Forged signature on ''copy'' of CCA

[middenmess]

Writing on behalf of family member who is having issues with a Debt Recovery Agent allegedly acting on behalf of HSBC.

He applied to the DRA for a copy of the associated CCA and enclosed a £1 Postal Order.

He received page one only [should have been two pages] and received his postal Order back that had been made out to the DRA.

He has noticed that the signature of the person who signed the agreement on behalf of HSBC plc is written in a different hand to that of the original signatory--in other words it is an attempted copy of the original.

As he has his original customer's copy of the agreement it is easy to notice that this is not the original.

There is also a great deal of debate as to whether his signature has also been written in a different hand!

 

What do we do about this as it would appear to be a deliberate fraudulent [and criminal?] act intended to deceive.

[smouk]

Forgery for financial gain and/or leverage is fraud. If you are sure of what you say then first stop must be your local CID - but take HQ copies first!

[middenmess]

Not a shadow of a doubt in our minds that it is a blatant attempt at copying a signature.

The loops etc of the letters of the persons name are all wrong and stand out like a sore thumb.

 

I'd scan the two versions in for comments,but that would make me as dumb as the donut who copied it;)

[middenmess]

We were immersed in writing a detailed--very detailed and very long! account of an issue with HBSC concerning a mis-sold PPI and whether to accept their suggested settlement,when we checked the CCA that they had sent us on request, against our original copy.

 

We're not sure whether to be pleased with this development or gobsmacked at such wrongdoing by a ''repectable'' business institution!

[BankFodder]

The consumer credit act 1974 was drafted to contain very strict criteria which had to be satisfied in order to ensure that vulnerable borrowers were protected from sophisticated and well resourced financial institutions.

 

The principal protections required that the agreement itself contained certain basic information so that the borrower would be fully informed as to the entire significance and consequences of the agreement.

 

An additional provision was included within the act to ensure that where some reason or other a borrower no longer had a copy of the original agreement, then they were able to request a copy of the agreement from the lender. They would then be able to check whether in fact the agreement into which they entered fully complied with the requirements of the consumer credit act and whether in fact they had been fully informed about their commitments under the agreement and the full costs of their loan.

 

It was always assumed that the lender at least, would be sufficiently well resourced and well organised to retain a copy of the agreement.

 

It is starting to look as if many lenders have behaved very sloppily in the way they have stored copy agreements and that very often true copies of consumer credit act agreements are no longer available.

 

In principle, under the consumer credit act, this means that such agreements where a lender is unable to furnish a true copy, are unenforceable. This is because the lender is unable to prove that they did fully inform the borrower as required by the act stop

 

I do not believe that the act was intended to be used merely as a tool to avoid lawful debts where a copy of the original agreement is in existence in the possession of the borrower, but the borrower merely decided to put the lender to the test hoping to avoid the debt merely by relying on what is clearly becoming a loophole in the law.

 

Last week we heard that a County Court judge in Cheshire was starting to put consumer credit act claims on hold and was hoping to be able to get some test cases going in order to see whether claimants were entitled to rely upon a loophole.

 

It was never mentioned precisely what that loophole was. However, I am quite sure that the loophole which is the subject of concern -- and I think the subject of legitimate criticism -- is precisely the one which apparently allows borrowers to escape their obligations even though they have a perfectly executed consumer credit act agreement in their possession but they rely on the fact that the lender has been careless about storing their own copy.

 

One of the problems is that it is getting out of hand, to great extent because claims management companies are climbing on the bandwagon and are actively encouraging people to avoid their debts under any circumstances.

 

Forums like The Consumer Action Group are also receiving some criticism for encouraging people to avoid their lawful debts.

 

I'm afraid that I think that where a borrower is in possession of their original agreement then it is probably not acceptable for them merely to go fishing to see whether or not the lender is still in possession of their own copy.

 

If there is a true copy available either in the possession of the lender or the borrower, then it seems to me that the only legitimate basis for avoiding the debt is if it can be shown that the agreement was never properly drawn up and did not meet the very stringent requirements of the 1974 act.

 

Anything else might even be construed as -- dishonestly avoiding a lawful debt, contrary to section 2 of the Theft Act 1978.

 

Of course if it comes to a test case, then the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords might still decide that the avoiding debt in this way is a legitimate use of the consumer credit act.

 

Somehow, though, I doubt it.

[middenmess]

Thank you for your observations Bank Fodder but I'm unsure as to why you have assumed that the purpose of my post was to try to avoid debt as I wrote in my follow-up post

 

''We were immersed in writing a detailed--very detailed and very long! account of an issue with HBSC concerning a mis-sold PPI and whether to accept their suggested settlement,when we checked the CCA that they had sent us on request, against our original copy.

 

We're not sure whether to be pleased with this development or gobsmacked at such wrongdoing by a ''respectable'' business institution!

 

HSBC have already offered a settlement figure over this mis-sold PPI which would be credited to the outstanding loan figure--the reason for requesting the CCA was to ensure that the DRA had the authority to deal with this debt as there had been no notification from HSBC the original creditor. [and as far as we were concerned the only people with whom we should be dealing]

There were other discrepancies and mis-information that we wanted to deal with and seek advice on, but the discovery of the ''forged'' signature seemed to take preference and some advice and suggestions as to the correct course of action to persue was the reason for posting on the ''Legal'' section of this forum and not on the ''Lets screw the Banks For being so lax'' forum.

There are many dozens if not hundreds of posts and threads regarding how to ensure you don't have to pay your debts,but I don't think that I've come across you making similar comments as you have made here on any of those,so I'm unsure as to why you have chosen to post them on my unrelated thread.

I thought that these were forums designed to assist members deal with consumer and legal problems and/or questions with advice and help that was relevant to their postings but you have jumped in and have given me your take on exploiting loopholes in credit legislation which is not relevant in this instance, and have ignored the post which was about Bank's and/or Debt recovery agencies who in my opinion have forged a signature.

 

I also take issue with your statement, copied below, as I never indicated anywhere in my post that there was any intention of trying to avoid paying the debt

 

If there is a true copy available either in the possession of the lender or the borrower, then it seems to me that the only legitimate basis for avoiding the debt is if it can be shown that the agreement was never properly drawn up and did not meet the very stringent requirements of the 1974 act.

I was legally entitled to ask for a copy of the CAA from this DRA as I wanted to be assured that this DRA,whom I had never heard of,had the right to ask me to pay them directly.If I had paid them without making some elementary checks first and then HSBC had still asked for the debt to be repaid as they had not asked this DRA to collect for them,everyone on this forum would have thought me to be the village idiot for handing money over to anyone who wrote a demand on headed paper.

This company probably also had no right in law to persue in any case, as techically the account was in dispute until such time [HSBC had given 6 weeks] for their settlement to be accepted or rejected and obviously the sum demanded from the DRA would not have made allowance for this.

Anything else might even be construed as -- dishonestly avoiding a lawful debt, contrary to section 2 of the Theft Act 1978. So if I interpret this correctly,anyone asserting their legal right to obtain a copy of their CAA [notwithstanding whether they already have a copy or not] is,in your opinion,only a step or two away from being a thief?

 

Whilst I appreciate that as a long standing member of the Forum's 'Site Team' your posting was probably meant in some way to be helpful and a reply to my question, it has not come across as such but if I have 'got hold of the wrong end of the stick' when reading your submission,then I apologise.

[version302003]

A missing creditors signature won't be a bar to enforcement, so there was no need for them to 'allegedly' forge it.

 

Ultimately, it is only the borrowers sig thats the important bit.

[middenmess]

Enforcement is not the issue here--see above post-- but the question of what to do about a company and/or bank that blatantly forges a signature on their ''copy'' of the CAA.

 

It is also questionable [very] that the debtor's signature has also been ''forged'' on the copy of the CCA that has been received.

 

A 'True' copy was requested but an apparently 'forged' one has been received!

 

Apart from the suggestion to inform the Police,no one who has posted seems concerned or surprised to hear about forged signatures!

[version302003]

can you scan both copies of the debtors sigs and post up? (customer copy and requested cca copy)

[middenmess]

As I wrote in my first post I am writing on behalf of a family member so I'd have to obtain both the docs and their permission to do so but not sure if posting signatures,forged or otherwise, would be wise on an open forum especially as this issue might well go further.

[GhostDebt]

Having received a document that looks surprisingly dodgy ourselves we are also looking at ways by which we can confirm its validity. Or find out how to confirm it is dodgy.

[version302003]

As I wrote in my first post I am writing on behalf of a family member so I'd have to obtain both the docs and their permission to do so but not sure if posting signatures,forged or otherwise, would be wise on an open forum especially as this issue might well go further.

 

Maybe you can look at the cca itself. Is it enforceable? Does it contain all the prescibed terms and are the amounts plus calculations correct?

[middenmess]

As per post #8

Enforcement is not the issue here--see above post [#6]-- but the question of what to do about a company and/or bank that blatantly forges a signature on their ''copy'' of the CAA.

 

It is also questionable [very] that the debtor's signature has also been ''forged'' on the copy of the CCA that has been received.

 

A 'True' copy was requested but an apparently 'forged' one has been received!

 

Apart from the suggestion to inform the Police,no one who has posted seems concerned or surprised to hear about forged signatures!

[version302003]

Then go to the police. As you have said, there is 'great debate' about whether it is a forgery.

 

I have yet to see anyone produce a forged signature.

 

good luck

[smouk]

LOL....I've employed welding inspectors so I NEVER trust a signature .

 

However I agree that it isn't the sort of issue that could normally affect enforceability but it may embarrass them sufficiently (if used correctly) to make them want to forget all about you.

 

Besides which, I would find it quite insulting.

[middenmess]

#14 version302003

 

Despite what you might believe I really do have better things to do than make spurious postings on a forum.

 

If I was not convinced that the Bank employees signature was 'forged' then I would not have posted about it.

I couched my postings with care and a hint of vagueness to indicate that there was a small element of doubt to avoid possible recriminations as I am unsure as to who reads these posts and as to where this might lead.

 

Whilst I don't feel obligated to 'Put up or shut up', I'll seek my relation's permission to pm you about it or if you reside near my location perhaps you'd like to inspect it 'in the flesh'

[Bill Shidding]

Hi Middenmess

 

I had a similar case recently, where there was several "invoices" with my sig, and one that had been obviously "recreated" by somebody with much neater writing!.

 

Upon my questioning the sig, they discontinued.

 

I think the problem you are facing, is that in order to disprove the questionable sig, you would need to disclose the original. Thereby disclosing the original agreement.

As smouk stated in post #15, it would depend on how you put it to the OC/DCA.

 

Incidentally, I really like the term "loophole" being used to describe inadequacies or ambiguities in the law being taken advantage of by consumers. Makes a change from big firms using them to their own advantage, I don't see our moral leaders staying those "loopholes"!

 

Kind regards

Bill

Edited May 18, 2009 by Bill Shidding

[joemay]

As I wrote in my first post I am writing on behalf of a family member so I'd have to obtain both the docs and their permission to do so but not sure if posting signatures,forged or otherwise, would be wise on an open forum especially as this issue might well go further.

 

No it would not be wise!

[hazeleyes68]

I recently applied for my credit agreements with a rent to buy tv slot company in south wales .I was a customer with them from 1990 up until 2007 ,upon receiving what i requested for as 'True Copies ' of my credit agreements for these dates ,one of the agreements has a definate forged signature on it for 2002 ,the agreement that accompanied it for the warranty was definately my signature though ,my sister also requested hers from the same company as we are both pursuing a claim for miss sold warranty ,and she also has an agreement for 2007 which bares a forged signature .. Any advise please ?

[middenmess]

I recently applied for my credit agreements with a rent to buy tv slot company in south wales .I was a customer with them from 1990 up until 2007 ,upon receiving what i requested for as 'True Copies ' of my credit agreements for these dates ,one of the agreements has a definate forged signature on it for 2002 ,the agreement that accompanied it for the warranty was definately my signature though ,my sister also requested hers from the same company as we are both pursuing a claim for miss sold warranty ,and she also has an agreement for 2007 which bares a forged signature .. Any advise please ?

 

Hi HE

 

Probably best to start a new thread which caggers will then pick up on and respond to as this one is a year old now.