Capital 1 CCA request - whats going on?

[Brainmelt]

Hi LB
I made a request for my CCA to Cap. Their response contained this info


I enclose a recon of your original agreement. Although not required under s78, i have included as part of the recon agreement a scanned copy of the signature page of your original agreement. The recon agreement sets out the terms of your agreement and your name and address when you entered into the agreement with Cap1 in 2003. I also enclose a copy of your current agreement.....


By providing the info set out above we have complied.......


My query (so that i have a better understanding myself) is if they have provided a copy of an agreement(?) why then the need for recon for T&C’s? is this because the original application did not include the T&C’s on the signature page, and how would i know if the T&C’s sent are the original ones? Nowhere on this page are any of the PT.


It would appear that the form completed is entitled an Application Certificate has name and address - pre printed, and pre printed ‘ticks’ against the boxes to be filled in
personal details
your home
your employment
extra cardholder
your financial information
additional information
choose design of card
and at the bottom of the page ‘Credit agreement regulated by CCA 1974 which covers your info and marketing, credit scoring, fraud prevention, searching of file records


At the very bottom - Right to cancel
once you have signed you will have for a short period a right to cancel. exact details of how and when you can do this will be sent to you by post.

would this be enforceable?

[MIKE770]

Re: Capital 1 CCA request - whats going on?

scan copy up BUT block out personal details, not seen a 2003 enforceable agreement yet as certain paras mention not usually present at inception? sure others will respond as well
[MENTION=1937]nemisis[/MENTION]45

[Kati]

Re: Capital 1 CCA request - whats going on?

Hi LB
I made a request for my CCA to Cap. Their response contained this info


I enclose a recon of your original agreement. Although not required under s78, i have included as part of the recon agreement a scanned copy of the signature page of your original agreement. The recon agreement sets out the terms of your agreement and your name and address when you entered into the agreement with Cap1 in 2003. I also enclose a copy of your current agreement.....


By providing the info set out above we have complied.......


My query (so that i have a better understanding myself) is if they have provided a copy of an agreement(?) why then the need for recon for T&C’s? is this because the original application did not include the T&C’s on the signature page, and how would i know if the T&C’s sent are the original ones? Nowhere on this page are any of the PT.


It would appear that the form completed is entitled an Application Certificate has name and address - pre printed, and pre printed ‘ticks’ against the boxes to be filled in
personal details
your home
your employment
extra cardholder
your financial information
additional information
choose design of card
and at the bottom of the page ‘Credit agreement regulated by CCA 1974 which covers your info and marketing, credit scoring, fraud prevention, searching of file records


At the very bottom - Right to cancel
once you have signed you will have for a short period a right to cancel. exact details of how and when you can do this will be sent to you by post.

would this be enforceable?

scan copy up BUT block out personal details, not seen a 2003 enforceable agreement yet as certain paras mention not usually present at inception? sure others will respond as well
@nemisis45

I'd be more than happy to redact/post up a copy if you can email me a scan or pic :nod: xx

[Brainmelt]

Re: Capital 1 CCA request - whats going on?

Hi

i will find out how to scan. I'm old school, my phone is just a phone, so a photo not an option.
i will take a copy of the copy and tippex out personal details. This will have to wait however until my next trip to my local library as aware that they have this type of machine there.

[charitynjw]

Re: Capital 1 CCA request - whats going on?

My query (so that i have a better understanding myself) is if they have provided a copy of an agreement(?) why then the need for recon for T&C’s? is this because the original application did not include the T&C’s on the signature page, and how would i know if the T&C’s sent are the original ones? Nowhere on this page are any of the PT.

would this be enforceable?

Restons Solicitors article on HFO Capital Limited v Wegmuller.

OCTOBER 2, 2012 3 COMMENTS

I was trawling the net the other day and i was fortunate (although Restons may disagree here) to find the Restons website.
I must say a nice looking site, however, its a pity about the Wegmuller report, because its wide of the mark. The author clearly has not given sufficient attention to the Judgment of Recorder Campbell.

In the case of HFO Capital Limited v Wegmuller, Mr Recorder Campbell considered the allegation by Mr Wegmuller that the Barclaycard agreement (subsequently acquired by HFO) he signed in the mid-1990’s failed to contain the prescribed terms and therefore did not comply with Section 61 of the CCA. After making reference to “Carey v HSBC Plc” – in particular those passages which dealt with what the Act required the customer to sign – the Recorder noted the court had not been provided either with a copy of the original agreement nor a reconstitution of it.

That is entirely wrong. Before the Court were the following,
1) A copy of the signed application form.
2) Terms and conditions which clearly were provided with the card, in fact they stated that they were accompanying the card!!
3) a reconstitution of the agreement
None of which assist where the underlying agreement is unenforceable, clearly you cannot reconstitute to make a bad agreement good. As they say, you cannot polish a turd, if its a bad agreement, no amount of reconstituting can put it right!!!!
The problems with the case were not as the author of the Restons article suggests, and in fact i made an application to the Court prior to the hearing for an order that the Claimant do provide a reconstitution of the original agreement. The Claimant provided the disclosure, and the reconstituted agreement was entirely supportive of Mr Wegmullers views.

Although Mr Wegmuller actually acknowledged difficulty in recollecting exactly what he signed, the Recorder decided that in the absence of any direct evidence from either Barclaycard or HFO, as to account set up procedures/documentation, Section 61 compliance could not be proved. Therefore the debt recovery claim brought by HFO was dismissed.

Ok, now its helpful to look at the Wegmuller ruling here.
14. I pause there for a moment. It is worth noting that none of those three terms is actually visible on the copy application form document in the bundle that was signed by the defendant on 25th March 1996.
Clearly Recorder Campbell found the prescribed terms were not on the application Mr Wegmuller signed. That was obvious, contrary to the authors assertion the agreement was before the Court, otherwise how did the recorder make such findings??

Worse was to follow as Mr Wegmuller had instructed a firm of solicitors who are well known for representing customers who wish to challenge their liability under regulated agreements on the grounds of non CCA compliance. That firm (and similar) will take comfort from this ruling – not least the award of costs made in their favour.

That Firm, what an amusing comment, it seems to be that they cant even bring themselves to mention our name, still anyone who reads the Wegmuller ruling will know who we are. I would also point out that every one is entitled to be legally represented, if the banks dont like losing money there is a solution, GET IT RIGHT- GET YOUR PAPERS IN ORDER and maybe even invest in lawyers who know about consumer credit law. On the point of costs, well yes, isnt it the case that costs follow the event? if the lender had won he would have wanted his costs surely? or would they be kind and say its ok dont bother paying? for goodness sakes , the mind really boggles. So yes, we won the case, yes we got paid, yes the client didnt have to pay his unenforceable debt and yes we were on a CFA so got an uplift.

Although perhaps a reflection of the quality of evidence before the Court in that particular case, the message is clear – when proceedings are defended, debt purchasers need to ensure that a litigation risk assessment is carried out on every “enforceability” case. The reality is that for the purposes of both litigation and regulatory compliance they are an “extension” of the original lender. Implementation of effective arrangements will ensure recoveries are maximised and defeat/dissuade speculative and time-consuming challenges/defences.

With respect, i find it grossly insulting if the author is suggesting that Mr Wegmullers Defence was speculative. It was anything but. There were identified breaches of s61,62,63,78,86,87 Consumer credit Act. As for HFO Capitals Default notices one merely need read HFO Capital v Michael Burney which is on BAILII and can be found here
We have challenged that certain creditor before, and have at least 20 victories under our belts with them so if our defences are speculative the judges must clearly be missing something. As far as it goes, the failings were no the fault of our clients, they were the fault of the creditors and their stupidity in rushing off to court without making sure they had a case that was winnable. I have a wealth of rulings in the County Court and High Court also that supports the arguments i have used in cases such as Wegmuller, none of which can be called speculative.
On a closing point, i must remind myself of the words of the Vice Chancellor in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2001] 3 All ER 229 where Sir Andrew Morritt VC said

In effect, the creditor–by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms–must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift,of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;

It seems pretty clear that if a lender fails to jump through the hoops set down by the legislation then he deserves all the hassle he gets. Lets also not forget that many lenders DID Get it wrong over the last 20 years, and now their errors are coming to light to their detriment sadly.

https://paulatwatsonssolicitors.word...scribed-terms/

[Brainmelt]

Re: Capital 1 CCA request - whats going on?

'In effect, the creditor–by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms–must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift,of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;'

Thank you for the extract Charity. Very much obliged.
im a bit slow and out of my depth, but trying hard to grasp what is what.


My understanding then, is that this ‘agreement’ unfortunately for Cap 1, is a bit of a ‘turd’ due to lack of PT’s or even mention of PT’s on the reverse of the document signed. Anything belatedly cobbled together by CAP 1 is just that = ‘cobbled’ and not enforceable.

[charitynjw]

Re: Capital 1 CCA request - whats going on?

'In effect, the creditor–by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms–must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift,of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;'

Thank you for the extract Charity. Very much obliged.
im a bit slow and out of my depth, but trying hard to grasp what is what.


My understanding then, is that this ‘agreement’ unfortunately for Cap 1, is a bit of a ‘turd’ due to lack of PT’s or even mention of PT’s on the reverse of the document signed. Anything belatedly cobbled together by CAP 1 is just that = ‘cobbled’ and not enforceable.

????