Jump to content

Josie8

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Josie8

  1. Apologies I must have misread thread. I thought here was an issue regarding a credit agreement containing prescribed terms. However I would suggest you read judgment before decrying me. The judgment states that a creditor does not have to produce a signed copy of agreement when enforcing as long as can demonstrate on balance of possibilites that a compliant agreement was entered into originally.
  2. The case Carey v Hsbc was mainly over what a creditor needs to do in order to comply with s. 78 request. They are to be allowed to reconstitute agreements. This is also in accordance with the OFT draft guidance which was introduced into evidence. They do not have to provide a photocopy of the application at all. In addition prescribed terms can be overleaf or referred to as attached for agreements pre 2005. This will be a matter of evidence individual to each case
  3. Judgment in Manchester cases formally handed down yesterday afternoon. The case To be known as Carey v Hsbc was mainly over what a creditor needs to do in order to comply with s. 78 request. They are to be allowed to reconstitute agreements. This is also in accordance with the OFT draft guidance which was introduced into evidence. They do not have to provide a photocopy of the application at all. In addition prescribed terms can be overleaf or referred to as attached for agreements pre 2005. This will be a matter of evidence individual to each case
  4. The case Carey v Hsbc was mainly over what a creditor needs to do in order to comply with s. 78 request. They are to be allowed to reconstitute agreements. This is also in accordance with the OFT draft guidance which was introduced into evidence. They do not have to provide a photocopy of the application at all. In addition prescribed terms can be overleaf or referred to as attached for agreements pre 2005. This will be a matter of evidence individual to each case I am sorry if this is not what you want to hear. I would confirm that I am not linked to any CMC company
  5. 1977 means they only have to provide the latest terms & conditions
  6. Forget the caharging order..... If it's more than £750 issue a statutory demand re windup proceedings. That would cause them mega inconvenience
  7. It doesn't mean that and the creditor may well be able to produce an enforceable agreement later - they just don't have to in order to comply with S.78 though what they need to do to comply will be decided by the manchester cases
  8. Regrettably the Banks position in the Manchester Lead Cases was that they only need to provide the up to date varied Terms & Conditions to comply with S. 78
  9. No my comment referred to the banks view before the oft barrister Steve Neville addressed the court on. They definitely weren't so happy afterwards . The banks position is that all they need to produce under s.78 is a copy of latest T's & C's
×
×
  • Create New...