why you shouldnt use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agreement

[atom02]

Wow it's getting complicated, but I can just about see where this has been. I have to wonder how they got the CCJ?

 

Yep, tell me about it.

 

I have started a new thread linked above - thanks for following!!

 

atom

[means2anend]

I dont think that a CCJ means any of the limbs in 78s3(a)...because of course a CCJ can be satified and/or unsatisfied!!!..otherwise it would mean that a CCJ could NEVER be enforced...a contradiction in terms

 

My understanding of s78 3(a) is in connection with an agreement that has been repaid or where an agreement has been written off....It cannot go as far as CCJ because that would mean enforcement and non compliance with a CCA REQUEST is totally the opposite UNENFORCEABILITY whilst the default continues...

 

A CCJ would logically have meant that MgGuffick was decided wrongly...

 

m2ae

[means2anend]

A CCJ cannot fall into any of the limbs under s78 3(a) because a CCJ can still mean that sums can be enforced through a number of methods..plus the section refers explicitly to an agreement NOT judgement

 

(a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or ....

 

Also they have shot themselves in the foot by providing you initially with a non-compliant copy and then a compliant one...this tends to show a stitch up more than anything else supplemented by fallacious arguments from lawyers..BUT the statute, MgGuffick and reasonings I have made show it for what it IS

 

m2ae

 

m2ae

[basa48]

Hi Paul

Yes, this is certainly what is happening, and it is ALL the lenders can do at the moment. Why? If you don't have original documents or you do but they are not compliant, all you can do, which is all they are doing is work with the Recons and Witness Statements. You do this and hope that the debtor does not have the knowledge to defend against this lower level of evidence.

 

If they had compliant originals they'd be shutting folk up with certified copies of them left, right and centre!

 

I mean, why would you send the signature page of an application form together with a bundle of recon documents to present PTs and T&Cs? Only because you don't have something better which is the undisputable properly executed original or a certified copy thereof.

 

Secondary evidence and hearsay evidence can certainly be persuasive. Especially when there are no positive assertions from the debtor, who is of course a first hand witness in the matter!!!

 

This is why it's up to the debtor to fight hard to dismantle the credibility of the claimant's testimony, using every valid argument, when they rely upon recons and Witness Statements (having admitted to losing the original etc)

 

I think if I ever get confronted with a creditor using a 'recon' agreement, I will produce my own 'recon' (not enforceable of course!) and present it to the judge explaining that I have mislaid the original, but this is an honest and true copy from my records and recollections. After all I am a better witness than the creditors witness because I actually was there at the time when I signed it and I know and remember well what I signed!!

[gezwee]

Whats the best course of action when presented with a loan agreement by the bank which post dates draw down of funds by some 3 weeks (print date, copy signature & execution date).......... but the bank would like you to believe that this same agreement was correctly executed and refers to funds credited in the past? And yep, I know time travel isnt possible but the bank must think it is.

 

Gez

[Bigdebtor]

Baz

I've often thought of doing this - but with a twist - where I DO have the original (but haven't admitted to it) and presenting my own reconstructed version - which is "what I recollect and what I would have been prepared to sign etc. etc. base don other agreements I did sign". If the judge buys their fraudulent version over mine then I ask for time to pull my attic apart - as I believe I'll have it somewhere - and voila - my version turns up - exposes the bankers' fraud and puts their credibility out the window. Only thing is the risk that I then have to pay up based on the presence of the signed original (unless I never signed my copy?).

 

 

Gee

Time travel IS possible. Einstein said so himself! Since bankers earn a lot more than Einstein ever did, they must be a lot cleverer - after all they can "earn" in a few minutes what it takes a normal person a whole year of real work (even a lifetime in some cases ) or is this just theft and corruption and not time travel that causes this?

 

BD

Edited September 25, 2010 by Bigdebtor

[basa48]

Baz

I've often thought of doing this - but with a twist - where I DO have the original (but haven't admitted to it) and presenting my own reconstructed version - which is "what I recollect and what I would have been prepared to sign etc. etc. base don other agreements I did sign". If the judge buys their fraudulent version over mine then I ask for time to pull my attic apart - as I believe I'll have it somewhere - and voila - my version turns up - exposes the bankers' fraud and puts their credibility out the window. Only thing is the risk that I then have to pay up based on the presence of the signed original (unless I never signed my copy?).

 

 

BD

 

assuming your original is enforceable !!!

[atom02]

Hi m2ae

 

I am not familiar with McGuffick so should probably get my skates on and do some reading. I agree with you that they have shot themselves in the foot - neither of the agreements is actually compliant I don't think, at least not according to the Wacksman benchmark in my judgment! After about 15 years i would expect to see an original and the variations that allowed them to impose penalty charges on the account.

 

Secondly, you're absolutely right that the subsection of s.78 they refer to talks about an agreement not a CCJ. Unfortunately, they haven't yet developed their argument...

 

Basa & BD, I should definitely consider your approach - afterall, there is no reason why anyone reconn can be more valid than the other!!!LOL

 

thanks for your comments, guys.

 

atom

[basa48]

Basa & BD, I should definitely consider your approach - afterall, there is no reason why anyone reconn can be more valid than the other!!!LOL

 

thanks for your comments, guys.

 

atom

 

My comment was a little 'tongue in cheek', but I suppose if a judge was being an arse and insisting on accepting a recon for enforcement a move like that might draw attention to his stupidity. Or get you thrown in the Tower!!!

[Bigdebtor]

Mine was a bit TIC too - but to be abit more serious and clarify

1. If I definitely had an unenforceable original I would produce it and so expose them as liars, if their recon didn't match.

2. If I had an enforceable original - but no one had signed my copy (quite likely) then I might show this. Surely they would then need to produce the signed version to enforce.

3. If I only had an enforceable signed original I might try my luck with my recon - using other paperwork I might have accepted (without PT's) to back up what I had been prepared to sign with other OC's. Nothing to los ein this situation?

 

BD

[means2anend]

check this out

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2010/101-10

 

m2ae

[bazaar]

Shame they dont name the culprits, so people have a good upfront idea of which firm to avoid

[Bigdebtor]

Easy! - if they want to charge any sort of fee upfront - or a substantial percentage of any claim = AVOID THEM.

 

Who are the two "bodies" the OFT want to provide some sort of better self regulation?

 

BD

[mintminty59]

Thanks muchly for this information

[sleepy jean]

Hi pt2537 just going to fire off your formal req for information letter,

as I did not get any joy with a cca request to c.l. finance.

Fingers crossed will let you know if I get any joy.

[blueotter]

Hi,

can somebody please point me in the direction of pt,s letter please or a similar one requesting proof of a properly exectuted credit agreement.

I've seen one posted up before but having trouble finding it and i'm getting bogged down by dca's who are fobbing me off with the carey implications.

cheers

[means2anend]

blueotter

 

The chances are that your agreement has been varied...so DONT ask for a s78 that can be 'constructed from other sources that existed at the time of the executed agreement...ASK for a copy DIRECTLY from the original ITSELF AND and up to date agreement containing the current varied terms...

 

Look to Carey 'unilateral powers to vary agreement'

 

Paras 62-124..BUT first go straight to Para 108.

[means2anend]

But before you do ASK if they have a SIGNED EXECUTED ORIGINAL in existence from which to copy THAT copy from..because if they have not ...Then how can can YOUR copy be a copy taken directly from that executed original.This route excludes the creditors from 'reconstituting agreements from 'other sources'.

 

m2ae

[means2anend]

Remeber that under copies of documents and cancellation notices regs 1983 they can omit a signature from a copy...BUT ask them if this is the case first..BECAUSE if they say they have a signsture then there is no real harm in them providing you with a copy of that signed document....and if they say they have not then well they are stuffed and misleading you under CPUTR 2008 Reg 5 and 6

 

m2ae

[Bigdebtor]

m2ae

 

Some great advice - but could you put a couple of paras together with EXACTLY what we should say to ensure we get a copy of a signed copy and not a recon (Doesn't this just mean CON AGAIN?)

 

Keep up the good work!

 

BD

[PriorityOne]

m2ae

 

Some great advice - but could you put a couple of paras together with EXACTLY what we should say to ensure we get a copy of a signed copy and not a recon (Doesn't this just mean CON AGAIN?)

 

Keep up the good work!

 

BD

 

Erm.... but you don't really want them to find a copy of the original signed Agreement, do you? 8-) Just ask them to confirm whether they hold or have ever held a true copy of a signed Agreement pertaining to the account and of not, to confirm that in their response (CPUTR, 1988)

[Bigdebtor]

Would YOU believe what they say without proof? Of course we don#t want them to HAVE it - but we DO want to kmow for sure WHETHER or not they DO have it.

 

No signed agreement = no enorceable debt and - and the converse also applies - so important to know which.

 

BD

[PriorityOne]

would you believe what they say without proof? Of course we don#t want them to have it - but we do want to kmow for sure whether or not they do have it.

 

No signed agreement = no enorceable debt and - and the converse also applies - so important to know which.

 

Bd

 

cputr 2008

[Bigdebtor]

Can you elaborate? Do you mean these initials will stop them from lying/bluffing?

 

BD

[PriorityOne]

There's enough info on the site if you do a search.... but CPUTR will make them very silly to put lies into print, so to speak.... so it's worth pushing to get a definitive answer in writing re. CCA or no CCA, IMO.