Let sleeping dogs lie ?

[jax50]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie ?

Informed comment there Jon1965; Thank you. I've had a guy look at the application form, a guy who knows his stuff, but even though it is a pre 2006 agreement as well, there is still risk..if it went to court, like I can't just remember what I had when I signed up and if asked by a tetchy Judge I'd have to say that. The Bank could produce something to win the game for them. Maybe a SAR would force the bank to reveal more of what they have and that would be the first thing to do.? Trouble is the words 'as per the T & Cs' overleaf ' which appear on the application form..something that appears on most application forms...the bank would argue they always had T&Cs on the back, and even produce a sample..or the original even..A clean CRA file after 6 years is not something to jeopardise with a possible CCJ is it.

Maybe I should spend £10.00 and get a true copy of the executed agreement... The odd thing though is that the Bank sent me some curent T&Cs with my CCA stuff, but no mention of the PT's there either. The only place where PT's are given is on the reverse of a copy letter they also provided which refers to my 'enclosed replacement card '. Now if the PT's are on the reverse of the card letter, that doesn't comply with the rules about them having to be present at signing, does it ? The stuff provided for the original agreement is all just printed on A4 sheets of paper with my address already typed on it...and the wrong credit limit...and all that wouldn't even fit 'overleaf' as they have suggested.

Confused...? Too right. maybe somebody else who applied for a nasty westy card in 2005 could shed some light on what is or was on their application forms...or in the 'General Conditions' as they call them...

[jon1965]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie ?

Can I summarise for my own small mind to understand
1) The account has already been defaulted and you have received a DN.....was that good or bad?
2) You sent off a CCA request and got a reply that does not fulfill the requirements ?
3) Someone has told you that what they sent is UE....I have to remind you that there is a lot more to UE than just a CCA request. I know of a self proclaimed Guru who often gets it wrong. Could you post it up here (minus personal details) -don't scrub out with black pen on the original. I tend to copy , scrub out then scan and post
4) Yes there is some risk , always will be however the aim is to stay out of court so should that become likely, unles you have a very strong case you can renegotiate

[MIKE770]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie ?

Informed comment there Jon1965; Thank you. I've had a guy look at the application form, a guy who knows his stuff, but even though it is a pre 2006 agreement as well, there is still risk..if it went to court, like I can't just remember what I had when I signed up and if asked by a tetchy Judge I'd have to say that. The Bank could produce something to win the game for them. Maybe a SAR would force the bank to reveal more of what they have and that would be the first thing to do.? Trouble is the words 'as per the T & Cs' overleaf ' which appear on the application form..something that appears on most application forms...the bank would argue they always had T&Cs on the back, and even produce a sample..or the original even..A clean CRA file after 6 years is not something to jeopardise with a possible CCJ is it.

Maybe I should spend £10.00 and get a true copy of the executed agreement... The odd thing though is that the Bank sent me some curent T&Cs with my CCA stuff, but no mention of the PT's there either. The only place where PT's are given is on the reverse of a copy letter they also provided which refers to my 'enclosed replacement card '. Now if the PT's are on the reverse of the card letter, that doesn't comply with the rules about them having to be present at signing, does it ? The stuff provided for the original agreement is all just printed on A4 sheets of paper with my address already typed on it...and the wrong credit limit...and all that wouldn't even fit 'overleaf' as they have suggested.

Confused...? Too right. maybe somebody else who applied for a nasty westy card in 2005 could shed some light on what is or was on their application forms...or in the 'General Conditions' as they call them...

Note:- £ 1.00 Postal Order is the cost of a copy of an agreement, written on back " For CCA1974 purposes Only",
£10.00 is the cost for a SAR Request which they send documents tec but do not have to send a copy of CCA1974,..

[jax50]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie ?

1. yes, and it was bad (not enough time to remedy)
2. yes...no sight of any PT's apart from those on the said sheets of A4 sent with the copy application...
3. yes, and yes I agree there is more to UE than a CCA (for information) failure which can be corrected later if need be..
4. Agree with that..but I think it is worth while knowing the strength ofyour own hand before you even start down the road of dispute..I can't understand why anyone would confront a Bank/DCA with a weak arguement, you can bluff if you like but you'll always end up losing if your hand is called..

will try and work out how to upload an image....

[jax50]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie ?

Thanks Mike770 Are we saying that if a CCA request doesn't produce the precise agreement details then a SAR won't either, or that a SAR doesn't need to include a copy of the agreement ?...Thanks

[MIKE770]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie ?

Thanks Mike770 Are we saying that if a CCA request doesn't produce the precise agreement details then a SAR won't either, or that a SAR doesn't need to include a copy of the agreement ?...Thanks

In a SAR they do not have to supply an agreement, hence the rule that you have to make an application for a copy of CCA1974 and pay £1.00. in the past I have slipped in a sentance to include a CCA1974 copy and one was produced, but in another case somebody caught on at asked for the £1.00 under FSA guidelines, so generally send £1.00 seperatly if you should need to get these documents.

[jon1965]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie ?

Jax
In my opinion, if there are flaws in their agreements, process whatever you owe it to yourself and the banks owe it to you to either correct them where they can or say ok so its UE.
Remember even a strong argument can lose if presented badly or you get a muppet for a judge and a weak argument can win if presented well and you get a muppet for a judge.
The banks , or especially the debt purchasers sometimes cock up on the technicalities and thus fail
Finally, sometimes, if you ask all the right questions and put together an argument the creditor may well decide it is not commercially viable to chase you

If I were you (and I know my circumstances are probably different but I would still do it if I had assets) I would send of a letter saying thank you for the CCA but there are missing PT's ( or thank you for your reply but this is an application form and does not comply with CCA 1974.

There is no harm in telling them this, you could keep on paying until they either agree or send you something correct or you could stop. You would be putting forward a lawful reason as to why the account is disputed

[charitynjw]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie ?

It's worth taking a look at this, folks.
Although the article is about costs, it does go into some detail on what's acceptable re agreements, & how far down the line it was before the banks came up with the goods.

http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/w...ds_firm_130411

[jax50]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie ?

It's worth taking a look at this, folks.
Although the article is about costs, it does go into some detail on what's acceptable re agreements, & how far down the line it was before the banks came up with the goods.

http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/w...ds_firm_130411

Two things really, firstly s78 was never enough to win a court claim for UE and relying on that was flawed (IMO). You need more proof and evidence if you are going to court of what you actually did sign and what you had given to you when signing.

Secondly, never be the claimant as the burden of proof is with you, as was the carey case. If Carey had been the defendent it might have been a different story..

Also, pre and post 2007 agreements have different Regs now, so the year of signing is significant if you are in Court.

s78 is 'for information purposes' and not intended for any other proof purpose. s61 is for proof purpose and if you are in Court, as a defendent, then the claimant would need to produce a true copy of the original executed agreement...and not a cobbled up one...if you stated you did not sign one with all the terms present etc.

Waksman might have dealt a blow to debtors, but IMO he was wrong in what he did...If s78 was deemed for proof purpose it would save an awaful lot of unneccessary court time and litigation costs..and harrassment .....

[jon1965]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie ?

I would tend to agree. If we are talking pre 2007 agreements it is much safer to stay as the defendant and keep pointing out the banks mistakes (maybe not specific mistakes ).
As for S78 it is of course a defence against enforcement

Overall as the way to do things now seems to be stay out of court but if you have a good case then defend, the rulings are good for the consumer as if the banks/debt purchasers discontinue then they are liable for the debtors costs

[charitynjw]

Re: Let sleeping dogs lie ?

As you rightly say, Carey was about s78 matters &, as the claimant, the burden was a heavy one, not least because of the avalanche of claims clogging up the court system at that time. (Not that I'm inferring that the decision went the way it did to deter future similar claims )

As regards.......let's say an unfortunate decision......it has inevitably led to the sorry situation we now have, where the creditor can turn up in court with some scribble on the back of a fag packet, & the judge allows it. (Ok, a bit of an exaggeration....but not much!)