Can Howard Cohen reconstruct a DN on OC headed paper?

[dizzyblonde1966]

Following on from an ongoing case,(but seperate thread for a specific point re DN )

 

Can Howard Cohen reconstruct a DN on original creditor headed notepaper?

 

Cohens issued a court claim against me, apart from the application form with no prescribed terms and innefective NOA, they also in their sworn witness statement included a DN, however it was not a copy of the original as i had the original and the date and amounts were different .

 

So i put this in my amended defence and pointed out to the court that Cohens were trying to mislead the court etc

They have now replied to the court and admitted the DN they supplied was a reconstructed dn from info given to them from the original creditor,

But are now trying to turn it by claiming i have got the original dn so proves it has been served on me etc from original creditor even though i neither admitted it or denied it in my original defence and put them to strict prroof etc,

 

 

I have spoken to the original creditor and they said they have only ever issued one dn,

so it would appear that cohens have knocked their own dn up on ge headed notepaper, is this allowed?

 

The case should be safe anyway as no compliant cca, and im prepared to go all the way, they ahve acted appalingly and abused court process from the start.

 

DB

[42man]

I would say that it is an abuse of the process and a deliberate attempt to mislead the court......(was it radically different ?)...whatever happens make sure you show the judge....

[42man]

Especially so as it was sworn in the witness statement....

[dizzyblonde1966]

42 man, thanks, the date was 1 day out and the amount to remedy the breach was £150 higher on their reconstructed dn,

 

Ive got it all ready and prepared for the judge,he was a lovely man, he wasnt impressed at the first case management hearing with their cca, got another case management/allocation hearing on our amended defences just before xmas

 

Unbelievably cohens on the bottom of their dn admission letter state

 

" we believe the defendant pleads no coherent grounds to dispute the claim,":shock:

 

DB

[dizzyblonde1966]

Just spoke to Howard Cohens on the phone,(as always recorded)

actually a very nice polite gentleman i spoke to

 

he confirmed Howard Cohens did reconstruct the DN, not the original creditor

 

I went on to ask him why they had reconstructed it using ge headed notepaper and he said they were allowed to do this to recreate an exact copy of what it would have looked like:eek: (he wasnt impressed when i pointed out it wasnt an exact copy anyway and was different to my original "

 

So i pushed him a bit futher and asked him was it legal for Cohens to reconstruct a dn and use the original creditors details,ie headed notepaper/address etc

 

He claims it is legal, i asked him if it was an abuse of process but he wouldnt commit,and said it would be discussed at the case management hearing and he didnt want to talk over the phone about it,

 

(yes you can bet your last dollar it will be discussed in court in great detail if i have my way)

 

DB

[Guest janensteve]

so, they wouldn't have any objection if you reconstructed a loan agreement that said you borrowed £1 ? or a receipt that said you had paid back the said pound plus pence interest ? hhhmmmmm.

 

I suppose adding £150 onto the DN is tantamount o obtaining a pecuniary advantage by fraud which as i am sure all will agree is a criminal offence. How that squares up with the licence issued by the Ministry of Justice or the Consumer Credit Licence by the OFT, i am not so sure.

 

I'd be inclined to make a complaint to the Police

[BANKMARE]

How do the signatures compare on the two documents?

It seems Cohens creativity in some of these matters hold no bounds....

[dizzyblonde1966]

Im in court this week with this,

 

Dont think the judge is going to be too impressed with howard cohens blatant attempts at abusing court process and their attempts to mislead both myself and the courts with the reconstructed dn etc

 

Got everything all prepared and documented, going to be highlighting all the inconsistencies to the judge, just about everything is wrong with this case

 

The account was in dispute with ge as no lelligble cca was provided

 

Court action was started by Cohens before any LBA ,just a few days after assignment , i never received any NOA before the proceedings

 

The cca is illegilbe and has no prescribed terms,

 

The dn, even their misleading dodgy reconstructed one is invalid as not enough days to remedy after service

 

The noa is invalid as not served properly

 

Hope the judge sees through howard cohens blatant abuse of court process,

 

Would i be reprimanded for using such strong words as fraudulent/ forgery?

 

 

 

DB

Edited December 21, 2009 by dizzyblonde1966

[dizzyblonde1966]

Bankmare,there was no signature on the reconstructed dn,

[DonkeyB]

I would say something like 'Sir, I would contend that to issue such a dubious and incorrect reconstructed document and to purport in a witness statement that it is an exact copy of the original is at best disingenuous, and at worse raises issues the court may look upon even less favourably'.

 

Never use the F word in court!

[dizzyblonde1966]

I would say something like 'Sir, I would contend that to issue such a dubious and incorrect reconstructed document and to purport in a witness statement that it is an exact copy of the original is at best disingenuous, and at worse raises issues the court may look upon even less favourably'.

 

Never use the F word in court!

 

Thanks, very well worded, printed it off ready and added to my dn notes

DB

[middenmess]

Was the reconstructed D/N compliant with legislation in regards to content and the use of prominent and more prominent text?

[dizzyblonde1966]

Was the reconstructed D/N compliant with legislation in regards to content and the use of prominent and more prominent text?

 

No, Howard Cohen couldnt/didnt even reconstruct a valid dn ,

not enough days to remedy after service, just says within 14 days from the date on this letter:rolleyes:

 

 

 

DB

[middenmess]

I was thinking more along the areas addressed in this post...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...t-1940698.html

[dizzyblonde1966]

I was thinking more along the areas addressed in this post...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...t-1940698.html

 

The prominent text seems to be ok

 

DB

[dizzyblonde1966]

Can someone please confirm for me, do i call the judge "sir"

and do i stand up when talking.

 

DB

[DonkeyB]

Sir or Madam. It's quite informal and you stay seated. Just do what the DJ tells you and always wait your turn to speak - never butt in.

 

Make lots of notes and make sure you can get everything organised in front of you quickly.

[dizzyblonde1966]

Thanks, im in tomm afternoon weather permitting, i should be able to get there ok, just hope the court staff and judge can get there safely too .I will call the court in the morning just to check the hearing is still going ahead.

DB

Edited December 22, 2009 by dizzyblonde1966

[dizzyblonde1966]

Well i was in court today for my second case management hearing regarding this claim.

Having spent alot of time researching case law and getting my notes in order etc i was really looking forward to showing the judge the admission letter from Cohens that the DN they had submitted in their previous sworn statement they were now admitting was a reconstruction.

 

Anyway myself and the solicitor acting for cohens were called in, i never spoke to cohens solicitor prior to going in,

The judge asked what the basics of the case/my defence was, so briefly explained the credit agreement was illegible and missing all the prescribed terms .

I then started on the DN and how it was a reconstruction and how Cohens were now admitting it was a reconstruction and not a copy as they had claimed in their initial sworn statement,I was hoping the judge was going to pick cohens solicitor up and ask for an explanation from them for misleading the court etc and reconstructing a DN on ge headed notepaper , but dissapointingly he never even questioned her about it,

 

He just turned to Cohens solicitor and said in light of the manchester test cases ,he thinks it best the case is stayed and transferred to manchester pending the outcome of the test cases.

 

So im pretty unclear really of what happens now,?

who decides when the claim starts again, i want to put a new defence in now as well adding a section on Cohens misleading the court in their first sworn statement about the reconstructed DN.

 

Had a nice chat outside with the solicitor representing Cohens, she was a lovely lady and appeared geniunely shocked at the difference between the original and reconstructed DN, and the letter of admission from Cohens that i have confirming it was a reconstruction,after submitting it as a copy of the original in their sworn statement,

 

Anyway havnt a clue really what happens from here,how long can i expect to wait now,and what happens from here,

 

On the plus side, my costs are adding up, but so frustrating that after 2 case management hearings its simply just transferred to manchester,?

 

Any help anyone please?

Edited December 23, 2009 by dizzyblonde1966

[MandM]

subbing

[postggj]

excuse my ignorence

 

whats the manchester test case

 

is it a charge issue

[middenmess]

excuse my ignorence

 

whats the manchester test case

 

is it a charge issue

 

Last couple of pages on this thread should bring you up to speed..

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/216538-claim-stayed-due-unenforceable.html

[postggj]

thanks

[johnerog]

subbing and supporting.

[DonkeyB]

Hmmm... the Manchester case has nothing to do with forged default notices!