Jump to content


Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3166 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Dont blame me! I dont need one. Was just having a laugh. :D:D Anyway, what is your pm box like? Think you are going to get some pm's though.

 

don't worry, i never blamed you.

 

i'll PM you a proper joke later :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

And I am sorry I have to disagree. The Laws are made by Parlament and endorsed by the House of Lords before they go for Royal Assent (i.e. signed by the Queen and Lord Barons).

 

Neither Judge Wakesman, nor the Court and least of all the OFT have the right to change the law but must abide by the law. And one of the rules made by the Lord Chancellor is:

 

CPR Practice direction 16 para 7.3

 

7.3

 

Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:

 

(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – STATEMENTS OF CASE - Ministry of Justice

 

And in PRACTICE DIRECTION – CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 2006 – UNFAIR RELATIONSHIPS - Ministry of Justice that CPR is not removed.

 

And neither is there any amendments notes made.

 

BUT........... as said, it does fall on the law of probability which basically you can claim that they have to submit the original at the hearing but if the judge thinks (like the bank shows that you had been receiving regular statements, making regular purchases, making regular payments) that you are trying to use the court to avoid paying your debt he/she might not be as blunt as the judge that humbleman got but will no doubt find some other error.

 

But, why not contact the CMC and challenge them pointing them to that rule???????

 

Thanks for info , my question was IF HSBC start action - none as yet, but this will help if they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for info , my question was IF HSBC start action - none as yet, but this will help if they do.

No problem but if they start proceedings you can use CPR rules to make them disclose. You can also draw it to their attention stating that you will ask the judge to order they comply with the rule and have to make the original available at court so that the judge and you can inspect it.

 

For all you know they may back down if they do not have the original.

 

Once again the law is there to help you if you use it properly and to your advantage. Judge Wakesman and the OFT do not make the rules or the laws.

If I have helped you or made you laugh by some witty remark and brightened your day................ the scales to click are over to your left hand side. :D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick

I like this approach. My plan is to try and get all my creditors to agree full & final settlements. CPR 7.3 seems like a nice extra weapon in the arsenal! I know some will say that this will all be dependent on the judge lottery but that lottery can work both ways and my CCC will know this.

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to face some facts here. Some doors have been closed while some remain slightly ajar. 77, 78 & 79 While valueable tools are no longer a tool for unenforceable agreements, there can be temporery unenforceability untill they produce any old cobbled up agreement (and this is dependant upon when it was taken out, pre may 2005 [if I read it correctly they will not need even a copy in court], June 2005 to April 2007 [will need to supply a copy in court) May 2007 onwards (door closed)

 

I do agree with the OFT that there is aload of cr*p spouted on the internet

 

I will make you a cup of tea - yes! I am going to

 

I shall make you a cup of tea - yes! I am going to

 

I could make you a cup of tea - no! not if I don't have to

 

I should make you a cup of tea - no! not if I don't have to

 

In the light of these 4 statements, now read CPR 7.3.1 again

 

I am not saying do not fight but none complience with 77, 78, 79 alone will not succeed [muguffic]

 

IMHO 60-65 is still wide open what we need to do is work out the straturgies to get there! [problem] (Lloyds, HBos) said in a letter to me 'we will follow CPR at the discretion of the judge' so we need to know how to play the system to enable the judicary to work for us to enable us to get to the information. I have had court staff say 'that is a matter for the judge at trial'???

 

People are different - if it was up to my wife we would have folded/given in long before now, but I am an obstinate cranky old hector who see's surrender as a slant on my varilty/manhood! Fight for your rights by all means but know your limitation and how far you are prepared to go!

 

Kel

Link to post
Share on other sites

B

 

Short settlement F&F certainly buys peace of mind - if done properly and at a low enough % (no more than 40% and ideally around 20-30%). They would sell to a DCA for less! Getting the OC to realise his potential vulnerability is certainly a good first step. Before talking % ensure you have reclaimed all unfair penalty charges (on credit card debt) together with contractual interest - then negotiate the % on that reduced amount. If yoiur debt is old enough these may actually wipe out or exceed the current balance.

 

There are threads dealing with F&F tactics and % offered by various OC's which you should consult before opening discussions. Some CAGGERs advise only to negotiate in writing - but I have found if I phone THEM - and not wait on them phoning me, I tend to get a more amenable person to talk to - and deal with. THEN I confirm the deal in writing using a suitable template. If a third party pays the F&F figure by cheque they have NO come back once the cheque has been cashed.

 

Hope this helps.

 

BD

£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Link to post
Share on other sites
B

 

Short settlement F&F certainly buys peace of mind - if done properly and at a low enough % (no more than 40% and ideally around 20-30%). Getting the OC to realise his potential vulnerability is certainly a good first step. Before talking % ensure you have reclaimed all unfair penalty charges (on credit card debt) together with contractual interest - then negotiate the % on that reduced amount. If yoiur debt is old enough these may actually wipe out or exceed the current balance.

 

There are threads dealing with F&F tactics and % offered by various OC's which you shoulkd consult before opening discussions. Some advise only to negotiate in writing - but i have found if I phone THEM -a nd not wait on them phoning me I tend to get a more amenable person to talk to - and deal with. THEN I confirm the deal in writing usinbg a suitable template. If a third party pays the F&F figure by cheque they have NO come back onc ethe cheque has been cashed.

 

Hope this helps.

 

BD

 

Only down side with a short settlement f&f is that it stays as a blot on your credit file for 6 years. Not a prob for some but personally id rather fight on.

I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, so please check any input I have for accuracy. And please correct me if you disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bigdebtor

 

Why do you get a 3rd party to pay the cheque? Who would normally be this 3rd party - a solicitor, someone else?

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a thread that explains why - can't remember which one though.

 

There is case law on that thread supporting the fact they can't change their mind if they bank a 3rd party cheque - but can take YOUR cheque as part payment if they tell you that soon enough after banking it.

 

The 3rd party can be anyone - wife, family member, friend etc.

 

BD

£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okey dokey. I'll look for that thread. I've sent the template f & f letter that I've seen on here, you know, "f & f settlement, credit file marked as satisfied, no further action my them or any other company" - and you don't think that is enough to guarantee it will be at an end?

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a thread that explains why - can't remember which one though.

 

There is case law on that thread supporting the fact they can't change their mind if they bank a 3rd party cheque - but can take YOUR cheque as part payment if they tell you that soon enough after banking it.

 

The 3rd party can be anyone - wife, family member, friend etc.

 

BD

 

Good to know BD - never even wouldve considered this could be an issue

I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, so please check any input I have for accuracy. And please correct me if you disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

B

Should be - but a 3rd party cheque is belts and braces.

 

Haggis

Re bad credit rating with CRA. If they mark "satisfied" it should come off - but most people will have had defaulsts long before any short F&F can be negotiated.

 

BOTH

You must ensure all unfair charges etc. and interest reclaimed first to reduce/wipe out balances before doing short F&F.

 

Hope this helps (if so tip my scales)

 

BD

  • Haha 1

£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just 'tipped your scales' - didn't have a clue what it was until you asked. I am a little troubled by some of the comments re f & f - a creditor rang 2 days ago and agreed to accept my offer of 15% (I'm waiting for the letter confirming it) but perhaps all is not what I hope it to be.

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and a short settlement means that they can still sell on the rest of the debt to a DCA - make sure you get in writing that no further collection action caqn be taken by the creditor or any 3rd party.

I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, so please check any input I have for accuracy. And please correct me if you disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

15% is VERY low - but not unheard of. They probably don't have an enforceable cca at this low % - but may be worth going for - for your peace of mind.

 

Assuming you get your letter, ensure you respond using one of the F&F templates here or in MSE - and that the cheque is from a 3rd party - and is referred to by cheque number in the letter with it - and state it must be returned without banking if not so accepted. It should be endorsed on the back "only to be banked in F&F settlement of account no XXXX in name of A DEBTOR".

 

If they don't reply confirming the 15% then you can still accept the phone deal - by sending the same letter confirming the deal and 3rd party cheque. If it's banked then the deal is sealed - debt gone.

 

Read the F&F threads before doing anything more about this.

 

BD

£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaz

 

I am talking about personal experience here

 

When I was sold accounts (yes sold) between 2001 and 2005, they the seller adopted many tactics and were willing in their hurry/greed to bypass regulations, they also came up with some noval ways of packaging the products. A prime example is the BoS Preference account! Barclays T&C booklet with the tear off application [as mentioned in Wakeman] is deemed acceptable but Lloyds adopted a slightly different approach, they didn't give you a copy of the application/'agreement' that you signed and reverse T&C summery, but (according to Lloyds) they sent a T&C/Agreement through the post, This typed out agreement/T&C does not conform to regulations and Lloyds in there hurry/greed did not record this document has being sent?

 

What I think has to be defined is 'technicality'? I would agree a spelling mistake is minor but if the agreement refers to T&C as Credit Agreement Terms & Conditions and the supplied document is titled Credit Card Terms and condition then the '&/and' is minor but the 'Card' is major, it's exactly the same as saying referance 1345 were as the true referance is 12345

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and a short settlement means that they can still sell on the rest of the debt to a DCA - make sure you get in writing that no further collection action caqn be taken by the creditor or any 3rd party.

 

I totally agree.

 

BD

£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Link to post
Share on other sites
(and this is dependant upon when it was taken out, pre may 2005 [if I read it correctly they will not need even a copy in court]
Can you please tell me where you read this? I am not talking on what forum but on which Court site have you read it? There is a big difference between somebody posting on a forum and what is called a "Court site".

 

 

I will make you a cup of tea - yes! I am going to

 

I shall make you a cup of tea - yes! I am going to

 

I could make you a cup of tea - no! not if I don't have to

 

I should make you a cup of tea - no! not if I don't have to

 

In the light of these 4 statements, now read CPR 7.3.1 again

 

Kel

The difference is:

The OFT can say.

The Judge may imply.

 

The CPR RULES SAY "This is the manner things have to be conducted and all of you have to abide by the procedure".

 

I have already given the links to the official Court site. http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/menus/rules.htm

 

Now IF I was to ever have to go to Court to be honest the first thing I will check is "the procedure" and what the Court rules say.

 

CPR 7.3.1 says that, with the claim you can attach copies (there is an allowance re this for MCOL claims). At the Court you have to take the original(s).

 

Now, we come to the argument:

 

I will make you a cup of tea - yes! I am going to

 

I shall make you a cup of tea - yes! I am going to

 

I could make you a cup of tea - no! not if I don't have to

 

I should make you a cup of tea - no! not if I don't have to

 

As said, re MCOL they made an exception that you do not have to attach copies (but by rights should send copies in the post to the Defendant) as obviously you cannot due to being a claim on line. read 5.2A http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_part07e.htm#IDANCJ5B)

 

Hence, I will? I shall? I could? I should?

 

No. The answer is You will. Because that is what the rules say and IF even the Judge was to say otherwise, that straight away gives reason to appeal.

 

The rules are there so that everybody be it you, me, the Judge "plays by the rules". And NOT what I shall or I could or I should do. And until they change those rules in writing, by the Lord Chancellor, then those are the rules.

Edited by nick20045
Gave wrong link

If I have helped you or made you laugh by some witty remark and brightened your day................ the scales to click are over to your left hand side. :D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
We have to face some facts here. Some doors have been closed while some remain slightly ajar. 77, 78 & 79 While valueable tools are no longer a tool for unenforceable agreements, there can be temporery unenforceability untill they produce any old cobbled up agreement (and this is dependant upon when it was taken out, pre may 2005 [if I read it correctly they will not need even a copy in court], June 2005 to April 2007 [will need to supply a copy in court) May 2007 onwards (door closed)

 

Not sure where these statements come from... can you refer me to it in the guidelines please?

 

S.

Are You as Anonymous on CAG as You Think You Are? *Link*

 

The CAG is a free help site,should you be offered help that requires payment,please report it to site team.

 

Deal with your debts:

STEP ONE - Dont Panic! | STEP TWO - Priority & Non Priority Debts | STEP THREE - Personal Budget Sheet | STEP FOUR - A SAFE bank Account | STEP FIVE - Dealing with Priority Debts | STEP SIX - Non-priority Debts | STEP SEVEN - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt1 | STEP EIGHT - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt2 | STEP NINE - Perils of Consolidation | STEP TEN - RE-Evaluate Frequently

 

***** SERIOUSLY IN DEBT, DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO, TRY NationalDebtLine's MoneySteps *****

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinion, These opinions are not endorsed by CAG in anyway and are offered informally without prejudice or warranty of any kind. These opinions are solely based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First I have been in court and had Ramakin and Mcduff quoted at me

 

7.3.1 a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, ...

 

And this was qouted by the DJ who accepted a copy. It is well known that Lloyds TSB Bank destroyed all their originals!

 

2nd

 

Ok it is only guidance but have you read the OFT consultation paper

 

3rd

 

MCOL - when a county court has been assigned then the relative copies of the suporting paperwork should (that word should again) be sent there.

 

 

Please show me were it says the original must/will be produced

Link to post
Share on other sites

MCOL PD to Part 7

7E p5A

The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of practice direction 16 (statements of case) for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction

 

However, if defended still must provide copy of docs relied upon in POC (31.14) and it does not relieve the Claimant from its obligation of making the original agreement available at the hearing (CPR 16 p7.3)

Here lies the main problem with MCOL and creditors abusing system with speculative claims. Quite simply, they can make a claim with nothing and if no defence, get default judgement, then imediate enforcement usually with a charging order (increased value of their book, borrow more money, buy more debts).

CPR's are wrong. Should be changed to make claimant send copies of all documents relied upon direct to defendant when claim is issued. That would be too fair wouldn't it?

R

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made an error 2005 should be 1985

 

sorry I have said that incorrectly

 

in error I put 2005 not 1985 (omitting the word should)

 

 

16.7.3.1 Contains the word SHOULD and that cannot be by passed

 

So when a DJ says I am accepting a copy he is not breaking anything and therefore minimal grounds for appeal because of interpretation.

 

If you look at 32.13.1 there is a slightly different stance - supporting documentation needs to be originals??? Are the T&C part of the agreement or supporting documentation? Are we talking about interpretation again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have made an error 2005 should be 1985

 

sorry I have said that incorrectly

 

in error I put 2005 not 1985 (omitting the word should)

 

:-D Phew! thought I'd missed something.....

 

Yep, thats partially correct as I understand it and its always been the case for pre 1985 agreements to not have to provide a copy of the original or anything other than a letter in response to a s77/s78 response... still not sure the same will hold in court but no doubt some smarmy solicitor would establish that agreements that old belong in the vaults of the bank of england etc etc :-)

 

16.7.3.1 Contains the word SHOULD and that cannot be by passed

 

So when a DJ says I am accepting a copy he is not breaking anything and therefore minimal grounds for appeal because of interpretation.

 

If you look at 32.13.1 there is a slightly different stance - supporting documentation needs to be originals??? Are the T&C part of the agreement or supporting documentation? Are we talking about interpretation again?

 

I feel we are.. .IMVHO at the end of the day evidence is whatever the judge is willing to accept or deny on the day :-( The higher the court/value claim the more emphasis should be put on the evidence you would assume but it appears in recent cases of Caggers that it is not so.

 

S.

Are You as Anonymous on CAG as You Think You Are? *Link*

 

The CAG is a free help site,should you be offered help that requires payment,please report it to site team.

 

Deal with your debts:

STEP ONE - Dont Panic! | STEP TWO - Priority & Non Priority Debts | STEP THREE - Personal Budget Sheet | STEP FOUR - A SAFE bank Account | STEP FIVE - Dealing with Priority Debts | STEP SIX - Non-priority Debts | STEP SEVEN - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt1 | STEP EIGHT - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt2 | STEP NINE - Perils of Consolidation | STEP TEN - RE-Evaluate Frequently

 

***** SERIOUSLY IN DEBT, DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO, TRY NationalDebtLine's MoneySteps *****

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinion, These opinions are not endorsed by CAG in anyway and are offered informally without prejudice or warranty of any kind. These opinions are solely based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have made an error 2005 should be 1985

 

sorry I have said that incorrectly

 

in error I put 2005 not 1985 (omitting the word should)

 

 

16.7.3.1 Contains the word SHOULD and that cannot be by passed

 

So when a DJ says I am accepting a copy he is not breaking anything and therefore minimal grounds for appeal because of interpretation. IS THIS CORRECT AS PD TO PART 16 7.3(1) ALSO STATES "the original(s) should be available at the hearing"

 

If you look at 32.13.1 there is a slightly different stance - supporting documentation needs to be originals??? Are the T&C part of the agreement or supporting documentation? Are we talking about interpretation again?

Robin

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...