Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

[willtheywontthey]

Hello all. I think I'm going to spend a fair few hours on this section of the forum in the next few days. The problem I have is when I try to read, understand these legal judgements I seriously cannot make sense of the legal jargon. I try I honestly do. Then I get depressed and lost and cannot sleep until 'I get it'. Then again maybe I've become an insomniac.

Can a dodgy cca no longer be used as a simple line of defence? Is it longer a comfort blanket? By this i do not mean the only defence. Had hoped it would be the first and most useful line of defence from dcas etc. Am I right that I'd have to now rely on other form of defence? Most of my debts became unmanageable and so I asked for cca to see what I agreed to ... Interest rates in particular. It was after the cca arrived illegible or without interest rates that I started my disputes. Most ccas were from a few years back. Other issues complicated things eg no default notice, dn time issues, oc asking for full payment prior to dn, and other little issues which assisted me in dispute letters.

Oh I also did a sar straight after a cca ...a prior to disputing anything.

Just want some simple opinions. Will try to understand the rulings another time unless somebody is bored???!

Diolch

[Curlyben]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Yes a dodgey CCA is still a valid defence and always has been..
Of course it's better to know just were your at to be able to really advise properly..

[willtheywontthey]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Thanks. I had appeared on t'other forum after several months and only read threads how a reconstituted cca can be handed in at court and voila oc or dca win. Scary. Panic. No sleep. Etc

[Curlyben]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Well stop panicing for a start.

Yes a recon CCA is acceptable for compliance of an s77/78 request, BUT it's not so cut and dried should it come to court action.

Assuming the DCA goes that far then they must be forced to supply an actual copy of the agreement your entered into. Legal action and pre-court games are two completely distinct things and need to be seen as such.

So, as I said earlier, where are you at ?

[willtheywontthey]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Hi. Well having spent last couple of hours I am now back to where I was before I went on cag and heard lots of scare stories about the cca. Have not looked at my dca files for some months now other than filing the usual dca letters that suddenly appear after periods of quiet.

From memory.

Mbna / expert cretins.. Say they cannot get cca (already sent me illegible one silly sods) from a+l then mention as it stand unenforceable but please pay.
Rbs x 2. Mint / advanta / Have several different dcas at different times. They have said they cannot find one cca and therefore unenforceable but again I can pay if I want! I sard them more than one yr ago, complained to ICO as rbs used some dodgy anti-corruption clause to not comply. ICO told them to comply then rbs replied stating they had sent me all they had.
Capital one and some Irish company ... Written off so they said. ICO and fos were investigating but heard no more since they wrote it off.
Cooperative. Not heard until recently. Dca threat. I recall dodgy cca and also they asked for full amount before a dn. Not sold on to dca yet.
Barclaycard. Ominously quiet until recently. Dca chasing. Threats. Dodgy cca ish I believe. Will need to refresh myself with them. Not sold on.
Hfc / marbles... They went away more than a year ago.
I will post updates in next couple of weeks to reassess all of them.
Sorry for vagueness! Cannot type on stupid iPad.

[Curlyben]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Well so far so good, all looks to be comfortably in hand, so why the panic ?

You think it's bad typing on an iPad, try a Desire, even worse on forums

[willtheywontthey]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Well so far so good, all looks to be comfortably in hand, so why the panic ?

You think it's bad typing on an iPad, try a Desire, even worse on forums

The panic came when I went on cag after several months this week and read only bad news about cca reconstituted storyline and advice so far got me panicking so searched elsewhere and found this site. I always panic when I need information or clarification but feel better now.

Still trying to fathom how anybody can understand these court findings. Pure Klingon.:tinysmile_kiss_t4::billk:

[Curlyben]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

The Carey judgement did indeed cause some "issues" but once you get to the crux of what was decided then it's actually not all that bad and, TBH, does make sense..

At the end of the day if you give into Panic then you have lost, pure and simple..

So don't panic and stick a fish in your ear

[teaboy2]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Just to add, that the Carey case was where the claiment (carey) was claiming against the creditor, which put the onus of prove on Carey, as such it was not for the creditor (defendent) to prove or provide anything to prove anything. Hence the issue regarding reconsituted agreements, as a lot forgot (on CAG and elsewhere) that the onus of prove was on carey and not the creditor.

But when the creditor takes you to court it is for the creditor to prove the debt, which means they must have a true copy of the original agreement to enforce it.

As for CAG, being a recently deceased CAG member myself, i can safely say that you really should not read much into the arguments on there about the CCA, as the status quo hasn't actually changed as the law is STATUE law, so it clear on what is required.

As for not having DN notices - well my advice is to not mention that to the creditors till you know the accounts have been sold onto DCA's, as prior to selling the creditor can rememdy an invalid DN, but once they are sold the account/debt the agreement ceases to exist. Meaning, they can not rememdy the DN as you can not rememdy something based on an agreement that no longer exists at the time you try to rememdy. So basically when they sell the account without issuing a valid DN or a DN at all, then it is unlawful rescission of contract, and as such the debt can not be enforced by the courts, just like when the CCA is invalid.

I can safely say that the MBNA/experto account is likely owned by varde investment ireland limited, and having my own issue with mbna/experto/varde for a credit card agreement that was unlawfully rescinded, i.e. sold day before i recieved DN, DN invalid also due to not provided for a full 14 days (only got 10), even if i had received it earlier, demanding full amount and not arrears - I really wouldn't worry to much about MBNA/Experto if your case is similar. Plus on top of that a default was placed onto my credit file 12 days prior to the date of the DN, when they should not place such defaults on your file until after the date for rememdy has passed on the DN, and no rememdy occured. As the defualt is to be treated as having not occured if rememdied in time, which is impossible to treat as not having occured when they have already placed the default on your credit file in breach of ICO guidelines i believe.

[Guest]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Hi
Yes as Curly says . most of the panic was about missunderstanding the function of the copy request section of the act. I think until Carey many of us were unsure exactly how the sanctions for none compliance worked or more accurately dont work, but really they were always just to be used as a request for information not proof of enforceability.

When i started posting on CAG in 06 we were all of the opinion that section 77-79 was something of a silver bullet, as usual we presumed that because creditors wern't taking people to court it was a winning formula,and as usual, it was not the case. It was just that the numbers were so small that it wasnt worth the creditors time or the risk of loosing, however slight.
When the CMCs started making a business out of the missconceptions, somethng had to be done hence Mcguffic/Rankin Carey.

Fortunately upto date all this hasnt altered the fact that some kind of signed document is required in order to enforce a pre 07 agreement if challenged.

If the creditors have confirmed that the agreements are unenforceable then you have nothing to worry about

Peter

[winner12]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Hi all
But what if the creditor insists its enforceable how do you know if its not without going to court
And as the original poster has said its unenforceable but its still owed so you would still be chased

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Hi all
But what if the creditor insists its enforceable how do you know if its not without going to court
And as the original poster has said its unenforceable but its still owed so you would still be chased

Time must be spent researching to fully understand the arguments you intend using.
I spent time a few years ago on the massive consumer credit agreement thread on cag and subsequently had a number of credit card accounts written off including one at a court hearing.

[Guest]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Hi all
But what if the creditor insists its enforceable how do you know if its not without going to court
And as the original poster has said its unenforceable but its still owed so you would still be chased

You have to understand what the creditor means when he says it is enforcceable , he may be missleading you.

If you are contending that the agreement is unenforceable under sections 77-79 then the creditor is probably correct in saying the agreement is enforceable under those provisions.
This does not mean that the court will enforce under section 65.
THis is a different criterea.

Under section77-79 he only has to provide information relating to your orriginal agreement, he can get this from his records and the request will be satisfied.
If he wants to enforce in court via section 65 he will have to provide more substantial proof.

The lack of a signed agreement is upto date a pre requisite for enforcement i believe.
After that you would be arguing the presence of the prescribed terms on the agreement doument.

The other arguments relating to unenforceablity have some success but rarely these days i am affraid.
It does help however if you have kept all records, and most importantly if you can show the court that you have been predjudiced in some way either by the creditor or the DCA.

None issuance of default notices or defective ones are helpful in delaying things, sometimes the creditor will give up if confronted with a defective notice, particularily if the action is well down the line in terms of being enforced. The costs of re litigating in order to re-present a compliant DN is sometims enough to put them off, also there is a time delay whch you can use to your advantage.


If the agreement is unenforceable it i still legitimate for the creditor or the dca to ask for payment, it does not mean that the money is not owed, also it is still OK for them to register the default on your CRA, it just means that they cannot chase you through the court.
Peter

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Another question about the CCA minefield.........what do the more clued up folks make of section 93 of the CCA.............this is a section that is by passed by a lot of people.........could someone give their particular interpretaion as to what this means .....I believe it could impact on a lot of agreements

Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Cca .. And other 'old' methods -Making sense of it all?

Another question about the CCA minefield.........what do the more clued up folks make of section 93 of the CCA.............this is a section that is by passed by a lot of people.........could someone give their particular interpretaion as to what this means .....I believe it could impact on a lot of agreements

Sparkie

Hi section 93 means that the creditor cannot increase the interest on the account by virtue of the debtors default.

It does not in of itself prohibit other default charges, but if default charges are applied they must accrue simple contractural interst at a maximum of the original contractural rate.

Peter