Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by basa48

  1. Back to basics and trying to explore any avenues. Egg 'ended' our agreements. Only they didn't. All they really ended or wished to end was the debtors entitlement to draw down further credit. They still wished to rely on the clauses applying interest and the repayment schedule. Now the legality of continuing to charge interest when the agreement is ended is yet another area needing investigation (someone mentioned this earlier). Surely one argument will be if that is all they wanted to do they should have simply set the credit limit as the outstanding balance. They had the unalienable right to do that. Doesn't that suggest that to 'end' the agreement (rather than just restrict the credit) makes it look as if that is what was intended? In any event is 'ending' the agreement but still charging interest and demanding repayments a little unfair and contrary to both the Act and the UTCCR. Can banks be regarded as enduring institutions providing never ending credit and therefore never allowed to get out of the agreement, whereas the debtor is a mortal entity expected to someday repay the borrowed monies and end the agreement?
  2. You seem to be in a separate forum! The CCA1974 is alive and well, it is the interpretation of it that is suffering a cold. I am a consumer and I thought I had put forward the most positive arguments from Carey. IMO Carey is most helpful to the consumer. IMO it completely locks out creditors from reconstituting executed agreements. The CCA1974 is still the overriding statute in credit law. That can never be varied unless as DD says it is ruled there is no contract whatsoever and that can almost never happen. DD is as usual the level head of litigation. You can NEVER deny an attempt at agreement took place, only that it was properly concluded (executed).
  3. I investigated the s59 route last year. At the time I thought it was a valid argument, but recall rejecting it after a while. I'll see if I can find in my previous notes and emails the pros and cons. Although as a first thought, once the lender signs the application as an agreement s59 can no longer apply because at that point the agreement is executed.
  4. I never have suggested anyone deny signing an application (cos 9 times out of 10 the creditor will have a copy of the signed application). What I am suggesting is that the debtor HAS to deny signing any document containing the prescribed terms i.e. a properly executed agreement. When signing an application how many people know what constitutes an executed agreement and what the prescribed terms are? No reasonable person would even suspect they were party to an improperly executed contract. A debtor can quite legitimately argue "Yes I signed an application form, but I have never seen those T&Cs before let alone signed anything remotely like them. I didn't know I was supposed to".
  5. Except that in Carey, Waksman found for Barclay's in Yunis in part because Yunis never asserted he did not sign a form of agreement.
  6. This of course depends on the status of any docs supplied by the creditor. If there are no signed docs then why not declare you did not sign any? If there is say a signed application with no PTs then you can say you signed the application but never saw any PTs when signing.
  7. I can't stress this enough. When confronted with ANY action to enforce an agreement it is IMPERATIVE you deny, deny, and declare you NEVER saw or signed anything that was even near to any document containing PTs. !!!! As regards what constitutes enforcement I forget now whether it starts only with court action. Yes, this question of what constitutes 'enforcement' is in McGuffick where HJ Flaux determines "the bringing of proceedings is not enforcement". So basically creditors can bring proceedings and it is not enforcement!! Only if they get a result can they 'enforce' with bailiffs, charging orders etc.
  8. You say the defendant doesn't have to prove anything. I'll show you how that can be turned on its head. You ask for s78 copies. Scenario 1: The lender sends a photocopy of the original signed application form with their address and the PTs photoshopped onto on the back. Scenario 2: The lender sends a photocopy of the signed original application form and current T&Cs (incl Pts). They sue and in the PoC they include a photocopy of some T&Cs from around the time of inception. The T&Cs include the PTs. They claim the T&Cs supplied were attached to or on the reverse of the application form when you signed it. That is standard procedure. Now you tell me I don't have to prove both those 'agreements' are fake and didn't comply at inception.
  9. Like I have said - I KNOW the arguments, the statute and the CPR, but in the end a judge will make up his own mind. How many cases have we seen where the judge has totally ignored the law and bent it out of shape because the debtor was not disadvantaged by the agreement not having the heading CCA 1974 or the DN was a day short. All I am saying is be sure you have covered ALL the bases, from both sides point of view.
  10. Whoa ... I am NOT the enemy here !! All I am trying to do is remind people to occasionally take off the rose glasses and see that whilst all of your legal arguments may be sound and correct it could be a judge who you ultimately have to convince not me. I am very sure of my arguments, such that in the 18 months I have been using them I am still not being sued. Maybe because I like to investigate all the counter and negative arguments to see if they hold water. If that means bouncing them off you guys then so be it. I am not afraid of the legal argument but I do not have the luxury of professional help, so forgive me if I kick ideas around on this form. I actually thought that was what is was for - argument and advice whether positive or negative. We hear every week of another debtor losing their case. Is that because the well worn arguments don't work or is it they were poorly understood and presented. I have faced a judge 3 times with my arguments, (2 wins and one draw) and am due for a CMC later this month, so I do have a little experience. Judges are fickle - you NEVER know what they will decide.
  11. Oh how I wish that were the case, but in reality. As defendant against a large financial organisation when the judge will feel almost duty bound to find every loophole to find for the creditor, trust me you will have to put up a pretty damn convincing case of; you did not and could not have signed the application with the made up T&Cs the lender produces in front of the judge. They will say this is our standard T&Cs from 19XX, everyone signed one and honestly it was attached when Mr Debtor in the dock signed it. And the judge may well find it hard to go against that. You will have to find a way to fight every argument from the creditor with his made up agreement. Go to court thinking the creditor in on the back foot trying to prove every point according to how YOU interpret the Act and you will get a big bill with costs!
  12. Interesting thread OTR "Terms printed on the reverse of the Agreement" where pt2537 mentions 'Incorporation of terms'. It sort of reinforces my thoughts that for an application form to 'incorporate' or 'contain' the prescribed terms there must be specific reference to them and where they are to be found i.e. 'attached' or 'on the reverse'. Note also that other references may 'incorporate' the terms by reference to terms 'sent separately', but that would mean they were not 'contained' as per Waksmans ruling.
  13. It is the executed bit that IMO is paramount. We all know s61(1)(a) requires: a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner Basically you have to show that all the prescribed terms were not present when you signed an application for a credit card.
  14. How does a lender show acceptance without a signature. The Act and Regs require copies of original executed agreement as does Waksman. s61/s127 come into play for enforcement.
  15. Thanks 'oilyrag but you may have misunderstood. The 22 months / 15 DCAs refers to 3 other accounts I am not pursuing. The account I am pursuing has been dragging on in and out of court since June 09. There is no DCA involved. There is a CMC this month.
  16. Be assured I certainly will. I have been at this 22 months now with 15 different DCAs/Solicitors !!! I go to work on the bus.
  17. I am claimant in only one of 4 disputed accounts. It is a very small account and is really only a test case for me. I may not win in terms of a cash award but I can't lose the enforceability bit. Two others are typical application form scenarios (one with an invalid DN and termination) and the last an unlawful repudiation. I'd always be concerned if I were disputing agreements subject to CCA 2006. There is no real protection from a duff judge. Snowed but had to work anyways - ya boo sucks!!!!
  18. Not sure what you mean? Or the judge was a dummy! Well Waksman has made it so, so we have to live with it. Again I don't see where you are coming from. DNs and termination are a whole other field of arguments. I'm just arguing Waksman, s78/s61 and recons atm Well now this is the debtors current dilemma! If the debtor receives nothing but a recon or nothing at all how IS he to know if his REAL agreement was enforceable or not? Do you assume there is no enforceable agreement and hope a judge will agree an original is necessary or hope that the OC/DCA doesn't produce an original at disclosure and blow you out of the water. (I'm lucky I have what the OCs have said are copies of the originals – albeit not enforceable as they stand).
  19. No disrespect taken. I am actually a 'glass half full' person. But the worst mistake anyone can make is to underestimate your enemy. I look at the worst possible scenario and prepare for that. I do not want to see anyone fail because they didn't see a possible pitfall.
  20. I'm whacked too, and it is snowing here! Yea!! DN don't really figure in Waksman and as far as variations are concerned a variation in credit limit or interest rate come within s82. How many accounts have not been varied ??? As far as recons are concerned, that is what Carey is all about. If a creditor cannot produce an original agreement then he can create one 'from sources other than the original agreement'. But remember these reconstructions are only good for s78 and who uses that for unenforceability?? There can be no evidence a recon is true and accurate, that is why it is imperative a debtor insists he never saw a T&Cs with prescribed terms and definitely never signed one!! I don't follow your concerns about termination? If an agreement is terminated, end of. If it was done following a valid DN what is the problem? Or are you referring to 'termination for convenience' clauses. If the account is in default then s87 takes precedence over such clauses.
  21. I already have worked on this: Using ‘reconstituted’ agreements for s61 The claimant in his statement refers to standard procedures and expresses his belief that a copy of a further document comprising terms and conditions would have been provided to the Defendant at the time of signing and that there was a reference to the Conditions in the application so that presumably it is said that those Conditions were incorporated into the credit agreement. The claimant cites a recent ‘test case’ [Carey v HSBC: [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB)] to persuade the use of ‘reconstituted’ credit agreements as proof of validity of agreements pursuant to the Act. It will be the defendants assertion that such reliance is misplaced in that the judgment given was in respect of compliance with s78 of the Act only, to wit: ‘Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement’ and not for compliance with s61 ‘Signing of Agreements’. In the defendants opinion it is vital that this issue is not relied on in error and argues as follows: 1. HHJ Waksman in the High Court clarified the purpose of documentary evidence pursuant to s78 with reference to so called ‘reconstituted’ copies of agreements in Carey v HSBC (supra) where he said: [1]. This judgment deals with two matters concerning requests for copies of credit card agreements pursuant to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“the Act”) and the consequences of non-compliance with that provision. [2]. The purpose of this judgment is to give general guidance, in the context of the cases before me, in the hope that this will narrow or eliminate the issues arising in the hundreds of other similar claims issued in County Courts around the country, many of which have been stayed pending the outcome here. [43]. The issue here is this: (1) When providing a copy of an executed agreement in response to a request under s78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974: (a) Must a creditor (i) provide a photocopy (or other form of complete copy) of the original agreement that was signed by the debtor or at least provide a copy which is derived directly from the original agreement or complete copy thereof, or (ii) can a creditor provide a document which is a reconstitution of the original agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself? (b) Must a creditor provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made in order to comply with s78? 2. Judge Waksman then defines the different ‘purposes’ in relation to copy documents supplied under s78, that is: ‘the Current Information Purpose’ as distinct from ‘the Proof Purpose’. [44]. It is common ground that the purpose of s78 is (at least) to provide the debtor with information as to the terms of the agreement with the creditor, as well as a present statement of his account and future obligations insofar as they are known. Beyond that common ground, however, the parties have adopted very different positions. The Claimants (debtors) say that the information is both as to the present and the original position under the agreement, and the reason for having the information about the original agreement is so that the debtor may be satisfied that he did indeed enter the agreement by signing a document which was a properly executed agreement (“the Proof Purpose”). On the other hand, the Defendants (creditors) say that it is a question only of providing current information, that is, information about the current terms of the agreement along with current financial details (“the Current Information Purpose”). 3. He then confirms he considers the s78 document as “the Current Information Purpose” but not “the Proof Purpose” by saying: [53] (3) Once it is accepted that provision of a photocopy to the debtor is not required and that the signature may be omitted, it is not clear why the purpose is not simply information as to what the agreement contained as opposed to proof of its making; (8 ) Moreover, the Proof Purpose contention requires that the creditor retain not only the front of the application form – where the signature would be – but also the reverse, assuming that not all the terms were on the front and the reverse was not simply blank. It would not be enough for the creditor to produce a copy of what it said were the prevailing terms at the time for that card. Mr Uff said that this additional burden might be avoided if the front of the form had some sort of code on it, perhaps at the bottom, to indicate the precise set of terms which would apply and which could in turn be ascertained by reference to that code. But absent that both sides would be needed; (9) (narrative omitted for clarity) ….. In Light the original executed agreement had been lost. So the bank could not provide the source for the copy as the Proof Purpose required…. (narrative omitted for clarity)…..But if that were right it undermines the Proof Purpose advanced which depends on the creditor at least seeing for itself the executed agreement at the time of the request for the copy. (11). It is said that if the debtor cannot have a copy in the sense required (for the most part) by Mr Uff and Mrs Thompson then he is at a disadvantage should he wish to challenge whether he made a properly executed agreement at all. I do not agree. First, this point only has real force if the Proof Purpose underlays s78 and I do not think that it does. Second, it assumes that there is no obligation on the debtor to make out at least some sort of positive case as to improper (or non-) execution of the original agreement. If he does and for example asserts positively that although he has been using a credit card agreement for years he never actually signed an agreement, or one that complied with s61, the creditor may well have to try and find the original in order to deal with that allegation. (I deal further with the absence of such positive allegations in relation to s61 when I consider below the Applications.) But that tells one nothing about the scope of s78; (13) I have already adverted to the overarching purpose of the Act being consumer protection within the ambit of a new and consistent framework which has benefits for lenders, too. But that does not impel a conclusion that the purpose of s78 must be the Proof Purpose. (14) Mrs Thompson submitted that the approach she advocated with Mr Uff was not merely dependent on the Proof Purpose but also followed from the language of s78. But I do not accept that the language here impels that result and all the factors already mentioned point away from it. [54]. Accordingly, the copy need not be as contended for by Mr Uff and Mrs Thompson and instead, a creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself. [62]. Mr Uff in particular contended that this was not s78 compliant because the name and the address did not come from the executed agreement. He said that the copy had to be of that document which on its face tied itself to the debtor. Only in that way could the debtor be assured that agreement was indeed to be attributed to him because the name and address on it was reproduced directly on to the copy. But this argument depends on the correctness of the Proof Purpose being the driver behind s78 and the Copies Regulations, which I have rejected. On the other hand, it is not as if the provision by the creditor of the name and address from its records is not of some value to the debtor. It at least indicates that the creditor has a record of the fact of this person at an identified address making an agreement at some point in the past. [63]. The question is “Must a creditor provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made?” and the answer to be given is “No”. [105]. I see no difficulty in saying that the framers of the Act saw it as important in the interests of debtors that they should able to obtain a copy of the agreement they made for whatever purpose they want, it being assumed that they ask for a copy because they have mislaid their own, and then, if in fact the agreement has been varied, they are given the up to date terms as well. This is what Options A and B are designed to do, more or less elegantly. The fact that the purpose of s78 falls short of the supply of proof or the best evidence possible of the executed agreement does not undermine this. [199]. ………(narrative omitted for clarity)……. I have already held that the purpose of the s78 copy is not to provide proof. ……..(narrative omitted for clarity)….. 4. It is clear that Judge Waksman concluded that ‘reconstituted documents’, whilst they may be acceptable in response to s78 requests for ‘Current Information’ purposes only, they cannot be considered ‘Proof Purpose’ of an executed agreement, i.e. ‘reconstituted’ agreements are not for the purpose of providing proof of compliance with s61. 5. Judge Waksman then describes what documents he determined do constitute an executed agreement for the purposes of s61 with reference to ‘Assumed Facts’: [171]. This arises solely in connection with s61(1)(a) and the requirement thereunder that the document signed by the debtor “contains” all the Prescribed Terms. The question is as follows: “Does the document signed by the debtor contain the Prescribed Terms for the purposes of section 61 and/or section 127(3) if: (a) they are on a sheet which is referred to on the piece of paper that was signed by the debtor; or (b) where that sheet is attached to the piece of paper signed by the debtor; or © where that sheet is separate from but was supplied with the piece of paper signed by the debtor?” [173]. The parties in Carey have helpfully agreed the following principles. The fourth one was added by Mr Uff, with their agreement. No other party takes issue with them. The OFT has formulated the matter in a slightly different way but accepts these principles are close to its position. (a) It is not sufficient for the piece of paper signed by the debtor merely to cross-refer to the Prescribed Terms without a copy of those terms being supplied to the debtor at the point of signature; (b) A document need not be a single piece of paper; © Whether several pieces of paper constitute one document is a question of substance not form. In particular a physical connection between several pieces of paper is not necessary in order for them to constitute one document; (d) Additionally, a physical connection (or one or more physical connections) between several pieces of paper does not necessarily constitute them as one document; (e) Accordingly, where the debtor’s signature and the Prescribed Terms appear on separate pieces of paper, the questions of whether those pieces of paper together constitute one document is a question of substance and not form. [174]. As a matter of law, those principles appear to me to be correct, in the context of s61. Judge Waksman then identifies the documents supplied as The Assumed Facts. [177]. According to HSBC, p197 is a reconstituted application form. I referred to it above in the context of Issues 1 and 2. The assumed facts here are as follows: (1) Ms Carey signed a form which contained, among other things, the entries at p197 including the specific reference to being bound by “the terms and conditions attached”; that form did not itself have the Prescribed Terms stated on the front or the reverse; (2) The form (referred to as “a signature page” in the WS from Alan Burden dated 3 December 2009) would have been produced with Ms Carey’s details already on, for her to sign once her application, already made, had been approved; (3) At the same time as the form was produced electronically, the relevant terms and conditions (including the Prescribed Terms and information) would have been printed off and physically attached to the form by a staple; (4) Ms Carey would then have been invited to read the agreement, consisting of the signature page and attached terms and would then have signed and dated the signature page. It would then have been countersigned by the bank; (5) The relevant terms and conditions would not have been precisely in the form of pages 198-201 simply because that is a s63 copy with the different cancellation clause. But they would have been the full terms with the Prescribed Terms included either in landscape form (as shown at pp198-201) or portrait form. 6. As can be seen from the above narration, the document supplied as the reconstituted application form did not have the prescribed terms on the front or reverse. 7. A further document ‘a signature page’ forming the agreement was then produced with Ms Carey’s details already on, for her to sign and this form was in addition to an ‘application, already made’. 8. Neither of these situations is present in this case in that the application form refers to ‘general conditions’ supplied separately and no other document other than the application form was supplied to the defendant for signing. 9. Subsequently no other document was signed by the defendant nor has one been produced by the claimant as an executed agreement. 10. These observations as to ‘substance and not form’ as contended for by Judge Waksman are that the signature page and its terms and conditions do not have to take the ‘form’ of one piece of paper (the so called ‘four corners rule’), but that in ‘substance’ should be one homogenous document. I would refine that further by observing that a document that is signed as an agreement that refers to terms on the ‘reverse’ or ‘attached’ or display contiguous page numbering or in any way implying the terms were unarguably present at the point of signature would be regarded as one document containing those terms. On the other hand, a signed document that states the terms were ‘supplied separately’ or contains phrases such as ‘I have received…’ and ‘I have read …’ would suggest the terms were in another document separate from and not contained within the signed document at the time of signing. 11. Also Reg. 7 of Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 makes further provision in respect of copies where the agreement has been varied under the heading “Copies of agreements or security instruments where the agreement or security instrument has been varied”“ Where an agreement has been varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act, every copy of the executed agreement given to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act other than section 85(1) shall include either— (i). an easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation given in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act relating to each discrete term of the agreement which has been varied; or (ii). an easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act”. 12. Judge Waksman discusses this as Issue 2: [69]. “If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, is a copy of the executed agreement as varied, a sufficient copy for the purposes of section 78(1), or must the creditor provide a copy of the original agreement as well?” and after lengthy argument, he concludes: [108]. Accordingly, I conclude that Reg. 7 requires a copy of the executed agreement in its original form as well as a statement of the terms as they are at the time of the request. 13. Clearly the creditor has varied this agreement in that credit limits and interest rates have been varied and therefore a copy of the executed agreement in its original form is required to comply with the Regulation. The reconstituted documents provided are not copies of the executed agreement in their original form, and it follows the original document cannot be shown to contain the prescribed terms and to have been properly executed. 14. Whilst there would appear to be a factual issue to be determined in this case and one in which we invite the Court to believe the defendant, it is submitted, irrespective of the submissions made by the Claimant, that as a matter of objective reality the Credit Agreement failed to comply with section 61(1)(a) of the 1974 Act since it does not contain the prescribed terms. 15. It is respectfully submitted that the court should adopt the same reasoning as Judge Waksman in his High Court ruling in determining this issue, that is that documents supplied as proof of an executed agreement must be copies of the original documents in their original form as signed by the debtor, irrespective of whether or not it finds that the creditor has supplied reconstituted or copy documents it may claim were supplied at the time of signing. ........................................................................................ Comments welcome.
  22. CCA 1974 may very well have been written for the protection of debtors, but today its interpretation by the courts gives me cause to think that they may not have the same agenda.
  23. Sorry but there is nothing sinister on behalf of the creditor in all this. They have only put forward what anyone would. No real evidence or argument has been exchanged yet. My truck is with the court for allowing such a lame defence to win a set aside. But to be fair the judge did say he just wanted everyone to be heard even though he expressed surprise that the creditor thought he had a case! It was my decision to take this to court and I will win. We are at the CMC later this month. I look upon all this as good experience of court procedures.
  • Create New...