Having read this forum and had a pretty good solicitor in a recent case, I have cobbled together what I perceive quite a nice defence, if anyone is interested. Obviously people would need to tailor to their own needs. Just really mentioning this to give something back to an excelllent forum and Dx100 help. shall I post it up? It does not include which I have read here recently.: 1) Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009) 2) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. The only issue I have is that I have used a few times and I dont want a judge to think I just copied a template off the internet. I would be happier to give it to MODS for them to give it to trusted / known posters? Am happy to PM someone if they wanted to "disguise" it.

Hello, Can property owners create a tenancy agreement themselves, without any qualifications, experience or license or registration to any bodies?

NRAM (Northern Rock), dodgy documents and agreements. Hi and thanks to all who contribute to this site. Flushed with success at my PPI refund with another Ex creditor I thought I'd start on my NR mortgage. In 2006 I re-mortgaged my house with NR to pay off a previous mortgage and some loans (taken out with NR). The present account is not the 16 digit account that I read about though I can only find the mortgage offer and not the agreement. Also I believe that there is PPI on some of the other loans I had with them in the past (and perhaps the current one). My thrust of action is threefold. Does the dodgy documentation apply to me since the ? Have I been miss-sold the mortgage because it was for 30 years and I'm in my early 60s now and no proper suitability check where carried out by NR. Finally I will be tackling the PPI as normal. I suppose the first thing to do is get my paperwork from them so in light of my three pronged action would I be advised to get a full SAR and CCA request in the first instance? I look forward to your comments as usual. Kind regards

The Barclays account in particular is dated 2000 . I have read that many of the agreements dated as far back as then do not have enough terms and conditions on the credit agreement and it is by a long way the most uncomprehensive agreement i have seen . Outside of that clutching at straws to be honest , like i said i would have settled them for her had they been able to meet me at a slightly lower per centage but my understanding is link are less likely to negotiate downwards than others.

Hi, I am currently representing my daughter on the McKenzie friend basis in her claim for unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination ( pregancy ) We have followed all the procedures through ACAS and we are currently taking her employer through the Employment Tribunal, which has taking about seven months to get to a Trial which has been listed for next week 4/5th February 2016, this was after a previous hearing. Today i receive a letter from the Tribunal stating that the trial might be postponed on the grounds that despite knowing for a number of months that in any event, the trial would be considered by a panel rather than a single judge because it is a discrimination case, to use this as a reason, and so late in the day does not add up, they would have known months in advance that a panel would need to be assigned, so in using this has delayed even further. The Tribunal are also aware that the Respondents are in abuse of process as they have failed to abide the previous order for them to provide a trial bundle, witness statements and further and better particulars in readiness for the trial next week? Because of this we made an application for the Tribunal to make an unless order for this evidence to be giving as all of it is central to the claim and it had been previously ordered. We have also written to the other side and in anticipating the Tribunal not making the unless order, which seems very reasonable, by stating that we would provide our own trial bundle and giving them seven days to object. Since all of this has happened in the last couple of days, the Tribunal as it would appear are bending over backwards in allowing the previous orders be breached and ignored and they have also giving the Respondents more time to defend a claim that evidently cannot be defended because of the circumstances which led to my daughter being dismissed. Whilst i am not legally qualified as to adjudge it would a appear that (a) she has been denied the right to a fair hearing because her opponents have abused orders which if followed would have allowed the trial to proceed and ( b) the Tribunal could have not only made the request for that evidence to be disclosed, in postponing the trial next week, giving those facts and the excuse of needing a panel, which would have been knowledge as soon as pleadings were made, i feel this is unequal and unfair as the Tribunal are not only allowing orders to be breached, they are also giving the Respondents more time to further breach the orders. My daughter i feel has a very strong case and my theory is that because of the strength of her case, the opponents and the tribunal are doing everything in their power to keep this matter out of court. It is hard enough and most times financially impossible for pregnant woman to establish unfair dismissal claims because they are pregnant, the Tribunal who should protect, if my experiences are anything to go on make it even more difficult by allowing employers the right to ignore orders and as in this case give further encouragement for this to happen again by postponing without reason or justification. Any help would be greatly appreciated by this angry dad:mad2:

Am I correct that the prescribed terms for a fixed sum variable rate consumer credit act agreement is: a amount of credit b interest rate c amount of payment Credit £25,000 Interest £9.319,57 applied at 4.5% above banks base rate 5% payments £408.68 x 84 Theres no total amount payable as this could alter due to an interest change throughout the time of the agreement. However, the amount of credit plus the interest applied to the credit do NOT equal the initial monthly payment? £25,000 plus £9.319.57 = £34,319.57 divide by 84 payments = £408.56 This payment appears to be 12 pence less than the payment stated on the agreement. Anyone clued up on this? Paul

I took out a Unsecured Personal Loan with Halifax online in December 2011. I was NEVER asked questions like, can you afford the payments, are you employed/unemployed, and I certainly was not asked about my income. This have got so bad I am currently on an IVA - Halifax increased the IVA from 5 years to 6 years forcing me to pay for longer. I am now wondering if bankruptcy is the best option. Do I have a claim that Halifax lent to me irresponsibly without going through my finances first?

I recently applied for credit with a loan provider. I was accepted for the requested amount and was provided a loan agreement to electronically sign, complete with terms and all the necessary information. I signed it and it was signed on behalf of the provider, which was emailed to me as a PDF. Now, the provider is requesting bank statements and ID verification, and have cancelled the original loan from my account. Is the loan provider legally obliged to continue with the agreement they originally signed or are they even capable of backing out? Thanks in advance, Michael.

I have started having a sort through old paperwork from the last 20 years, imagine my surprise about the gems one finds. My first loan was with Barclays in 1996 for £1795.44 and PPI was added, I was self employed at the time. The next loan was with Barclays in 1997 for £7273.40 and used to pay the previous balance off.... PPI added....I was still self employed Then had an egg loan in 2000 for £5831 which was used to pay off the previous balance( PPI added). The next egg loan was in 2002 for £15241.66 which was used to pay off the previous balance( PPI added). PPI settlement from egg on this back in 2012 for 6.5k. The next loan was a Barclay loan in 2005 for £23331.36 and paid previous balance off and trip to AUS. no PPI on this one. Renewed Mortgage and paid of previous Loan 2006 Chelt & G. So at this moment is it worth firing off a claim for the first 2 Barclays loans ? Egg is obviously done and dusted in settlement. The next area that I have now noticed on the 23k Barclays loan, Is that the bank copy and my copy of agreements are different. Also on both, Apr is shown as 7.9% that doesn't add up right to the payments 48 x £486.07= 7.767 % not 7.9 or am I looking at this wrong? If the document has the wrong calculations what options are there ? Tigs

I'm about to submit FOS questionnaires pertaining to a couple very old credit card accounts. I believe the PPI associated with each of these cards was mis-sold for a number of reasons. At the same time, I signed up for both these cards 20-odd years ago and, that being the case, my recollection of exactly what happened is a little bit hazy. With that in mind, I have sent off Subject Access Requests in the hope that it might shed a little more light on proceedings before I complete the questionnaires. I appreciate these are unlikely to yield a copies, even reconstituted ones, of my original credit agreements. However, I understand that under sections 77, 78 & 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 a borrower can demand a copy of their credit agreement. What I am unable to ascertain – and would, therefore, appreciate some clarity on – is whether this applies when the agreement has been paid off some considerable time ago, ie more than six years. Moreover, if the aforementioned legislation doesn't entitle me to obtain a copy of such credit agreements, can anyone suggest an alternative mechanism via which I may be able to obtain copies of them? Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk

Well now you know why your Local Library or Swimming pool is closing down ! No money for social care - because staff are being paid to prevent whistleblowing or criticism of bosses. Local Authorities are apparently requiring staff who are taking early retirement/redundancy or leaving after a dispute, to sign a gagging order (compromise agreement). It would appear that the person leaving receives more money if they do this.

Multiple agreements within section 18 consumer credit Act 1974 This is just a view and interpretation of s18 CCA and therefore we would advise anyone reading this bear that in mind Section 18 can be very useful concerning agreements where there is a main loan and payment protection insurance. Firstly lets look at what section 18 says 18.Multiple agreements. —(1) This section applies to an agreement (a “multiple agreement ”) if its terms are such as— (a)To place a part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned, or (b)To place it, or a part of it, within two or more categories of agreement so mentioned. (2) Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a separate agreement. Ok so what does this mean, well, lets say you borrow £6000 from Nasty Banking Corp, the loan is for you to use as you like and therefore you would have fixed sum credit See s10 (1)(B) CCA, unrestricted use credit See s11 (2) CCA and finally it would be a debtor-creditor agreement as defined within s13 CCA Now if you add PPI to the loan, this changes things slightly, why? If you borrow £6000 from Nasty Banking Corp and then you add a PPI policy for example adding another £1500 of credit you are turning it into a multiple agreement The PPI is fixed sum credit as set out in section 10 CCA but it is not unrestricted use, instead its restricted use credit ( See s11 CCA) as you do not have any say over its use, it is in effect only credit for the purchase of the PPI policy and additionally it is a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement as it would be undoubtedly underwritten by another specialist insurer and not the creditor and therefore it falls within the definition given in section 12 CCA So in effect what we have with the £6000 loan and the £1500 PPI is a multiple agreement with “part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned” This is because the £6000 is fixed sum, unrestricted use debtor creditor and the £1500 is fixed sum, restricted use Debtor-creditor-supplier Therefore since this type of agreement falls within s18, it means that as defined in s18 (2) CCA that the document is to be treated as 2 separate agreements and each agreement must have its own prescribed terms for each part Therefore each piece of credit must have its own term stating the amount of credit, repayments and all other statutory info, in addition the PPI policy would need to have a term stating the Cash Price of the policy, due to it being a restricted use debtor creditor supplier agreement. In essence there should be the following Loan Amount of Credit £6000 Repayments 60 payments of £XXXXXX Total amount payable £XXXXXXXX APR 16.9% PPI Amount of credit £1500 Repayments 60 payments of £XXXXXXX Total amount payable £ XXXXXXXXX Apr 16.9% Cash price of policy £1500 the agreement may not be set out exactly as above but that is to give you an idea of what it must contain If the agreement fails to correctly set matters out in accordance with s18 then the lender risks falling foul of the form and content requirements of section 60 CCA and could be improperly executed as set out within section 61(1) (a) CCA 1974 thus becoming unenforceable the main thing to remember is that you have two agreement within one document, so there must be a set of prescribed terms for each piece of credit, it is permissible to add the prescribed terms together and then state them as total amounts BUT they must be also stated in their separate parts. Multiple agreements falling within section 18 CCA 1974.pdf Before Printing the PDF TIP If you DO NOT wish to print Page 1 (Cover Page) of the PDF, please ensure to do the following: Ensure you go to your Printer Settings and set it to 'Print from Page 2' (this way Page 1 (Cover Page) should not print out). Note: This will save you Ink & Paper

Hi, I had an Egg loan way back in 2004 for £10k. Egg added £1,750 to the loan for PPI making the total I signed for £11,750. Cutting a long story short I ran into financuial trouble in 2008 but made an arrangement to pay reduced amounts (actually ignorant of the existance of the PPI - I'd forgotten I had it - and Egg conveniently forgot to remind me.... but no matter). However, when I became aware in 2010, I started asking difficult questions eventually culminating in Direct Legal & Collections writing to say to stop paying. The total remaining debt (including the PPI premium) was then just under £1,650 (ie around £100 less than the PPI) I haven't paid anything since 2010 (at the point of writing all of this would become statute barred anyway in 53 weeks' time). I have received a letter from Arrow Global who say I owe £1,650 and they want the money, etc, etc, etc. I am pretty sure from what I read way back in 2010 that where someone like me borrows a sum of money (in this case £10,000) and then another amount of money for an associated financial product (in this case, the PPI for - £1750) then they need 2 separate credit agreements; one for the ten grand, the other for the PPI. The thing is, I can't find the references to the legislation. For clarity, I signed just 1 agreement for a total of £11,750 but that mentions incorporating PPI in the total. Can someone (should I be right in recalling this, of course) please explain for me what piece(s) of legislation support me in my belief that this is unenforceable. ie that I should have had 2 agreements - one for £10,000 and the other for £1,750. I want them for my own peace of mind and to perhaps put in a letter telling Arrow Global to go away outlining why. Thanks for any help anyone can offer

Can a borrower be a defaulter if a credit agreement is unenforceable? Whilst looking for information on this subject I came across a case that I am struggling with slightly, see attachment. This seems to be a complex question and I am looking for clarity on this subject. Using the information within my attachment can someone clarify whether or not it is correct to make an entry in to a debtor/s credit file that they are in default. "Dispute Resolution analysis: Can a lender properly register a default with a credit reference agency where a borrower has not made payment under a so-called 'irremediably unenforceable' credit agreement? William Hibbert, a barrister at Henderson Chambers, considers the Court of Appeal's decision in Grace and another v Black Horse Ltd". Info from here http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_V-Ok_yftNIJ:www.hendersonchambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Can-a-borrower-be-a-defaulter-Lexis-article-William-Hibbert-21.11.14.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Do PH change the agreement number when they re write out a 2nd agreement. I'm asking this as my original agreement had all the insurance etc on and when I had this all taken off and they gave me a different agreement copy. now when I pay weekly and receive my receipt I can't tell what agreement is for what as the numbers on receipt are different to that of my original agreement which means I can't work out whats what and when an item finishes by own reckoning.

enough talking, phoning, writing, speaking to fscs, speaking to fca, speaking to fos, writing to welcome, writing again to welcome, writing to insurance... enough we get nothing back. financial refunds are made back to welcome and the calculations are far from the real accountable data. they are outside the interest of financial law. while we continue to fill there pockets. its wrong. end off. i am forced to begin a public publicity appeal and register regarding all welcome finance abuse.. they must be hundreds of thousands of people like me funding this securities scandal. that’s all we are. the government and finance industry will allow it to continue while massive profits are being made over our pathetic (sub prime) bones. it is the perfect deal - secure sub prime loans - endless cash from those dirty – unclean – untrustworthy – risks that’s the lie. we are no risk we are fully tied in the masses of public no bodies - tied in for life securities - that’s what were called - a sure thing. it is us that are making the millionaires, trillion aires. did you know that? this is not inside knowledge i found this out digging public knowledge. you’re continued poverty is acceptable as you are funding global securities investment gambling -------- we buried my father in law today the 31,000+ i have paid to date was his health insurance we could not afford. now – the wider family are in epic life changing debt over his recent illness and death. ------- im done playing games join me – regards bren.

I want to bring to the attention of the Caggers a practice by TfL that I believe has serious implications for Car Hire Agreements. I’ll explain. A friend of a friend brought to my attention that TfL has been telling Car Hire firms that they are liable for Congestion Charges and PCNs if the agreement they have with the hirer is for more than a 6 month period. TfL stated the following to support their assertions: Section 66 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which is the adopted definition used by the Road User Charging Regulations, requires that a hire agreement must be for a fixed period of less than six months to enable the transfer of liability when a vehicle is on hire. We would like to bring to your attention that since the hire period shown on the agreement is for a period of six months or greater, the document does not fall within the definition of a hire agreement and therefore liability cannot be transferred to the hirer of the vehicle. The gentleman concerned had made an appeal to PATAS and surprise surprise, the adjudicator from that collusive organisation supported TfL’s stance. It must be borne in mind that TfL is the ONLY local authority making this assertion. Straightaway I saw the ramifications of such a ruling as PATAS has effectively allowed TfL to re-write contract, hire agreement and statute law to support their stance. I decided to prepare a Request to Review for him to file in December of last year. In between waiting for a confirmation, the gentleman received a letter from TfL which was clearly a desperate attempt to sway the PATAS as it stated nothing new and attempted to cast aspersions on the legality of the Review. The review was allowed but PATAS eventually replied to my detailed submission supporting TfL – surprise surprise – citing the very same section TfL quoted as meaning Hire Agreement contracts can only be for 6 months. The regulation is Section 66(7) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 which states, This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed period of less than six months (whether or not that period is capable of extension by agreement between the parties or otherwise); and any reference in this section to the currency of the hiring agreement includes a reference to any period during which, with the consent of the vehicle-hire firm, the hirer continues in possession of the vehicle as hirer, after the expiry of the fixed period specified in the agreement, but otherwise on the terms and conditions so specified. Now as you can clearly read in the first line it states This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed period of less than six months. Now anyone reading that would believe that section only applies to hire-agreements that are for a period of 6 months or less which means it wouldn’t apply to the gentleman’s hire agreements which are for a year. Yet the PATAS adjudicator states, Therefore for liability to be transferred to the hirer, the Hiring Agreement must be for less than 6 months. I don’t know how TfL & PATAS can interpret the regulation above as such! Am I being Blind? Dumb? Stubborn?! I made a detailed submission citing various pieces of legislation I felt were relevant which the adjudicator wrote “wrong”, “mistaken”, “misconceived”, without providing statutory evidence to support his stance and wilfully ignoring valid legislative aspects of the appeal. I am willing to post the appeal and the reply for further scrutiny but before I tell the gentleman to consider a High Court Review, I am posting the basic argument here, on Pepipoo and Moneysavingexpert for feedback in light of the implications. Quite simply, are TfL and PATAS right? If it will be a High Court review, I will be advising the gentleman to pool the resources of other hire companies finances as it will affect them as well. Also, whilst I await a response, do you pay the PCN if you intend to go for a HCR or make TfL know it is still being contested?

Relative debt of which I have tried to help with. Original debt £5012 when Cabot took over in 2004 with what I think is a flimsy Assignment, debt now at at £11,216. Cabot were paid each and every month at £25 up until last year when a SARS request was sent to them (not to be confused with a cca request which has never been requested of them) . They responded to the SARS, they were then sent a further letter asking if all that was contained in the SARS was all that they had and nothing more. They responded saying yes it was....Which then clearly demonstrated that Cabot are quite good at constructing documents as some of the letters from them enclosed in the SARS were not the letters sent by them of which the relative has the hard copies of. A request was made to Cabot to remove all interest payments added by them but they responded saying that they had reviewed the account and it was clear that there was a poor payment record with them and they referred to a letter they sent a few years earlier warning interest was to be added. They also stated that under the terms of the original agreement they were entitled to add interest...No agreement at that point had been sent and was not included in the SARS . We reminded them that no agreement between Cabot and my relative existed. At the same time as this we also pointed out that they'd actually sent letters agreeing to continue the payments being made and that no interest was being applied...In all in over and with 60 possible payments to cabot and just prior to SARS request 59 payments had been made, no gaps. No request has ever been made to Cabot for a copy of the original credit agreement but then on June 3rd 2011 they sent a copy of what they are saying is an original credit agreement, along with a copy of what looks like the CCA 1974 (card taken out in 96) and also the terms and condtions of the card... Upon a closer look at the alleged 'agreement' it gives the relatives details at the time (job/income) and what looks like their signature but it only says 'Priority Request Form Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer credit Act 1974 To the left of the details it says 'How to request your card . To accept our invitation please complete the Priorty Request Form Cabot also enclosed a letter headed Information under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and saying 'Further to your request please find all of the relevant information following your request for information under section 77-78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They also state a paragraph down that 'As we have now complied with your request for information we are able to enforce the credit agreement' Am I right to assume that this does not represent a credit agreement? The page where my relatives signature is has no relevant interest or terms/details etc. At the same time as this Cabot have also enclosed a statement of sorts re the debt since they took over (also contained in the SARS and updated ..on one hand they're saying they've now complied with a request for a cca (never made) but on the other hand they've continued adding interest..which if they considered the account to be in dispute since the the supposed CCA request then they shouldn't be adding interest? ? Go figure...we did point out in oprevious correspondence that no credit agreement request has ever been made to them...which they disregarded obviously. Throughout all of this Cabot were made aware in big bold writing that they person they're attempting to collect a debt from is considered 'vulnerable' and is both registered disabled and had a full time carer...Cabot wanted letters from Doctors but why should we given they quite obviously cannot be trusted with information (false letters in SARs to name but one anomaly) so no documentation from a doctor will be sent to them. There is a letter available from a doctor who wrote 2 years ago to somebody else on behalf of the relative which very clearly outlined his opinion on the vulnerability of the relative...we could have sent them that but I do not trust Cabot with that sort of information. They want to enforce the debt, I dont want to hasten any fires but so far it is my opinion they've acted wholly irresponsibly and possibly illegally where this debt is concerned.. I would SARS MBNA but I dont see what would be gained from it. What if anything should we write to Cabot? They dont seem able to do anything but issue random threats, add stupid amounts of interest to an account that we dont know if it's ever been given a default notice from MBNA and we dont know on what terms they add the interest and right now it appears they've fabricated other information on the account. Lastly, in the terms of the account they've just sent it gives the relatives address that is now....printed in a box....but this address is NOT the one on the Priority Request form and was only added to the account with Cabot 18 months ago...is this illegal for them to do as quite clearly the credit agreement they've sent (after the first prioroty request form) is not consistent with information at the time the agreement would have been taken out and is only a year since it's been added...if you understand that? This to me seems as if Cabot or fabricating agreements....or at least adding an address within it that didn't exist when the agreement was first made in the 90's (repeating myself I know) There is no name on the details added, just the address and the one added 18mths ago.....can they do this? is it legal relevant? or does it help further a claim against Cabot for deliberate meddling and sending out false documentation?

hi, i have requested the document proof from my creditors they have not provided no documents it is over 14 days, what shall i do? also where do i stand in terms of paying the debt or managing the payments. can i oppose that and get out of not paying. pls advice

Hi can anyone post a copy of a Nationwide credit card agreement from before August 1999. Cheers. These don't seem to contain prescribed terms.

Hi i am disputing a copy of a loan agreement i have asked for from major bank Its a very shoddy copy and some of the type set has changed and also looks like been copied over. I was just wondering what legally is passed as a exceptable copy , as there is no loan number and there are no terms and conditions The bank say the have ful filled their duty with CCA section 77 Just wondered if there are any other avenues i can go along as i disagree with certain parts of the agreement. As feel the agreement is not a genuine copy many thanks

I have a weird problem I took out vehicle finance with a company (no names yet if thats OK) There were a few things I was not happy about and just before having it for 1 year the finance company agreed to take the vehicle off me and not chase me for any outstanding balance. My questions is this - They agreed to take the vehicle back and not chase anything outstanding, but my credit file is showing a default and £12k outstanding. This cant be right, surely? - Also the finance agreement was a joint agreement with me and my partner, yet only I signed for it. Shouldn't it have to be signed by both parties to make it legally binding anyway, and as it wasn't signed by both then technically shouldn't go on my credit file at all? Thanks in advance

I have in place what I believe to be a fairly watertight Tomlin. Not (in the grand scheme of things) of great value. Without going into the exact details I sued for PPI, CPP, DPA & CCA non compliance plus a few charges which it settled prior to prelim.....pretty much everything I could think of after it rattled my cage. My issue is that it seems intent on publishing the originating agreement with a non existing balance which has been compromised by the order. In effect I reversed a £2k debit balance to a positive balance of £7k....yet it has recently published the originating account details with debit balance and seemingly duplicated the account, passing the original 2k to a dca? From its records (and as settled) it reduced the balance to £00.00 prior to issuing a cheque for £7k, ergo 9k in total per compromise. It is on notice that it has a few days remaining to retract the publication and comply with the confidential terms prior to enforcing of the schedule.... Oh and, it still hasn't settled my costs, also contained within the order at circa £900.00 Am I correct in thinking its up s##t creek without a paddle if I have to weigh out another £150.00 to enforce the order? Is there any wriggle room for creating duplicate accounts?

I think this is important so can the admins please sticky this... Any queries, let me know.

Sorry friends, I am not a pro. Please can you take a look at these and tell me if I was charged PPI? The copy I hv recd. is not very well scanned either. Thanks