Reconstituted Terms & Conditions

[alangee]

I recently asked Capital One to supply a copy of the T&C's that were applicable to my application made in February 2004. I had received the normal "agreement" from them with a separate page containing items 8, 10 and 23 taken from the T&C's that was supposed to be on the back of the "agreement".

However those terms do not correspond to the interest charged on my statements for balance transfers, nor does the APR quoted. Hence my request for a copy of the original T&C's.

Yesterday I received five A4 pages of typed out reconstituted terms & conditions, and headed "Original Agreement". These T&C's, naturally helpful for Capital One, correspond to the 8, 10 and 23 items that are supposed to be on the back of my "original agreement" - which I now have two different "original" copies of.

So now they have sent me T&C's which they have matched to my "agreement", but do not match my statements, and the APR is still an issue.

An example of one of the APR's quoted are for 6 months at 5.94% and after that reverts to 16.85% per annum, which they say gives an average APR of 5.9%. I am no mathematics guru, but even to my limited knowledge, that does not look right.

I have sent a request off to them today for a copy of the original T&C's, not a reconstituted copy.

Alan

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Reconstituted Terms & Conditions

I have sent a request off to them today for a copy of the original T&C's, not a reconstituted copy.

Why not ask the buggers for a certified copy, whereby a company officer signs a dated certificate on the back of the copy stating that it is identical to that the company has archived?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Reconstituted Terms & Conditions

Guys are we forgetting case law here; Carey v HSBC for example?

If the agreement links in any way to terms then you're pissing in the wind unless you genuinely don't have and we're never issued original terms. Part of the recon would allow for terms as st inception plus any variations plus current terms. If you never received those they're in breach of s.78.

That said, cap1 rarely pursue things so I gotta ask why are you so keen to push them into a corner here? Oh this certified copy nonsense won't work either; they'll politely decline and aver to Carey v HSBC.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Reconstituted Terms & Conditions

Oh this certified copy nonsense won't work either; they'll politely decline and aver to Carey v HSBC.

I dare say they will, but it would be good if they didn't.

I regard the judgement in Carey to be inherently perverse, as it could have been calculated to encourage companies to counterfeit documents or to deceive customers. One hardly needs to be channelling the ghost of Tom Denning to know that it is bad law.

[alangee]

Re: Reconstituted Terms & Conditions

That said, cap1 rarely pursue things so I gotta ask why are you so keen to push them into a corner here?

You are probably right, Niddy. I just like to have all the ducks lined up in a row.

Alan

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Reconstituted Terms & Conditions

CC I totally agree! Ask Paul, every time the Carey line comes out I rant about it "condoning fraud"! However he always says that at least we know what will stand, look at the finer points and there's a hell of a lot to go on so yea whilst Waksman allowed fraud he also clarified lots of other points in the process.

It's a bad judgment overall with some good added extras to help us along the way.

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Reconstituted Terms & Conditions

The Consumer Credit Act is old and, from the way it has been changed, modified, altered and fiddled with over the years, it is starting to resemble Heath Robinson's design for a potato peeling machine:

Some parts are broken, other parts have been repaired and the whole edifice looks a bit clunky, but it still works more or less.