Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

worzel

Man Created His Own Credit Card

Recommended Posts

Outstanding!

At the very least a way of 'showing up' the banks for their robo-processing of documents that, technically, should be processed properly.

Throwing back at them the argument that claiming 'we didn't read the details' is not valid, as the banks say to customers, is delicious revenge.

Alas.... I just can't see a British court taking the same sympathetic view and supporting him. Likely they would throw the 'fraud' accusation at him from the outset. The catch might be that the bank could claim that they were not notified that he had changed the terms and conditions and return the form for their approval.

IF, however, one were to do such a thing here AND include some, even brief, note stating that the T&Cs had been changed to the customers liking AND the bank still robo-signed it then I would be very interested to see what twisted logic a court would resort to so as NOT to uphold the customers' defence.

I hope someone has the cahones to try this caper here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have daydreamed of doing a similar thing. however, I would not get a credit card.

According to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the borrower and lender must both sign and date the Agreement for it to be enforceable. This implies that the lender should exercise due diligence and check the contract. Originaly, it was an offence for them to provide credit without signing and dating the contract, but that bit of the act was repealed.

If a Consumer Credit Agreement is not signed by the borrower and lender, a court must still enforce it, but take into account any other factors, mitigating matters, etc.

Statutory Instruments define very precisely how an Agreement should be signed and dated. However, what documents constitute an Agreement is a grey area and is determined on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Agreement may refer to Terms and Conditions printed on a seperate piece of paper.

A copy of the Agreement has to be providd to the borrower within 7 days. If the borrower has previously modified the contract, what the (unaware) lender will send is probably a pro forma version of the standard agreement. This would mean that the Agreement is improperly executed as it is not the Agreement that the borrower signed.

This makes things complicated, as the lender would claim that the borrower had borrowed against the improperly executed, standard agreement, and claim that they, the lender, had signed the standard agreement, returned a copy to the borrower, and that that is what the borrower was borrowing against. A Court is obliged to enforce an improperly executed agreement but take all other factors into consideration.

Lenders often do not retain the original contracts, but provide a pro forma, unsigned copy of the Agreement when requested under section 78 of the Act. This can be the most recent, updated version of the Agreement, not the original one, but a 2010 High Court ruling says that if they are different then a copy of the original Agreement should also be provided on request.

It may therefore difficult to prove what the lender signed, if anything, if they 'lose' the original document.

If, on request under section 78, the lender supplies a copy of the actual original modified Agreement, also signed and dated by them, then the borrower wins hands down as far as I can see.

If the borrower creates their own agreement or modifies an exisitng agreement, and a loan is made against it, it should be enforceable. A contract is negotiated by both parties and neither has an excuse for not reading what is signed. However, making it stand up in Court is a different matter, especially if the sneakily modified agreement contains outrageous clauses.

Note that I am referring to the 1974 Act. Credit Cards issued under the more recent Consumer Credit Act may be different. I really must swot up on later Acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

I have daydreamed of doing a similar thing. however, I would not get a credit card.

According to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the borrower and lender must both sign and date the Agreement for it to be enforceable. This implies that the lender should exercise due diligence and check the contract. Originaly, it was an offence for them to provide credit without signing and dating the contract, but that bit of the act was repealed.

If a Consumer Credit Agreement is not signed by the borrower and lender, a court must still enforce it, but take into account any other factors, mitigating matters, etc.

Statutory Instruments define very precisely how an Agreement should be signed and dated. However, what documents constitute an Agreement is a grey area and is determined on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Agreement may refer to Terms and Conditions printed on a seperate piece of paper.

A copy of the Agreement has to be providd to the borrower within 7 days. If the borrower has previously modified the contract, what the (unaware) lender will send is probably a pro forma version of the standard agreement. This would mean that the Agreement is improperly executed as it is not the Agreement that the borrower signed.

This makes things complicated, as the lender would claim that the borrower had borrowed against the improperly executed, standard agreement, and claim that they, the lender, had signed the standard agreement, returned a copy to the borrower, and that that is what the borrower was borrowing against. A Court is obliged to enforce an improperly executed agreement but take all other factors into consideration.

Lenders often do not retain the original contracts, but provide a pro forma, unsigned copy of the Agreement when requested under section 78 of the Act. This can be the most recent, updated version of the Agreement, not the original one, but a 2010 High Court ruling says that if they are different then a copy of the original Agreement should also be provided on request.

It may therefore difficult to prove what the lender signed, if anything, if they 'lose' the original document.

If, on request under section 78, the lender supplies a copy of the actual original modified Agreement, also signed and dated by them, then the borrower wins hands down as far as I can see.

If the borrower creates their own agreement or modifies an exisitng agreement, and a loan is made against it, it should be enforceable. A contract is negotiated by both parties and neither has an excuse for not reading what is signed. However, making it stand up in Court is a different matter, especially if the sneakily modified agreement contains outrageous clauses.

Note that I am referring to the 1974 Act. Credit Cards issued under the more recent Consumer Credit Act may be different. I really must swot up on later Acts.

Interesting to see where payday loans completed in short order purely over the internet fit in with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see where payday loans completed in short order purely over the internet fit in with this.

Do they not generally include a "Do you agree to the Terms and Conditions" check box? Basically saying this is the contract you will be agreeing to.

I can't really see how you would get away with this, it's basically fraud. Of course depends how he did it, but if he has scanned it in, then reprinted using the same header/footer details then that would seem to me to be an open and shut case.

I have had a number of loans/credit cards over the years, never have I received a signature of any sorts from the bank.They might have "signed" it in some way somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they not generally include a "Do you agree to the Terms and Conditions" check box? Basically saying this is the contract you will be agreeing to.

I can't really see how you would get away with this, it's basically fraud. Of course depends how he did it, but if he has scanned it in, then reprinted using the same header/footer details then that would seem to me to be an open and shut case.

I have had a number of loans/credit cards over the years, never have I received a signature of any sorts from the bank.They might have "signed" it in some way somewhere.

The lender is obliged to sign and date the Agreement. However, the lender is not obliged to provide you with a copy of the signature on a document. (so non-signing can be difficult to prove).

How, under UK law, would this man's conduct be fraud? If he signed a contract without checking it, he would still be bound by it. No reason why a bank should be exempt. from the same rule. Just because they may handle thousands of such contracts a day would be no excuse, they still have an obligation of diligence, and should ensure they have the resources to check the contracts they enter into, in their own interest too.

Of course, normally a bank exercises it's dominant position over the customer and (tries to) provide the contract on their terms - take it or leave it. But in any contract all parties have the right to negotiate and/or put forward their own terms, even if it is ultimately accepting the terms exactly as provided by the other party. Otherwise it is not a contract freely entered into, it is coercion.

The bank had a duty to check the contract. The bank should check the contract in it's own interest. No-one forced the bank to enter the contract. A contract produced by the customer is just as valid as one produced by the bank.

It amazes me how some people bend over to be shafted by meekly assuming that the bank has all the power and they are obliged to do what the bank tells them. That is why banks get away with being utter sh*ts most of the time.

Consumers need to grow a pair a lot of the time and stop being mugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they not generally include a "Do you agree to the Terms and Conditions" check box? Basically saying this is the contract you will be agreeing to.

I can't really see how you would get away with this, it's basically fraud. Of course depends how he did it, but if he has scanned it in, then reprinted using the same header/footer details then that would seem to me to be an open and shut case.

I have had a number of loans/credit cards over the years, never have I received a signature of any sorts from the bank.They might have "signed" it in some way somewhere.

Depends on the law of contract in Russia and the opinion of their Courts.

In the UK it would be pretty straightforward (I think) terms and conditions can be annotated by hand I believe signed and returned. If the other party issues the means of the contract with these annotated terms then they are bound by them.

It is not the fault of either party that the other did not read the terms before they agreed. If the boot was on the other foot you can be sure the bank would be shouting breach.

The contract would be termed binding and accepted by A the individual signing it and B the offer being made (in this case a credit card issued) the banks signature thing is just noise.

The chap did not try and conceal anything, he simply altered the terms to which he agreed to contract to something akin to his own liking. If the bank didn't like that they simply only had not to issue him a card.

If this was the UK the matter would have been quietly dealt with and would never have made the press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   209 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.