CCAs for credit obtained after 2007.

fermi

You have to remember that the purpose of a CCA request, and the reason it's there in the law, is to give the debtor 'information' about their credit agreement and the terms. Not to give you a carbon copy of an agreement or to prove one exists or existed.

As explained in the link previously posted.

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

The copy agreement

CONC 13.1.4G01/07/2014

(1) The copy of the executed agreement should be a 'true copy' of the original. However, as confirmed in the case of Carey v HSBC Bank plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB), in this context the term 'true copy' does not necessarily mean a carbon, photocopy, microfiche copy or other exact copy of the signed agreement. There is no obligation to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature.

(2) The firm can reconstitute a copy. It can do this by re-populating a template of the relevant agreement form with the details of the specific agreement taken from its records. If the firm does provide a reconstituted copy, it should explain that that is what it has done, to avoid misleading the customer that this is a contemporaneous copy.

(3) The terms and conditions should be those applicable at the time the agreement was executed. The name and address at the time of execution must be included.

(4) The reconstituted agreement should contain a heading prescribed by the CCA and any relevant cancellation notice.

(5) If the reason why no copy is given in response to a request under these sections is that there never was an executed agreement, the firm should acknowledge this in its response.

(6) If the agreement has been varied, the duty is to provide not only a copy of the agreement as originally executed but also either:

(a) a copy of the latest variation given in accordance with section 82(1) of the CCA relating to each discrete term of the agreement which has been varied; or,
(b) a clear statement of the terms of the agreement as varied.

(7) Further, section 180(1)(b) of the CCA and regulation 3(2) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 expressly allow certain matters to be omitted from the copy. There may be excluded from the copy of the executed agreement to be provided under these sections:

(a) any information relating to the borrower, hirer or surety, or information included for the use of the lender or owner only, which is not required to be included by the CCA or by any regulations made under the CCA as to the form and content of the agreement;
(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature;
(c) in the case of pawn agreements, any description of the article taken in pawn.

fermi

Brogden wrote: »

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?

Any reconstituted version would have to be from genuine records of what the agreements were at the time. They can't just fling any old garbage together.

IIRC there have been cases lost in court by creditors where it has been shown that their reconstituted copies were not genuinely the terms from the correct agreements and time.

fermi

Brogden wrote: »

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

A DCA who has purchased the debt under a legal assignment is the lender/owner/creditor in law under the CCA from that point onwards, so the request goes to the DCA and it is they who have a duty to comply. Jones v Link Financial Ltd [2012] EWHC 2402 (QB) (22 August 2012)

If that means they have to go cap in hand to beg the original lender for copy agreements, that is just tough on the DCA. They should have made sure they got proper paperwork when they bought the debts..

Brogden

Thanks again Ferni .

On the reconstituted aspect, I didn't get the full message you kindly gave me......too much wine at the time !!

A New Year now and off to get onto it .

Many thanks - I am grateful.

January2015

Interesting thread. The knowledge base and support on DFW continues to amaze me. I learn new information daily and just as I think I'm not understanding something, along comes someone who breaks the explanations down to my level (and again, I must thank Fermi and Sourcrates).

So far I have only CCA'd one of our debts and it's definitely pre-2007. I will be watching with interest to see our Patman and Brogden progress with CCAing post 2007 debts.

I've subscribed to follow this thread

Marktheshark

The lack of CCA often means they dont have other vital info required to mount a case, such as a provable assignment of the debt letter.
They can always cobble up a CCA, but it puts them on notice they are going to have other stuff pulled at court.
They sail on the wind these tin pot debt firms and they do not want to risk opening cans of worms all over the court.

Brogden

Very interesting stuff..........

I have sent CCA requests to all of my remaining creditors and have so far received one response. I take on board what Ferni said previously but even so am somewhat gobsmacked.

This response is from PRA(t) Group who seem to be everywhere at the moment.

'I am in receipt of your correspondence in relation to the above and have requested from our client the required information.'

So......do I take it that PRA(t) forks out millions to buy huge parcels of debt from various creditors WITHOUT even satisfying itself that the assets it has purchased are enforcable against the borrower?

I am not sure if words are beginning to fail me :eek: !! Is this a prudent, well run business then?

Also......the use of the word 'client' is odd where the debt has been purchased and PRA are not merely a collecting agent.

I am not sure if I am missing something here or are they really as stupid as they appear?

fermi

Brogden wrote: »

So......do I take it that PRA(t) forks out millions to buy huge parcels of debt from various creditors WITHOUT even satisfying itself that the assets it has purchased are enforcable against the borrower?

Yes, that is pretty much how debt collection/sale works.

They play the numbers.

EDIT: correct link

Brogden

I can't get that Link to work Ferni - not sure if you can tell me how to find that thread another way ?

I think a penny is starting to drop here....they buy cheap in a rush at the best price knowing some of what they buy will be completely loss making. Due dilligence would be time consuming and costly so they don't bother.........is that about it.......?

Thanks again

fermi

Sorry.

Try ---> This link