Cca Requests Updates Please

Bazza66

cocker100 wrote: »

Any ideas why I cant post attachments???:o

I cant upload scanned image of application form!!!:mad:

Is this anything to do with the fact that I also cant click the "thanks" icon.

Do I need to adjust any settings or is my computer just !"£$%^&*()

cocker100,

Alot of people use Photo Bucket and then message a link. As to cant click thanks I am guessing your security settings are very high (tools/internet options/security tab) - try lowering your settings or adding http://forums.moneysavingsexpert.com to trusted sites.

ps http://www.photobucket.co.uk/

GeorgeUK

Cocker, you need to use an image hosting site such as imageshack, photobucket or filehost. Just remember to remove any personal details before posting it up. You can use paint or some other graphics package.

Under s59 of the CCA74

59.—(1) An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement.
(2) Regulations may exclude from the operation of subsection (1) agreements such as are described in the regulations.

As the application form is a prospective agreement, then it should be void as it does not contain all the prescribed terms.

The agreement was signed before April 2007 wasn't it?

blind-as-a-bat_2

The exact wording of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents)
Regulations 1983

UK Parliament SIs 1980-1989/1983/1551-1600/Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents)
Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557)/3 General requirements as to form and content of copy documents



2 Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms

(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed
agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety
under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily
distinguishable from the [background medium upon which the information is displayed].

(2) The wording of any Form prescribed by these Regulations shall be reproduced in copies of unexecuted or executed
agreements or in Notices of Cancellation Rights sent [by an appropriate method] under section 64(1)(b) or (2) of the Act
without any alteration or addition, except that--

(a) the creditor or owner may enter the name and address of the debtor or hirer in any Cancellation Form prescribed
by these Regulations; and

(b) every Form shall be completed in accordance with any footnote.

(3) Any such footnote shall not be treated as part of any Form prescribed by these Regulations and may be reproduced
in addition to any such Form.

(4) Where any such footnote requires any words to be omitted, those words shall be omitted or deleted

(5) Where words are shown in capital letters in any Form prescribed in Parts I to IV of the Schedule to these
Regulations and are reproduced in copies of unexecuted or executed agreements they shall be afforded more prominence
(whether by capital letters, underlining, large or bold print or otherwise) than any other lettering in that Form except
lettering inserted in accordance with paragraph (2) above and no less prominence than that given to any other information
in the copy apart from the heading to the agreement or copy, the annual percentage rate of charge for credit, trade names,
names of parties to the agreement or lettering in the document inserted in handwriting.

(6) Where words are shown in capital letters in any Form prescribed in Part VI of the Schedule to these Regulations
and are reproduced in Notices of Cancellation Rights sent [by an appropriate method] under section 64(1)(b) or (2) of the
Act they shall be afforded more prominence (whether by capital letters, underlining, large or bold print or otherwise) than
any other lettering in that Form except lettering inserted in accordance with paragraph (2) above.

NOTES
Amendment
Para (1): words "background medium upon which the information is displayed" in square brackets substituted by SI
2004/3236, art 6(1), (2)(a).
Date in force: 31 December 2004: see SI 2004/3236, art 1(1).

Para (2): words "by an appropriate method" in square brackets substituted by SI 2004/3236, art 6(1), (2)(b).
Date in force: 31 December 2004: see SI 2004/3236, art 1(1).

Para (6): words "by an appropriate method" in square brackets substituted by SI 2004/3236, art 6(1), (2)(c).
Date in force: 31 December 2004: see SI 2004/3236, art 1(1).


.

3 General requirements as to form and content of copy documents
(1) Subject to the following provisions of these Regulations, every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument
or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act
shall be a true copy thereof.

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy--

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor,
hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the
Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancellable executed
agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of the signature by the debtor of an
agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);
(c) in the case of any copy of an unexecuted agreement delivered or sent to the debtor or hirer under section 62 of
the Act, the name and address of the debtor or hirer; and

[(d) in the case of any copy of an executed agreement given to the debtor under section 77(1) of the Act for fixedsum
credit, or under section 78(1) for running-account credit, under which a person takes any articles in pawn, any
description of the article taken in pawn.]

What that actually says is every copy must be legable and conform in form and content too the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 to be classed as a true copy, thats the bit there playing with.


It does say a sig box etc can be omitted, but it does not say the true copy does not have to be an exact copy of the agreement you signed, nor that what they can send can be made up, only that they can omitt or blank those parts out.

Of course thats playing the word game back at them, and holds no more weight than there claim they dont have to supply an exact copy.


But in any event the "copy" must contain all the correct wording and in the prescribed form that was applicable at the time you would have signed it to constitute as a true copy.

So if you would have signed it pre may 2005 the wording and form of the agreement would be substantialy differant to that after may 2005, so if they send you a blank from the wrong side of that date they have not supplied a true copy.


But it is enough for the creditor to say they have complied with your sec77/78 request if they send you the right one, but no good if they take it to court, as then they would have to produce an exact copy at worst, or the origanal at best, depending on the mood of the court.

It certainly does not discharge the creditors duty under sec 78 to just supply a copy of the current T&C,s, as those do not normaly conform to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to what constitutes an agreement

blind-as-a-bat_2

Oh and i forgot to ad you notice the heading of sec 3 is 'General requirements' so it is not a 'must, its a 'may', but that is enough unfortunatly

There is no definate link between sec 77/78 and that section, only an implication in the wording within sec 77/78, it is a very tenuois link IMO, but one that has yet to be challenged, so most legal sources seem to accept that it applies

fermi

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

There is no definate link between sec 77/78 and that section, only an implication in the wording within sec 77/78, it is a very tenuois link IMO, but one that has yet to be challenged, so most legal sources accept that it applies

It does say "every copy of an executed agreement".

A s77/8 request demand a copy of the executed agreement.

Although not explicitly stated and exclusive, it is clear from that it applies to a s77/8 request.

blind-as-a-bat_2

fermi wrote: »

It does say "every copy of an executed agreement".

A s77/8 request demand a copy of the executed agreement.

Although not explicitly stated and exclusive, it is clear from that it applies to a s77/8 request.

I agree, but the CCA act was written in 1974, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents)
Regulations where added in 1983

The thing is by adding that it makes a mockery of sec 77/78 and not as the origanel act intended, again just my opinion, which is why i said it, until challenged, you are correct it applies, but i dont believe it is actually correct or as the act intended it to be, but for now is a loophole to the benefit of the creditors

fermi

Can't see that it is challengable, as it clearly applies.

But you are correct. The whole Act and Regulations are one giant fudge job. Which is why it is so hard to work out, and why the creditors think they can get away with misinterpreting it. :rolleyes:

blind-as-a-bat_2

fermi wrote: »

Can't see that it is challengable, as it clearly applies.

But you are correct. The whole Act and Regulations are one giant fudge job. Which is why it is so hard to work out, and why the creditors think they can get away with misinterpreting it. :rolleyes:

It is not applied to the letter (or at al in some cases) if it reaches court, you cant interprite the act in black and white, as its a civil matter, when it comes to court its decided on the ballence of probebilaty, not fact or proof as such.

so in some courts the CCA is worth nothing, as proved in a case in liverpool recently, the judge granted a CCJ with no evidence of a CCA at all

But the opposite applies in others.

Yet another poscode lottery:rolleyes:

fermi

We know all too well that what is "clear" to us isn't always "clear" to a judge.:rolleyes::rolleyes: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

However, I can't see any ambiguity in that that even a judge should be able to misinterpret if it is explained clearly to them.

I'm not saying that they won't though. Judges only know and judge on what is put before them, and even then they don't always get it or maybe care?

blind-as-a-bat_2

fermi wrote: »

We know all too well that what is "clear" to us isn't always "clear" to a judge.:rolleyes::rolleyes: :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

However, I can't see any ambiguity in that that even a judge should be able to misinterpret if it is explained clearly to them.

I'm not saying that they won't though. Judges only know and judge on what is put before them, and even then they don't always get it or maybe care?

Have you read the CPR fermi?

The ambiguity comes from the ballence of pobebilaty, in a court my poit above that the regs do not support the purpose of the act on ballence of probebilaty is correct, but one judge may agree and base his discision on that, another may laugh me out of court, niether are right or wrong, as they are governed to hear the case by the rules laid down in the CPR, so depending on what track you end up on depends on how much notice is taken to the acts and legaslation

under CPR the court has an overiding objective as defined in sec one of the CPR, and the wording of that alone is scary in its implication, as it can be used to justify the way each case has been interpritated by a judge, good or bad