Grey Area of Older Agreements?

[Garlok]

I have a problem which sticks at the back of my mind. There may be a very simple explanation but I have read a lot of contrdictory material with out ever actually defining the answer. I thought that it might be worthy of discussion, particularly for those of us of a "certain age" who could have the same perceived problem.

By definition:-

We have two CC agreements which were taken out in the very early eighties. assuming we have the datings correct, they are post the CCA1974 and I believe its full/final enactment September 1977 but they certainly pre-date the regulations of 1983. The professional legal advice is that "could make life a little more difficult, as they can just refer back, but not to worry it can be sorted"

The usual arguments and discussions always seem to assume agreements post 1983 regs and later post 2006 amendments to the Act itself. (As did HHJ Waksman in the Carey case).

In our own cases, absolutely nothing was turned up by the normal search/investigation methods. Just that nothing.

It seems to me that this could be a "grey" area perhaps worthy of discussion and may or may not set my mind at rest and that of others.

I would welcome any comment.

best regards
Garlok

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Grey Area of Older Agreements?

I have a problem which sticks at the back of my mind. There may be a very simple explanation but I have read a lot of contrdictory material with out ever actually defining the answer. I thought that it might be worthy of discussion, particularly for those of us of a "certain age" who could have the same perceived problem.

By definition:-

We have two CC agreements which were taken out in the very early eighties. assuming we have the datings correct, they are post the CCA1974 and I believe its full/final enactment September 1977 but they certainly pre-date the regulations of 1983. The professional legal advice is that "could make life a little more difficult, as they can just refer back, but not to worry it can be sorted"

The usual arguments and discussions always seem to assume agreements post 1983 regs and later post 2006 amendments to the Act itself. (As did HHJ Waksman in the Carey case).

In our own cases, absolutely nothing was turned up by the normal search/investigation methods. Just that nothing.

It seems to me that this could be a "grey" area perhaps worthy of discussion and may or may not set my mind at rest and that of others.

I would welcome any comment.

best regards
Garlok

I believe the creditor would only need supply the current terms and conditions to comply with a sec 78.

[Garlok]

Re: Grey Area of Older Agreements?

Hi I haterbs,

Thanks for that, I am aware of the s78 request for the information purpose as was also clarified in Carey. However there seems to be an underlying principle which is missing (grey area) and regularly swept under the carpet as the formalising of the Statute really only occurred at the '83 regs. I have even read commentaries saying these "intermediate" agreements, despite their "headlines" are not actually covered by the CCA1974. On the other hand, I have also read that a creditor presenting such documents to a court (most of which do not comply anyway in the opinion of the author) would get a very rough ride indeed from the court in the face of a properly entered and argued defence.

I am just trying to get a feel for the real position for peace of mind.

regards
garlok

[Curlyben]

Re: Grey Area of Older Agreements?

There was alot of clarification with the SI's from 1983, especially concerning the prescribed terms, etc. 1553 and 1557 are the most important ones that immediately come to mind.
These tended to come into force in May 1985.

I'm unaware of any case that have been on agreements prior to these dates, so not really to sure how to properly answer your query.

[SteveH2508]

Re: Grey Area of Older Agreements?

Wasn't there a Moneylenders Act which predated the CCA74? That may have had some requirements as to form and content of agreements.