Elephant in the room

[Enforcer]

Re: Elephant in the room

There is no date at all on the application form that I signed, I forgot to date it and no one else has. There is simply a bar code sticker with my name typed onto it and a series of numbers.

At the bottom of the application form which is pre printed it is dated FEBRUARY 2000. This is obviously when Barclaycard designed it.

It does say For and on behalf of Barclays Bank PLC but no signature by Barclays

It quite clearly states, when we consider your application.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Elephant in the room

It's amazing how slack banks are...they've scrapped 'Agreements' and now assert an application form is an agreement. Once you send this off, you never see it again, so you never know what's on it (unless you specifically ask for a copy). When you do get your copy application form back, and assuming you can even read the reproduced copy, there is no creditor signature...just a load of ticks and crosses and squiggles as staff have gone through and verified the data.

So how and when does an application form become a legal agreement...as soon as the debtor signs it...when it is approved and they write your card number on it...or when you get your card ? Are we now saying an agreement can be made, without a 2nd signature, by some other event taking place ? So what is that event, because I always thought a legal agreement became a contract upon the signature of both parties...silly me...

Mind you...slack banks is good for us
....

[Enforcer]

Re: Elephant in the room

Judge Wacksman, Carey v hsbc
10. S61. is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner.

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

Judge Wacksman, Carey v hsbc
10. S61. is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner.

Gosh this an old debate.

Section 61 says an agreement will not be "properly" executed.

That's the killer, it will still be executed on one signature(just not properly).

See section 189 "unexecuted". An agreement lacking both signatures is not void it is unexecuted

Section 65 gives sanction for an agreement not being properly executed not unexecuted.

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

Just to add as said, an improperly executed agreement can be enforced of course subject to prejudice as long as the PT's and debtors sig are present.

[jon1965]

Re: Elephant in the room

So for us thickos
Are we saying that any agreement be it pre or post 2007 can be enforced (subject to all other provisos ) with or without a creditors signature?

[Paul.]

Re: Elephant in the room

So for us thickos
Are we saying that any agreement be it pre or post 2007 can be enforced (subject to all other provisos ) with or without a creditors signature?

the lack of creditors signature is not prejudicial to the Defendant, so yes the Court would enforce

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Elephant in the room

Just shows then, the Law is an ass...and if you are rich and powerful, you can virtually buy the bits of law you want off the supermarket shelf...(Harrods of course)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Elephant in the room

Just shows then, the Law is an ass...and if you are rich and powerful, you can virtually buy the bits of law you want off the supermarket shelf...(Harrods of course)

Totally agree. Like Carey allows fraud cos in any other business arena worldwide, creation of a document to reclaim monies owed is Fraud. No other way of putting it.

However, we already knew the law was an ass - but still, keep the faith. Somewhere up the food-chain there is always a Judge that gets it right so we do get there in the end.

[Enforcer]

Re: Elephant in the room

Quite prepared to take the risk! That's if Barclaycard had the guts to actually take this to court. A prospective regulated agreement is "unexecuted".

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Elephant in the room

Quite prepared to take the risk! That's if Barclaycard had the guts to actually take this to court. A prospective regulated agreement is "unexecuted".

I dunno about court mate, not if there is recent case-law as Paul suggests. That means it has already been tested and lost, but if you have other points to argue it'd do no harm adding that and questioning it but like I say, it's a risky argument on it's own

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

Quite prepared to take the risk! That's if Barclaycard had the guts to actually take this to court. A prospective regulated agreement is "unexecuted".

A prospective agreement and an unexecuted agreement are two different things under the CCA.

Prospective agreements under section 55 59 are agreements that have not been "made". In other words no action has been taken(goods or finance supplied)either party can withdraw before this time under the pre-contractual provisions.

An unexecuted agreement is just an agreement that has not been signed by either party and is only unenforceable(under the act) due to the provisions of section 127(3)or subject to prejudice under 127(1)

Not to say that a totally unsigned agreement is not unenforceable under common contact law.

[Enforcer]

Re: Elephant in the room

Ok Niddy, but they are refusing to supply agreement under s78. They have also said that they will not grant FOS rights to complain. The application form is not signed by them. It does not refer to any prescribed terms, although they state that they are on the reverse of the application. It clearly states "when we consider your application." I do not have the s78 request that they originally sent. The police took it away when I complained to them, They said that they had given documents to local trading standards, they say that they sent them to county trading standards. I actually have no access to the document. They sent me a copy of my application (which I already had) but refuse an official S78 request. WHY?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Elephant in the room

Ok Niddy, but they are refusing to supply agreement under s78. They have also said that they will not grant FOS rights to complain. The application form is not signed by them. It does not refer to any prescribed terms, although they state that they are on the reverse of the application. It clearly states "when we consider your application." I do not have the s78 request that they originally sent. The police took it away when I complained to them, They said that they had given documents to local trading standards, they say that they sent them to county trading standards. I actually have no access to the document. They sent me a copy of my application (which I already had) but refuse an official S78 request. WHY?

Hmmm, I know what you're saying mate but if they aint hassling you for repayment then leave it be - you aint planning on paying up are you? So chill....

I could sit and write an essay to send back to them listing their failings but it seems they're adamant that they are not issuing a CCA so you need to complain to the FOS as the bank is incorrect in it's assertions that it does not need to comply. They have issued a final response I presume, hence leave it for the FOS to go into.

The FOS cannot get involved in the UE side of things nor will they argue on specific CCA issues as they are pretty clueless at best, that said they can tell the bank to respond to your lawful s.78 request as detailed when I posted the actual wording - the bank MUST respond and have no say in the matter.

[Enforcer]

Re: Elephant in the room

They are refusing to issue a final response at present.