SXGuy's UE Diary

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Thanks I2D, ill get that sent out Monday.

Do you know of any case law whereby a defendant, or claimant has argued this point? would be good to chuck a high court judges opinion in the mix, im guessing its never been tested in court?

I know they are in default regardless but would be interesting.

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

update again

Natwest have responded to my letter regarding signature as proof in order to obtain the CCA.

They have spoken to their section 78 team to confirm why they require my signature.

Under section 7 subsection 3 of DPA 1998 it advises where a data controller -
Reasonably requires further information in order to statisfy himself as to the identity of the person making the request, and has informed him of that requirement.

the data controller is not obliged to comply with the request unless he is supplied with that further information

I understand your comments in relation to our willingness to supply you with statements and correspondence however we have satisfied ourselves that they are being sent you uoi, as you provided us with your address and signature at the time of your application.

(So they can send statements as they have proof its me, but cant send the CCA as they have no proof its me?!?!)

Then they say, as you advised in your letter, the agreement is still enforceable until proven otherwise (i said UNenforceable!!)
as we are not refusing to comply with your request but we require further proof.

Under DPA they require the signature to compare this to the "application" as proof of identity.

They returned the £1 PO

So, i could resend the CCA Request, and use the tamper proof strip, or i could challenge it, but i doubt the OFT will side with me on this one or would they?

I had forgotten about this have a look here---> http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...&postcount=300

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Update, iQor Re Lloyds have finally responded to my letters...yay!....

Apprently i havent sent £1 for a CCA Request....Boo!

Will send them a letter monday explaining it was sent to OC and provide copy of the receipt as proof.

I have receied the CCA already, niddy confirms UE, but im gonna play a long for a bit anyway lol

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Just a little update regarding MBNA and DLC.

They have threatend that they may decide to litigate and will rely on the documents provided under s78.

I have spoken to Paul who has kindly taken the time to look over the agreement and give me his honest opinion.

Paul says that what they sent, does not satisfy s78 because unless i could tell him otherwise, the T's and C's are a recon that fails to show certain paragraphs mentioned within the prescribed terms.

(Niddy confirmed this for me previously)

Paul says, they can obviously still try to litigate and remedy half way through, however i am 99% sure they will not be able to, given it took them 11 months to supply "something" and they have also stated they rely on what they sent as documents that would be used in any litigation.

Im still waiting on a reply to missing PT's so i will update this thread when i receive something. But as for now, both Paul and Niddy have confirmed that they have not satisfied s78

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I would send this if it were me----> Final Response - Unenforceable (No CCA Received)

See what they say to that

I would imagine they will refer to their previous letter again though!

What a load of twaddle.

You could respond and accept that the point that the DPA prohibits them discussing information with a person who they are unsure is the data subject and remind them that the OFT places similar restrictions on them.

In view of this, you expect them to cease all recovery actions until they can verify they are targeting the correct person.

That sounds good, however i would say again they will prob refer back to this letter.

They have also stated in the cover letter if im unhappy with the findings to refer to the OFT, so im guessing its their final response?

Apprently there is some information via ICO which states a lender does not require signature as proof of identity for a SAR or CCA Request if they have made previous communication with that person.

Similary, i think the OFT have also said that, be good to find it as i can insert it in to my reply to add weight?

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

What a load of twaddle.

You could respond and accept that the point that the DPA prohibits them discussing information with a person who they are unsure is the data subject and remind them that the OFT places similar restrictions on them.

In view of this, you expect them to cease all recovery actions until they can verify they are targeting the correct person.

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

update again

Natwest have responded to my letter regarding signature as proof in order to obtain the CCA.

They have spoken to their section 78 team to confirm why they require my signature.

Under section 7 subsection 3 of DPA 1998 it advises where a data controller -
Reasonably requires further information in order to statisfy himself as to the identity of the person making the request, and has informed him of that requirement.

the data controller is not obliged to comply with the request unless he is supplied with that further information

I understand your comments in relation to our willingness to supply you with statements and correspondence however we have satisfied ourselves that they are being sent you uoi, as you provided us with your address and signature at the time of your application.

(So they can send statements as they have proof its me, but cant send the CCA as they have no proof its me?!?!)

Then they say, as you advised in your letter, the agreement is still enforceable until proven otherwise (i said UNenforceable!!)
as we are not refusing to comply with your request but we require further proof.

Under DPA they require the signature to compare this to the "application" as proof of identity.

They returned the £1 PO

So, i could resend the CCA Request, and use the tamper proof strip, or i could challenge it, but i doubt the OFT will side with me on this one or would they?

I would send this if it were me----> Final Response - Unenforceable (No CCA Received)

See what they say to that

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

update again

Natwest have responded to my letter regarding signature as proof in order to obtain the CCA.

They have spoken to their section 78 team to confirm why they require my signature.

Under section 7 subsection 3 of DPA 1998 it advises where a data controller -
Reasonably requires further information in order to statisfy himself as to the identity of the person making the request, and has informed him of that requirement.

the data controller is not obliged to comply with the request unless he is supplied with that further information

I understand your comments in relation to our willingness to supply you with statements and correspondence however we have satisfied ourselves that they are being sent you uoi, as you provided us with your address and signature at the time of your application.

(So they can send statements as they have proof its me, but cant send the CCA as they have no proof its me?!?!)

Then they say, as you advised in your letter, the agreement is still enforceable until proven otherwise (i said UNenforceable!!)
as we are not refusing to comply with your request but we require further proof.

Under DPA they require the signature to compare this to the "application" as proof of identity.

They returned the £1 PO

So, i could resend the CCA Request, and use the tamper proof strip, or i could challenge it, but i doubt the OFT will side with me on this one or would they?

[MrsD]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

me too

[Deepie]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

another update.

Link re Barclaycard have sent a full set of statements for the account.

their cover letter says to contact them to discuss payment.

This completes their secton 78 request, niddy has confirmed UE as the PT's were not part of that application.

Have previously sent them missing PT's on 12th October which ive not had a reply to.

Should i wait and see what happens next, or send them a reminder regarding the missing PT's letter?

I would send them a reminder regarding the missing PT's letter if it were me.

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

another update.

Link re Barclaycard have sent a full set of statements for the account.

their cover letter says to contact them to discuss payment.

This completes their secton 78 request, niddy has confirmed UE as the PT's were not part of that application.

Have previously sent them missing PT's on 12th October which ive not had a reply to.

Should i wait and see what happens next, or send them a reminder regarding the missing PT's letter?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

The only 4 corners reference i know of is

Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated
“In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement.

However, i think im right in saying you cant take it litterally.


EDIT: Think ive gotten somewhere with this, but Niddy has got Paul on the case to clarify.

I personally think DLC have gotten confused with what applies to an agreement pre April 2007, and what applies after.

The section of the 1974 Act giving the court no power to consider enforceability was amended by the 2006 Act with effect from 6 April.
Since 6 April, an agreement omitting the prescribed terms would not automatically be unenforceable.

So from what i can tell, DLC seem to have gotten it the wrong way round.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

You probably mean within the 4 corners, as has been mentioned in the past??

I think that this is a figurative reference rather than literal,and refers to the four corners of the agreement document, a document can consist of several pages and applies equally to all types of loans

I don't really know what they are on about in the letter to be honest, I am sure it is nothing to worry about, an interesting subject though

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

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 ?

You probably mean within the 4 corners, as has been mentioned in the past??

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

The only difference that i can see between a fixed sum loan and a credit card as far as the prescribed terms is concerned is that the interest is not required on a fixed sum loan before May 2005.
I wondered if this is what they were getting at.

I thought perhaps they were mistakenly thinking you loan was one of these