Prescribed terms...again..

[Enforcer]

Re: Prescribed terms...again..

Should have mentioned that They enclosed Barclays Advance Agreement - Bank Copy to be signed and returned. Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974
this form asks if I would like funds transferred to my current account, and how much. Contains a signature area for the bank and one for me. It also has a section at the bottom which states.
Your Right to Cancel
Once you have signed this agreement, you will have for a short time a right to cancel it.
Exact details of how and when you can do this will be sent to you by post by the Bank.

And that's it! No terms and conditions, no prescribed terms. NO NOTHING.

Terms and conditions were subsequently sent in the post to me, these include the cancellation notice.

Read into this as you wish.

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Prescribed terms...again..

This is a Barclays favourite. The terms and conditions "Would" have been on the reverse. I don't know if you have noticed, but, the original creditors very rarely, if ever, take court action against a debtor, they rely on DCA's relying on the ignorance of their clients with regard to CCA 1974.
Some OC's admit UE, Barclays rarely do, have just written a polite letter to Ms Cooper at Barclays advising her that the reply to my CCA request has Not been complied with, I also mentioned that this cannot possibly be the agreement, as it does not contain any of the prescribed terms.

Perhaps the post below yours from M1 means that a S78 request means that they only have to send what they have actually got.

You have to decide for yourself and argue UE.

It seems to be a general favourite, but if it did get to court, and the bank said the same 'would have looked like this'...is that enough or do they actually need to have the original application which includes the PT's on the back ? Obviously I understand a court case wouldn't hinge just on that issue, I just wondered if there had been any cases in which this had been particularly mentioned...and a ruling given...

[cardiac arrest]

Re: Prescribed terms...again..

There are no prescribed terms as far as s78 is concerned.

S78 requires a true copy of what was there. A signature is not require by statute.

M1

Not sure that answered my question really...If s78 requires a true copy of what was 'there'..and indeed a s78 request does result in the PT's being sent..but in a reconstituted form...meanwhile the application refers to the same as 'overleaf'...?

[Enforcer]

Re: Prescribed terms...again..

This is a Barclays favourite. The terms and conditions "Would" have been on the reverse. I don't know if you have noticed, but, the original creditors very rarely, if ever, take court action against a debtor, they rely on DCA's relying on the ignorance of their clients with regard to CCA 1974.
Some OC's admit UE, Barclays rarely do, have just written a polite letter to Ms Cooper at Barclays advising her that the reply to my CCA request has Not been complied with, I also mentioned that this cannot possibly be the agreement, as it does not contain any of the prescribed terms.

Perhaps the post below yours from M1 means that a S78 request means that they only have to send what they have actually got.

You have to decide for yourself and argue UE.

[mystery1]

Re: Prescribed terms...again..

There are no prescribed terms as far as s78 is concerned.

S78 requires a true copy of what was there. A signature is not require by statute.

M1

[cardiac arrest]

Been a while since I've touched base with this so maybe someone can tell me the 'latest' ?

Most s78 requests seem to arrive with a copy of the application form (aka an agreement) which often refers to terms 'overleaf'. However it seems when copying this document the OC's haven't bothered to copy the reverse before chucking out the originals. Under s78 a true copy of what was there is now sufficient for this type of request but...what I've seen and read is that some kind of reconstruction of what was on the reverse is being sent to s78 requesters.

Now given the application form was usually a single sheet of A4 it seems that the 'true copy' of the 'terms' provided by the OC facing a s78 request often run to several pages, which even with a significant reduction in font size couldn't possibly have appeared, in that form, on the reverse of the application/agreement.

Now for a s61 'proof' , the original documents have to be submitted, do they not ? Would this include the 'terms' referred to but in their original format i.e. on the reverse of the application , or doesn't this matter now ?

I would appreciate any expert opinion on what the state of play is, any recent cases...sorry to sound so idle but I've trawled through so many diaries and stickies and haven't found particular reference to this point.