on the balance of probability that an agreement was signed as per s127(3) is a different matter, but that has nothing really to do with what is OK to send under a s77-9 request. The two are different requirements and tests, and getting what is OK for either mixed up is one BIG cause of confusion.

fermi

Worth reading from the FCA regards the s77-9 issue/enforceability.

Click --> https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC/13/1.html

Especially in context of this thread, as it is just the s77-9 issues explained there that apply to the post April 2007 agreements.

sourcrates

fermi wrote: »

The two are different requirements and tests, and getting what is OK for either mixed up is one BIG cause of confusion.

You are certainly correct on that assumption.

Have read the FCA guidelines Previously, it is easy to get confused !!

This section is worthy of note :

Failure to comply
CONC 13.1.6G02/11/2015
(1) Failure to comply with the provisions means that the agreement becomes unenforceable while the failure to comply persists, and the courts have no discretion to allow enforcement.
(2) In such cases, a firm should in no way, either by act or omission, mislead a customer as to the enforceability of the agreement.
(3) In particular, a firm should not in such cases either threaten court action or other enforcement of the debt or imply that the debt is enforceable when it is not.

Brogden

Thank you both Ferni and Sourcrates for your highly considered responses.

Because we do not know what may or may not come back from the predators, I think it is a good idea to go ahead and send my £1's to find out.

The thing that puzzles me is a 'reconstituted agreement.' What is 'reconstituted' in this context? Are we saying (post 2007) that it is OK for the predator to simply print off a generic CCA wording which would have been applicable at the time without producing a copy of the actual agreement which shows my signature affixed thereto? Surely any predator is capable of doing that and getting themselves off the hook?

Anyway, as I think about it, one of my accounts does seem a little more interesting and I think is pre-2007. This went from 'MoreThan' to Lloyds to PRA so wondering if something has been lost in translation !!

If you get a mo, I would appreciate it if you could let me know if 'reconstituted' means what I think.

100 x thanks

Brogden

Sorry - just one more point.

Where a debt has been sold to a DCA......should my £1 cheque / PO be for the credit of the DCA or the original bank? I am assuming where sold and all rights transferred that my letter should be to the new owner?

Thanks again