Capital (one) Justice

[Bigdebtor]

Hi Diddy and all.

 

I have received a cheque from Cap 1. Full payment £95. What a let down.

I should not have sent them the copy of the Court order.

Never Mind, onward and upward.

 

I have also had an e-mail from that nice mr. Berman telling me that wendy starr is dealing personaly with my requests (demands?). She has been out of the office but will e-mail me on the 24th. I wonder if mentioning the national press had anything to do with the unexpectedly cordial e-mail?

 

Cit B I am about to PM you.

 

Surely they were still late? Play them at their own game and don't cash the cheque - and claim it arrived well after the 28 day deadline. That's what they would do to charge you more late payment and over limit charges!

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

Thanks PB. Does that not deserve my scales being tipped? I don't think anyone has yet - and in over 100 posts I have suggested even worse things before! (not that I'm apologising!) BD

[Bigdebtor]

Thanks PB - the best is yet to come!

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

I

However no creditor can enforce without an agreement.

 

No they can't reconstitute a signature, but I fear the High Court might rule that a reconstituted agreement WITHOUT a signature can prove an enforceable agreement, but I don't know how that might work in practice.

 

 

 

Does this apply to larger business loans (taken out in Oct 2007) which may not be covered by Consumer Credit Act?

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

Johnerog

 

I see the logic in what you say - assuming I have interpreted you correctly - WE can't reclaim anything already paid out by us towards the amount borrowed - but THEY can't claim any interest or charges - presumably because they can't prove what was agreed?

 

If that is right then anyone who has a credit card for over 50 months and paid the mininimum 2% per month has therefore REPAID the original debt - and no balance is due if they have an unenforceable CCA. Presumable anyone who has paid 2% for 100 months has therefore overpaid by 100% and will therefore be due the entire credit limit back as well as the interest and charges?

 

Can you please let us have some back up (legal) information to re-inforce what you say and that we can quote to OC's in our claim to have all interest and charges already paid out refunded - plus any overpayment of the original debt due back if paid back beyond 100%?

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

Personal details still in letter!

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

I wish I could find my copy of this same letter! However I don't need to.

 

I'll just reconstitute this letter as being the sort of letter I would have if I could find it (isn't that what reconstituting is all about?)

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

If they don't have the original agreement how can they confirm the reconstituted one is in fact a "true copy"?

 

I would have thought a "true copy" of a non-existent agreement must be invisible, weightless, not written down on any paper and must be identical to every other "true copy" of non existent agreements - in which case how do they know it's definitely a true copy of the one that's not been agreed by you and not one that's not the non-existent agreement not agreed, not signed and not given to "someone else" (or indeed not given to his sister "anyone else" too as well and possibly also)?

 

Ask the judge to follow this irrefutable logic and then rule on that point!

 

BD

Edited March 3, 2010 by Bigdebtor
got a wee bit confused with my double negatives - still am!

[Bigdebtor]

what i was saying is that if they were allowed to reconstruct the varied agreement from other sources then under 4/ quoted in the post - they would be able to do so for the original as it does not say "must produce the original" it says must produce a "copy" of the original

 

But as I tried to ask most clearly;-) above - if they are not copying FROM the original - how can they CONFIRM it is a "true copy" of the original?

 

I know we know we can take their word for it as they would never lie:rolleyes: but a judge might not be as trusting as wot we all are:)

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

i think we would all agree with that- but things have move on........

 

you need to read carey v hsbc- it has already been established that a copy can be produced without reference to the original for the purpose of satisfying s78 (from other records)

 

the argument is whether this can be translated to producing similar copies for enforcement

 

Surely it's enforcement capability that is the acid test - ducking and diving to avoid s78 is just a side show to the main event.

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

I think we are getting side tracked here. If you read the statement you will see that I stated that Cap1 have no agreement and I have asked for a declaration of parties.

Cap 1 cannot argue about that, they have admitted it, TWICE. The Muguff arguement is dead in the water.

 

That was the point I was trying to make - in your case there is clearly NO agreement in existence - therefore there can be NO TRUE COPY - it would be as invisible, weightless etc. as the non-existent original. I was trying to make this point is a humorous manner to illustrate just how stupid the recent rulings are (although they may be useful if they might be used to prove OC's do sometime lie - gosh - shock horror!) but this must have got lost in translation.

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

I still say it is impossible to make an "honest and accurate copy" of a non existent agreement as by definition the copy would itself also not exist. "something" is not a copy of "nothing". It is in fact the exact opposite.

 

0 is not 1 and 1 is not 0 and they can never be equal or equivalent.

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

the one thing of course they cannot re produce is your signature so i think it is important that you deny ever having signed such an agreement rather than simply putting them to proof (IMO)

 

but if they then do come up with an agreement with your signature on it you might be looking a bit sick

 

If you are CERTAIN you never signed that specific agreement then I would stick to your guns and deny signing it.

 

However if you MIGHT have signed one with this OC then you could simply and truthfully state that you cannot recall signing this specific agreement. Personally whilst I know I have taken out a lot of credit over the years - and have signed many agreements - I do not recall signing any specific agreement - which is why I have asked for cca copies to confirm matters (which of course they don't becasue of the recent crazy rulings on reconsitution). No judge can recall EVERY time he/she signed anything - so why should any LIP?

 

I also do not believe any credit agreement has yet been enforced in court if the original signed agreement cannot be produced there. Can anyone refute this last point?

 

Also if it does exist surely a full signed copy of it must be produced (in full - including signature) in response to a CPR request - so it can't just be produced with a flourish in court?

 

 

BD