Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


51 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. Forbes Douglas are a nasty, predatory bunch of bullies, avoid them like the plague! Unfortunately, if like me, you are ready these pages then you probably have had dealings with them and been stung. We had some issues with FB, in as much as they obtained CCJ's against us before we really knew what was going on, however, we recently taken them to court and won on one count. As a result, they are now throwing their toys out of their pram and threatening us with allsorts of action. Companies like Forbes Douglas really need to be exposed to the Ministry of Justice, and I shall be doing this tomorrow, as well as preparing a defence against their latest attack. You really should defend against FB through the courts, enabling precedent database to build up, and hopefully let the courts become aware exactly how nasty this company is. One thing I have noticed is that the name Aaron Playle appears on EVERY piece of documentation, suggesting they are much smaller company than they would like you to think. I urge you all to fight Forbes Douglas all the way, and complain about them to the relevent bodies.
  2. The final update is that it has all fizzled out. The Court threw the CO issue back to the claimant, and to date we have not received the missing statement that were requested through the Court. They are still receiving their £1/mth from the DMP. On a separate legal issue, we have just won against NatWest, which is a huge relief......over £10k written off!!
  3. Thank-you for all your opinions and comments! I will probably follow the route suggested by 'X20', however, should I request this order by means of a letter to the Court (Statement of Truth) or formally by means of an 'N' Form?
  4. A little background information...... Some months ago the summons arrived and I filed my defence based upon full disclosure. As I already had a response from my third CCA request I was in possession of six years of statements & an unsigned copy of the agreement. By using a defence letter from these forums and counter claiming for charges, it prompted a case management meeting in which both parties were encouraged to work out a deal.....this did not happen. After asking me what I required, the Judge then ordered that the Claimant disclose the signed agreement. I should then be allowed a further two weeks to inspect the document, then both parties shall exchange their statements, witnesses' evidence, etc by the end of September. From the attachment posted earlier in this thread, the banks solicitors openly admit they do not have a copy of the original signed agreement, but have chosen to quote other elements of the law in which they believe covers the lack of original agreement. I need a bullet proof response which diposes their evidence outright. If necessary, I can upload a copy of the Order if it helps.
  5. So, should I write to the Court, or send in a N244/N268? My feeling is that I should initially write to the Court, stating that the the Claimant has failed to comply with the Order and ask by letter that the matter be either struck out, or as I have counter claimed for bank charges ask that the matter be stayed until the High Court issue has been settled. Any suggestions?
  6. I posted a reply earlier with the attachment, but it seems to have been removed?? I'll try again...... CCA natwest scan.PDF
  7. Thanks chaps, let me trawl through the responses in detail & i'll get back to you all.
  8. Thanks for your prompt replies! 1/ I will scan agreement and send. 2/ If writing to both Claimant and Court, compelling them for full disclosure as per the original court order, I still need to quote the full wording of the law which states that a copy of the 'signed original agreement' must be supplied on request.
  9. I am currently in the middle of a battle with NatWest, and following a hearing a few weeks ago they were ordered by the court (at my request) to provide a copy of the 'original' signed agreement. They have now replied by means of a Statement of Truth, which says the following: 1. The Claimant does not have the original Loan Agreement. 2. In accordance with Section 77 the bank is only required to provide the Defendant with a 'true copy' of the Agreement in accordance with the Regulations 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancelling Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983. 3. The 'true copy' is compliant with Section 60 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as it does contain all the prescribed items. 4. In accordance with Regulation 3 (2) (b) of the Consumer Credit (Cancelling Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983, a 'true copy' does not need to contain any signature box, signature or date of signature. 5. I therefore submit that the defendant has been provided with a 'true copy' of the Agreement in compliance with Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1983 and the Agreement is therefore enforceable. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I am 99% certain that the agreement is NOT enforceable unless the bank can provide a copy of the original signed agreement. Am I correct? If so, how do I respond to this latest action and where can I quickly find the exact wording of the law so I can throw this back at them? I have to respond to the Court by the 24th August, therefore any help would be much appreciated.
  10. CitizenB, Neither party attended! I wrote to the court and requested ALL the missing statements in order for me to ascertain whether the claim is true. I also asked the claimant (through the court) to explain why they now seek a CO. The Judge agreed and has now bounced it back to CL. Will keep you all informed in due course.
  11. Thanks Nicklea, will do! I am compiling an intitial defence at the moment which should do the trick.
  12. Apologies Rory, late night typo/mess-up! Question is answered/confirmed: they do have to provide a signed copy to enforce the agreement, however, why did the bank send out that particular wording/quote in the first place? I may be missing something here, but if I request a signed copy of the agreement, why have they sent a letter stating that they do NOT have to send a signed copy? Just need to get this bit of regulation clear in my mind!
  13. Re-reading my post, I am unsure if I got my point across. The bank has sent me a copy of the wording of the agreement, not a copy of the original signed agreement. They have quoted statute, staing they do not have to produce a signed copy. If this is so, how do I prove the agreement existed in the first place?
  14. With everything else going on, I am now embarking upon a defence against a bank. I am being taken to court by Shoosmiths, and have gone through the usual S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) procedure. However, I have always assumed that the creditor had to provide a copy of the SIGNED original agreement, but the bank in question sent the following back with the data pack: Re: Request for copy, Credit Agreement under Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I refer to your correspondence dated XXYYZZZ, regarding the above Act. Please find enclosed a "true copy" of your credit agreement as requested and a Schedule of Arrears. When responding to requests made under Section 77, the Bank may provide you with a "true copy" of your agreement in accordance with Regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (the "Regulations"). This means that under Section 77, there is no obligation for the Bank to provide you with a copy of the original agreement bearing your signature. A "true copy" does not need to contain any personal information relating to you as the debtor (including your name and address - although we often include this for convenience) nor does it need to include a include a signature box, any signature or dates of signature. I trust this explains the Bank's obligations under Section 77 and is of assistance to you. My question is: As I was relying on a signed copy of the original agreement, can the bank get away with just the wording of the agreement? I do not think they can, as there is nothing to link me with the creditor. Is this correct? If so, what are they trying to prove by the wording of this letter which was sent with the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) pack. I had compiled a rather good defence until I re-read the above letter. Surely they have to supply a copy of the original agreement? As usual, any help appreciated.
  • Create New...