Massively messed up,am I doomed.

[Kati]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

Would it be ok to email a photo of it to you guys to tell me what you think?

you could email them to me (kati@legalbeagles.info) with a link to this thread and I'll see what others think??

[Heebee23]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

Thank you Warwick.

I will sit tight for now and see what happens.

Really appreciate all the help and advice that has been offered.

- - - Updated - - -

you could email them to me (kati@legalbeagles.info) with a link to this thread and I'll see what others think??

I would really appreciate that Kati.

I will get it copied and emailed over to you ASAP.

[Kati]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

docs:

[Heebee23]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

docs:

Thanks so much Kati for posting this up for me.

If anyone has the time to have a look over this I would really appreciate it.

[warwick65]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

Remember it's not the SAR response that's important it's the cca request. However if what they send you includes that, from what I can see it looks kosher and legit.

Having said that there are lots of ways in defeating a claim, for example in santander v mayhew [MENTION=87380]Diana M[/MENTION]. The cca request was held to be good but it was other things that won the case for Di - although that was different because it was a store card turned credit card, however the DN was faulty

[pt2537]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

One point i would add here, is if you have made a s78 request under the Consumer Credit Act and those documents were sent in reply, they do not appear on the face of it to comply.

There are clearly further terms referred to within, and while some creditors try to argue that Carey v HSBC says they dont have to give the complete agreement just the core terms, the Court of Appeal has ruled that this is wrong, and the complete agreement must be provided (see Kotecha v Phoenix)

There appears to be a lack of current terms too which makes it difficult to advise on, and of course the document appears improperly executed as it doesnt appear to have been signed by the creditor, so they would need to make an application for an enforcement order per s65 Consumer Credit Act, although it isnt a tricky procedure and they would probably get an order if that is the only issue

- - - Updated - - -

Remember it's not the SAR response that's important it's the cca request. However if what they send you includes that, from what I can see it looks kosher and legit.

Having said that there are lots of ways in defeating a claim, for example in santander v mayhew @Diana M. The cca request was held to be good but it was other things that won the case for Di - although that was different because it was a store card turned credit card, however the DN was faulty

Indeed, the credit agreement in that case was irredeemably unenforceable, so s78 became an utterly irrelevant point, as even if they comply with s78 the agreement was unenforceable before during and after.

As for that doc complying with s78? Nope look again

[Heebee23]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

Remember it's not the SAR response that's important it's the cca request. However if what they send you includes that, from what I can see it looks kosher and legit.

Having said that there are lots of ways in defeating a claim, for example in santander v mayhew @Diana M. The cca request was held to be good but it was other things that won the case for Di - although that was different because it was a store card turned credit card, however the DN was faulty

Does DN mean a default notice?
If that is the case then they haven't included that in the SAR.

[warwick65]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

Paul

I said if what they send includes - which suggests there should be other docs as well. I didn't say it fulfilled s78

As you admit it does look like a legit agreement

As I remember Di lost on S78 but won on other points. So what they sent complied with S78. Matters not if it is UE or not. This was S78

If I misunderstood what Di told me, maybe it was explained badly to her.

- - - Updated - - -

DN is default notice

There should be reference to one being sent in the SAR, the date, the amount and the remedy date. Not an actual copy

[pt2537]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

Does DN mean a default notice?
If that is the case then they haven't included that in the SAR.

Yep DN is short for Default notice

They may well need a Default notice to be able to succeed with their claim although they could try to argue termination per s98A CCA 1974, but they would need to serve a compliant termination notice first.

There is case law on defective Default notices, such as Brandon v American Express, and also Harrison v Link which appears in my signature. In Harrison the High Court ruled there would be no enforcement of a credit agreement where the creditor relied on a defective default notice

As for sending the DN in the SAR, it can be a tricky one, if they dont retain a copy of the notice in their files, they they may not need to send a copy under the DPA1998 although their system notes should show service of the DN etc

[pt2537]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

Paul

I said if what they send includes - which suggests there should be other docs as well. I didn't say it fulfilled s78

As you admit it does look like a legit agreement

As I remember Di lost on S78 but won on other points. So what they sent complied with S78. Matters not if it is UE or not. This was S78

If I misunderstood what Di told me, maybe it was explained badly to her.

- - - Updated - - -

DN is default notice

There should be reference to one being sent in the SAR, the date, the amount and the remedy date. Not an actual copy

Sorry, i must have misunderstood what you were saying as it seemed to me that there was an implication that if the docs were sent in reply to s78, then they may have been compliant.

Turning to the case of Santander, youre right, they did send documents the judge considered compliant with s78, if you look at s78 the words (IF any) appear, the creditor has a duty to serve a copy of the executed agreement, to quote Francis Bennion, the provision was included to cover situations where the credit agreement was unenforceable or where there was never a credit agreement in the first place.

So to reiterate my point, the s78 point because irrelevant in Santander v Mayhew as the judge found the underlying agreement to be unenforceable due to a breach of s61(1)(a) ,



I hope that assists.

- - - Updated - - -

Paul

I said if what they send includes - which suggests there should be other docs as well. I didn't say it fulfilled s78

As you admit it does look like a legit agreement

As I remember Di lost on S78 but won on other points. So what they sent complied with S78. Matters not if it is UE or not. This was S78

If I misunderstood what Di told me, maybe it was explained badly to her.

- - - Updated - - -

DN is default notice

There should be reference to one being sent in the SAR, the date, the amount and the remedy date. Not an actual copy

No, i dont think its a complete agreement, and of course we havent looked at the prescribed terms to see if they are accurate, such as the interest rates, that is something that would require software to work out, but if the interest rate is wrong, then it could render the agreement unenforceable, ive succeeded with that argument before (see Phoenix v Cresswell)

[Heebee23]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

Thank you all again for the input.

I will update you all,If and when there is any change if that's ok.

[Diana M]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

I have received the documents from my SAR request which is quite extensive but the credit agreement looks a bit odd.

The first page is a photo copy of Personal details but not in the format of an application form.
The second page is the basic terms and conditions with my signature on and then there are pages and pages headed credit card agreement.

It's difficult to give you a definitive answer to your question of whether the documents you've been sent (in your SAR response) would be compliant (if the same ones were sent in response to your s.78 CCA Request) without seeing all the documents you've received purporting to be your credit agreement.

Your post refers to "pages and pages headed credit card agreement". We would need to see those pages.

The documents/photos uploaded are cropped so the page numbers etc aren't visible. At least the jpgs I'm looking at don't show them when displayed on my computer.

The one entitled Selection 002 jpg refers to your need to sign on "Page 3" but you say the page with your signature on is the second page not the third page.

The same document (Selection 002 jpg) also says if you've taken out insurance cover then you should tick the box and sign it on Page 3 but I can't see any box for you to tick - so is it on the page which you've cropped (so not visible on your upload but nevertheless it's there) or can you see the insurance tick box(es) on any other numbered page?

That Selection 002 jpg document also says at the bottom that it's "Page 4 of 8" so were you sent all eight pages?

As pt2537 always rightly says the devil is in the detail

Di

[Heebee23]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

It's difficult to give you a definitive answer to your question of whether the documents you've been sent (in your SAR response) would be compliant (if the same ones were sent in response to your s.78 CCA Request) without seeing all the documents you've received purporting to be your credit agreement.

Your post refers to "pages and pages headed credit card agreement". We would need to see those pages.

The documents/photos uploaded are cropped so the page numbers etc aren't visible. At least the jpgs I'm looking at don't show them when displayed on my computer.

The one entitled Selection 002 jpg refers to your need to sign on "Page 3" but you say the page with your signature on is the second page not the third page.

The same document (Selection 002 jpg) also says if you've taken out insurance cover then you should tick the box and sign it on Page 3 but I can't see any box for you to tick - so is it on the page which you've cropped (so not visible on your upload but nevertheless it's there) or can you see the insurance tick box(es) on any other numbered page?

That Selection 002 jpg document also says at the bottom that it's "Page 4 of 8" so were you sent all eight pages?

As pt2537 always rightly says the devil is in the detail

Di

Thanks for for the response Diana.

As you say the pages are numbered so the two pages of the credit agreement are numbered 3 and 4 of eight but there are no other pages included.

There are two other copies of credit agreements which states that these are my copies to keep and contain T & C etc for two different addresses that were both mine.
They are in a different format to the one I posted on here.

Shall I post the lot for you to see?

[Diana M]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

Thanks for for the response Diana.

As you say the pages are numbered so the two pages of the credit agreement are numbered 3 and 4 of eight but there are no other pages included.
. . . .
Shall I post the lot for you to see?

I'm going to decline your offer (because I can't comment on redacted documents) but others may want to see them, so see if someone else takes you up on your offer

Di

[Amethyst]

Re: Massively messed up,am I doomed.

The orginal full terms should have condition 5 which states fee for cash advances, foreign currentcy transactions etc as referred to on the summary of terms that was on the signature sheet.