Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

[angry cat]

Disgusting human being.

 

Who Me?

 

Or, Simon Read; the journalist?

[the main man]

Twit even

 

simon read (simonnread) on Twitter

[Baggio]

Who Me?

 

Or, Simon Read; the journalist?

 

lol, most definately not you.

[Baggio]

Evidence grows that when banks lose loan contracts, they | Mail Online

[the_shadow]

Evidence grows that when banks lose loan contracts, they | Mail Online

 

Good article... nice to see Barclaysharks and the lovely MSDW agreements/applications get a mention too

 

S.

[Baggio]

a wonderful article, a massive well done to our very own cagger p walton who is mentioned in the article.

[caro]

a wonderful article, a massive well done to our very own cagger p walton who is mentioned in the article.

 

Told you he was good.

 

Well done indeed Paul.

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

Nice to see

Well done Paul

 

Peter

[angry cat]

I Salute You Paul!!!

 

Naughty RBS and;

 

Such Porkies from Barclaycarp...

 

AC

[lilly white]

This story is the natural consequence of a judgment which allows a powerful well-resourced industry to get away with not storing their documents correctly and to "recreate" originals.

New FSA regs place an obligation on banks to act fairly - but don't hold your breath. There is no direct access to any regulatory process. The OFT prefers a quiet life and the FSA is completely insulated. UK banks routinely act unfairly against their customers. The industry-preferred route for complaint is the Financial Ombudsman which belongs to the banks and which is under-resourced, not transparent, inefficient, slow and is merely part of a process intended to distract, fatigue, frustrate customers and finally reward those who have the tenacity to see it through to the end with very little more than a row of beans for their trouble and no guiding principles for the industry's future behaviour.

Direct customer self-help in the County Court is the only solution

- Marc Gander, London, 10/1/2010 09:45

Read more: Evidence grows that when banks lose loan contracts, they | Mail Online

[gaz2006]

Great Walton epic the saga goes on and on , thats why the Waltons ran for so long they never gave up by they way Hows Jim Bob and Mary Ellen

Regards Gaz

[ruinedbynatwest]

Good article ! Well done PaulW.

The policy requirements from Lord Crowther, from which Mr Bennion drafted the CCA required as a fundamental principle of the new Act that the documentation was to preceed the provision of the credit - traders would be licenced and compliance would be a term of their licence - and infringements could be reported to the Bank of England which could suspend or revoke a banks banking licence.

 

I'm not at all surprised with the above comment from (here) Barclaycard -

What surprises me is that people give such statements creedence when the banks know full well that they are to keep full records of the relationship including, of course, copies of the original signed agreement (not the application form) - THE CCA agreement itself. And that such requirements are a fundamental term of their licence !!

 

How many other businesses are allowed by the Common Law, to destroy and, worse, to RECREATE in order to enforce their contractual, ie legally binding, commitments ?

 

Where is the OFT and the old lady in all this ??

 

You see, (I'm told to shut up on these threads) but the truth behind the legal precedent set in Story (that affects £300 Billions' across theUK) is that we had no written loan agreements whatever over 3 years where 3 regulated agreements were continually refinanced. Natwest was very astute where it came to documenting and perfecting the 3 legal charges we gave over our substantial family home. Section 8 CCA removes all doubt in Story, despite the ruling in Story, and despite the criticisms I receive on this thread - that 3 regulated agreements are ignored by the Court.

 

This is the travesty that we require reopened despite the hostilities we are bound to attract from the credit industry and its agents.

 

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

quote from mailonline article (above) 9 Jan 2010,

 

 

"Barclaycard made no comment on how it deals with Morgan Stanley paperwork, but said: 'We strongly disagree with any suggestion we commonly issue incorrect paperwork.' "

Edited January 10, 2010 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[Baggio]

Congratulations go out to Richard Dyson at the Mail for allowing a true representation of the facts.

 

A very rare event has just taken place.

[oilyrag]

removed

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
advised

[the main man]

Congratulations go out to Richard Dyson at the Mail for allowing a true representation of the facts.

 

A very rare event has just taken place.

 

I wonder if Simon Read has read the article?

[Delfi101]

I've been following this with interest and have a simple question.

 

If 'reconstituted documents' are to be provided (and accepted) as evidence would it not be fair to ask about the reconstitution process and, more specifically, what they were constructed from and then force them to strict proof thereof?

 

D

[justify]

Hear! Hear! The firstr "balanced" article on the banks i've read in a long, long time. Well done and THANKS PW...

 

J

[pedross]

I have read all the comments regarding 'reconstituted documents' and I realise that they are acceptable in court if the original agreement is not available. This appears to be accepted practice and the comments in the manchester cases, endorsing that opinion, if the original is lost in the case of fire etc. back it all up.

 

What about, as in the case of at least one lender, they admit that the originals have all been shredded and they therefore rely on a copy in court. Surely when the original has deliberately been destroyed the problem of no original should restrict them in the amount of leway they have in reconstruction.

 

Otherwise anyone with a dodgy set of originals could destroy the lot and recreate as needed.

[paulwlton]

Hear! Hear! The firstr "balanced" article on the banks i've read in a long, long time. Well done and THANKS PW...

 

J

 

The next article/follow up will match it.:):):)

 

PW

[exchange]

A balanced, honest article in the Mail! Somebody pick me up off the floor!!

It is very refreshing and Paul W, your ability to get the press to tell the truth could be very valuable in lots of ways.

Ever considered journalism?

[angry cat]

The next article/follow up will match it.:):):)

 

PW

 

Can't Wait:)

 

I wonder how many caggers there are who have been gagged by firms such as;

RBS and;

Barclaycarp (MSDW) re: dubious recons?

[reallymadwoman]

I have read all the comments regarding 'reconstituted documents' and I realise that they are acceptable in court if the original agreement is not available. This appears to be accepted practice and the comments in the manchester cases, endorsing that opinion, if the original is lost in the case of fire etc. back it all up.

 

What about, as in the case of at least one lender, they admit that the originals have all been shredded and they therefore rely on a copy in court. Surely when the original has deliberately been destroyed the problem of no original should restrict them in the amount of leway they have in reconstruction.

 

Otherwise anyone with a dodgy set of originals could destroy the lot and recreate as needed.

 

The manchester cases only concerned responses to s77-79 requests and have no impact whatsoever on the requirement to produce original agreements in court. A copy, i.e. photocopy or microfiche, might be acceptable in court if the original has been lost, but a reconstituted one will never be acceptable if the consumer knows enough to challenge it - or even ask that the agreement be produced in the first place.

[mystery1]

Good article ! Well done PaulW.

The policy requirements from Lord Crowther, from which Mr Bennion drafted the CCA required as a fundamental principle of the new Act that the documentation was to preceed the provision of the credit - traders would be licenced and compliance would be a term of their licence - and infringements could be reported to the Bank of England which could suspend or revoke a banks banking licence.

 

I'm not at all surprised with the above comment from (here) Barclaycard -

What surprises me is that people give such statements creedence when the banks know full well that they are to keep full records of the relationship including, of course, copies of the original signed agreement (not the application form) - THE CCA agreement itself. And that such requirements are a fundamental term of their licence !!

 

How many other businesses are allowed by the Common Law, to destroy and, worse, to RECREATE in order to enforce their contractual, ie legally binding, commitments ?

 

Where is the OFT and the old lady in all this ??

 

You see, (I'm told to shut up on these threads) but the truth behind the legal precedent set in Story (that affects £300 Billions' across theUK) is that we had no written loan agreements whatever over 3 years where 3 regulated agreements were continually refinanced. Natwest was very astute where it came to documenting and perfecting the 3 legal charges we gave over our substantial family home. Section 8 CCA removes all doubt in Story, despite the ruling in Story, and despite the criticisms I receive on this thread - that 3 regulated agreements are ignored by the Court.

 

This is the travesty that we require reopened despite the hostilities we are bound to attract from the credit industry and its agents.

 

John Story

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

 

quote from mailonline article (above) 9 Jan 2010,

 

 

"Barclaycard made no comment on how it deals with Morgan Stanley paperwork, but said: 'We strongly disagree with any suggestion we commonly issue incorrect paperwork.' "

 

The Money Laundring Regs 1993

 

The Money Laundering Regulations 1993 (No. 1933) - Statute Law Database

 

12. — (1) Record-keeping procedures maintained by a person are in accordance with this regulation if they require the keeping, for the prescribed period, of the following records—

(a)

in any case where, in relation to any business relationship that is formed or one-off transaction that is carried out, evidence of a person’s identity is obtained under procedures maintained in accordance with regulation 7 or 9 above, a record that indicates the nature of the evidence and—

(i)

comprises a copy of the evidence;

(ii)

provides such information as would enable a copy of it to be obtained; or

(iii)

in a case where it is not reasonably practicable to comply with paragraph (i) or (ii) above, provides sufficient information to enable the details as to a person’s identity contained in the relevant evidence to be re-obtained; and

(b)

a record containing details relating to all transactions carried out by that person in the course of relevant financial business.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) above, the prescribed period is, subject to paragraph (3) below, the period of at least five years commencing with—

(a)

in relation to such records as are described in sub-paragraph (a), the date on which the relevant business was completed within the meaning of paragraph (4) below; and

(b)

in relation to such records as are described in sub-paragraph (b), the date on which all activities taking place in the course of the transaction in question were completed.

(3) Where a person who is bound by the provisions of regulation 5(1) above—

(a)

forms a business relationship or carries out a one-off transaction with another person;

(b)

has reasonable grounds for believing that that person has become insolvent; and

©

after forming that belief, takes any step for the purpose of recovering all or part of the amount of any debt payable to him by that person which has fallen due;

the prescribed period for the purposes of paragraph (1) above is the period of at least five years commencing with the date on which the first such step is taken.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) above, the date on which relevant business is completed is, as the case may be—

(a)

in circumstances falling within Case 1, the date of the ending of the business relationship in respect of whose formation the record under paragraph (1)(a) above was compiled;

(b)

in circumstances falling within Case 2 or 3, the date of the completion of all activities taking place in the course of the one-off transaction in respect of which the record under paragraph (1)(a) above was compiled;

©

in circumstances falling within Case 4, the date of the completion of all activities taking place in the course of the last one-off transaction in respect of which the record under paragraph (1)(a) above was compiled;

and where the formalities necessary to end a business relationship have not been observed, but a period of five years has elapsed since the date on which the last transaction was carried out in the course of that relationship, then the date of the completion of all activities taking place in the course of that last transaction shall be treated as the date on which the relevant business was completed.

 

 

 

There have been several updates until the 2007 act.

 

The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (No. 2157) - Statute Law Database

 

 

Record-keeping

19. — (1) Subject to paragraph (4), a relevant person must keep the records specified in paragraph (2) for at least the period specified in paragraph (3).

(2) The records are—

(a)

a copy of, or the references to, the evidence of the customer's identity obtained pursuant to regulation 7, 8, 10, 14 or 16(4);

(b)

the supporting records (consisting of the original documents or copies) in respect of a business relationship or occasional transaction which is the subject of customer due diligence measures or ongoing monitoring.

(3) The period is five years beginning on—

(a)

in the case of the records specified in paragraph (2)(a), the date on which—

(i)

the occasional transaction is completed; or

(ii)

the business relationship ends; or

(b)

in the case of the records specified in paragraph (2)(b)—

(i)

where the records relate to a particular transaction, the date on which the transaction is completed;

(ii)

for all other records, the date on which the business relationship ends.

(4) A relevant person who is relied on by another person must keep the records specified in paragraph (2)(a) for five years beginning on the date on which he is relied on for the purposes of regulation 7, 10, 14 or 16(4) in relation to any business relationship or occasional transaction.

(5) A person referred to in regulation 17(2)(a) or (b) who is relied on by a relevant person must, if requested by the person relying on him within the period referred to in paragraph (4)—

(a)

as soon as reasonably practicable make available to the person who is relying on him any information about the customer (and any beneficial owner) which he obtained when applying customer due diligence measures; and

(b)

as soon as reasonably practicable forward to the person who is relying on him copies of any identification and verification data and other relevant documents on the identity of the customer (and any beneficial owner) which he obtained when applying those measures.

(6) A relevant person who relies on a person referred to in regulation 17(2)© or (d)(a “third party”) to apply customer due diligence measures must take steps to ensure that the third party will, if requested by the relevant person within the period referred to in paragraph (4)—

(a)

as soon as reasonably practicable make available to him any information about the customer (and any beneficial owner) which the third party obtained when applying customer due diligence measures; and

(b)

as soon as reasonably practicable forward to him copies of any identification and verification data and other relevant documents on the identity of the customer (and any beneficial owner) which the third party obtained when applying those measures.

(7) Paragraphs (5) and (6) do not apply where a relevant person applies customer due diligence measures by means of an outsourcing service provider or agent.

(8) For the purposes of this regulation, a person relies on another person where he does so in accordance with regulation 17(1).

 

 

Even your Identification needs to be kept for 5 years after the relationship ends. I haven't seen any copies in my SAR's but i am going to ask directly for it and mention the laundering regs. My thoughts would be that compliance of these REGS is an implied term of contract if it's isn't actually written into your agreement.

 

Cheers

[Signature]

Dont know if this link has been posted. apologies if it has.

 

PR Fire | Financial >> Landmark Consumer Victory in High Court Test Cases

Edited January 10, 2010 by Signature

[frettful38]

Dont know if this link has been posted. apologies if it has.

 

PR Fire | Financial >> Landmark Consumer Victory in High Court Test Cases

 

 

Excellent information signature,thanks.