They only sent one out when they put in a repo claim. We never got one during the year. Does it make a difference?

Anyone any idea how these people in Swift are fairing with all the banking crisis going on? - With all these people trying to prove their agreements unenforceable and late payments etc they must be getting a bit of a hole in their pockets as a result. How many customers have they? they are nothing like GE are they so as a smaller firm they must be suffering? Anyone know? Be nice to see them go bust Tom

Well you could put it like that although it's significance was discussed, but felt unworthy of further discussion. Claimants explanation of "This is a professional person (can't remeber the full wording) but with all the bells being a solicitor qualified at xxx? entrusted with xxx who has written under oath in his witness statement brings, couldn't possibly in all probabilities have commited fraud...yeah right...Against a LIP? balance of probability went professionals way. I was more angry at the fact my witness statement was not read and I told the judge that, that in my opinion was the injustice and then to have costs piled on me when the only reason I took them to strike out was because they hadn't answered 11 letters in 6 months and preferred to take me to court for repo. It ain't over till the ft lady sings my friends, I haven't finished with them yet.

Triton are an RBS company, it's all in-house, wont matter who you pay because Triton are listed in Companies House as a dormant company, they have no staff, no costs, no nothing and RBS pay everything for Triton - they are listed Dormant because effectively they do not 'trade' and require no accounts to be filed - crazy, but I took this up with Companies House and apparently it's kosha.

In response to their Stat Demand I wrote disputing this debt and their agreement and I've just received a letter from Capquest saying they have put my account 'on hold' while they investigate - nothing about stopping or withdrawing the SD. 18days is up 2nd Sep which is Tuesday. Any ideas if this 'on hold letter' suffices sufficiently enough to stop this? I phoned on Friday but only got the letter late p.m. and just got through to collections department in Scotland ' we are in another country' the girl told me - Scotland ?! - okay traditionalists, but come on ! even the Indians in the bank call centres try to make it sound like they are in Great Britain LOL ) - who had , would you believe, no access to the admin side where these SD eminate from in Fleet. Instinct tells me I should get set aside in asap for Tuesday, or should I phone them again to clarify on Monday? Isn't it a pity I just can't trust these people like one should be able to do? Any thoughts? Tom Just as an aside, Something tells me if capquest are using this Stat demand and sending them out like confetti, the OFT ought to be advised - whilst this is a legitimate legal tool, unless they have absolute right ( and having no agreement is not absolute) to issue these is a complete abuse of process.

"As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed. 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773. quote from Sir Francis Bennion - he drafted the Act! Wilson vs Hurstanger Ltd COA June 2007 Quote: Lord Justice Tuckey: 11.33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched. There is one which mentions the 'gift' you're right, but I can't lay my hands on it just now.

When I brought this up in court the barrister for the claimant said I was suggesting a solicitor, with all the finery that provides in honesty and respectibility, was committing a fraud - Judge immediately though I was fantasizing and didn't wish to discuss that further. - explanations as to why I didn't receive the email transpired to be and found by the barrister conveniently finding it in the half an hour he had to read my skeleton arguement before the hearing, a letter missing from my email address on that email of theirs which I hadn't noticed. He pointed this out to the judge which appeared a reasonable explanation and that was it. I explained the significance of trying to include the email as evidnece at this stage, but I was then in the realms of accusing a solicitor of fraud which didn't wash. The fact I never received it didn't rate highly enough to continue discussing in the short time available. I explained the normal format as we have discussed here but because the judge was in a hurry said i don't want to go wasting time discussing the merits of an email - move on - Argument dead in the water. It was not a good day in court either. Another story, but suffice to say as a Litigant in person and a Judge who didn't even read my Skeleton arguement as time didn't allow as he was running late and had a 'pressing appointment' ( he said so!),around lunchtime too - what chance did I have? - I even had costs awarded against me and I feel the justice system let me down badly. I felt the wrongdoer and believe me that couldn't be farther than the truth - I am no fool, knew exactly what I was doing, had sufficient evidence to win, but had the wrong judge on the day - it's not over as the case has been moved on to a circuit Judge in higher court, so the hearing was used as directions too - but I lost the strike out which I was aiming for, for all the wrong reasons with a judge who didn't understand the CCA on a cca issue. So, thanks for your help with this email part. It gave me the information to actually tell the court which is the important thing...we now move to the next stage. Cheers Tom.

Youre talking about a finance company in-house solicitors - give us a break

Thanks, I've got all the evidence I need, we'll see what the Judge has to say tomorrow in Coventry Court! Tom

Thanks Bob ( love the name! ) I received a piece of paper which alleged to be a 'copy' of an email they sent as part of their claim against me and they are taking this into court as part of their evidence. I don't believe they ever sent this because I never received it by email and it changes the dynamics of their case if it were true. I just think someone has botched up creating this (allegedly) trying to pass it off as a genuine email to cover their butts - I just needed to prove that by tapping into the wizzardry of this site and getting someone to say it's not possible to send an email from a system then print it off and send that as a paper copy without all the audit trails showing. I made a copy myself by creating one in Word just to show how easy it was to replicate it. But my question is a bit like using a parking ticket as an example - , you can't get one out of the machine without it saying the date and the time and where you purchased it. If I asked you if I could get a parking ticket out of a machine after putting my money in without it printing all that data on you lot would be scratching your heads because we all know it's barely possible short of a miracle. I want to know is that the same with emails that's all. Tom

We'll find out soon enough and I'll let you know what they say

Which would mean the email is not there anymore to be ' re printed' out ( as in ' the 'copy' they included in the witness statement?) This was allegedly sent March 08 so it is possible it might have been cleaned up and removed perhaps?

Thanks for your help PGH 7447 - a few crossed wires me thinks, but I think I have enough to go on now - my lack of IT exposure shows.. thanks anyway. Tom

Thank you.

They were given it to respond to something else so they would have had it thanks.

Thanks for this, I'm clutching at straws a bit because I know so litlle, but can you tell me or do you know whether the: From: To: c.c (only shows if you cc someone) Sent: Subject: at the top of emails when printed can be modified within a system or would be modified in systems ( think a solicitors firm here) to just produce this: To: Subject: without showing the senders email address, date or time sent? I'm looking for probability, not whether some IT engineer can do it - we all know anything is possible, but I'm looking to see in all probability in a normal working legal environment where emails are sent back and forth all the time if it's likely an email would be sent which omitted these 2 crucial stats.

my email supplier? can you do this? that would be handy. It's BT they'd have details would they?

Well it is quite crucial in that the company and solcitors (all one firm) never answered letters from us. Sounds fanciful, but it's true I have all recorded delivery receipts. Now I have applied to have their claim struck out because they failed to supply documents under CPR rules. In their witness statement they produced this alleged ' email ' I never received (I keep all official emails) stating they would not get into extended correspondence which covers their a*ses. I'm talking about 6 months worth of letters I sent, so it is quite important to show this 'might' have been a doctored document. I know it happens, seen it enough with the banks and DCA's, I'd just like some concrete proof that it couldn't possibly be a print out of a real one. Also, I believe electronic communications are deemed admissable this day and age. Tom

(You asked if it could be done the answer is yes, make your mind up to what you want) excuse me? I asked if an email- any email could be sent without an audit trail by someone. I know exactly what I am asking and it is Simple. I've received a paper document without a sent by or date on which is being used in evidence against me to make it look as though one was sent.. I created a carbon copy in Word to show the court how easy it was to falsify, what I was doing here on CAG was asking people with a knowldge of computer technology if emails in a sent box (which is where I presume a retrieved email would be kept on this solicitors PC) would always carry the audit trail rather than the basic info I posted above. I don't think that was too difficult to derive from my post.

Thanks Lula, I'll do that too.. will reveal all next week.

Can you imagine a solicitor going to that trouble when he's trying to convince a court he sent it? - I know it can be done and you can do anything, but think 'simple' - if you are between a rock and a hard place you conjour up a document to brige the gap - quickest way possible, you would/I would just print out from the records I have on the PC the actual email - this is evidence after all - he'd hardly want to hack it about - he'd want as much convincing material on there to prove his point. I think what you guys are showing is that whilst, like I have done in creating a carbon copy quite simply of what they sent in a Word document, which took me all of 5 minutes, to replicate this document they have provided the court they would have to play with a document - that didn't/wouldn't happen in reality. That's what I needed to know - thanks.

That wouldn't have happened because right up the top r/h corner is the page 1 of 1 and right at the bottom left hand corner is a date. If this was cut and pasted it would have included the audit times and dates and the from between the 'to' and 'subject ' Mine normally reads: . Page 1 of 1 Main Identity ___________________________________________ From: To: [email protected] Sent: 23 August 2008 Subject: manufactured emails Message content ihgdfhosdhlnvoiokdn#p[oSKJHJKNVHV . 23/08/08 Theirs: . Page 1 of 1 Main Identity ________________________________________________ To: [email protected] Subject: manufactured emails Contents ;iuashnLSKHVIUDHL M 23/08/2008 MY TOP EXAMPLE WITH THE DOT BEFORE THE DATE SHOULD SHOW THE DATE TO THE RIGHT, BUT THIS POSTING ON FORUM DOESN'T ALLOW IT TO SHOW THE SPACE BETWEEN THE DOT AND THE R/H SIDE. The bottom one ' Theirs' the Page 1 0f 1 is on the right, but the date at the bottom is on the left as shown.

I can tell you my Outlook express is similar to theirs and I'd hazzard a guess and say it was the same. What I have is a document (paper one) which they have included in their legal documents for court stating that this is an email we sent the defendant(me). I'm saying it is manufactured because it doesn't a) I never received it and b) it doesn't carry any audit trails on it 'from or date & time' I can't print out any copy of any email I sent to anyone without all that coming up on the sheet. I just wanted to know if ALL emails carry these trails from whatever software people use, because if they do then this is definatley false evidence. I don't want to alert them by asking them, that would be crazy, I just needed someone to say it's normal for this to be included on an email print out. I just don't have enough computer knowledge to know.

bump

I have been presented with a Witness Statement from a solicitor which includes an 'alleged' email they sent me. This e mail I never received and as I'm complaining they hadn't contacted me for x months this is a 'convenient' addition to present to a court. There are audit trails missing like senders email address, date and time which strikes me odd for a solicitor so, using Word I replicated exactly what has been put into the Witness Statement email like a carbon copy showing it is possible to manufacture this. Is there anyone on who knows enough about email construction who can tell me if, when printing from a 'sent items' list of documents an email - all or any emails come to that, from whatever system would carry the audit trail ? all this email has is: NAME OF PERSON (in caps) ------------------------------------- solid (looks typed) line To: xxx@ subject: xxx then the typed messege Top r/h corner says Page 1 of 1 Bottom LEFT/H corner says a date xx/xx/2008 All my emails print this on the bottom Right and I use Outlook Express It's a clever and convenient construction if it is, but not clever enough for me - a lot rides on this. Thanks Tom