Confirmation of two points please

[kel123]

I know it's been discussed many times but I need clarrification on two points please.

 

1. If a claiment/creditor admits that they have detroyed the original Consumer Credit Agreement it is acceptable for them to use a microfitch copy in court.

 

2. If the claiment/creditor in response to a "this account is in dispute letter" issues a complaints reference number and states that they are investigating and that they never send a final decsion only a we are still investigating letter, they are not entitled to continue collecting or take you to court for the full balance. also if the Default notice was issued while stiill under investigation by the claiment/creditor this renders the defaul Notice illegal.

 

Thanks for your help

 

kel

[kel123]

I have to email a fast track standard disclosure list by 4 pm today.

 

Do I inlude things like CCAct, Presidances etc or is it just my letters to them and the letters they have missed off their disclosure list. Their disclosure list came today.

 

kel

 

Could someone answer my questions in my other thread 'Conformation of two points please' as this is relevant to the above

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Bump

[dx100uk]

if they have an enforceable cca in any format then, if it is for that reason you are disputing the a/c, then surely the A/C is not in dispute?

 

i would also think that microfish is acceptable in court, it is a 'true copy' which that is all it has to be.

 

dx

[supasta1]

I thought that a True Copy of an agreement could only be used in respose to a section 77/78 request, in court they have to produce the original.. Altho i am sure i have seen a few threads where microfich copies have been accepted when they are clearly readable? I am sure an expert wikll clarify..

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

It is not clear if you expect to recieve a county court summons regarding a credit card account.

If you expect to recieve a summons then IMHO you should forget section 77/78 requests, using instead use CPR 31.16 to request.

Follow this link for advice http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html#post1868913

 

Andy

[car2403]

2 merged

 

Did you get this sorted?

[kel123]

Thanks guys, perhaps I did not explain it properly

 

I am in court between the end of Oct beginning of Nov, SC&M (Lloyds Credit Card). I am happy that I am going to win on numerous points (except if I get a dark ages Judge aged 130 with a mind that the masses have no say)

 

On their Standard disclosure it say, under document no longer in our control: The original application/consumer agreement was distroyed after being transfereed to microfish. Now as I understand it the legislation says the original should be available in court. So therefore is it purely up to the judge to accept a copy of a copy? and is it general for a judge to go this way?

 

With regards to the account in dispute: Lloyds had not supplied the ccagreement within the alotted time frames, and I sent a letter saying because of this the account is in dispute and only therefore enforceable by a courrt of law, when they eventually sent a poor and in places illegable copy (with errors) I wrote to them saying account is still in dispute because of............. They replied saying we are sorry blah blah and here is your case reference number. We are investigating. I had 2 sudsequent 'we are still investigating letter' with no final responce. It was only after the 3rd we are still investigating letter that I stoped paying. They DN-ed just after that point. My question was by sending these we are still investigating letters and issuing reference numbers they agreed/confirmed/by default that the account was in dispute, therefore rendering the DN illegal

[dx100uk]

microfish will be a photo of the original, so thus you have a printout of that? & you say it has 'errors'

 

if your whole case rests upon this being faulty, i'd post up what you have.

 

the other question that must be asked is: "is this your debt?" regardless to ifthey have an enforcable CCA or not, i think thats the way the judge will view it regardless to the CCA having 'questionable' aspects.

 

dx

[kel123]

Dx

It as been discussed here and other forums and besides I now live by: 'Walls have ears'

 

I would agree 'is this your debt' is from what I have read, what some unlearned judges say and therefore I am ready with my reply.

 

I am in many respects facing this with a blazay attitude because I am in a win or no loose situation - a win is preferable but not a neccesity, my credit rating is already shot and being on a dmp means in essance that what I earn should be put into the kitty - now a ccj of lets say £20, £30 or fourty pounds per month would give me stability with the ability to earn money.

 

The other thing I will say is if everbody beleaved that it is as simple as 'is this your debt' then we should all be on our knees and praying to the lord god (we do as we like) of banks and be greatfull that they partake in or bottoms with the blessing of the judicery

[dx100uk]

ok well we cant help with only half the info......your call.

 

pers i would not rely on a questionable CCA to get me out of paying this debt, if thats what you are trying to do.

 

an unenforcable CCA is not some magic bullet that wipes debt out.

 

dx

[kel123]

I had this discussion some 16 months ago, i.e. ethics. And it seems strange that you have written the line 'get me out of' as a cagger, I am not getting out of anything I am using the same LAWS that the bank can and do use against others, including against me. The banks help put me in debt and help themselves to put me further under. Your magic bullet should be used to cleanse the curupt system where it is deemed acceptable for the institutes to use the law but it is 'a loop hole or a get me out of this' if Joe Public uses it.

 

If it is incorrect then it is incorrect no matter which side of the tracks you live and of cause we know that it will all fall down to balance of probability, political will and what mood the judge is in!

 

From a tax paying, middle class, conservative business man to a sinical objector of the system in 4 years. And who made me this way Government, judicery and the ultimate power holders - the banks, and I am not the only one who thinks this way

 

I ultimately blame myself for my nievaty and then some of the blame must fall at the feet of my perants for instilling in me to trust the institutes because they have us a heart - bulldodo

[dx100uk]

sorry i must strongly disagree

CAG is not here to help people find loopholes to avoid paying their debts.

 

CAG is about legally fighting back

following the correct method, i'e by reclaiming charges etc etc , would be doing everyone a favour & they could gain by your actions.

 

as it stands, the chosen method will only strengthen those we wish to battle, but weaken CAG as a whole.

 

unsubbing.

 

dx

[the_shadow]

On their Standard disclosure it say, under document no longer in our control: The original application/consumer agreement was distroyed after being transfereed to microfish. Now as I understand it the legislation says the original should be available in court. So therefore is it purely up to the judge to accept a copy of a copy? and is it general for a judge to go this way?

 

If this is small claims track then evidence is whatever the judge says is evidence, copies should always be introduced as hearsay evidence and you may want to read up on this thread about questioning copies and how they were created and controlled.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/162535-documents-court-civil-evidence.html

 

With regards to the account in dispute: Lloyds had not supplied the ccagreement within the alotted time frames, and I sent a letter saying because of this the account is in dispute and only therefore enforceable by a courrt of law,

 

Imo this is not correct, the account is in dispute only UNTIL they provide the CCA.

 

when they eventually sent a poor and in places illegable copy (with errors)

 

However if its illegible then it doesnt conform to s78

 

S.

[kel123]

Shaddow

 

They only issued a complaint reference number and we are investigating after I sent the letter explaining the problems with the received ccagreement. Therefore they themselves placed the acc in dispute by their actions. Interestingly a coverall statement in their cannot find it section of the standard disclosure, here is the complete list:

 

1. documents formally in the possession, custody or power of the claiment

 

2.Original of application form/agreement which has been copied to onto microfiche and subsequently destroyed

 

3. Originals of all letters from the claiment or it's agents to defendant and any third perties and any other documents which by reason of effluxion of time have been lost or destroyed, misplaced or cannot now be traced and/or reproduced

 

In their we have list they do not list the 'We are investigating letters', I have the feeling that they think I am telling stories and have made them up. Very convenient them points above but won't they get a shock when I present the originals. I expect an I want this, this and this off the standard disclure list.

 

Leasson for today don't distroy anything LOL

[the_shadow]

Shaddow

 

1. documents formally in the possession, custody or power of the claiment

 

2.Original of application form/agreement which has been copied to onto microfiche and subsequently destroyed

 

You need to read that link I quoted above, if the prescribed terms are on the form but cant be read it should be game over, if they are on a separate piece of paper they say was connected or on the back of the microfiche document you need to put them to strict proof of this fact. If it cant be read at all then it should be game over also. Could come down to Judge lottery though.

 

S.