Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet

by sam66 Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:34 pm

I recently received a DCA repsonse to Letter 1. They included a fact sheet about original credit agreement requests. Note, I did not send a CCA request, nor is this request included in Letter 1, it was just attached to their template response no 1.

My question is around their claim that they can supply a reconstitued copy - does this apply to pre 2007 agreements?

Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet Goodf-10

Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet Goodf-10

by 1saberwow Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:00 pm

Hi sam66. You say that your CC is before 2007 that the dca must send a true copy and not a reconstructed one. Others should be along to give you their advice about the attachment and how to respond. If this dca calls you that you do not mention your name and tell them that they best write to this person they are wanting and hang up. The longer you remain talking that they may be recording and you do not have to identify yourself to them.

by **daveiron** Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:15 am

Read that letter again,

What it says is 'We may not have the Original Agreement' Well why not ,where is it now,who does have it or does it no longer exist ?
That one piece of paper (Original Agreement) is the one and only document that proves anything. Why would they not have it ? .Because they have sold it.

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t1131-new-3-letters-for-debt-purchasers

by petesomething Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:11 pm

Hi sam66

when was the date of the default notice or last payment , they just brought your data, would you buy a car without the paper work, (NO) , You want to see if they own the alleged debt or they just brought data for pennies in the pound.
send the new 3 letters.

by sam66 Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:58 pm

petesomething wrote:Hi sam66

when was the date of the default notice or last payment , they just brought your data, would you buy a car without the paper work, (NO) , You want to see if they own the alleged debt or they just brought data for pennies in the pound.
send the new 3 letters.

Their correspondence states they have purchsed the account. This was part of their response to Letter 1. I shall fire off L2.

My question related to reconsituted agreements for pre 2007 agreements as I thought reconstituted was only permitted post 2007 and was seeking clarifictaion.

by Tiggy Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:29 pm

sam66 wrote:
petesomething wrote:Hi sam66

when was the date of the default notice or last payment , they just brought your data, would you buy a car without the paper work, (NO) , You want to see if they own the alleged debt or they just brought data for pennies in the pound.
send the new 3 letters.
Their correspondence states they have purchsed the account. This was part of their response to Letter 1. I shall fire off L2.

My question related to reconsituted agreements for pre 2007 agreements as I thought reconstituted was only permitted post 2007 and was seeking clarifictaion.

In answer, yes they can reconstitute a pre 2007 agreement.

by sam66 Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:26 am

So what is the difference between pre & post April 2007 agreements

by Tiggy Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:54 pm

sam66 wrote:So what is the difference between pre & post April 2007 agreements

Nothing, the difference is in the changes they implemented to the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (enacted in April 2007), they removed Section 127.3.

You need to refer to the case law that applies here, which is Carey vs HSBC which states:

Then, sl27(3) provides, in relation to agreements made before 6 April 2007, as follows:

"The Court shall not make an enforcement order under s 65(1) if section 61(1) (a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under s60(l)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor ..(whether or not in the prescribed manner)."

Accordingly, non-compliance with the relevant regulations is capable of being cured upon application by the court unless the document signed by the debtor did not contain the Prescribed Terms. In such a case the non-compliance cannot be cured and, in the words of Lord Hoffman in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384 at p397F, the agreement is "irredeemably unenforceable".

So it's neither section 61 or 65, it's whether under S127(3) ( which was removed by the 2007 amendments) the prescribed terms were included, which applies to the question of enforcement of pre or post 2007 agreement.

See below, Neither Sections 61 nor 65 were changed by the 2007 amendments, but section 127 was.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/61

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/65

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/127

by Sponsored content

Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet

Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet

Re: Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet

Re: Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet

Re: Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet

Re: Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet

Re: Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet

Re: Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet

Re: Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet

Re: Letter 1 response - CCA 1974 Fact Sheet