Hi ray

Actually no...

Even in court, the way the court is percieving the intention of CCA74 is... if the creditor, as the defendant, produces a reconstitued agreement and states this is what it would have looked like, this is being taken by the courts (given recent cases) as good enough.

The creditor then produces statements to show the money was indeed borrowed and spent, which proves the debtor acknowledged the account.

Not what most want to here and there is a valid arguement for saying "the judges are discounting the point of law". But most debtors that have come across this are claimants and not argueing points of law, they argue 'prove it' and 'no agreement = no enforceability'.

Hi ray

Actually no...

Even in court, the way the court is percieving the intention of CCA74 is... if the creditor, as the defendant, produces a reconstitued agreement and states this is what it would have looked like, this is being taken by the courts (given recent cases) as good enough.

The creditor then produces statements to show the money was indeed borrowed and spent, which proves the debtor acknowledged the account.

 

Not what most want to here and there is a valid arguement for saying "the judges are discounting the point of law". But most debtors that have come across this are claimants and not argueing points of law, they argue 'prove it' and 'no agreement = no enforceability'.

Are you saying that its different if the creditor is the claimant? Do they have to provide the original in those cases?

BF

Surely to enforce an agreement, the banks or CC's have to provide a true copy to enforce. MBNA increased my rates to nearly 35% which was the start of my financial hardship. I know I didnt sign a credit agreement (application only) nor would I sign anything whereby they can charge unlimited rates of interest.

Also, if no signed agreement required, why have Explerto given up and been passed it to IND

Click on to" ims21" link it covers all the questions regarding agreements.

In court proof you used the money and made payments and a recon agreement, seems to be sufficient proof for most judges,whether you consider this is a true interpretation of the law,does not seem to matter.

FS

Are you saying that its different if the creditor is the claimant? Do they have to provide the original in those cases?

 

BF

Well it would depend on the case facts. But as the defendant you can put the claimant to 'strict proof' on there statements. It just creates a further avenue to go down.

The problem still remains the recon agreement is accepted by the courts, it will need to be tested in a case where the debtor is the defendant and they put the creditor (the claimant) to strict proof they signed such agreement.

Someone may be able to state if this has already been done??

But moving forward the courts (as CAG does) takes a dim view of avoidance and protects people who either can not pay or did not enter into an agreement.

Currently I have not seen much about creditors being the claimant winning with a reconstituted agreement. I have seen alot about debtors being the claimant relying on 'prove it' or 'no agreement so its unenforceable' losing their case.

Click on to" ims21" link it covers all the questions regarding agreements.

 

In court proof you used the money and made payments and a recon agreement, seems to be sufficient proof for most judges,whether you consider this is a true interpretation of the law,does not seem to matter.

 

FS

I agree.

It is becoming clear it is better to have an agreement that can be proved not to meet the requirements of the law than to have a recon agreement that is presumed to meet the requirement of the law.

I think things will be interersting moving forward as we see if this stance by the courts is supported as appeals move up the justice system and the higher courts consider the interpretation of the law.

Just received the very same letter myself.

I've also recently received a "last letter before legal proceedings" from IND. Have to say I ignored it as the usual Varde/Experto type rubbish only to receive a Northampton Claim Form in the post.

Same story as above - invalid default notice, sold before remedy period. The Civil Procedure Rules seem to suggest that there should be a 14 day response period after a letter before claim is received. Mine was dated 6 July with a latest payment date of 20 July. The claim was issued on 21/07 so they wasted no time! Will need to see if these timescales are compliant with CPR although it may be a grey area.

The solicitors dealing with it are Hegarty of Peterborough. Shame they have got mixed up with this - their website presents them as being a pleasant provincial firm.

This is well and truely Stat Barred.

No communication by myself for more than 7 years and the only correspondence I have received was 3 years ago from the PRA stating that they had been assigned the account from Aktiv.

Out of the blue, I today receive a letter from MBNA confirming debt sold years ago but when they issued a Notice Sum of Arrears (NOSIA) in 2009 it was incorrect, so to put things right they wish to refund any interest or default sums that were added to the account between 2009 and now.

They have also included an Arrears Information sheet.

They have totalled up the figures (which are several hundreds of pounds) for the default fees and interest charged but unfortunately have credited the amount to the PRA Group Account.

Anyone else had any experience of this.

Certainly appears strange so just wondering if its a fishing exercise

yes its std practice across many banking orgs now since some rules were tightened of recent.

it doesnt reset anything and you cant reset SB once its passed.

as the charges were notional anyway, making up a part of the outstanding balance, just ignore it.

cheers dx100uk