Hi D

Happy new year. Great to see you're still pressing on. Let's know if there's anything you need from us, including spreading the word far and wide to move things forward.

Best

Btm

There you go Dizzie

As per gh2008's comments, it's not necessarily all doom and gloom. Focus on all your key points and any underhand behaviour by the claimant and their solicitors. Highlight your on going servicing of the account. As to why the judge was changed, you may also want to challenge this and request that the original DJ that you found to be quite favourable be re-assigned...just to make your own point. Even if the request is denied for whatever reason.

Even though allocation to FT could work in your favour, if you're still not comfortable with it and don't understand why it was done, make sure you bring this objection to the attention of the Court.

Happy New Year Btw

ps - where's Andyorch?

#272 - Brilliant Post PT. Well done and Happy New Year in advance....

Thanks Miki123

Vey helpful and I really hopes it helps anyone else who visits.

Thanks Miki123

This adds to the sort of material I needed to be able to use. It seems to me that the whole CCTV procedure is an unlawful one and people should not accept it readily.

Do you mind re-reading your post #108 please and either editing one or two key typos or just cutting and pasting a new post without the typos please? I only ask this because the typos appear in key places which affect the meaning of what you're saying.

Thanks a lot in advance!!!8-)

Just goes to show. If we're going to get any real justice, we'll have to do it ourselves! It's not up to 'the Government' - it's what we put up with from the Government

There is so much negativity in your post Basa.... I have had similar documents sent to me over the years and all have been challenged. None have gone to court and neither have any belonging to those I've assisted on these forums. CCA law is quite clear on what is enforceable and what is not, as said earlier.

 

I do see where you're coming from but it's fear talking. Your cup truly is half empty Basa.... and that's a shame

We can, and should all learn from each others experiences - this should go without saying. We also certainly need to be aware of the games and tricks the creditors get up to as we may find ourselves needing to counter them at some point.

However, as the old saying goes that "attack is the best form of defence", so also consumers must know that it is the law that is on their side and not rely on the weakness or perverseness of judges. For me, P1 speaks very soundly on this matter.

I also think people need to be very wary of becoming 'experts' in the tactics of the other side to the detriment of being polished in their own very strong arguments. That will always be your best defence and if used correctly, will usually keep you out of court all together.

Hi Dizzie

Hope you're well. I've not been on much since my last post here.

I think you've done well under the circumstances with what you know and your own comfort zone. We all have unique circumstances which influence our approach to these matters.

The TO is not such a bad option but I think you need to be aware of what the implications are for further down the road. If you're satisfied you will always be able to service the arrangement under it then it's a better outcome than the CCJ or Charging Order.

passports and driver licenses HAVE SIGNATURES...be on your guard!!!!

m2ae

Hoist them with their own petard and send them a very dodgy illegible photocopy. Sauce for the goose is sauce for gander...

...and just how much time and effort will it take angel_1 to 'fabricate' that? We LIPs don't have docufab factories like some peeps we know!

A somewhat wise fellow I used to work with liked to say "people never seem to do what you expect them to do, but they almost always do what they know you will inspect them on." I have found this to be often true in many applications.

Caro, wasn't being cynical in my earlier comment, am always willing to give folk a try (at least I like to think so). I just wanted to caution folk into getting too excited about the many empty but moving promises doled out by many in positions of influence. If we hold ourselves and our leaders to account, and actually inspect and appraise their performances from time to time, we're more likely to get better 'service'.

But we all know that TALK is cheap!

Too right. As always, with all these matters that prove very popular with the masses but potentially painful and embarrassing for the elite, it's never the rhetoric but the actions that matter.

There is a desperate need for the masses to learn to focus on what these bodies actually DO vs what they say they will do.

A correctly drafted TO would never include that consent, one that was drafted from a reputable Solicitor/s, but then again no reputable practice would ever suggest a VC for their client, end of.

 

Thats why they instigate litigation to convert it to a secured debt you dont defend they get a CCJ forthwith and then swiftly apply for the Interim and then the final,thats why a defence must always be submitted even if you lose

Correct Dotty

So in essence, if a successful TO can be agreed between parties, then this is a far better option over a CCJ. No costs and no credit register.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Well said Andy.

To be clear, if one can successfully defend against anything that allows the OC to enforce, that puts the defendant in a stronger position. If you feel unable or unwilling to fight at that level, then it's a sliding scale of compromises that involves admission of the debt or portions of it and then agreeing a settlement of some kind with the OC/DCA.

Yes. Section 127(3) of the CCA 1974 was specifically repealed in the 2006 update to the CCA (CCA 2006).

This update came into effect on the 6th of April 2007. Fortunately, it only applied to agreements made on or after that date, not to those previously executed i.e. anything on or before 5th April 2007.

Pre April 07? Well then, the protections of s61 and s127(3) of the CCA may well be yours then, not only the Defective DN & TN defence! What was it, a loan?

Gosh DD...you were a brainbox back in school days weren't you? Come on, admit it...we don't mind!

Well the loan was to consolidate the other four into one managable payment

Can you evidence this somehow? Consolidation loans are usually agreed as such. There's usually a document somewhere showing how the consolidation will benefit you i.e. a before and after snapshot of your total indebtedness and monthly payment changes following the consolidation.

but only three got paid off by HSBC

Any documentation to support this?

leaving money in the account unbeknown to us.

Probably easy to show money left but not easy to show you were unaware but you can try

Now I feel that the HSBC has failed in its duties?

You have to be able to point out that they had that duty in the first place

If you can show the above, you certainly have a case imo.

Hsbcf

I think we all know how this feels at times, when you feel badly let down by someone else. However, if you're considering taking some sort of action, whether via FOS or legal action, it's the facts that will matter. It comes down to what you can prove was agreed (or perhaps intended) and what was executed.

Try and focus on that, what can you evidence, in the balance of probabilities? If there's enough there and you highlight this to HSBC in the first instance, they may do something to restitute you thereby avoiding further action.

ltc607

Until the precedent that was set in the Woodchester case is overturned, the defective DN/Termination defence remains valid. I would however seek additional factors to add to my defence and not base it exclusively on the defective DN though.

Having said that, you may want to put Wescot through the full line of queries to see how they respond (SARN, s78, charges etc) before hitting them with your main defence which is the Defective DN (am I right?). Btw, when was the credit item taken out?

Well done Basa48, for taking the time to lay this out.

We all know why they don't have the originals anymore - because they actually represent real money and have probably already been sold for cash! These devious scoundrels are being paid more than twice!!!

Could the bank be held responsible for failure in obligation of its duties and or breach of contract?

Don't mean to sound trite hsbcf but it really depends what your contract with them specified as to who was/is responsible for what actions. I know there'll be some coverage by CCA for the actual loan(s) but as to the payment arrangements for the 'sub loans'/'sub accounts', that is a contractual issue as far as I am aware.

One way to challenge this is to insist on confirmation of the source of every so called photocopy or print out .i.e. Insist that any copies provided are

1) copied both sides of every page of the original that you executed

2) copies of the original that you allegedly signed and that was executed

3) Signed by a competent person, as to being such copies of that original that you signed (if at all). This requires an audit trail from the party producing the documents. It requires an audit trail linking

a) a person(s) with actual knowledge of the execution of the original at the time it was done and

b) a person(s) with actual knowledge of the production of the copy being brought as evidence.

And it's not enough that the affirming person(s) only satisfy either criteria a) or b). Ideally they should satisfy both conditions for the audit trail to be solid and free from doubt.

Basically, if there are no wet-ink signatures, it's anyone's guess whether the 'copy of the signed original' that has been presented to you is in fact what you signed.

I know it can seem a somewhat tedious point, but it is not to be taken lightly as a defence tool. Here in the UK, judges will take a view based on the balance of probabilities whether to accept a photocopy or not, but in law, fundamentally, one can always stand their ground and put the claimant to strict proof where there are no originals.

This is a fundamental human and legal right that sits outside of CCA and imo should be used alongside it.

This is exactly the clarity that folk need to get stuck into when dealing with aggressive creditors: the difference in law between compliance with s77-79 vs non-compliance with s61 and thereby applying s127(3) for pre-April 07 agreements.

but if they get a charging order then they CANNOT then issue a statutory demand.............so a charging order can be quite useful protection on occassion

A Tomlin Order is better though...

Some key ideas?

1) A recon is not admissible as proof of execution unless you agree

2) A non-compliant agreement is not enforceable - it must be properly executed

3) A WS is subject to verification and your cross-examining the witness from the claimant

4) A photocopy, even if stated as a copy of the original must be verified as a true copy of that original by someone with standing to do so. You must agree that the photocopy is what you signed and not something else.

5) Was a valid default notice served?

6) How have they responded to S78, SARN and CPR requests to date?

7) Are there any clear contradictions, important errors, omissions or even outright lies from any correspondence that you can highlight? If you can discredit their 'testimony' on one point, it affects everything else.

8) Is the balance claimed disputed for any number of reasons? Have any costs and charges been explained and do you consent?