Help-Lloyds TSB Court Claim

[interweb]

Hi

 

Thanks for the advice.

 

I'll start working on it.

 

Thanks

Edited October 21, 2009 by interweb
typo

[kel123]

Hi interweb

 

Hope you don't mind me jumping in citizen

 

I'm up for a sumary judgement on the 4th Nov with these. And some of the faults are similar to yours. Because I am so close and they basically now know all my case (except for one fault slipped slighly in) I don't mind saying aloud. They do monitor this and other sites FACT.

 

Has the date box got a squiggle in it?

 

It say something like 'if we sign and send you a card then this represents an agreement' next to your signature?

 

A signature must have 3 facets

 

a) traceability

b) intent

c) acceptance

 

Check out Electronic communication act and a Report by Professor Chris Reed, 'What is a Signature' published in the Journal of information, law and technologgy. (this report includes case studies and presedents)

 

When they Supplied the credit agreement and T & C did they supply a statement of account? Keep quite if they didn't and use it at the end.

 

I presume the Agreement was a microfich copy but I bet the T & C were a copy of a printed sheet and titled bank copy? You already Know about the none corralation with the POC, have they sent you the revised/amended t & C because they also will not correlate across! And therefore also that there is no proof that they belong together.

 

In their wittness statement I bet it says that these are the true credit agreement and T & C, you can prove that they are not therefore you can cast dought on the wittnesses depth of knowledge and credability. I bet there are other section within it that you can distroy.

 

Check out the wording on the DN to see if anywhere it says 'the full amount' not just 'what you owe us' because what you owe us is the arrears. the rest is not due. Also check what they say is the arears against when you last made a payment? with mine they are a month out

 

On their disclosure list (or if no disclosure list) look for 'memo line data' and apply for it under cpr. It is useful when corralating it against their letters and it 'should, confirm when the DN was sent - I bet nothing corralates again?

 

Good luck

[interweb]

Hi kel123

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

Regards

 

interweb

[kel123]

For Interweb and [problem]

 

(in Morton –v- Copeland (16 C.B. 535)) that a "signature does not, necessarily, mean writing a person's Christian and surname, but any mark which identifies it as the act of the party … provided it be proved or admitted to be genuine, and to be the accustomed mode of signature of the party." Perhaps the biggest question in relation to an electronic signature is what " identifies it as the act of the party".

 

...AS THE ACT OF THE PARTY...PROVIDED IT BE PROVED OR ADMITTED TO BE GENUINE..........WHAT "IDENTIFIES IT AS THE ACT OF THE PARTY"

 

I repeat for [problem]

 

a) traceability

b) intent

c) acceptance

 

Oops there could be alot more problems afoot for Lloyds? A squiggle does not have traceability - more interesting reading is the MOD requirements for signatures, now these hold up inlaw!

 

R

 

Kel

[citizenB]

Hope you don't mind me jumping in citizen

 

Not at all Kel.. your knowledge appears greater than mine. So more than greatful

 

Will be looking at your progress with interest.

[kel123]

just on this and thats only because I am inside it at the moment

 

Kel

Edited October 22, 2009 by kel123
Added only because it didn't want it to be taken the wrong way?