Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[angry cat]

John, the OFT are controlled by the (present) Government.

 

The Consumer must not be allowed to, 'Rock the Boat';

We the Consumer, intend to Rock their Boat.

 

Our Government, should not underestimate the 'POWER' of the 'British Elecorate'! If they do, then they will have a Public Rebellion on their hands;

many matters involved...

 

AC

[angry cat]

I can't help thinking we are getting worked up about two different things here.

 

A reconstituted agreement may satisfy a 77/78 request but cannot be used in court without a change in the law, and the law cannot be used retrospectively.

 

Court action requires original documentation, with all prescribed terms and signatures; and the claiment must produce any document mentioned in their POC.

 

Also the CCA is to protect unwary consumers not lazy finance houses, a defence against 'caveat emptor' in a way.

 

The Creditor cannot, reconstitute, make a conjectured reconstruction, if said Creditor has nothing upon which to reconstruct!

 

End of.

Edited December 13, 2009 by angry cat
error

[Peterbard]

 

Re: lost CCAs

 

The regs do however, allow the creditor to supply the current terms and conditions in order to satisfy a CCA 77 78 request if the agreement has been lost, providing the agreement was entered into prior to 1985.

 

There is no mention that a "recreation" would suffice post 1985.

 

 

Hi

 

Indeed not paul

 

Many creditors try it on by saying that the regs permit the current copy to be issued under the copy regulations, the fact is that they plainly state that current coppies must be supplied in addition to the orriginal true copies post 85.

 

Cheers

Peter

[johnerog]

The Creditor cannot, reconstitute, make a conjectured reconstruction, if said Creditor has nothing upon which to reconstruct!

 

End of.

Exactly.

[ruinedbynatwest]

QUOTE Bigdebtor:-

 

"John

You have been very helpful to me on another thread very recently when I discussed the Bank had lost the facility letter and loan agreement. Do these requirements also apply for Business Loans/Overdrafts possibly not covered by CCA?"

-------------

 

Hello BD !

Don't forget that there are two (unfortunately overlapping and hence, competing) systems of law; the Statute and the Common Law - sorry to spell it out - but as a former lecturer I learned that you have to state the obvious - newcomers will read this too, and hopefully they will become motivated to extend their own readings as we've had to - because it never was easy, was it ? The Wizard of OZ has a lot to answer to !

 

The common law applies to your stuff too - 'cos all professionals are under

a duty to act reasonably (as we all are, as mature reasoning and, importantly consenting adults ) - but recognised professionals are under a duty that is commensurate with their proclaimed level of expertise especially where what is termed a "special relationship" arises on the facts - where they give advice, eg, they are liable for the quality of that advice, should you suffer damage, etc.

 

AND, no matter what your profession is, you are to be judged (common law don't forget) by a Jury of your peers (in my case, by 12 cowboy builders!) but the law has developed with increasing levels of competence within the professions, so a solicitor, accountant, doctor, teacher, religious principle, breast enhancer, etc is under a STRICT duty to not act negligently - that's common law.

 

Parliament watches all these legal developments and every now and then it says (to the Judge's horror) "Hang on a minute. We're losing voters over such and such (forget the rights and wrongs of it) and we're gonna pass a bill to get those voters back" - which is about the level of respect a lot of judges have for parliament in its legislative function - they tend to think that when Parliament takes it upon itself to intervene in the law, it usually does so for the worse !!

 

And we're seeing the fallout right now in consumer credit.

 

The Common Law Judges can't argue with Parliament - it's strictly forbidden under the Bill of Rights Acts (1688 & 1689), so they fudge with parliament's draftings instead, and that's OK ? No. that's not OK. It's humiliatingly victimizing.

 

Business loans are also regulated IF section 8 applies - and in most small businesses, sole traders, partnerships, etc, it did -subject to size of loan - whereas it applies now in all cases where the limit is removed and I believe this point should be argued where there is doubt in an individual case - perhaps yours ? BECAUSE ; The qualifying limit imposed by Section 8 was actually all very patronising - ie if you wanted to borrow £2k in 1977 you were considered a numpty who needed protecting, but if you wanted (or were pursuaded by your ratsnest [must edit that out] bank manager) to borrow £2500 , you were considered businesslike and in need of no protection because you would say no to £2500 because you knew that the £2000 was protected !

 

Whatever you borrow, or want to borrow, banks are under (at least) a common law duty to demonstrate that "best possible practice" dictates every step of the negotiations throughout the particular relationship that arises on the facts.

 

And there we see the anomaly. The Banker/customer relationship is not seen as being a special relationship by the common law - whereas I believe we now have sufficient evidence of eg a widespread disrespect for statutory CCA controls among that fraternity that this "relationship" between banks and their customers must be rethought by the Courts - as must the relationship between the banks and the Courts themselves - (where 'good faith' will no longer do) - sure, there have been a few cases that may or may not demonstrate judicial "impartiality" toward the banks - but with the current rise in CCA defences and their 'despatch' by the common law courts - we are seeing that which the Man on the Clapham Omnibus will tell you has always been there - AND WHAT MR BENNION DID HIS UTMOST TO PREVENT - a rampant and virtually unfettered abuse of consumer's rights by greedy creditors-------------

 

Don't forget why we even have Section 173 of the 1974 CCA; it forbids contracting out of the CCA - and it is there to remind the Common Law Courts that they must not "Contract out" either when considering Judgment.

 

This widespead abuse of debtors that has come to light thanks to the CCA is what I suspect the Courts are (rightly) very worried about. We will look back on this period and see it for what it is; a long overdue growth in consumer awareness.

 

John Story

 

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 14, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[stapeley]

Is it true or untrue that for many years credit card companies chucked money at people? True or untrue, it was easy to pile up debts ?

Was it not true that many Credit card companies on receipt of application forms sent out credit cards enclosed with the Agreements?

Should the customer not have checked dated and signed the Agreement document, then returned the document to the creditor for safe keeping ?

 

A CCA should have been signed and returned to the creditor BEFORE any credit was made available.

Documents should have been keep safe and in tact .

 

We all know that this did not happen in many cases .

 

If there is reasonable doubt in criminal law , a not guilty verdict must be returned.

 

The person who drew up the C C ACT knew what he meant to clearly establish , but unfortunately only succeeded in confusing everyone .

[paulwlton]

Copies of old agreements and security instruments where the agreement or security instrument has been lost etc.

 

9. Any copy of an executed agreement made before 19th May 1985 or of a security instrument relating to security provided before that date which is given to the debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act on or after that date may comprise an easily legible statement of the current terms of the agreement or security as the case may be insofar as they are known to the creditor or owner where, due to an accident or some other cause beyond his control, the creditor or owner does not have in his possession the executed agreement or security instrument or any copy thereof.

[paulwlton]

I can't help thinking we are getting worked up about two different things here.

 

A reconstituted agreement may satisfy a 77/78 request but cannot be used in court without a change in the law, and the law cannot be used retrospectively.

 

Court action requires original documentation, with all prescribed terms and signatures; and the claiment must produce any document mentioned in their POC.

 

Also the CCA is to protect unwary consumers not lazy finance houses, a defence against 'caveat emptor' in a way.

 

What if the agreement was subjected to a CCJ and the bank then "recreate" an agreement that has a post judgment interest clause to satisfy all the Interest they've been covertly applying since judgment?

 

There's a fine line between recreate and fraud.

[ruinedbynatwest]

 

A CCA should have been signed and returned to the creditor BEFORE any credit was made available.

Documents should have been keep safe and in tact .

We all know that this did not happen in many cases .

If there is reasonable doubt in criminal law , a not guilty verdict must be returned.

The person who drew up the C C ACT knew what he meant to clearly establish , but unfortunately only succeeded in confusing everyone .

 

Hi Stapeley,

Exactly ! (apart from the reference to Francis Bennion to whom I am deeply indebted) - Particularly pertinent in all of these contraversial cases is your comment "If there is reasonable doubt in criminal law, a not guilty verdict must be returned" - Civil cases require a reduced burden of "a balance of probabilities" - ie 51% instead of the 100% demanded by criminal cases - however, the Courts have failed to comply with this evidential requirement that a debtor is to be given the benefit of any doubt; on the contrary we had to prove to the criminal standard the existence of a common law refinancing term that established that a part of our multiple agreement was "restricted use" (S 11(1)©.

However, we couldn't do that because there was nothing written - and Mr Jackson denied that "any terms of the kind regulated by the CCA were agreed" - (which appeared very staged - and which is shown by S 8 to be untruthful) - but we did show to the criminal standard that S 8 applies to the existing agreements, and that the Court has refused to adduce the regulation is a matter of record at the Court where an Order exists to that effect !!

The CCA lacks a "blurb" which is a pity, but Mr Bennion's Section 18 is only contraversial because the Judges see that just about every regulated agreement is, as Bennion says, also "a multiple agreement" by definition.

 

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 14, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest

[ruinedbynatwest]

Copies of old agreements and security instruments where the agreement or security instrument has been lost etc.

 

9. Any copy of an executed agreement made before 19th May 1985 or of a security instrument relating to security provided before that date which is given to the debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act on or after that date may comprise an easily legible statement of the current terms of the agreement or security as the case may be insofar as they are known to the creditor or owner where, due to an accident or some other cause beyond his control, the creditor or owner does not have in his possession the executed agreement or security instrument or any copy thereof.

--------------------------

Hi Paul,

What date is on this item please ? I presume it's from the OFT ? Surely it's not the legislation itself ?

Cheers

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

[Basil Fawlty]

I've read most of this thread over the last few days, but still cant get my head round a few things, so can someone much more clued up than me please explain a few things.

 

Are we saying that if an Agreement taken out before 1985 is missing, a reconstituted one can be used in court?

If after 1985, then the original must be provided in court?

 

And, is it possible that the final judgement from the Manchester cases will say that original agreements wont be needed anymore, even in court, and reconstituted ones will do?

 

Or, is it not just as simple as this?

 

BF

[kel123]

I've read most of this thread over the last few days, but still cant get my head round a few things, so can someone much more clued up than me please explain a few things.

 

Are we saying that if an Agreement taken out before 1985 is missing, a reconstituted one can be used in court? Yes

If after 1985, then the original must be provided in court? No! should, it's up to the DJ! who may accept a copy (probability).

 

And, is it possible that the final judgement from the Manchester cases will say that original agreements wont be needed anymore, even in court, and reconstituted ones will do? Maybe who knows

 

Or, is it not just as simple as this?

 

BF

 

It can go either way, personally I do not think the CMC's are helping the common man's cause

[ruinedbynatwest]

Originally posted by Basil Fawlty, and responded by kel 123,

"And, is it possible that the final judgement from the Manchester cases will say that original agreements wont be needed anymore, even in court, and reconstituted ones will do?" "Maybe who knows"

 

Section 141 grants sole jurisdiction to the County Court in ALL CCA matters - and S 141(2) provides that where an action is commenced in the High Court and it is NOT Transferred immediately to the County Court - then, in respect of 141(1) it shall be deemed as "improperly brought" - bbecause Parliament recognised the problems that emanate from common law 'fudging' - In other words, the Manchester High Court, as a Common Law Court, is not the court of competence - the County Court is ! I am very surprised and dismayed that nobody challenges that hearing under 141(2). Yet again, the scene is set for the Common Law Court to disrespect the Statute with a common law ruling for the credit industry. Let's hope I'm wrong, but,

this is a matter for Parliament to sort out - not the common law courts.

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 14, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest

[paulwlton]

--------------------------

Hi Paul,

What date is on this item please ? I presume it's from the OFT ? Surely it's not the legislation itself ?

Cheers

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

 

Hi John

 

The 1983 regulations. (1557)

[johnerog]

I can't help thinking we are getting worked up about two different things here.

 

A reconstituted agreement may satisfy a 77/78 request but cannot be used in court without a change in the law, and the law cannot be used retrospectively.

 

Court action requires original documentation, with all prescribed terms and signatures; and the claiment must produce any document mentioned in their POC.

 

Also the CCA is to protect unwary consumers not lazy finance houses, a defence against 'caveat emptor' in a way.

 

Would some of you senior caggers comment on this please. Am I talking from the wrong orifice.

[johnerog]

What if the agreement was subjected to a CCJ and the bank then "recreate" an agreement that has a post judgment interest clause to satisfy all the Interest they've been covertly applying since judgment?

 

There's a fine line between recreate and fraud.

 

Sorry Paul just seen this.

I suppose the question is; was the CCJ granted on an enforceable agreement? Is the agreement or the CCJ wrong?

 

John(e)

[paulwlton]

Sorry Paul just seen this.

I suppose the question is; was the CCJ granted on an enforceable agreement? Is the agreement or the CCJ wrong?

 

John(e)

 

I met with RBS senior execs at the House of Commons in July where it was admitted that their debt collection dept had set customers accounts up contrary to the original terms and conditions. This was admitted (in front of the Housing Minister). In my case RBS changed my accounts into tracker variable rate loans and then recreated agreements to try to justify the extra 10k they'd added....these were passed to me as true copies of my loans. However, lucky for me I found my original carbon copy.

 

I strongly disagree with recreating agreements from banking records.

[Bigdebtor]

Surely that amounts to fraud and a jail sentence for whoever did it?

[Docman]

Would some of you senior caggers comment on this please. Am I talking from the wrong orifice.

I don't think I count as a senior Cagger even though I have seen more than 50 Christmas' but john you are spot on.

Ss77/78 are about debtors being able to get a copy of the agreement they signed. The banks etc have tried to interpret the regulations in such a way that they just produce the current terms & conditions. The Manchester court cases are to determine if the banks interpretation is correct.

If the bank sues, then they have to show that the agreement was signed by both parties, that it contained the 'prescribed terms' within the signed document and finally that the document is legible. Those requirements are set in S61 of the Act and cannot be changed by the Court. Indeed, when the courts have rules, their view is that Parliament set out the requirements in clear English. In the words of Tuckey LJ the banks have 'no room for manoeuvre’.

[paulwlton]

I don't think I count as a senior Cagger even though I have seen more than 50 Christmas' but john you are spot on.

Ss77/78 are about debtors being able to get a copy of the agreement they signed. The banks etc have tried to interpret the regulations in such a way that they just produce the current terms & conditions. The Manchester court cases are to determine if the banks interpretation is correct.

If the bank sues, then they have to show that the agreement was signed by both parties, that it contained the 'prescribed terms' within the signed document and finally that the document is legible. Those requirements are set in S61 of the Act and cannot be changed by the Court. Indeed, when the courts have rules, their view is that Parliament set out the requirements in clear English. In the words of Tuckey LJ the banks have 'no room for manoeuvre’.

 

Nicely summed up.

[ruinedbynatwest]

Quote from PaulW

" I strongly disagree with recreating agreements from banking records"

Endquote.

________________-

 

Exactly ! What the hell is going on ? One thing is for sure - the criminal Courts would face charges of treason if they allowed tampering with the evidence- for evidence to be "recreated" in this way ! How long before some bright spark then started "manufacturing" such agreements !

 

Evidential requirements are evidential requirements. It is a term of a credit trader's CCA licence that he keeps proper records. There is evidently just cause for the sanctions contained within the 1974 CCA - which recognised that non-documentation was typically present in cases where mischief featured. That Section 127(3) has been repealed indicates (along with this nonsense) that the credit industry (and the Courts) are making a mockery of the CCA.

 

What the hell are our Common Law Courts up to ? In our case the High Court Judge allowed Natwest's explanation as to the destruction of its main investigative file as "due to constraints of space" - the truth is, Natwest's solicitor, Robert Johnson, (honourably - he said that he had 'followed' my father's career) - allowed me to read a letter that he wrote (dated 30 April 1990) which was his advice to the bank, which the bank had sought from him, and which advice was based upon the evidence within that "destroyed" file. He recommended that the bank compensated us. That letter was destroyed as a part of that file because it was damning to the bank's cause - however, here Natwest's solicitors, Osborne Clarke, also have blood on their hands - (it was denied that Mr Johnson allowed me to read his letter).

 

Many another will be tempted to tamper with evidence IF this nonsense of recreating agreements is accepted. What bothers me is that the matter is even up for discussion in the first place - AND that the discussion emanates from our common law courts where,

 

IT IS A FRAUDSTER'S CHARTER

 

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 15, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest

[johnerog]

I met with RBS senior execs at the House of Commons in July where it was admitted that their debt collection dept had set customers accounts up contrary to the original terms and conditions. This was admitted (in front of the Housing Minister). In my case RBS changed my accounts into tracker variable rate loans and then recreated agreements to try to justify the extra 10k they'd added....these were passed to me as true copies of my loans. However, lucky for me I found my original carbon copy.

 

I strongly disagree with recreating agreements from banking records.

 

Paul. It strikes me that in your case they did not even use banking records they just made it all up.

 

John (S). It is a frauds charter. If a high street institution will do it just think what a DCA will try.

 

Docman. Thank you

 

BD. Agreed, but i doubt the Banks will give up the person responsible. Even the person who signed the letters will deny specific knowledge and blame an underling.

[johnerog]

 

I don't think I count as a senior Cagger even though I have seen more than 50 Christmas' but john you are spot on.

 

Hi Doc. I should have used the term 'experienced'. I too am beyond the half century. I am going to a christmas 'do' tomorrow; i will feel even more 'experienced' Thursday morning.

regards. John(e)

[saddler68]

If banks are allowed to get away with reconstituted agreements for the purposes of s77/78 I cant see that it will do them any favours. Having to pursue an agreement through CPR will only them cost them more in the long run. Makes sense for the court to insist on original copies in response to a s77/78, saves hassle, time and expense IMO. I doubt CAGers and CMCs are going to go away!

[ruinedbynatwest]

Paul. It strikes me that in your case they did not even use banking records they just made it all up.

John (S). It is a frauds charter. If a high street institution will do it just think what a DCA will try.

Docman. Thank you

BD. Agreed, but i doubt the Banks will give up the person responsible. Even the person who signed the letters will deny specific knowledge and blame an underling.

-------------

Hi Johnerog !

I have replied to your PM.

In Natwest V Story & Pallister - the "driving force" behind my continuing actions is a fraudulent conversion of our joint £24k Yorkshire Building Society ("YBS") mortgage - Mr Jackson at Natwest forged my signature on a sole business cheque to pay off the Joint YBS charge -giving the bank 'first charge status' (the bank later pleaded that with the 'redemption' , the CCA agreements in question ceased to be regulated under Section 16 where the bank had a first charge !!!).

 

In 1987 when the payment was made, YBS had sent the deeds to our house straight to him - without our knowing anything about it !!

 

It just appeared on our bank statement and YBS returned our normal mortgage repayment. I was flabbergasted but he talked me down "Oh. John, You worry about building and let me worry about banking". He had promised me £500k of funding and I accepted (after the event mind) that it was of course, OK, that he should be fully secured.

 

When I submitted this to HHJ Jack QC he stopped me in my tracks "I'm going to stop you right there, Mr Story" - and in his Judgment he said that he "wasn't sure whether Mr Story wished to further the point or whether Mr Story was merely complaining about the point".

 

The Avon & Somerset Fraud squad picked up on the point some years later, but, true to form, Natwest had "no record" of that cheque being issued when the Police demanded to see it, although the YBS file I have safely stowed clearly says "cheque". It never showed up on my business account but it was later debited to our joint No2 Loan Account.

 

How I got the YBS file is another Story in itself which I have to thank my dear old dad, Tony, for - he was on the police team that nicked the Kray brothers and it was he who alerted his son to what lay ahead. He was Nipper Reed's (Kray squad guv'nor) forensics' specialist. He was not wrong when he told me that I was gonna meet some ruthless b******s.

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited December 15, 2009 by ruinedbynatwest
typos