The reality of Carey V HSBC?

[Metroblue]

I have received a letter today from 1st Credit who are intending to rely on the above case to enforce an agreement. When I CCA'd in 2008 (to another company) I was sent a copy of a priority application form which I understood could not be enforced. 1st Credit have now re-sent this copy along with what they say are the latest terms and conditions. The form is a mailer application form which contains nothing more than hadwritten details. The signatory box which bears my signature states the 'this is a credit agreement regulated by the CCA 1974. sign only if you want to be legally bound by its terms' disclaimer. There are no other signatures

I have read the various posts on this case and I'm not sure if I understand it fully. Can a DCA now use documents which they could not previously to enforce an agreement?

Does this fit into that category? (They intend to rely on the application and details from the current T&C's re credit limit, rate of interest and repayments)

Secondly, they state that they are referring it to another agency for their consideration into bankruptcy proceedings? Can they do this?

They have given me 7 days to respond.

I would be very grateful if anyone could advise because I've only just become aware of the recent judgement and am not sure how to proceed.

Many thanks.

[MIKE770]

Re: The reality of Carey V HSBC?

I have received a letter today from 1st Credit who are intending to rely on the above case to enforce an agreement. When I CCA'd in 2008 (to another company) I was sent a copy of a priority application form which I understood could not be enforced. 1st Credit have now re-sent this copy along with what they say are the latest terms and conditions. The form is a mailer application form which contains nothing more than hadwritten details. The signatory box which bears my signature states the 'this is a credit agreement regulated by the CCA 1974. sign only if you want to be legally bound by its terms' disclaimer. There are no other signatures

I have read the various posts on this case and I'm not sure if I understand it fully. Can a DCA now use documents which they could not previously to enforce an agreement?

Does this fit into that category? (They intend to rely on the application and details from the current T&C's re credit limit, rate of interest and repayments)

Secondly, they state that they are referring it to another agency for their consideration into bankruptcy proceedings? Can they do this?

They have given me 7 days to respond.

I would be very grateful if anyone could advise because I've only just become aware of the recent judgement and am not sure how to proceed.

Many thanks.

This only regards section 77/78 CCA request, they can as they do now send copy, may not original but has to be actual copy of what should be the aggreement, other sections applies for exact originals I believe, others I am sure will be along to verify.

[Metroblue]

Re: The reality of Carey V HSBC?

Thanks for your reply Mike. I have now spent the evening reading up on this case and understand it a little better. I guess I'm just not sure what my response to this current letter should be or indeed if I should just wait for Connaught to issue a Statutory Demand (apparently this is their usual tactic) and apply to have it set aside.

I still think that the docs they sent, while they fulfil the s78 requirement do not constitute an enforceable agreement. In addition, the notice of assignment from Barclays was dated Feb 09 and stated that the account had been assigned in July 08. It was not sent by registered mail and may indeed have been included in correspondence from 1st Credit. I'm not sure I ever received a default notice.

Once again, all advice greatfully received.

With thanks.

[maruvian]

Re: The reality of Carey V HSBC?

As i understand it Carey applies to section 77/78 requests. If a DCA took a case to court thry would still have to supply a complient agreement. The case law which applies to unenforceable credit agreements (ie Wilson Vs FCT, Dinmond Vs Lovell to name but two) is to strong. These were also House of Lords cases which take precedent over all other courts in this country.

What these recent rulings are saying is basically that if a creditor supplies a credit agreement that is not a blank agreement, in relation to a CCA request, then they have complied with the request.