Jump to content

unredacted

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About unredacted

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi Caggers mbna has finally admitted they have only part of origin agreement ( front part of application form no T & Cs ) Do they need a copy of the original agreement to get a judement or can the courts make a judgement without one? and is anyone in a similar position
  2. Hi BOS has sent me half of a 1997 credit card application form (front side) no T&Cs. can someone post his or her copy of a full application agreement from around or before that time as this would be very helpfull. Thanks all
  3. Hi My monthly credit card statement tells me amount owed and interest charged but does not break down the interest, for instance, there are varying rates of interest for cash, card purchases and retail but the different rates are not itemised to show whats being applied to what. If I am not told what rate is being applied to each purchase how can anyone calculate if the bank is on the fiddle or right. Can this be challenged each month or is this a prescribed format in the cc act 1974? I'd like to challenge each statement as it comes in if nothing else but to delay payment. Thanks I
  4. Thanks citizen B I'll contact HBOS. Had no Idea this insurance was on the account untill my SAR
  5. My credit card account was bought from BOS by MBNA According to SAR from BOS/HBOS PPI was included for over a year on the account then cancelled I have no knowledge of such insurance being arranged certainly never received any related information or policy. I phoned MBNA at their request only to be told they are not legally responsible for the PPi because it was cancelled before MBNA took over the account. I have estimated paying around £1200 on PPI so it would be worth pursuing at the interest rates they charge me. this account dates from 1997. Does anyone know who is legally liable. many thanks
  6. Hi Priorityone It could be further argued that the orginal was not part of the reconstruction which is the reason for the need to reconstruct in the first place. In this case since the reconstruction did not contain part of the original agreement then the original agreement did not exist at the time because it was not considered for use as a whole at that time as the true copy or in part because it formed the agreement in question. If the original did exist at that time it can't be identified as such or it wouild have been so identified as a copy of the agreement in question without the need for construction If an agreement in existance cannot be identified as a copy of the agreement in question, then any construct would be a construct of an agreement that could not be identified as a copy of the agreement
  7. There is such flawed logic behind the contruction principle it beggars belief, evidently there could a number of agreement formats being used by The Creditor at the time of the signing of the original agreement, if the original is not to hand then a construction from a number of other agreements as to form and content should rule out the use of construction since the original document would presumably be one of those used in the construction, this being the case, the construction could not possibly be like the original since the original could only be part of the reconstruction therefore the document constructed is flawed.
  8. Hi Sunboy My guess is they will ignore your offer of F&F in the belief that you will be intimidated enough to continue paying, to bring them to the table you may well need to stop paying. Send your letter making it clear to them that they have no agreement and you are quite prepared to stop payment untill they begin talking about F&F but give them seven days to respond. If you own property this is a big step to take since at some point they will threaten to get a charging order. But remember they will have to win thier case in court which is by no means certain but a least you have put some pressure on them Good luck
  9. Hi Sunboy Mcguffick judgement states that the debtor's obligation to pay, remains, therefore you should keep paying, the creditors can ask for payment but cannot enforce payment from you. that's the law as it stands. the creditors can, under this judgement employ DCAs to harass you and Send information about you to CRAs, to trash your credit rating, but as alreasy stated they cannot enforce payment from you, only a court can do that.
  10. Dirty Harry comes to mind, I had a letter from mbna the other day quoting Mcguffick and Carey declaring my obligation to keep paying even though mbna admitted they have only one side of an application form and that they will not respond further in the matter.
  11. Basa48 is correct, reconstruction is for compliance. these constructs can be drawn from a number of sources rather than just one, and no restriction as to what these other sources might be save that the construct may or is likely to have looked like the original in a form extant at the time. Clearly this is just a device to maintain the status quo as no judgement could be made as to the liabilities of a party under any agreement that is not available.
  12. Lets hope (The Pleaders) get it right this time. there has been a concerted effort on the part of the judiciary to run a coach and horses through the 1974 CCA under the notion that it is immoral for the comsumer to wiegh their options but OK for banks and insurance companies to wriggle out of paying up whenever they can( seepast judgements handed down by these same people
  13. Look at (4) below people The following is a brief summary of the principal findings and conclusions set out above: (1) 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; (2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself; (3) The creditor need not, in complying with s78, 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; (4) If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms; (5) If a creditor is in breach of section 78 this does not of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A; (6) The Court has jurisdiction to declare whether in a particular case, there has been a breach of s78. Whether it will be appropriate to grant such a declaration depends on the circumstances of that case; (7) In assessing whether Prescribed Terms are "contained" in an executed agreement the principles set out at paragraph 173 above are relevant. On the assumed facts set out at paragraph 177 the Prescribed Terms were so contained; (8) The claims that there was an unfair relationship and an IEA in Adris should be struck out or dismissed. The claim that there was an IEA in Yunis should be struck out or dismissed. The absence of any positive pleaded case or evidence as to the circumstances of the making of the agreement by the debtor concerned was fatal to the IEA claims. The absence of any positive plea or evidence as to particular facts relied upon in support of the unfair relationship claim other than failure to provide a s78 copy, was fatal to that claim. Following the handing down of this judgment, I will hear Counsel on the form of the various orders that will need to be made, any further directions in relation to the cases with which I have dealt and all ts of confusion here people I have pasted the the judges sumation
  14. I agree with AC The clearly biased judements favour the banks, but as he says only a court can enforce, I beleive that the judiciary have gone as far as they dare without being overtly biased in favour of the banks, apparently it's immoral for consumers to avoid debt but ok for banks or insurance companies to peruse thier options
×
×
  • Create New...