Quick question

[jon1965]

Quick question, If the law changes say in 2011, for example the requirements of what is sent out in response to a CCA request and you do a CCA request in 2012 for a card taken out prior to 2007 (with me so far?) does an omission of the 2011 law have an impact on the validity of the cca request.
For instance , and it is quite minor, the OFT guidance issued in 2010 states what should be in a statement. A cca request requires a statement to be sent out.
If the statement is just a balance does that matter, I am thinking technically not if it would render the agreement UE

[jon1965]

Re: Quick question

Well I got a little confused myself and they certainly did but if you insist.
There is a lot of it so will this do? delete it if its a problem

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...apital-One-CCA

[jon1965]

Re: Quick question

Oh Dear, I think I was having a bad day yesterday. I got carried away on stuff I do not fully understand but I was only dogging .
Then on the Green site two people stuck up for Wanka...for god's sake.

I think I will crawl back under my stone and do as i am told

[jon1965]

Re: Quick question

Alas yes, but we still sent off a missing prescribed terms

[Paul.]

Re: Quick question

ahh i looked at that thread on LB a few days ago,

I didnt post on it because there was little more i could add

Peter is a wonderful character, but i do follow his logic there as to what he is saying.

The statement depends on its underlying purpose. What i mean is that the statement under s78 does not have to be a statement like you would receive under the agreement

The credit under s78 has to provide

together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—
(a)the state of the account, and
(b)the amount, if any currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and
(c)the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

so that is the s78 obligation

but i am not sure i follow what arguments you are trying to run here, i have to say it doesnt make sense to me. i dont mean to be rude with that comment but trying to put the pieces together i cant work it out

[jon1965]

Re: Quick question

Thanks Paul, I am not sure I follow my argument either .

On my capital 1 cca request this was the statement

Statement of account:
Your account is in default and the current amount due and payable is £4618.75

Now bearing in mind it was defaulted in c 2008 and regular payments have been made since 2007 up to and including Jan this year and have only ever been made to cap 1 does that qualify as a statement of account?

It is included in a letter signed by someone from Cap1

If it does qualify as a statement , game over on that front, if not is that enough to make it UE until they rectify it.

However thanks to your summing up it is apparent to me that the statement does indeed comply.

The whole thread got somewhat sidetracked but thank you for your straighforward reply

[Paul.]

Re: Quick question

I think the likelihood is the court would find that qualified as a statement for the purposes of the 1974 act

[jon1965]

Re: Quick question

Right then, all I need to do is fry all the computers at Cap1 and destroy any document stores. Damn n blast
Or ask them to provide the original signed copy