Illegible agreement

[SXGuy]

Hi Guys,

Just a quick question, If OC send you a illegible application form, where you cant read anything other than the date, signature and address, but provide a very strangly clear copy of prescribed terms on the back of it, is there a case to argue that the document is eligable?

Seems to me that the application is clearly unenforceable, and they have just scanned prescribed terms on the back of it. You would think that one would be just as clear as the other if it was a true copy.

Have sent the docs to niddy the other day, but just wondered if anyone has an answer before i get a reply regarding the CCA.

Admin Edit:
Edited main title of thread to correct spelling.

[Riz]

Re: elligable agreement

illegible?

[Deepie]

Re: elligable agreement

Hi Guys,

Just a quick question, If OC send you a eligable application form, where you cant read anything other than the date, signature and address, but provide a very strangly clear copy of prescribed terms on the back of it, is there a case to argue that the document is eligable?

Seems to me that the application is clearly unenforceable, and they have just scanned prescribed terms on the back of it. You would think that one would be just as clear as the other if it was a true copy.

Have sent the docs to niddy the other day, but just wondered if anyone has an answer before i get a reply regarding the CCA.

----------> CCA Query - Illegible Documents Received

[5corpio]

Re: elligable agreement

thats an application form not an agreement? that you say

[SXGuy]

Re: elligable agreement

yeah sorry, it was an application form, however it states at the top, that on acceptance it will become the agreement. and also quotes the consumer credit act n stuff.

I got a recon agreement which says, correct at august 2002, yet the application was made august 2003, dunno if thats relevent.

Got no T's and C's from account inception, just current ones.

And as i say, prescribed terms on the back, look like they have been photocopied on to the reverse of the application, but the application is so black, you cant read anything all you can see is ticks, signature, date and address.

[PriorityOne]

Re: elligable agreement

yeah sorry, it was an application form, however it states at the top, that on acceptance it will become the agreement. and also quotes the consumer credit act n stuff.

I got a recon agreement which says, correct at august 2002, yet the application was made august 2003, dunno if thats relevent.

Got no T's and C's from account inception, just current ones.

And as i say, prescribed terms on the back, look like they have been photocopied on to the reverse of the application, but the application is so black, you cant read anything all you can see is ticks, signature, date and address.

If it says "application" on the top, then that is what it is. It won't just morph into an Agreement just because they say so unless it's one of those rarities which also includes prescribed terms. I've not come across one personally though.

Also, if the recon. is 2002 and you didn't apply until 2003, then it kinda shoots that argument out of the water, in my opinion. How can a recon. be provided for a doc. you've not yet signed?

Sounds like they're trying to fob you off.... but have made themselves look silly in the process.

[swanfan]

Re: elligable agreement

If it says "application" on the top, then that is what it is. It won't just morph into an Agreement just because they say so unless it's one of those rarities which also includes prescribed terms. I've not come across one personally though.

I bloody well have, MBNA! Namely mine!

[PriorityOne]

Re: elligable agreement

I bloody well have, MBNA! Namely mine!

Yep.... knew someone would have come across one.

Sorry it's you Swanny....

[SXGuy]

Re: elligable agreement

If it says "application" on the top, then that is what it is. It won't just morph into an Agreement just because they say so unless it's one of those rarities which also includes prescribed terms. I've not come across one personally though.

Also, if the recon. is 2002 and you didn't apply until 2003, then it kinda shoots that argument out of the water, in my opinion. How can a recon. be provided for a doc. you've not yet signed?

Sounds like they're trying to fob you off.... but have made themselves look silly in the process.

Cheers. The letter they sent with it, says, the terms would have been on the back or a seperate page at the time. But of course i have no proof of this, because you cant even read the front. For example, one section you can barely see it says, balance transfers, but cant read the text below, then below that, is the MBNA card balance of 4k, now i know this never got transfered, so it may be a section relating to other credit cards you own, but you would only know that if you remembered it didnt get transfered. i.e nothing on the page makes any sense to someone who doesnt have first hand knowledge.

then the terms thats on the back, is a blatant scan and paste, theres a black line running down the middle of it, like it didnt scan correctly.

Their letter ends with, they consider it enforceable, and consider the matter closed. lol

Hopefully Niddy will check his agreements emails in the next few days so i can get it confirmed. But would i be right in saying, a recon only satisfies section 78, but would not satisfy a court, if the original was illegible?

[swanfan]

Re: elligable agreement

Yep.... knew someone would have come across one.

Sorry it's you Swanny....

Doesn't matter, i've been blagging it for 2 years.

[PriorityOne]

Re: elligable agreement

Hopefully Niddy will check his agreements emails in the next few days so i can get it confirmed. But would i be right in saying, a recon only satisfies section 78, but would not satisfy a court, if the original was illegible?

Pre-2007, a recon. is equivalent to bog roll.... but let Niddy check it over for you anyway.

Doesn't matter, i've been blagging it for 2 years.

That's what I like to hear!!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: elligable agreement

Hopefully Niddy will check his agreements emails in the next few days so i can get it confirmed. But would i be right in saying, a recon only satisfies section 78, but would not satisfy a court, if the original was illegible?

I have checked my agreements emails... you have jumped the queue as I still have 30 from last week to sort yet

Ok, forget this nonsense about a recon not being enforceable in court - they can be yes! Lets all not forget Carey v HSBC. A recon can and will stand in court if they have used the content from other internal sources. The problem lies with whether you have a copy and can prove the version they have differs. A creditor should have the original on which to support in court but this is not always necessary so whilst the general rule is they would need an original, don't bank on it cos they can also get a victory with a recon (i.e. Carey v HSBC)...

However, recon or not don't worry cos this is unenforceable anyway!



Respond with missing PT's which is what this fails on, ie the terms supplied (both sets) are not the originals from this application and thus it would appear you signed an agreement without having sight of any terms which, for the record, are themselves at fault even if they were the originals

[PriorityOne]

Re: elligable agreement

I have checked my agreements emails... you have jumped the queue as I still have 30 from last week to sort yet

Ok, forget this nonsense about a recon not being enforceable in court - they can be yes! Lets all not forget Carey v HSBC. A recon can and will stand in court if they have used the content from other internal sources. The problem lies with whether you have a copy and can prove the version they have differs. A creditor should have the original on which to support in court but this is not always necessary so whilst the general rule is they would need an original, don't bank on it cos they can also get a victory with a recon (i.e. Carey v HSBC)...

However, recon or not don't worry cos this is unenforceable anyway!



Respond with missing PT's which is what this fails on, ie the terms supplied (both sets) are not the originals from this application and thus it would appear you signed an agreement without having sight of any terms which, for the record, are themselves at fault even if they were the originals

It's a 2003 account Nids.... so sec 127(3) still applies.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: elligable agreement

It's a 2003 account Nids.... so sec 127(3) still applies.

I know, nothing changes - my opinion stands - they can still provide a recon

You're arguing s.127 which I am not even that far yet, cos the basic principle is they can provide a recon within s.77-79 requests then from that you define the flaws within s.60(1); s.65(1) & s.61 etc to reach the conclusion they cannot enforce within s.127.

Make sense...?

Have a mooch here ---> allaboutFORUMS - View Single Post - UPDATED - A Full Guide to Unenforceability

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Illegible agreement

p.s. we'll be arguing s.127(1) (a)

section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements), or

and s.127(3)

The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).