rebel... that's my point in its entirety, really: Given that it is substance over form, then why are we saying, so frequently, that only the original will do?? Surely, if it is substance over form that is important then a photocopy of the original will suffice? This appears clear to me, keeping in mind the Civil Evidence Act, as quoted? Cheers UF

Hi Jason, thanks for the reply. Unfortunately that post does not answer the question, or the issue. The post to which you refer, is talking about reconstructed agreements, as per the Manchester Test Cases.... whereas I am talking about a direct copy of the agreement, such as a photocopy etc. In the instance where the original document is no longer in existence, but the claimant (OC / DCA etc) wishes to pursue through the courts are are in possession of a direct copy and can satisfy a DJ as to the authenticity of that copy, then in my view (and, it appears, in the view of the OP of the thread to which I linked) that could be ruled as admissible evidence... Cheers UF

Hi Martin, fear not - there was no help going on behind the scenes.... it was a PM regarding actually finding the thread!! Obviously not a problem that the OP is having any longer And no problem, Mr W, my pleasure.... I'm glad you found your thread and managed to navigate your way around the new look forum All the best. UF

EDIT: Sorry.... I see you're getting sorted now. All the best. UF

Hi Mr Worried... I received your private message and have tried to respond.... but unfortunately it says you have exceeded your storage quota and cannot rececive further PM's until you clear some space. Cheers. UF

Apologies that this is going over ground that was covered a couple of years ago and is the subject of a sticky - mods please feel free to move/delete if you feel appropriate but......... I've noticed that in almost every thread I read, regarding copies of agreements etc, that people continuously state that the claimant (OC / DCA etc) would HAVE to produce the ORIGINAL agreement in court if there were to obtain Judgment. I may well be missing something, but my understanding is that this is not strictly true. This topic is the subject of a sticky in this forum, but I fear that many members have not read that thread and so continue to, totally unintentionally, give somewhat misleading advice to other members. My understanding is that S8 Civil Evidence Act 1995 allows that copies of documents can be produced in proceedings and can be accepted as proof, so long as the court is satisfied as to their authenticity. This topic is dealt with in far more detail in the sticky linked to below: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?162535-Documents-in-Court-Civil-Evidence-Act-1995 Now I can understand a claim that a COPY OF THE ORIGINAL must be produced in court - simply because it makes sense to my (somewhat simplistic!) mind that unless it is a copy of the original, the claimant is unable to prove what the alleged debtor actually signed and agreed to. But the actual, physical, original agreement? I feel not. Unless I'm drastically mistaken and something has drastically changed, I feel that instead of advising people that originals are needed in court which, I feel is incorrect, we would be better placed by advising that copied may suffice and then going about devising a "plan B" in line with each individual situation, whereby the authenticity of copied could be challenged if the worst case scenario prevails and an alleged debtor ends up in court on the basis of copy documents. Any thoughts would be readily welcomed. All the best. Cheers. UF

Hi Centra, the following letter is excellent and was written for the cag by 42man - a very knowledgeable and helpful member!! I've changed a few bits about in the template to more accurately reflect your personal situation, hopefully these are ok for you, but just edit the letter below to meet your case and send it off recorded delivery but remember do NOT sign it: I dare say that the DCA concerned will either pass the account on or, more likely, chance their arm and write back trying to give you all sorts of bull that as you paid two years ago it's not statute barred - this is the most common DCA argument, but it's total bull-plop!!!! Once a debt is statute barred, it cannot become un-statute barred!! Hope this helps... keep us updated on any replies or anything that you receive. All the best. Cheers. UF ___________________________ I am a first year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. If you are in doubt, always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

This debt is for a bank account?? Not a credit card/loan etc?? If that is the case, then the part of the CCA that you're relying on in that defence does not apply and they are not barred from enforcement by a failure to compy with your request. I really think we need more information and you need some more experienced and knowledgeable caggers in this thread to try and help. Have you acknowledged the claim online? Have you sent off that defence?? Cheers UF

Jimbo: Yes. The Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations apply to commercial practices. Also, the Protection From Harassment Act can, I believe, be used in certain circumstances. Cheers UF

Hi JonCris..... how would S40 AoJ come into play for a commercial organisation such as a DCA, when S40(3A) expressly excludes them from the application of S40(1)?? I can't emphasise enough that I am learning as I go along on this one - Hefty Hippo has already taught me some new and valuable knowledge today!! But I can't see how S40 can be of use to us with DCA's anymore, given that S40(3A) is now in force? Cheers UF

"(3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done by a person to another in circumstances where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice.” Well, as Hefty pointed out, this amendment appears to effectively remove S40 AoJ from anything that we would be concerned with on this forum, in ordinary circumstances. Obviously, in that case, the main other provision for the protection of consumers (debtors as consumers?) is contained within the CPUTR's.... and so if there is any breach in there that could be punishable, then that would be the provision under which trouble could loom for commercial collections?? Obviously all just in my humble opinion.... I'll see if I can find any case law.... Cheers UF

No problem Hefty - I love law and just like to make sure all of us here at the CAG have the right stance on it!! On that note I always like to play "devils advocate" to a certain extent and if, in the process, I'm shown to be mistaken then at least my understanding has then been put right and we have, through discussion and debate, found the true status quo. Having looked at the amendment etc I have to say I agree with you - the law now appears to distinguish between people persuing debts on a personal basis, in which case S40 Administration of Justice Act applies and on a commercial basis, in which case the CPUTR apply. Cheers once again UF

Thanks Hefty, I must admit that I hadn't seen that amendment - I haven't actually looked at the Act in any detail for a long time, I just checked if it had been repealed. Thanks once again for clearing that up - my, humble pie tastes good.... but a little more knowledge gained again Cheers UF

That's ludicrous.... if that was true then nobody would EVER defend a claim... surely they would simply ignore the claim and know that they could not lose?? Ridiculous and, I dare say, another example of some jumped up muppet working at the court thinking they know what they're talking about. Judgment by default has not been scrapped, to the very best of my knowledge. We see it often enough on these very forums. Furthermore, depending on the amount being sued for, this could well be a Small Claims Track through the County Court - in which case the costs are limited. Also, how can the defendant claim costs when they have failed to take any action that could have cost them? Obviously, if I am wrong then someone will be along shortly to tell me, I am sure. Cheers UF

Ummm..... have you received court papers for this alleged debt, major debtor???? They're talking about allocation questionnaires, which are part of the civil procedure.... yet I unless I really am still half asleep and not firing on all cylinders yet, I can't see anything in this thread that says you have received court papers?? Cheers UF

That is the law, unfortunately... there's no getting round that, at least for the purposes of your request under the Consumer Credit Act. By sending current terms, they will be deemed by reg 9 as quoted above, to have fulfilled their obligations. The regs do state that the originals must be missing or unavailable owing to something outside of the control of the party making disclosure..... but personally I can't see that any judge is going to place a whole lot of weight on that.... unless someone with more knowledge on this particular area knows different. I think it would be risky to rely on that part, personally. I know this seems peculiar and hard to believe, but that is what the law says. You're in a situation quite unusual from anything else I've seen here on the CAG, insomuch as your agreement is so old. What I am not sure about, however, is what would happen if they were to take you to court. Unfortunately on that front, I simply don't have the knowledge or experience to say. I'm sure, however, that someone here does... Cheers UF

No problems, I just wanted to try and exclude all posibilities before going in too deep.... There's no mention of PPI on those documents, but do you know whether you did have any or not? As has previously been asked, are you aware of any (many) charges that have been applied to the account? If the answer to the above is no, then I would personally look at maybe sending a letter offering 5 or 10% in full and final - making clear that the offer is one-time only and that if they don't accept it, the maximum I would be able to afford would be £1 per month. Just my opinion though.... Cheers UF

OK well unfortunately that agreement does look enforceable in my opinion as it does seem to have the necessary prescribed terms Long shot, but you say that you made a payment 3 years ago.... I don't suppose there was a gap of six years before that within which you didn't make any payments? Cheers UF

Also was there any PPI sold with the agreement??

Whilst it is possible for a document to be both an application form and a credit agreement, in order for this to be the case, the "agreement" has to have all of the required prescribed terms within the document. Hence, if you scan it in and post it up, we'll be able to have a look and offer our opinions as to whether or not the document is enforceable. You say this has been ongoing for 4 years, so the "agreement" must have been entered into before 2007 and, thus, the now repealed S127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 would still apply and would bar enforcement in court, if the document is not properly executed. Cheers UF

A statutory demand is a form, downloaded off the internet, that gives you a certain amount of time to either pay a debt or have the demand set aside in court. If you fail to do either, then the party that served the demand can petition the court for your bankruptcy, in theory. How much is the alleged debt for? As bankruptcy can only be brought for an amount of at least £750. Have you ever scanned in and posted up the "agreement" that they claim is enforceable? If not, then can you scan it in and post it up (after removing all personal information) so that we can have a look and see if it is, in fact, enforceable or not? Cheers UF

I'm in the same game with Cabot on behalf of one of my family..... Edit the following to suit your circumstances, maybe putting in something about your ongoing dispute. At the end of the day, in the unlikely (VERY unlikely, I think!) event that they should turn up, just remember that they have less power than your milkman - in that at least your milkman could stop delivering milk!! They have no power. Tell them to leave your premises immediately, or you will call the police. If they fail, then call the police. Do not let them in, do not speak to them, other than to say the above. Hope this helps. Cheers UF

OK.... if you are certain that there was a gap of at least 6 years (assuming you live in England or Wales) where you did not make any payments or any written acknowledgements then this debt is STATUTE BARRED well and truly. Fire off the statute barred letter from the templates library, remember not to sign it and send it recorded delivery. Statute Barred simply means that, although the debt technically still exists, the person or company pursuing you for the debt cannot take any action through the courts in order to get judgment. The fact that you made payments does not affect the status as statute barred: With this in mind, I would not waste time with CCA Requests etc at this point. I would fire off the statute barred letter and wait for a response. Their response will, almost certainly, be that it is not statute barred because you made payments two years ago. This is a standard DCA argument. It is completely false and has no standing in law, as far as I'm aware. Hope this helps and please shout if you have trouble finding the statute barred template. All the best. Cheers UF

As has already been said.... virtually no chance whatsoever. Firstly you, personally, could not rescind the contract. A contract signed under duress is voidable; meaning that a court can strike out the contract, thus relieving each party to that contract from any burdens placed upon them by it. Secondly, a contract can only be voidable by duress if the duress under which the contract was signed was either a threat of death or serious injury (Barton v Armstrong [1976] ) or an economic duress, which must be more than merely standard commercial pressure. On these facts, as has already been said - unless there was some particularly unusual situation under which you signed a contract, there is no chance whatsoever, in my opinion, of a claim of duress being upheld. Cheers UF

Despite what some DCA's have been claiming for the last few years, S40 Administration of Justice Act is still good law and has NOT been superseded or repealed, either expressly or impliedly..... Even more worrying is that I know for a fact that at least once, Trading Standards and even the OFT have claimed that this entire Act (and specifically S40) has been repealed.... this is not true. And it really is worrying that the organisations charged with looking after the consumer in this industry are so completely unaware of what the current state of the law really is.... Cheers UF