SXGuy's UE Diary

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Thats not really something id know about tbh, someone else may know.

I just meant, that its not a fixed term agreement, as its not a loan.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

No, they just stated its "not" a fixed term agreement, so the prescribed terms does not have to be shown on the same page.

Which is true, its not a loan, so it wouldnt be a fixed term agreement.

I cant find anything that says that the prescribed terms must be on the same face of the agreement for a fixed sum loan,(although they usually are) just within the same document as per credit cards. Am I looking in the wrong place ?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

The 2006 amendments came into force April 2007. It made UE more dificult for agreements signed after April 2007, but they still have to comply with s78-79.

The amendments are not retrospective

LOL i know, which is why there paragraph confuses the hell out of me, the agreement is pre 2007, im not trying to use any argument for post CCA2006, its as though they are trying to argue that UE under 2006 does not apply to CCA1974, which is correct, however, they also know, that the agreement does fall under CCA1974 and UE does apply.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Yes however they try and wrap it up the PTs have to be there

[vint1954]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

The 2006 amendments came into force April 2007. It made UE more dificult for agreements signed after April 2007, but they still have to comply with s78-79.

The amendments are not retrospective

[vint1954]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

They do talk twaddle. Send that letter to Niddy,

Prescribed terms came into effect in 1985

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Perhaps they are talking about schedule 1 of the above regulations.

Section 10 would be the interest if that were the case, which I am pretty sure is a prescribed term on a credit card.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Earlier didn't you say they mentioned fixed term agreement, perhaps they have their wires crossed ?

No, they just stated its "not" a fixed term agreement, so the prescribed terms does not have to be shown on the same page.

Which is true, its not a loan, so it wouldnt be a fixed term agreement.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Earlier didn't you say they mentioned fixed term agreement, perhaps they have their wires crossed ?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Yeah, MBNA credit card, you can read through my diary to follow the story, its quite long tbh.

Dont get me wrong, i know im in good hands, always sound advice from the guys n gals here. Im not worried at all, as i know any litigation will be thrown out due to the PT's not being correct.

Im just puzzled at their statement that makes no sense to me.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I have not looked at the templates, from looking around the forum it seems that you are in good hands.

Was this a credit card?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

The perscribed terms say.

Sections 1 to 12, are paragraphs 8 to 9, of your terms and conditions.

Then in one of the sections, forget which without looking, maybe 10, about payment holidays, it says, "with the exception of paragraph 9 (4).

When you look through the alleged original T's and C's, it says paragraphs 8 and 9 can be found on your agreement.

And the alleged Current T's and C's, under paragraph 9, only go up to (3).

Niddy confirmed its UE for this reason.

I dont think they are specifically mentioning this, as, as you know, the missing prescribed terms template doesnt state exactly whats wrong with it, only gives them a clue that somethings not right.

But like i say, they first say, in reply to your letter dated 23rd October, i trust you received our letter dated 24th....

well i sent a response to their threat of CO and CCJ on the 23rd, and missing PT's on the 24th, after i received the CCA on the 24th from them. They make no mention of the letter i sent on 24th, just the one dated 23rd

EDIT: if it helps, ill scan the letter and post it up monday.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Which prescribed term is missing?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I spose its however you chose to read it

"Any amendments made to the Consumer Credit Act after the agreement was signed would have no legal bearing on its enforceability, consequently as the amendment made to the 1974 act regarding prescribed terms was not introduced until 2006, this section of the act would not apply to your agreement."

It reads as though they are either saying, the point im relying on doesnt apply as its an amendment added to the CCA2006.

Or

The amendment added to the CCA2006 doesnt apply to my agreement, as it falls under 1974.

But why they would want to throw me a bone is questionable.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Thanks, dont think thats it though.

They mention specifically CCA2006 and Prescribed Terms.

The thing that is puzzling me is i thought the majority was redacted parts of the 1974 act, not amendments or additions.

It could be, that they are refering to the PT's being on the same page, but it was in reply to the threat of charging orders letter, which i dont think mentions anything about the PT's

That being said, they may just be stating some comment to try and cover whatever they think ill reply with lol.

Your probably right, I think the 2006 act was responsible for removing the unenforceability thing, prescribed terms are laid down in regulations I think.