Pre April2007 Cca.

[dubs1967]

Hi,as part of my defence against MBNA i am using the fact that my pre april 2007 cca does not contain my actual signature.The DCA is saying that it was a internet agreement with a ticked box veryfying my signature therefore it is enforcable.Having thought more about this surely i would still receive document to sign to confirm who i m etc.Can someone please tell me what the latest law is on this,as i thought i had a case against them.I dont want to lose the case and look foolish.Many thanks DS.:beagle:

[Amethyst]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004

You also want 4. - (1) The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983

[(5) Where an agreement is intended to be concluded by the use of an electronic communication nothing in this
Regulation shall prohibit the inclusion in the signature box of information about the process or means of providing,
communicating or verifying the signature to be made by the debtor or hirer.]

[dubs1967]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

Thanks for that.Any ideas on what to do next then?How a tick in a box is as good as a signature is beyond me!! That means any body could of applied for a credit card purporting to be me by ticking a box!!Are we all just porns in this game and the hierachy ie judges,solicitors,mps cream of the poor?It looks more like that to me everyday.As a pal of mine once said "I FIGHT TO WIN NOT LOSE".:cry:

[Amethyst]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

pawns

Common sense has come into play with the consumer credit act since 2006. If you deny having the loan then it is a different matter entirely to if you are just questionning technicalities in order to avoid repayment.

[Amethyst]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

Are MBNA / the DCA suing you ?

Can you give an outline of the situation you are in with the debt.

[dubs1967]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

Yes they are amethyst.I am not denying having the loan, but i have been stitched up with a early settlement offer by MBNA.So i am looking for ways to discredit them.I will check to see if i have previously posted details of the problem on here,if not i will reveal all shortly.Thanks DS.

[Amethyst]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

ok ta xx

[dubs1967]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

Hi amethyst.I dont wish to sound rude,but i was wondering if you work in the legal industry.

[Amethyst]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

lol, nope

[CleverClogs]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

I dont wish to sound rude

Yet, nevertheless, you would probably succeed.

[dubs1967]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

Yet, nevertheless, you would probably succeed.

Ha ha ha are YOU certified

[Banksters]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

On/Off topic .... I tryed to point out that if one denys a debt you may get ones self in a whole load of crustation, I stated this comment on CAG and got my 5 years account banned lol, I simply put this... Do not outright deny any debt, although do not accept it, I mearley advised a guy to say this.... I accept your civil claim on condition you prove to me lawfull contract and obligation.
I say this as it keeps 'things' to your civil entity rarther then 'you' as your not denying nor accepting but placeing the next move in their hands.

[Guest]

Re: Pre April2007 Cca.

Thanks for that.Any ideas on what to do next then?How a tick in a box is as good as a signature is beyond me!! That means any body could of applied for a credit card purporting to be me by ticking a box!!Are we all just porns in this game and the hierachy ie judges,solicitors,mps cream of the poor?It looks more like that to me everyday.As a pal of mine once said "I FIGHT TO WIN NOT LOSE".:cry:

The question is: did you apply online on or after Dec 2004? If so, tick box = signature. Not so if you applied before that time.