smt37 vs Morgan Stanley/Goldfish/Barclaycard ** ORDER TO PRODUCE CCA CPR31.16 WIN ***

[the_shadow]

why do you not include within the CPR31.16 A FULL AND COMPLETE AUDIT TRAIL ?

 

I believe there is a danger if we attempt to move away from the already laid out templates and procedures that pt2537 has put forward in his thread that a judge could see it more of a fishing exercise rather than a precise strike to get the document we all hanker for.

 

The SAR is the place to request all other personal information and I believe to protect against costs and being turned down the CPR should be used only for a specific document you are seeking disclosure of.

 

Just my opinions though.

 

S.

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinions. These opinions are based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal or debt related training.

[diddydicky]

I believe there is a danger if we attempt to move away from the already laid out templates and procedures that pt2537 has put forward in his thread that a judge could see it more of a fishing exercise rather than a precise strike to get the document we all hanker for.

 

The SAR is the place to request all other personal information and I believe to protect against costs and being turned down the CPR should be used only for a specific document you are seeking disclosure of.

 

Just my opinions though.

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinions. These opinions are based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal or debt related training.

 

spot on- have t

[patrickq1]

yes i do aggree shadow but i cannot see why the audit trail should be excluded as this should give access to all screen prints including letters etc...and they have to accompany all this along with all documentation old and new it was just a thought

patrickq1

as it stands i think barclay s now have a bank full of barristors lol looking specificly at the request for cpr 31.16 and they must feel they have a get out of jail clause as we are seeing just recently

[diddydicky]

yes i do aggree shadow but i cannot see why the audit trail should be excluded as this should give access to all screen prints including letters etc...and they have to accompany all this along with all documentation old and new it was just a thought

patrickq1

as it stands i think barclay s now have a bank full of barristors lol looking specificly at the request for cpr 31.16 and they must feel they have a get out of jail clause as we are seeing just recently

 

i think people are getting these knock backs BECAUSE the requests ARE including more and more fishing requests as shadow says

 

basically want you want is the credit agreement, DN and termination notices

[AA99]

as it stands i think barclay s now have a bank full of barristors lol looking specificly at the request for cpr 31.16 and they must feel they have a get out of jail clause as we are seeing just recently

 

I've been thinking that (all night!) and wondered if there is anything else we should know:confused:

[patrickq1]

Disclosure statement

Standard disclosure requires a disclosure statement by the disclosing party in which he must include a certificate that to the best of his knowledge he has carried out his duty to search for, locate and disclose documents. This certificate is reinforced by CPR, rule 31.23 which says: 'Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false disclosure statement, without an honest belief in its truth'.

[patrickq1]

The power to order disclosure against a third party under rule 31.17

this would upset the banks in their determination to pass data to DCAs me thinks huh

[meerkatsmimm]

Any further news with this SMT?

 

I hope you are getting this settled in your favour.

 

meerkat x

[smt37]

Quick update on this: I sent a letter to the court explaining that Barclaycard had not complied with the Order and the Court replied to me this week saying:

 

"Your letter dated 6 June 2009 has been placed before the District Judge who directs that:-

 

It is not for the court to advise the claimant as to what steps he should take"...

 

I guess my only option is to stop paying and invite Barclaycard to try and enforce it using the wrong agreement...?

[noomill060]

Injunction.

[FlyboyAgain]

Y'know what I can't fathom about this trouble some Caggers are having re CPR31.16 This instrument, if you will, is not available under Scots Law, yet my Bank has furnished me with correctly laid out agreements and ones that are, possibly, unenforecable. But not without some prevarication, I might add. So why are you guys having such a problem when you seem to have a tool at your disposal.

 

Any idea why it's like this in England, or am I missing something else?

[izzitme101]

it isnt actually just england as such, it barclays themselves that are causing the problems, from what ive seen the other banks are not so bad with a bit of a push and a shove.

[FlyboyAgain]

 

I guess my only option is to stop paying and invite Barclaycard to try and enforce it using the wrong agreement...?

 

That's what I'd do, assuming you are confident the agreement is cak-handed. In my short experience with all this, I have found that they will eventually send you a copy of the correct agreement - assuming such exists - after only a little firm prodding; if the don't have it, they will dither, prevaricate and say that they will produce it in court.

 

Now why would they want to do that, eh?

[FlyboyAgain]

Also, I have had them stating, in writing, that I dispute the debt, which I am not! Be aware of this tactic if any of your are fighting HBoS. I have asked them to copy back to me the letter in which I deny liablilty. Stranegly, there has been no response.

[smt37]

FBA, you need to start from the beginning of the thread. I've already taken BC to court and they were ordered by the judge to produce a true copy of the original. They sent me an agreement which related to an old account which was settled and closed two years before I opened the one in dispute. Advice on here was to tell the court that they have not complied with the Court Order, suggesting contempt, which I did. The court replied by saying that they will not advise of my next steps. Seems they don't care that BC produced another incorrect agreement. They clearly don't have it, so I think I can easily just stop paying and wait for them to react or I can seek an injunction.

 

I would rather seek an injunction as this is what the judge hinted at during the hearing.

 

PT/anyone else familiar with the injunction route - please can you help?

Edited June 25, 2009 by smt37
typo

[FlyboyAgain]

Apologies, but you know what it's like, picking up on a thread one hasn't visited for a while.

 

I guess you want to use the injuction to force them to supply the correct agreement? I'd just stop paying them until they do. Why waste more of your time with court procedures?

[diddydicky]

Y'know what I can't fathom about this trouble some Caggers are having re CPR31.16 This instrument, if you will, is not available under Scots Law, yet my Bank has furnished me with correctly laid out agreements and ones that are, possibly, unenforecable. But not without some prevarication, I might add. So why are you guys having such a problem when you seem to have a tool at your disposal.

 

Any idea why it's like this in England, or am I missing something else?

 

is it cos we's white!

[smt37]

Apologies, but you know what it's like, picking up on a thread one hasn't visited for a while.

 

I guess you want to use the injuction to force them to supply the correct agreement? I'd just stop paying them until they do. Why waste more of your time with court procedures?

 

I want an injunction against them ever trying to enforce the debt, then I don't have to wait six years for it to disappear. This is what the judge asked me if I was trying to do and I agreed - then she granted the order.

 

I can't risk getting a CCJ - I will lose my job.

[slick132]

Hi Smt,

 

I've again asked for help in getting the final stage of your case sorted.

 

It's important, not only to you, but to all who have followed your thread here and the CPR thread.

 

[FlyboyAgain]

I want an injunction against them ever trying to enforce the debt, then I don't have to wait six years for it to disappear. This is what the judge asked me if I was trying to do and I agreed - then she granted the order.

 

I can't risk getting a CCJ - I will lose my job.

 

You will lose you job over a CCJ?

 

It looks as if you have all the cards, though. Go for it.

[smt37]

I'm registered with 'a certain' regulator, and a CCJ would probably mean that I would lose it - and could not continue in my current employment.

 

If I start the injunction, then the worst case is that the judge could order me to pay costs. If I stopped paying and BC got an enforcement order with an agreement which is illegible and the wrong one anyway (not unheard of), then I would get a CCJ. It's a huge risk for me to take, so the injunction seems the way to go!

[diddydicky]

The whole basis of the system not recording a ccj for 30 days after it is awarded is to allow people to dispute debts -so IF you have the funds to pay within 30 days of a ccj being awarded if you lose the case then it is not recorded

[angel_1]

The whole basis of the system not recording a ccj for 30 days after it is awarded is to allow people to dispute debts -so IF you have the funds to pay within 30 days of a ccj being awarded if you lose the case then it is not recorded

 

 

hiya just nipping in , so do you mean that after a ccj is awarded say but you do manage to pay it all off within the 30days, and even the full costs if awarded then the ccj wouldnt show, ?

 

sorry late for me so im off to bed incase i drop any more not so smart questions;)

 

 

laters have a sunny day all tomorrow angel x

[diddydicky]

hiya just nipping in , so do you mean that after a ccj is awarded say but you do manage to pay it all off within the 30days, and even the full costs if awarded then the ccj wouldnt show, ?

 

sorry late for me so im off to bed incase i drop any more not so smart questions;)

 

 

laters have a sunny day all tomorrow angel x

 

correct

[militantconsumer]

The whole basis of the system not recording a ccj for 30 days after it is awarded is to allow people to dispute debts -so IF you have the funds to pay within 30 days of a ccj being awarded if you lose the case then it is not recorded

 

If it works the same way as for a company, then in fact the CCJ is immediately recorded on the register.

 

If you pay within 28 days then it is cancelled and all trace disappears.

 

If you take longer than 28 days to pay then it can still show as "satisfied" but the a record of the CCJ will remain for 6 years.