Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good morning all,   I have an update for you all, shortly after my first hearing i was told i would need to have a rehearing with another company, Obviously i agreed but after the initial grievance hearing the person then asked me to enter into a private conversation, I have received the settlement offer and are disgusted as its not even half of my monthly  salary, I'm not sure what to do at this stage as i dont have the funds to finance a solicitor,so any advice would be appreciated.  
    • Sorry, but what does this mean?   Who are ARC? It would be helpful if you could be a little bit more clear about what happened. I don't understand why you are not simply proceeding against Amazon – because it is clearly their responsibility as it was their driver or courier company
    • I understand that you were involved in a contentious divorce in respect of which there was a bill for court costs – £850. You decided to challenge the costs in court and you lost and an order was made against you. We decided to appeal the order but before the appeal was heard, the solicitors made you a without prejudice offer of a 50-50 split – £425. You agree to this and you signed the document to that effect which you returned to the solicitors. Despite that the solicitors are now trying to impose the original £850 order. Is that the correct order of events? "Without prejudice" is certainly something that doesn't seem to be very well understood, including by solicitors. "Without prejudice" can protect an offer from being disclosed to the court where the offer has been refused so that it is not binding on anyone. However, without prejudice cannot be used to hide everything from the court – including wrongdoings, unethical behaviour et cetera. It seems to me that once you sign the agreement you effectively had a contract. I'd like to know a little bit more about the agreement that you signed but presumably it was intended to bring a halt to any further proceedings. I don't think there is any difficulty about disclosing a contract to the court in the circumstances. It is only the offer which was made without prejudice. Once the agreement was accepted and signed then the document acquired a wholly different character. It was no longer an offer open to be accepted or refused. It was a legally binding contract which imposed obligations upon both sides. In my view the solicitors have acted in a highly unethical way and I would begin by making a complaint to the SRA. I wonder whether the solicitors proposed the 50-50 split to you without consulting with their client and when they then contacted their client and told her what had been agreed, she refused to accept it and on that basis the solicitors recognised that they had made an error but rather than accept their responsibility and footing the £425 out of their own pockets, they preferred to get it from you. Of course this is just speculation but it seems to me to be quite a possible scenario. I'd like to see the agreement post up here please – that my sense is that you should complain to the SRA and you should tell the solicitors that this is what you're doing.
    • What's the default date? It should be on your Credit File
    • i point you to two threads whereby you'll see an explanation by andy (post 22 here) https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/410486-lowell-interim-charging-order-from-credit-card-debt-2009/?tab=comments#comment-4912902   and   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/406428-remortgage-issue/   if yours says:    written notice of the disposition was given to XX Council ( - disposition = sold vis: disposed of) ..... notice means letter telling them it's been sold -    doesn't say it must be paid or settled BEFORE disposition..   that's the way i read it.          
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 7 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies
vint1954

New tack on supplying CCA-Discussion

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3638 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

It seems to be becoming the norm for CCA requests under s78, that Credit Card Companies are supplying, blank agreements, fill in a new one themselves or type up a new contarct, supposedly relating to that time.

 

The statute relating to a "True Copy" dates back to the 1800's when obviously there were no photocopiers or other devices. This meant that any copy had to be hand coppied as the only means of supplying a copy at that time. Also this is the obvious reason for there not being a requirement for signature or date. This is what the ccc's are relying on.

 

The office of fair trading has a take on this, in that it must be a "true copy" and not some reconstruction of what the agreement may have looked like. What the agreement may have looked like, is exactly what we are getting and we should not be accepting this.

 

In short, the intention is that you should receive a copy of your actual agreement ( technology has moved on ) and this is the view of the OFT. CCC'S are using this old terminology in order to circumvent sending out a real copy. The signature box and date are in reality, just a throwback to the 1800's, and hand copying.

 

Below is the OFT response:

 

THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 - Sections 77 and 78

 

Summary

 

On request and when accompanied by £1, a consumer has the right to:

 

• a copy of their executed agreement

• any other document referred to in it

• a statement showing

- the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor

- the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due, and

- the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due. If the creditor is unable to give this information, he can state instead how the dates and amounts fall to be ascertained.

 

The copy of the executed agreement need not be an exact copy but it must be a ‘true copy’ and not some reconstruction of what the original might have been and it must contain the same terms as the original. Where the terms have been varied as provided for within the agreement, the copy of the original agreement must be accompanied by a document setting out the current terms, as varied. Certain details may be omitted from the original agreement eg the signature but the debtor must be in no doubt as to the true nature of his obligations under the loan.

 

Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.

 

In our view a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’ and as such takes on the liabilities of section 77.

 

Under section 77(4), if the creditor is unable to provide this information, he is not entitled to enforce the debt while he remains in default (Decriminalised from 26 May 2008 on the coming into force of the CPRs).

 

Legal Argument

 

A copy of the executed agreement

 

Under the prescribed condition, section 77 of the Act requires the creditor to give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any)....‘. The ‘if any’ most naturally refers to the exception for agreements older than 1985 or verbal agreements.

 

Where a creditor receives a request to supply a copy of the executed agreement, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (‘1983 regs’) apply. Regulation 3(1) sets out the basic position that ‘every copy of an executed agreement... shall be a true copy’.

 

Regulation 3(2) goes on to concede that there may be omitted from this true copy various information such as details which are not required to be in the agreement by law: the signature box, signature (it should be noted that sub-ss 3-5 of section 127 do not apply to agreements entered into after 1 April 2007.A Court may then, for example, enforce unsigned agreements if it considers it is just to do so.) and date of signature. In our view the effect of Regulation 3(2) is that the creditor is only obliged to send out a generic copy of the agreement the debtor has signed up to. The creditor is not obliged to make an actual photocopy of the agreement.

 

However, the copy does have to be a ‘true copy’. This is a technical term, which has been discussed in a number of cases, mostly relating to bills of sale and the need to register a ‘true copy’ of the bill with the High Court. These cases come from the days before typewriters, when copies were made by hand. The consequences of filing a copy which was not a true copy were severe, since the bill would then be void and the creditor deprived of his security.

 

Meaning of ‘true copy’

 

In this context, the courts decided that a ‘true copy’ need not necessarily be an ‘exact copy,’ but it must be ‘so true that nobody reading it can by any possibility misunderstand it’ or be misled by it (In re Hewer ex parte Kahen (1882) LR 21 Ch.D. 871 at 875). The copy must contain ‘every material provision which is contained in the original’ (except that if the defect is made good by reading the document as a whole, the omission will not be fatal) (Court of Appeal in Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 at 98-99). Further, it is not sufficient for the copy merely ‘to state with complete accuracy in a summary form the effect of the stipulations contained in the original. It is not merely a document that is to state the true legal effect of the original; it is to be a copy of the original’ (per Atkin LJ in Burchell at 105).

 

Hewer, ex parte Kahen - the filed copy of the bill omitted the precise day of the month on which payment was to be made. The court held this was trivial, and no debtor would be misled by it.

Sharp v McHenry (1888 ) LR 38 Ch.D. 427- the copy contained blanks which were not in the original. The court decided that the blanks were unimportant, since the omitted words were not required for the original bill to be valid.

Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 - the copy failed to include the words ‘per annum’ after the interest rate of 55%. The reader of the copy would have to guess whether the interest was per annum, per month or something else but as one could sensibly assume, correctly, that it was per annum it was a true copy.

Commercial Credit Company of Canada Ltd v Fuiton [1923] AC 798 - suggested further that where there are a raft of smaller differences in a bill of exchange copy, this could prevent it being a true copy. However where the differences were such as to make the copy contract actually different to the original, the copy will not be true. Lord Sumner, speaking of the man who may wish to refer to the copy, concluded that ‘the Act promises him ... a true copy, not a puzzle. He is to inspect it, not to recover the original by a process of conjectural emendation’ (at 807).

 

Terms and Conditions

 

Regulation 7(1) of the 1983 Regs requires that a requested copy of an agreement which has been unilaterally varied under section 82(1) of the Act, shall be accompanied either by the latest notice of variation or a copy of the terms and conditions as varied. Regulation 7(2) extends the principle to copies of varied securities supplied either to the consumer or the surety.

 

Debt collectors as creditors

 

A consumer credit debt can be assigned in two ways: in law under the Law of Property Act 1925 or in equity but in practice we need to be concerned only with statutory assignments.

 

For a debt to be assigned in law, there are three conditions:

 

• the assignment must be absolute.

 

• the assignor must make the assignment in writing.

 

• express notice of the assignment must be given in writing to the debtor (see section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925).

 

The reason the debt is assigned is immaterial. For instance, books of loans may be sold on to be collected as an asset rather than as a discounted debt. Securitisation?

In some instances, the debt collector may have purchased a debt but not have the relevant agreement. Whilst, in general, ‘liabilities’ cannot be assigned there must be a question mark over whether ‘duties’ are the same. This is important since there is a rule, expressed in Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106 at 289 to 302, that where a benefit is conditional upon some burden, the assignee must also take the burden. An example is where the contractor has the right to mine on condition that they pay compensation to those disrupted by the mining. If they assign their right to mine, the assignee takes this right subject to the duty to pay compensation.

 

Therefore, there is a strong argument that under the Act, the right to payment is never absolute. It is always subject to duties (many of which are imposed under the Act). For instance, the right to enforce the credit agreement at all is subject to the duty to comply with section 77 or 78. This duty is not a ‘liability’ as such under the credit agreement but is a condition of the right to repayment.

 

There has been a suggestion that debt collectors can avoid complying with section 77 and 78 by claiming that the agreement is no longer `live’ in some way as it has been ‘terminated’ based on section 103 of the Act. This talks of a ‘trader’ who was the creditor under a regulated agreement, implying that ‘trader’ is no longer a creditor once an agreement is ended. Section 103, however, deals with where the customer no longer owes any money at all and therefore it is correct to say that he is no longer a debtor and the trader is no longer his creditor. Where money is still owed, section 103 would not apply, since the consumer would not be entitled to a termination statement.

 

The first issue on when the debt collector becomes the creditor is relatively simple. Section 189(1) of the Act defines ‘creditor’ as ‘the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law.’

 

Where the debt collector is not acting as the creditor’s agent, or otherwise on his behalf, the only legal basis he can have for demanding payment from the debtor is if the creditor’s rights and duties have been assigned to him. Therefore we can be reasonably confident that a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’.

 

Unpalatable though section 77 and 78 may be for some creditors, if the debt collector is unable to prove the debt, they should be more careful about the debts they buy. They cannot complain that the sections are somehow unfair as it is in the Act and so must be complied with. It is up to them to ensure they purchase and maintain sufficient records to be able to prove the debt and comply with the other requirements of the Act.

 

Misleading statements to debtors

 

Sections 77 and 78 refer to supplying a copy of the ‘executed’ agreement within 12 working days of receiving a written request from the debtor. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable against the debtor until a copy is provided. In addition, if the default continues for a period of 1 month the creditor is in breach of the Act.

 

Execution involves signing the agreement. If no agreement has been executed, it is impossible to supply a true copy of the agreement. Should a creditor supply a copy agreement, even though the debtor has never signed any agreement with that creditor, no indication should be given that it is a true copy or a copy of an executed agreement. To do so may contravene Regulation 5 of the CPRs and be an unfair or improper business practice. THIS IS POSSIBLY WHERE THE CCC'S CURRENT PRACTICE FALLS. THEY ARE REPRESENTING THE DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED AS A TRUE COPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The consequence of the debtor not having signed a credit agreement with the creditor is that the agreement is unenforceable except where the court orders that enforcement may take place. Where the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 the court is not able to make such an order unless the agreement was signed by the debtor.

 

Therefore it is misleading to state, when complying with a section 77 or 78 request, that the debtor has signed or would have signed (or similar) the enclosed agreement where the debtor has not done so. From 26 May 2008 such a statement will be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Regulation 5 of the CPRs states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ (Regulation 5(5)(d) of the CPRs).

 

Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is also a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Regulation 5(4)(k) of the CPRs. It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it.

 

Breach of Regulation 5 of the CPRs is a criminal offence under Regulation 9 and can also be enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Under section 218A of the Enterprise Act, where an application for an Enforcement Order is made the court may require the Respondent ‘to provide evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim’ (such as a claim that a debtor has signed a credit agreement).

 

In addition, it should be noted that threats to take action that cannot be taken is listed as one of the factors that will be considered in assessing aggressive practices in Regulation 7(2) of the CPRs.

 

May 2008

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading

 

 

I have left other references in place within the body of the response, that may be irelevant.

 

Lets see if we cannot put these so called agreements to bed, once and for all

 

Vint

Edited by vint1954
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow. helluva response. Who'd you sleep with to get that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be sad sat here reading this on a Saturday night but that is excellent... I especially love this part " Lord Sumner, speaking of the man who may wish to refer to the copy, concluded that ‘the Act promises him ... a true copy, not a puzzle. He is to inspect it, not to recover the original by a process of conjectural emendation’ (at 807).

 

Lets move forward with this...Yeah


The Grand essentials of happiness are: something to do, something to love, and something to hope for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow. helluva response. Who'd you sleep with to get that?

Hi Kraken,

 

It was something that was posted by AN Other. Not sure that it was this site, but it looked interesting at the time. Only just got round to reading it in depth. I will be using it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LTWFB,

 

Yes I have sent the letters for CPR31, but they just ignore them. Fingers in their ears and Lalalalalala

 

Just think that we need to stop the silly responses that we get when using s78. It will be an empty packet of corn flakes next!

 

CPR is ok, if you are willing to enforce through the courts.

 

Vint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great find, will be using it, at least in part (saving the rest for 'further arguements!) this week. Will keep this thread informed of progress and responses.


Every journey begins with a single step :):)

 

Please note: I have no qualifications in this area - my advice is learned from the wonderful members of this Forum. Thanks to you all for your help.

 

If you have found my post helpful please leave a short message by clicking the star to the left of my profile - Thank You

 

The only person entitled to your Personal Finance details is a Judge not a DCA

 

Move all banking activity to another banking group if you have a dispute - your funds can be used to offset debts within the same group.

Be careful with Banking details (card/account numbers) as these can be used to take unauthorised payments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi LTWFB,

 

Yes I have sent the letters for CPR31, but they just ignore them. Fingers in their ears and Lalalalalala

 

Just think that we need to stop the silly responses that we get when using s78. It will be an empty packet of corn flakes next!

 

CPR is ok, if you are willing to enforce through the courts.

 

Vint

 

if they want to take you to court,they HAVE TO comply

 

Frederickson don't like getting these ;)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well done for this post however i have printed the letter which i belive was on another tread.

 

i must say people will disagree hey ho.

 

it is my belief that the act is there and is quite clear.

 

Copy of agreedment and my take on this nothing else will do. if any means if there is one.

 

we all know what a CCA should be ,if they have not sent an agreedment as define they are in default


Id quot circumiret, circumveniat.

 

please do not take my word for anything please do your own research All that i make comments on are done in good faith and to the best of my knowledge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copied for future reference and quotation. thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if they want to take you to court,they HAVE TO comply

 

Frederickson don't like getting these ;)

Absolutely, Its worth sending anyway, jus to have the trail, should it end up in court.

 

I have tried M'Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well done for this post however i have printed the letter which i belive was on another tread.

 

i must say people will disagree hey ho.

 

it is my belief that the act is there and is quite clear.

 

Yes, the act is clear to us, however the CCC's are trying a diferent tack, obviously trying to mislead consumers as to the legality of what they have supplied. They have either shredded these documents or are buried deep in a salt mine somewhere. We just need to counter this "reconstruction" rubbish.

 

Copy of agreedment and my take on this nothing else will do. if any means if there is one.

 

Yes, the if any refers to a possible verbal agreement.

 

we all know what a CCA should be ,if they have not sent an agreedment as define they are in default

 

Spot on, however we need to define where they have failed and why, in any response to CCC's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good to have the origonal post.

 

The pages seem to be out of order in that post, plus one is missing.

 

All 5 pages in order below:

 

Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4 & Page 5


[SIZE=2][COLOR=SeaGreen][FONT=Verdana][URL="http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/"][/URL][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Folks!

 

Just one point to mention in relation to the OFT letter, I think it is not correct on one point:

 

Legal Argument

A copy of the executed agreement

 

Under the prescribed condition, section 77 of the Act requires the debtor to ‘...give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any)....‘. The ‘if any’ most naturally refers to the exception for agreements older than 1985.

 

That is not accurate. The "if any" was inserted to cover Verbal Agreements, it has nothing to do with Written Agreements older than 1985.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Folks!

 

Also, I created this Text version of the letter, so that it is ready for people to Copy/Paste into letters when needed!

 

THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 - Sections 77 and 78

Summary

On request and when accompanied by £1, a consumer has the right to:

• a copy of their executed agreement

• any other document referred to in it

• a statement showing

 

- the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor

 

- the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due, and

 

- the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due. If the creditor is unable to give this information, he can state instead how the dates and amounts fall to be ascertained.

The copy of the executed agreement need not be an exact copy but it must be a ‘true copy’ and not some reconstruction of what the original might have been and it must contain the same terms as the original. Where the terms have been varied as provided for within the agreement, the copy of the original agreement must be accompanied by a document setting out the current terms, as varied. Certain details may be omitted from the original agreement eg the signature but the debtor must be in no doubt as to the true nature of his obligations under the loan.

Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.

In our view a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’ and as such takes on the liabilities of section 77.

Under section 77(4), if the creditor is unable to provide this information, he is not entitled to enforce the debt while he remains in default (Decriminalised from 26 May 2008 on the coming into force of the CPRs).

Legal Argument

A copy of the executed agreement

 

Under the prescribed condition, section 77 of the Act requires the debtor to ‘...give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any)....‘. The ‘if any’ most naturally refers to the exception for agreements older than 1985.

Where a creditor receives a request to supply a copy of the executed agreement, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (‘1983 regs’) apply. Regulation 3(1) sets out the basic position that ‘every copy of an executed agreement... shall be a true copy’.

Regulation 3(2) goes on to concede that there may be omitted from this true copy various information such as details which are not required to be in the agreement by law: the signature box, signature (it should be noted that sub-ss 3-5 of section 127 do not apply to agreements entered into after 1 April 2007.A Court may then, for example, enforce unsigned agreements if it considers it is just to do so.) and date of signature. In our view the effect of Regulation 3(2) is that the creditor is only obliged to send out a generic copy of the agreement the debtor has signed up to. The creditor is not obliged to make an actual photocopy of the agreement.

However, the copy does have to be a ‘true copy’. This is a technical term, which has been discussed in a number of cases, mostly relating to bills of sale and the need to register a ‘true copy’ of the bill with the High Court. These cases come from the days before typewriters, when copies were made by hand. The consequences of filing a copy which was not a true copy were severe, since the bill would then be void and the creditor deprived of his security.

Meaning of ‘true copy’

 

In this context, the courts decided that a ‘true copy’ need not necessarily be an ‘exact copy,’ but it must be ‘so true that nobody reading it can by any possibility misunderstand it’ or be misled by it (In re Hewer ex parte Kahen (1882) LR 21 Ch.D. 871 at 875). The copy must contain ‘every material provision which is contained in the original’ (except that if the defect is made good by reading the document as a whole, the omission will not be fatal) (Court of Appeal in Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 at 98-99). Further, it is not sufficient for the copy merely ‘to state with complete accuracy in a summary form the effect of the stipulations contained in the original. It is not merely a document that is to state the true legal effect of the original; it is to be a copy of the original’ (per Atkin LJ in Burchell at 105).

Hewer, ex parte Kahen - the filed copy of the bill omitted the precise day of the month on which payment was to be made. The court held this was trivial, and no debtor would be misled by it.

 

Sharp v McHenry (1888 )LR 38 Ch.D. 427- the copy contained blanks which were not in the original. The court decided that the blanks were unimportant, since the omitted words were not required for the original bill to be valid.

Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 - the copy failed to include the words ‘per annum’ after the interest rate of 55%. The reader of the copy would have to guess whether the interest was per annum, per month or something else but as one could sensibly assume, correctly, that it was per annum it was a true copy.

Commercial Credit Company of Canada Ltd v Fuiton [1923] AC 798 - suggested further that where there are a raft of smaller differences in a bill of exchange copy, this could prevent it being a true copy. However where the differences were such as to make the copy contract actually different to the original, the copy will not be true. Lord Sumner, speaking of the man who may wish to refer to the copy, concluded that ‘the Act promises him ... a true copy, not a puzzle. He is to inspect it, not to recover the original by a process of conjectural emendation’ (at 807).

Terms and Conditions

Regulation 7(1) of the 1983 Regs requires that a requested copy of an agreement which has been unilaterally varied under section 82(1) of the Act, shall be accompanied either by the latest notice of variation or a copy of the terms and conditions as varied. Regulation 7(2) extends the principle to copies of varied securities supplied either to the consumer or the surety.

Debt collectors as creditors

A consumer credit debt can be assigned in two ways: in law under the Law of Property Act 1925 or in equity but in practice we need to be concerned only with statutory assignments.

For a debt to be assigned in law, there are three conditions:

• the assignment must be absolute.

• the assignor must make the assignment in writing.

• express notice of the assignment must be given in writing to the debtor (see section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925).

 

The reason the debt is assigned is immaterial. For instance, books of loans may be sold on to be collected as an asset rather than as a discounted debt.

In some instances, the debt collector may have purchased a debt but not have the relevant agreement. Whilst, in general, ‘liabilities’ cannot be assigned there must be a question mark over whether ‘duties’ are the same. This is important since there is a rule, expressed in Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106 at 289 to 302, that where a benefit is conditional upon some burden, the assignee must also take the burden. An example is where the contractor has the right to mine on condition that they pay compensation to those disrupted by the mining. If they assign their right to mine, the assignee takes this right subject to the duty to pay compensation.

Therefore, there is a strong argument that under the Act, the right to payment is never absolute. It is always subject to duties (many of which are imposed under the Act). For instance, the right to enforce the credit agreement at all is subject to the duty to comply with section 77 or 78. This duty is not a ‘liability’ as such under the credit agreement but is a condition of the right to repayment.

 

There has been a suggestion that debt collectors can avoid complying with section 77 and 78 by claiming that the agreement is no longer `live’ in some way as it has been ‘terminated’ based on section 103 of the Act. This talks of a ‘trader’ who was the creditor under a regulated agreement, implying that ‘trader’ is no longer a creditor once an agreement is ended. Section 103, however, deals with where the customer no longer owes any money at all and therefore it is correct to say that he is no longer a debtor and the trader is no longer his creditor. Where money is still owed, section 103 would not apply, since the consumer would not be entitled to a termination statement.

The first issue on when the debt collector becomes the creditor is relatively simple. Section 189(1) of the Act defines ‘creditor’ as ‘the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law.’

 

Where the debt collector is not acting as the creditor’s agent, or otherwise on his behalf, the only legal basis he can have for demanding payment from the debtor is if the creditor’s rights and duties have been assigned to him. Therefore we can be reasonably confident that a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’.

 

Unpalatable though section 77 and 78 may be for some creditors, if the debt collector is unable to prove the debt, they should be more careful about the debts they buy. They cannot complain that the sections are somehow unfair as it is in the Act and so must be complied with. It is up to them to ensure they purchase and maintain sufficient records to be able to prove the debt and comply with the other requirements of the Act.

 

Misleading statements to debtors

 

Sections 77 and 78 refer to supplying a copy of the ‘executed’ agreement within 12 working days of receiving a written request from the debtor. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable against the debtor until a copy is provided. In addition, if the default continues for a period of 1 month the creditor is in breach of the Act.

Execution involves signing the agreement. If no agreement has been executed, it is impossible to supply a true copy of the agreement. Should a creditor supply a copy agreement, even though the debtor has never signed any agreement with that creditor, no indication should be given that it is a true copy or a copy of an executed agreement. To do so may contravene Regulation 5 of the CPRs and be an unfair or improper business practice.

 

The consequence of the debtor not having signed a credit agreement with the creditor is that the agreement is unenforceable except where the court orders that enforcement may take place. Where the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 the court is not able to make such an order unless the agreement was signed by the debtor.

 

Therefore it is misleading to state, when complying with a section 77 or 78 request, that the debtor has signed or would have signed (or similar) the enclosed agreement where the debtor has not done so. From 26 May 2008 such a statement will be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Regulation 5 of the CPRs states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ (Regulation 5(5)(d) of the CPRs).

Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is also a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Regulation 5(4)(k) of the CPRs. It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it.

 

Breach of Regulation 5 of the CPRs is a criminal offence under Regulation 9 and can also be enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Under section 218A of the Enterprise Act, where an application for an Enforcement Order is made the court may require the Respondent ‘to provide evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim’ (such as a claim that a debtor has signed a credit agreement).

In addition, it should be noted that threats to take action that cannot be taken is listed as one of the factors that will be considered in assessing aggressive practices in Regulation 7(2) of the CPRs.

 

May 2008

 

Susan Edwards

Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading

Knock yourselves out Folks...now you can Copy/Paste any bit you like! :grin:

 

Cheers,

BRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Folks!

 

Also, I created this Text version of the letter, so that it is ready for people to Copy/Paste into letters when needed!

 

Knock yourselves out Folks...now you can Copy/Paste any bit you like! :grin:

 

Cheers,

BRW

Well done again BRW.:)

 

Do you ever take time off? :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Folks!

 

Also, I created this Text version of the letter, so that it is ready for people to Copy/Paste into letters when needed!

 

Knock yourselves out Folks...now you can Copy/Paste any bit you like! :grin:

 

Cheers,

BRW

Hi BRW,

 

Looking at this again, it appears to be your version that I have used.

 

Vint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello vint1954!

 

Do you ever take time off?

 

Not when it comes to fighting banks!

 

I'm on a mission.

 

A find and destroy mission!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello vint1954!

 

 

 

Not when it comes to fighting banks!

 

I'm on a mission.

 

A find and destroy mission!

 

Cheers,

BRW

:D:D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An iteresting point - Could the text below be used to persuade Credit Reference Agencies that because a signature to an Alledged Agreement cannot be produced, they cannot state that we 'agreed' to the proccessing of our information. Simply relying on it must have been done at some time, is not acceptable in most Courts, so why should they be able to bend the law?

Meaning of ‘true copy’

 

In this context, the courts decided that a ‘true copy’ need not necessarily be an ‘exact copy,’ but it must be ‘so true that nobody reading it can by any possibility misunderstand it’ or be misled by it (In re Hewer ex parte Kahen (1882) LR 21 Ch.D. 871 at 875). The copy must contain ‘every material provision which is contained in the original’ (except that if the defect is made good by reading the document as a whole, the omission will not be fatal) (Court of Appeal in Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 at 98-99). Further, it is not sufficient for the copy merely ‘to state with complete accuracy in a summary form the effect of the stipulations contained in the original. It is not merely a document that is to state the true legal effect of the original; it is to be a copy of the original’ (per Atkin LJ in Burchell at 105).

Hewer, ex parte Kahen - the filed copy of the bill omitted the precise day of the month on which payment was to be made. The court held this was trivial, and no debtor would be misled by it.

 

Sharp v McHenry (1888 )LR 38 Ch.D. 427- the copy contained blanks which were not in the original. The court decided that the blanks were unimportant, since the omitted words were not required for the original bill to be valid.

Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 - the copy failed to include the words ‘per annum’ after the interest rate of 55%. The reader of the copy would have to guess whether the interest was per annum, per month or something else but as one could sensibly assume, correctly, that it was per annum it was a true copy.

Commercial Credit Company of Canada Ltd v Fuiton [1923] AC 798 - suggested further that where there are a raft of smaller differences in a bill of exchange copy, this could prevent it being a true copy. However where the differences were such as to make the copy contract actually different to the original, the copy will not be true. Lord Sumner, speaking of the man who may wish to refer to the copy, concluded that ‘the Act promises him ... a true copy, not a puzzle. He is to inspect it, not to recover the original by a process of conjectural emendation’ (at 807).

 


Every journey begins with a single step :):)

 

Please note: I have no qualifications in this area - my advice is learned from the wonderful members of this Forum. Thanks to you all for your help.

 

If you have found my post helpful please leave a short message by clicking the star to the left of my profile - Thank You

 

The only person entitled to your Personal Finance details is a Judge not a DCA

 

Move all banking activity to another banking group if you have a dispute - your funds can be used to offset debts within the same group.

Be careful with Banking details (card/account numbers) as these can be used to take unauthorised payments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Vint,

Good thread, and some good points being made here.

I have received one of the generic printouts in response to a CCA request.

They said "This is what your agreement would have looked like.... a "true copy" is not necessarily a signed copy...as you've used the account we WILL have had your signature etc etc."

 

I wrote back on the lines of:

I am disgusted that you have chosen to hide behind the obscure wording of an archaic law drafted when legal contracts were written and signed by quill and ink.

At that time a true copy of any such document involved rewriting by hand, until the happy advent of the photocopier.

As a large and profitable business I feel safe in assuming that you do now possess photocopying equipment or equivalent.

I therefore request that if you DO hold a signed copy of this alleged agreement, you kindly photocopy it and send it to me.

If you fail to do so I can only assume that your statement that you hold a signed copy is incorrect and misleading.

Until you fulfill my request this account remains, very firmly, in dispute.

 

That was five months ago..not heard a dickybird since..no CCA, no threats, no statements. I think they must have filed it under "WTF do we do with this one" :D

Elsa x

Edited by Undercover-Elsa
  • Haha 1

PLEASE NOTE... I AM MOST SORRY BUT I HAVE VERY LIMITED AVAILABILITY AT THE MOMENT DUE TO EXTREME PRESSURE OF WORK - IF YOU REQUIRE URGENT HELP ON YOUR THREAD AND ARE GETTING NO RESPONSE PLEASE HIT THE TRIANGLE FOR SITE TEAM ASSISTANCE. ELSA XXX

 

Please check out my BLOG for the quick guide to debt threats - it has all the info & letter template links you need to get started on your journey of TAKING CONTROL. :roll:

 

All opinions are my own based on research. I am not legally qualified, if in doubt please consult a legal expert.

Hope this has helped or made you smile. Keep your chin up, you're among friends now! Elsa xxx

Please click the *star* of any CAG member who has helped you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very enlightening thread...............and Elsa I love your response re the photocopier, it gave me a giggle :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Vint,

Good thread, and some good points being made here.

I have received one of the generic printouts in response to a CCA request.

They said "This is what your agreement would have looked like.... a "true copy" is not necessarily a signed copy...as you've used the account we WILL have had your signature etc etc."

 

I wrote back on the lines of:

I am disgusted that you have chosen to hide behind the obscure wording of an archaic law drafted when legal contracts were written and signed by quill and ink.

At that time a true copy of any such document involved rewriting by hand, until the happy advent of the photocopier.

As a large and profitable business I feel safe in assuming that you do now possess photocopying equipment or equivalent.

I therefore request that if you DO hold a signed copy of this alleged agreement, you kindly photocopy it and send it to me.

If you fail to do so I can only assume that your statement that you hold a signed copy is incorrect and misleading.

Until you fulfill my request this account remains, very firmly, in dispute.

 

That was five months ago..not heard a dickybird since..no CCA, no threats, no statements. I think they must have filed it under "WTF do we do with this one" :D

Elsa x

Thats the one elsa.

 

Which CCC was that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...