S78 and T&C's

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

PT thanks. As you know sometimes I need these things banging into my head only for them to fall out the other side. I am also the master at worrying about the what ifs. I do think that I have enough ifs and buts to stop them even trying to enforce but if they do and win it's only a CCJ and my credit file is so screwed anyway .
I just worry that my past history would be used against me

[Guest]

Re: S78 and T&C's

From what john says it sounds like they have a compliant agreement with his signature,(or is it a cut and paste job),

From what i remember of the case mentioned there was no prescribed terms, if I read jon correctly the PTs were there on his signed agreement, so that option is closed, unless he wants to argue the agreement was manufactured and his siggy forged.

DN defences are always touch and go IMO

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Well Moorcroft really are as stupid as RBS. I sent them a CPUTR request asking if they hold or do not hold the original. Just as Natwest did with another account they have written back asking for the £1 fee. Just going to drop them a line back telling them how stupid they are

Thankyou for your letter dated xxxxxx the contents of which have beennoted.Youhave requested a £1 statutory fee. I think you may be confused. Myrequest to you was made under CPUTR 2008 and not a request unders77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Toavoid further delay, it may prudent for you to pass this request onto your Data Controller, who should understand this request.
Ihave returned my original request to you.
Again,please also note that failure to provide a direct answer to thisrequest will be brought before the court, should you decide to defythe content of this letter and instruct solicitors to pursueenforcement action regardless.

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Update
Had a reply back from Moorcrap again stating that it was a CCA request and needed a quid but they had passed it to RBS for their comments because I claim they don't need the £1.
They also suggest that I have not disputed I owe the money even though there is a line in the request that says

this letter is not an acknowledgement of debt

.
they then rattle on with all the usual crap that UE does not extinguish the debt , what a S78 should supply and what they can do even if it is UE, default etc etc . They have said they will put the account on hold for 28 days so I can seek advice, reply to the letter and for them to hear from RBS.

My gut thought on this one really is to wait for their next move although I suppose a quick one liner saying that I await the response to my concerns from their client is the best option.
Thoughts please

[FlamingParrot]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Update
Had a reply back from Moorcrap again stating that it was a CCA request and needed a quid but they had passed it to RBS for their comments because I claim they don't need the £1.
They also suggest that I have not disputed I owe the money even though there is a line in the request that says .
they then rattle on with all the usual crap that UE does not extinguish the debt , what a S78 should supply and what they can do even if it is UE, default etc etc . They have said they will put the account on hold for 28 days so I can seek advice, reply to the letter and for them to hear from RBS.

My gut thought on this one really is to wait for their next move although I suppose a quick one liner saying that I await the response to my concerns from their client is the best option.
Thoughts please

If, as you say on post 18 above, what you sent was a CPUTR letter rather than a CCA request, I'd just send a copy of said letter with a one liner saying it wasn't a CCA request, therefore no fee is payable, see copy attached. It sounds to me like Moorcrap, being one of the lowest forms of pond life, probably don't know what CPUTR means! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[charitynjw]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Now that we're all in agreement that the judges have got it wrong re the four corners rule & the CCA definition of 'embody' :whistle:, what is the bargain basement way to rectify this travesty of justice? (See post #8 above)

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Thanks FP . I have already done that, it was in reply to that that gave me the long winded blah blah blah crap. Times like this I feel like writing a "are you really that bloody stupid and how the hell can you be a compliance manager you thick cow" however I think I would need a special cigarette before i did that

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Now that we're all in agreement that the judges have got it wrong re the four corners rule & the CCA definition of 'embody' :whistle:, what is the bargain basement way to rectify this travesty of justice? (See post #8 above)

Charity , I am having a particularly thick day...I don't do subtle on the best of days but today ......

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

What I was saying was "what you talking about Willis!" ---those of a certain age will know what I am on about

[pt2537]

Re: S78 and T&C's

different strokes

[jon1965]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Showing your age there PT! Although to be honest it was more my little sisters agegroup

[charitynjw]

Re: S78 and T&C's

[charitynjw]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Charity , I am having a particularly thick day...I don't do subtle on the best of days but today ......

What I was saying was "what you talking about Willis!" ---those of a certain age will know what I am on about

I have, for some time now, & spread over various threads, tried to highlight, what in my opinion, is a scandalous situation.

The original CCA 1974 was perhaps one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation ever, bringing together as it did many separate strands of law relating to financial matters.

The person entrusted to do this, Francis Bennion, is widely acknowledged to have displayed a remarkable understanding of his subject, even bordering on the 'prophetic', in recognising the future importance of credit cards, a fairly new thing at that time, & which he referred to as credit tokens.

It was he who devised & inserted s127.3 into the original 1974 Act; he reasoned that, if the contract was to be (almost certainly) unilateral, the lender better get it right re the prescribed terms, or suffer the consequences - uninforceable through the courts.

This of course has been knocked out of the picture due to the 2006 'amendment', which, I believe, came about due to the flood of claims choking up the court system (cheers for that, BR :fish

Then, to add further insult, the flurry of cases (ie Carey, Wilson, etc), all chipping away at the protection of the consumer at the expense of Big Business.
Call me a cynic, but when the view of an 'expert' (Goode) is preferred over that of the original architect (Bennion), & the latter is denied a right of audience at court, well to me, something smells a wee bit fishy. Or a bit Wakky, maybe?

[labman]

Re: S78 and T&C's

Excellent post Chaz! :beagle:

[Guest]

Re: S78 and T&C's

I have, for some time now, & spread over various threads, tried to highlight, what in my opinion, is a scandalous situation.

The original CCA 1974 was perhaps one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation ever, bringing together as it did many separate strands of law relating to financial matters.

The person entrusted to do this, Francis Bennion, is widely acknowledged to have displayed a remarkable understanding of his subject, even bordering on the 'prophetic', in recognising the future importance of credit cards, a fairly new thing at that time, & which he referred to as credit tokens.

It was he who devised & inserted s127.3 into the original 1974 Act; he reasoned that, if the contract was to be (almost certainly) unilateral, the lender better get it right re the prescribed terms, or suffer the consequences - uninforceable through the courts.

This of course has been knocked out of the picture due to the 2006 'amendment', which, I believe, came about due to the flood of claims choking up the court system (cheers for that, BR :fish

Then, to add further insult, the flurry of cases (ie Carey, Wilson, etc), all chipping away at the protection of the consumer at the expense of Big Business.
Call me a cynic, but when the view of an 'expert' (Goode) is preferred over that of the original architect (Bennion), & the latter is denied a right of audience at court, well to me, something smells a wee bit fishy. Or a bit Wakky, maybe?

FB was indeed the draftsman of the act , he was enacting the findings of the earlier Crowther report, the idea of unenforceabilty of an agreement due to lack of certain terms in a contract was not new, it was also contained within the money lending legislation 1900.

There is some interesting reading(if your into this kind of thing) from Hansard before the drafting of the CCA which makes some salient points, here the seeds of section 75 and the joint liability of creditors are sown.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...rowther-report


§The Crowther Committee also suggest that defective goods bought under a loan agreement linked to purchase should become the responsibility of the lender. There are constant examples of large pieces of equipment—for example, central heating appliances—being purchased through finance houses which appear to be connected with the installer, yet if anything goes wrong or if the company doing the work goes into liquidation, the consumer is unable to get redress against the finance company. The suggested alteration in the law would further see that the buyer had rights concerned with the fitness and quality of the goods, and the finance house behind the seller would be liable for any misrepresentation made by the seller.