Thames credit

[Curlyben]

Re: Thames credit

Remember they are a DCA and as such feel that they are above the law, especially CCA

[fuzzybrain]

Re: Thames credit

So if i heit them with a court claim they will start playing ball and behave themselves??? If they don't then I will need to prove why this isn't complaint (i know that bit's not difficult!) but I need to be clear in my head and be able to explain to the judge why this isn't CCA compliant.

I'm guessing there is a possibility that if i stick a clam in for the payments to be returned they they are very likely to hit me with a counter claim. for a judgement on the whole debt????

[Curlyben]

Re: Thames credit

As the "agreement" is totally unenforceable under CCA s127(3) they CANNOT counterclaim anything.
The supplied documentation lacks all the prescribed terms.
The only thing that makes it even close to a credit agreement is the statement concerning CCA 1974

S61(1)(a) CCA provides that, for a regulated agreement to be properly executed, it must contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement and conform to regulations under s60(1) – see Q1.14.

Reg 6(1) provides that the terms specified in Sch 6 to the Agreements Regulations are ‘prescribed terms’ for the purposes of s61(1)(a) and s127(3) – see Q8.2.

8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect?

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor – see Q1.21.

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.


8.3 What are the prescribed terms?

The prescribed terms specified in Sch 6 are as follows:

* amount of credit – see Q8.

* credit limit – see Q8.5
* repayments – see Q8.9.
* rate of interest – see Q8.6

Sch 6 was not amended by the 2004 Regulations.


Also check out Peter Bard's excellent thread on the subject: Agreement Enforceability - The Consumer Forums

[Curlyben]

Re: Thames credit

Right I have a job for you.
The LBA needs to go to some one way up the food chain, as the normal phone monkeys wont understand what we are saying.

So I need you to find TC and AK, bosses.
Compliance or litigation would be great.

[fuzzybrain]

Re: Thames credit

Forget the post about Phillip Lunn - just found out he left the company late last year and they are still trying to replace him!!

[Curlyben]

Re: Thames credit

I think Mr Lunn will be the best person as he deals solely with UK Ops, but litigation director would be better

[fuzzybrain]

Re: Thames credit

Malcolm meadows was the name of the complaints manager on the letter, if that helps???
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Well as Phillip Lunn made a run for it in Sept 2008, i found this update, but no news on a permanent replacement as yet, although Hakan Bernhard is supposed to handling things.... but i don't know who current this is??? http://cws.huginonline.com/A/275/PR/...53801_5_3.html

http://www.abnnewswire.net/press/en/...v-Kapital.html
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
I'm getting all confused now!! Could this be UK's new person??

http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/News/S...oryID=10051155

[fuzzybrain]

Re: Thames credit

I have finally managed to figure out Aktiv Kapital's who's who!!!

County Manager: Hakam Bernhard
CEO: Tiku Patel
Head of Compliance: Jamie McGrath

They are also based at PO Box 444, Bromley, Kent. BR1 1 ZB

[fuzzybrain]

Re: Thames credit

Well the letter was delivered on the 6th Feb (and signed for by Mr Squiqqle by the looks of teh electronic proof signature!!)

Anyhow I haven't heard a whisper from them - the 14 days is up on the 20th Feb, so I guess i need to be thinking about filing a court claim - or would the FOS/FSA be a better route to go down??? I have very clear proof that I doubted this debt in all the paperwork they have sent me (it's recorded several times in the bnote section of their computer print out) so would the FSA/FOS be an easier route??

[fuzzybrain]

Re: Thames credit

I have just had a phone call from FOS. They have stated that they have rung AK and that AK solicitors are looking into the matter.

According to FOS they need to give AK an additional 14 days to respond to my complaint as they had not issued a final response. FOS has informed me that they have told AK that they have the additional 14 to respond to me. If they don't respond to me within that time or if their reponse is not to my satisfaction then the case will be given to a FOS case handler to investigate further.

I think this is good news..... will have to wait and see what AK respond with, although me thinks that FOS will be handing it over to the case worker in 14 days time!!!!

On the plus side it looks like AK will get slapped with £450 complaint bill at the very least - couldn't happen to a nicer company!!!

[Curlyben]

Re: Thames credit

sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet

[fuzzybrain]

Re: Thames credit

Have had a response from them - but I can't upload it, have emailed it to Curlyben, so hopefully he can work his magic, coz my computer hates me!!!

[Curlyben]

Re: Thames credit

Here you go.

Hmmm seems attachments are brokd.

Well anyway, I honestly don't believe these idiots

This is taken from another thread;

Under SI 1983/1553 the prescribed terms MUST be within the signature document to be valid, having them on a seperate sheet headed T&C or similar ISN'T acceptable.

SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms MUST be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6)

This applies to all agreements pre May 2005.
So basically this is unenforceable, under 127(3).

Just to add to my comments re terms witin signature doc.
This was covered off in Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said

33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated.
As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.

[fuzzybrain]

Re: Thames credit

I don't even think the T&C that there are referring to are mine, as the card was taken out in 1996 and the T&C refer to pin numbers - I didn't think pin numbers were used in 1995 - or am I wrong there??

Also there is nothing to identify this was part of my original agreement or that they are linked to my account in anyway.

How do i respond? They have said they will wait for FOS decision, but I should make payments to the accoutn (they can take a long running jump of a short pier into shark eating DCA's infested waters on that one!)

[Curlyben]

Re: Thames credit

Well do as they ask, FOS it is then