Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[Peterbard]

Hi

Ther is a lot of talk on here about the balance of probabilities when applied to civil law.

I think the basic understanding of this technique is being slightly distorted perhaps.

This is used when the court is deciding whether it is more likely that a particular action did or did not take place.

It does not apply to a court deciding that particular document does or does not exist.

The whole purpose of an agreement is that there should be no probabilities, all aspects of a transaction are contained and recorded in the document.

The Consumer credit act says that any commercial credit agreement must be reduced to writing and signed by both parties.

It cannot be an alleged agreement it cannot be verbal in cannot exist on a plane of probability it must be material and be able to be presented if it is to be enforced.

There can be no balance of probabilities that this document exists it either does or it doesn’t otherwise what is the point of a contract.

No contract no agreement.

It is true that that section127(3) says that an agrement was signed and it may be true that the balance of probability may apply to that argument. But really that argument is irrelevant if no agreement exists.

Please quote any case where the existence of a contract was shown by just the balance of probabilities.

 

Best

Peter

hi

I copied this erlier in the thrread because i think it must have gotten over loooked i th nk therr are severalimportant points in here.

[Peterbard]

Hi

H

It You study the legislation and si relating to copy regulations as I have ,You will se tha in order to conform the copy must have all the same features in both form and content as the original executed agreement excepting those curtsey of section180.

This means that according to legislation and si if a copy does not absolutely comply with the agreement regulations and the act it cannot meet the requirements of a true copy.

If have in the past dissected the legislation and the result has been snt to the DTI the OFT and Lacors; None of them could fault the logic.

This conclusions of course from ther point of view untenable and they told me so quite heatedly on some occasions, because it meant that an agreement no matter how slightly improperly executed would not survive the definition of a true copy this would make all agreements eternally unenforceable after a 78 request.

Francis Beniun was not kidding when he said the people who designed the sis didn’t understand it they didn’t and they don’t.

Over the past few years the various agencies have been falling over themselves to try and get us to accept a etterd down version of the regulations.

We have been getting different versions from the OFT the DTI Lacours Trading staandards mostly totally contradictory but all with one common goal and that is to stop the debtor from using this section as a tool to hinder enforcement of an agreement

In reality it is true that it was not meant as such.

In an ideal world the creditor would have produced compliant agreements in the first place so the sanction set by section78 would have been np reall problem and was just there to ensure the cpy reached the lender in a timely fashion.

The creditors really did bring this on themselves they virtually ignored the legislation right up untill the ammendments came out in2005. Unfortunately as usual as with the bank charge issue the courts have baiked them out by re writing legeslature with common law. Ubconsttitutional you bet can we do anything about it not a chance.

Petr

[oilyrag]

removed

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
professional advice to do so

[antigone1974]

I think we need to be a wee bit more forensic here my Greek friend. Yes, the banks can show that lending took place - the submission of accounts can demonstrate that. That is not the issue (unless they stick a few noughts on the end as in Paul Walton's scandalous case!). The issue is well summed up by Francis Bennion (who drew the 74 Act up - but I expect you knew that) when he said "Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed."

I am equally sure you are familiar with s127(3) which says that if s61 and 65 have not been complied with (and lets remember that s61 says that to be properly executed there must be a sig) so if there is no signature the court may not make an enforcement order. So the issue isnt "was/is there a debt?" but can the lender show there was an agreement that can be enforced in law and that (following s61) requires a signature. If the lender cant do this then the account isnt enforceable. End of.

What the banks cannot do therefore, is present evidence of lending and then come forward with "an agreement, which isnt the agreement signed by the debtor your Honour, but one which our infallible procedures would have required him to sign for lending to take place". Any court which accepted that on the balance of probabilities or otherwise, is quite simply misdirecting itself in law. The CCA is quite clear - and I note you dont challenge this - that s61 requires a sig, not a reconstruction.

Lets remember too the Carey etc case was about s78 and s78 is mainly concerned with giving the debtor information about the agreement they have entered into. There has been a view for some time that this was mainly intended to be informative, to remind the debtor of what was agreed by the provision of a "true copy" - a copy so correct that no one could be unclear of what was agreed. That is not the same game as enforcement - not the same game as enforcement at all.

Sorry (well not really )

 

Seriously

 

 

s.65, s.61 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 all prescribe what must be done at the time the agreement is entered into.

 

Of course the agreement must be signed when it is entered into, if not then it will be irredeemably unenforceable. I have never suggested otherwise.

 

But banks do not have to produce the signed agreement at the Court to prove their case. They will now simply say that they have lost the original agreement (which was signed) and cant produce it. they will then seek to prove that the agreement was signed at the time it was entered into.

 

Before Carey they were unwilling to admit they had lost the agreement because it might have s.78 repercussions. They would probably rather just lose the odd case. This is now not the same and post Carey they will be more confident in simply saying "sorry, we lost it, but it was signed"

 

I accept that I have been rather negative but this is an important point that people need to understand. Although Carey only relates to s.78, it changes the dynamics of the situation: it will no longer enough to rely on breach of s.78 because banks can reconstitute. If people turn up with standard precedents downloaded from this site and do not add any specific detail or arguments then I think they will lose. They are meeting the banks arguments with a simple "i dont know what happened"

 

I think Diddy has now got this.

[the_shadow]

- if they supply a true copy, it doesnt have to be a copy, just so accurate that its not misleading.

 

Not quite so. Remember the Susan Edwards letter.

 

 

Some nice case law to possibly quote and add to bundles there but how the hell do you obtain copies of cases from 1800's :-D

 

S.

[antigone1974]

Understood SFU

 

THis is entirely consistent with what I have said. Read it properly. THey must provide evidence to show the agreement was signed.

 

If they had to provide teh actual signed agreement he would have just said - "they have to provide the signed agreement." He doesn't. The banks must prove it on the balance of probabilities.

 

Further, think about the basis for the whole judgment. If banks had to provide the signed agreement to prove their case, Judge Waksman would simply have said that the whole argument was pointless as they would have to provide the signed agreements later on anyway! In fact the whoel case woudl be a moot point. Think about it!

[antigone1974]

 

Some nice case law to possibly quote and add to bundles there but how the hell do you obtain copies of cases from 1800's :-D

 

S.

 

I have a copy. I will post it for you. It is only a relatively short case.

 

In fact, it is not of much use because it suggest some criteria of materiality. Waksman applies a stricter test in Carey saying that materiality is irrelevant, it has to be a accurate copy and the regs say what it has to be a copy of.

 

Think this is circa paragraph 115 of the judgment but would have to check.

 

There - that is positive!

[brooooooooooce]

Hi Its War

 

Sorry couldn't find your Halifax thread so I'm posting a private message - though not sure how this works as I've never done it before.

 

In July I S.78'd the Halifax and in response they produced a lovely compliant reconstituted "agreement". I thought that the card had been issued to me without any paperwork (or very minimal), so I was suspicious of this.

 

So in September I Subject Access Request'd them. This produced a copy of the original agreement. It was nothing like the reconstituted one - no PT's, t & C's or lender signature.

 

I wrote to Halifax asking them to explain, in particular where were the prescribed terms. Their response was to say the PT's were on the reverse of the copy agreement they had sent me. Except, whilst the document was printed on the reverse, it was not printed with any PT's just a Mercedes logo and a couple of lines of blurb.

 

I wrote back to them again (beginning of November I think) pointing out this error and have yet to receive a reply.

 

I don't know whether I can help you in any way, but I do feel that it is important for consumers to score as many points as possible in the WAR against the banks and their dodgy paperwork. What has happened to you and I (phony reconstituted agreements) must be widespread.

[seriously fed up]

Seriously

 

 

s.65, s.61 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 all prescribe what must be done at the time the agreement is entered into.

 

Of course the agreement must be signed when it is entered into, if not then it will be irredeemably unenforceable. I have never suggested otherwise.

 

But banks do not have to produce the signed agreement at the Court to prove their case. They will now simply say that they have lost the original agreement (which was signed) and cant produce it. they will then seek to prove that the agreement was signed at the time it was entered into.

 

Before Carey they were unwilling to admit they had lost the agreement because it might have s.78 repercussions. They would probably rather just lose the odd case. This is now not the same and post Carey they will be more confident in simply saying "sorry, we lost it, but it was signed"

 

I accept that I have been rather negative but this is an important point that people need to understand. Although Carey only relates to s.78, it changes the dynamics of the situation: it will no longer enough to rely on breach of s.78 because banks can reconstitute. If people turn up with standard precedents downloaded from this site and do not add any specific detail or arguments then I think they will lose. They are meeting the banks arguments with a simple "i dont know what happened"

 

I think Diddy has now got this.

 

Well that is up to Diddy, who I know is concerned that s127 says was signed rather than is signed and that banks will turn up in court, present a reconstruction and say they must have signed this, now give us our money.

Can I pull together a few things on this thread

1. the Susan Edwards (she is Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading) letter - Vint produced this a few posts ago - in which it says inter alia "Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this." In other words the OC cant just turn up with a bit of paper and make a few assertions. They have to show that the right things did actually happen. If they cant, following this line of argument, they are goosed.
   
   
2. Its practically inconceivable that what a debtor might/ might not have signed wont be in the possession of someone else on this site - so the OC cant just put up anything at all. How likely is that I (for example) am the only one to have signed a form in a particular format. For one thing it opens the OC up to clear charges of telling porkies if they are caught out in this way. But for sure, finding others who have signed the same form wont be easy - but I have done this successfully already in one case
   
3. More often than not, others who signed up at the same time will have THEIR agreement and more often than not these will be defective in ways other than whether they were signed or not. For one thing I dont think we have made enough use so far of the 1983 regs. This would allow a defence against a recon to go beyond the issue of sig to say "even if this was signed, its inconsistent with the 1983 regs in the following ways, thus non-compliant with s60(1) thus s127(3) applies". Put another way, the OC needs more than a signature. They also need an agreement which is compliant in every other way, but are constrained by the fact that if the forms they were using in (say) 1995 were all crap, they might get caught out in the circumstances set out in 2. But the important thing is not to get too caught up with the issue of a signature or not. There are lots and lots of signed agreements out there which are anything but compliant. I think its important not to lose sight of that.
   
   
4. as I have pointed out to you before, Waksman's judgement concerned s78. Here are his final conclusions from para 234
   
5. 
   


1. The following is a brief summary of the principal findings and conclusions set out above:
   (1) A creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself;
   (2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself;
   (3) The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made;
   (4) If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms;
   (5) If a creditor is in breach of section 78 this does not of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A;
   (6) The Court has jurisdiction to declare whether in a particular case, there has been a breach of s78. Whether it will be appropriate to grant such a declaration depends on the circumstances of that case;
   (7) In assessing whether Prescribed Terms are "contained" in an executed agreement the principles set out at paragraph 173 above are relevant. On the assumed facts set out at paragraph 177 the Prescribed Terms were so contained;
   (8) The claims that there was an unfair relationship and an IEA in
   Adris
   should be struck out or dismissed. The claim that there was an IEA in
   Yunis
   should be struck out or dismissed. The absence of any positive pleaded case or evidence as to the circumstances of the making of the agreement by the debtor concerned was fatal to the IEA claims. The absence of any positive plea or evidence as to particular facts relied upon in support of the unfair relationship claim other than failure to provide a s78 copy, was fatal to that claim.

   
   

 

Notice the constant references to s78, and that this judgement is based on assumed facts. Perhaps when his Honour actually sees the evidence he might come to a different view.

In conclusion, my own view of Waksman isnt positive - I hope that is clear. But at the same time, I was never convinced of the argument by the CMCs that S78 was some kind of "magic bullet". For instance Waksman's insistence that if the OC cant produce the agreement today it doesnt make the account unenforceable for good and all, always seemed pretty obvious to me. However, as I hope I have made clear to you, the bank cant just reach into a drawer and pull out a fully compliant form and suggest that this is the form the debtor MUST have signed. Following Edwards (I think quite an authoritative source) the burden of proof to show that this happened will be on the lender. I full realise too that Judge Lottery may be on the bench, but hopefully not too often and that standards of evidence and the tests of the CCA will be applied properly.

I see your point - or rather I see the point that Diddy makes about what the banks might pull - but like many of their defences, there are ways round it and it doesnt carry the level of certainty that they look for to allow a case to go the distance,l or even get into court at all.

On the other hand, to simply turn up in court with no evidence, simply arguing "dont know what happened guv" isnt clever - especially if you are the pursuer.

Edited January 13, 2010 by seriously fed up

[oilyrag]

removed

Edited January 27, 2010 by oilyrag
professional advice to do so

[gyos]

"must provide a copy of the ORIGINAL agreement

 

Presumably a "true copy" though, which may be a reconstituted one?

[seriously fed up]

for the purposes of s78 certainly, following Waksman. I would say that following that judgement they can send out any old pap. But lets face it, they always have.

For the purposes of enforcement with the OC as the pursuer, much less certain as the burden of proof would be on them. My points 1-3 above would certainly apply then, and, I would also suggest, it can be argued that Waksman's judgement applied ONLY to s78 and has no application - or no direct application - anywhere else. They might well argue that they can use a recon, but at best (or worst) I dont think this is certain. For sure its capable of challenge. There is a post somewhere of someone who had a case with Barclays where one of their staff stood up in court and testified that he knew such and such was the procedure six years earlier. The only problem was that the guy was only 19! In this respect Oilyrag's recommendation on another thread that , "As per the general advice on this site, the best chance of success is to be the defendant." applies even more strongly than it did before. see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/216538-claim-stayed-due-unenforceable-67.html#post2696356 post 1339 at post 1339

Edited January 13, 2010 by seriously fed up

[vint1954]

 

I have a copy. I will post it for you. It is only a relatively short case.

 

In fact, it is not of much use because it suggest some criteria of materiality. Waksman applies a stricter test in Carey saying that materiality is irrelevant, it has to be a accurate copy and the regs say what it has to be a copy of.

 

Think this is circa paragraph 115 of the judgment but would have to check.

 

There - that is positive!

Not originally posted by me

[vint1954]

We seem to be loosing the plot here a bit, however I realsie that debate is good.

 

It is clear that the Carey case has confirmed that the OC can provide a reconstruction of the agreemement for s77 - 79 requests. In all honesty this has allways been the case as the law was written when there were generally no coppiers, so an exact copy was not possible. This was backed up by the OFT view and guidence. Also picked up on CAG with the threard, why you should not use s78 to obtain a copy of your agreement. So the Carey case changes nothing in that respect. s77-78 is to provide information only not a copy of an agreement. That again is the OFT view and where the Carey ruling took it's lead from.

 

As far as going to court is concerned, they will need to produce the original in court. Don't CPR rules state that where the case is based on a written agreement, they must provide a copy of that agreement with POC ( not an approximation ) and the original must be available at the hearing. It would beggar beleif if they could obtain judgement without proof possitive. ( I know it happens )

 

There are plenty of previous presidents from higher courts to be used and explanation from the author if the act, so Wakeman cannot change those, unless his court is above parliament.

[seriously fed up]

Vint in general I agree with you. However, diddy dicky has made the point that a bank could seem enforcement of an account, say "we cant find the original, but our procedures would require the account holder to have signed this (which needless to say will be compliant)", making copious references to Carey.

Now there are all sorts of reasons for this not to work - in an enforcement action the onus is on the lender, they cant just produce anything they want etc, and that Waksman was only ruling on s78 - but I can understand why people would be worried by this prospect. As diddy dicky said in response to one of my own posts the act says "was signed" but not "is signed" which could be interpreted as giving them the space to make the plea above.

[vint1954]

Vint in general I agree with you. However, diddy dicky has made the point that a bank could seem enforcement of an account, say "we cant find the original, but our procedures would require the account holder to have signed this (which needless to say will be compliant)", making copious references to Carey.

Now there are all sorts of reasons for this not to work - in an enforcement action the onus is on the lender, they cant just produce anything they want etc, and that Waksman was only ruling on s78 - but I can understand why people would be worried by this prospect. As diddy dicky said in response to one of my own posts the act says "was signed" but not "is signed" which could be interpreted as giving them the space to make the plea above.

Hi SFU,

 

I do understand where you are coming from, but to say that a document was signed as it is general practice is one thing, however if they cannot produce the actual document, they cannot say what the document contained. As we know, there were many cards around with differing terms. I still beleive that they nooed the original, if they take action against you as a defendant. They have to stil make their case with evidence.

[angry cat]

Over two years ago after making a s78 request, I was sent a conjectured reconstruction of an agreement; a frankenstein;

the agreement had apparently been lost/mislaid;

the reconstruction consisted of current terms & conditions.

 

(I actually held a copy of the original and a copy of the terms as varied, in my file of papers)

 

After making a formal complaint to TS, I was provided with the following opinion: (HHJ Waksman's judgement appears to follow the same opinion)

 

The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (" the Regulations”)

In respect of regulation 7 which states;

7(1) where an agreement has been varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act, every copy of the executed agreement given to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act other than section 85(1) shall include either-

a) An easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation given in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act relating to each discrete term of the agreement which has been varied;

or

b) An easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act.

 

Trading Standards are of the opinion, that reg. 7 refers to a copy of the executed agreement and that sub sections a) or b) are in addition to this and not any alternative to sending the actual executed agreement."

[seriously fed up]

Hi SFU,

 

I do understand where you are coming from, but to say that a document was signed as it is general practice is one thing, however if they cannot produce the actual document, they cannot say what the document contained. As we know, there were many cards around with differing terms. I still beleive that they nooed the original, if they take action against you as a defendant. They have to stil make their case with evidence.

That would be my first line of defence Vint, and in my view it would be successful. However, Waksman has changed the vista somewhat - sort of "if they can make it up for 78 why not everything else?" That is supplemented by the fact that that argument is at least as much conjectural as our view that Waksman applies only to 78 and they still need to produce an original which better be signed and have the prescribed terms etc. Since Waksman, there has not been the chance for either case to be tested out in court (though Humbleman's experience isnt the best start - but then again, I am not sure how much that might have happened anyway - prejudiced judge ).

In some ways, it might be better to close the site down - or at least threads on this matter - for a couple of days to allow us all to get our marbles back. Sort of mass hysteria!

[tamarindo]

Over two years ago after making a s78 request, I was sent a conjectured reconstruction of an agreement; a frankenstein;

the agreement had apparently been lost/mislaid;

the reconstruction consisted of current terms & conditions.

 

(I actually held a copy of the original and a copy of the terms as varied, in my file of papers)

 

After making a formal complaint to TS, I was provided with the following opinion: (HHJ Waksman's judgement appears to follow the same opinion)

 

The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (" the Regulations”)

In respect of regulation 7 which states;

7(1) where an agreement has been varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act, every copy of the executed agreement given to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act other than section 85(1) shall include either-

a) An easily legible copy of the latest notice of variation given in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act relating to each discrete term of the agreement which has been varied;

or

b) An easily legible statement of the terms of the agreement as varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act.

 

Trading Standards are of the opinion, that reg. 7 refers to a copy of the executed agreement and that sub sections a) or b) are in addition to this and not any alternative to sending the actual executed agreement."

 

 

Hi

 

Reading this make me think about my friend. My friend is in a similar situation. please read the link

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240630-help-so-reconstituted-agreement.html

 

Basically searching in my friend records, it was find out a 2nd confirmation that the terms and conditions are tottaly incorrect since my friends records ( account statements and variation of the terms conditions) say different pre-scribed terms conditions to those stated in the separate " conditions " sent with the so called " agreement" by the DCA.

 

But my friend is in a dilemma becasue if my friend states in writing to the Trading standard or DCA that the terms and conditions are wrong and hence the agreement reconstitution is false ( if it is reconstitution!), then my freind would be admitting the debt !!! NEED HELP or is it relevant ???

 

Any comments please wold be appreciated in the light of this recent judgement!!!

 

Thanks

[the_shadow]

 

As far as going to court is concerned, they will need to produce the original in court. Don't CPR rules state that where the case is based on a written agreement, they must provide a copy of that agreement with POC ( not an approximation ) and the original must be available at the hearing. It would beggar beleif if they could obtain judgement without proof possitive. ( I know it happens )

.

 

Unfortunately the CPR states "should" not "must"

 

S.

[angry cat]

That would be my first line of defence Vint, and in my view it would be successful. However, Waksman has changed the vista somewhat - sort of "if they can make it up for 78 why not everything else?" That is supplemented by the fact that that argument is at least as much conjectural as our view that Waksman applies only to 78 and they still need to produce an original which better be signed and have the prescribed terms etc. Since Waksman, there has not been the chance for either case to be tested out in court (though Humbleman's experience isnt the best start - but then again, I am not sure how much that might have happened anyway - prejudiced judge ).

In some ways, it might be better to close the site down - or at least threads on this matter - for a couple of days to allow us all to get our marbles back. Sort of mass hysteria!

 

There will always be casualties, more so as LIP's!

 

Going to court, is always a risk: judges lottery...

 

I have had experience with a narrow minded/biased circuit judge;

in fact, I did not come off to badly.

 

But, the experience made me realise just how dangerous it is to enter an arena that, is unfamiliar and these judges do not grant an LIP the courtesy that they deserve.

 

Moral of the story; do not go into the ring unless, you have a Barrister at your side.

 

And, most certainly NOT in the case of unenforceablity of credit agreements!

Edited January 13, 2010 by angry cat

[Stephan56]

I agree we shoudl all "catch our breath". I think it would be VERY USEFUL is someone (and someone a lot cleverer than me) were to do a BRIEF SUMMARY of the current state of play, as I for one, am very confused. Maybe start a new thread on it.

 

• Do people still need to send CCA requests? If so, any they get "any old rubbish back" (reconstituted agreement) then has the OC/DCA "complied?
  
• If, for whatever reason, they have NOT complied, are they still barred from taking "enforcement action"?
  
• What is deemed to constitute "enforcement action" now?
  

Leaving aside the "judges lottery" has the game moved on - Manchester case, others?

 

I had always thought that if the OC/DCA did not have/produce a SIGNED AGREEMENT (not application form) and signed by both parties - then it was UNENFORCEABLE - and a judge COULD NOT make an order. Is this still the case?

 

What are the MINUIMUM requriment now that an OC/DCA has to have to prevail in court.

 

Also, and maybe a separate threat, but it seems to me the OFT has completely failed in their responsibilities (reigning in OCs and DCAs, not to menton the bank charges issue). Is there any way to get the OFT to "pull their finger out"?

 

I sense a shift of "advantage" back to OCs and DCAs - which needs to be "nipped in the bud".

 

A clear statement of current situation and best current tactics I think would be appreciated by everyone.

[seriously fed up]

yes a good idea stephan, but the problem is that it would be little more than opinion that could be given. Carey et al is a decision. Anything put up would be opinion and opinion can always be challenged.

Agree that OCs and DCAs will be encouraged by this decision (not so sure about shift of advantage) and will use it for all its worth (and more) - but even THAT needs nipped in the bud.

[gyos]

Unfortunately the CPR states "should" not "must"

 

S.

 

Personally I don't agree that there is a big difference between "should" and "must".

 

Both indicate that failure to do so would prejudice the other sides ability to make their case.

[cymruambyth]

Hi, having just been bitten in the DJ lottery and Manchester:mad:, I'm writing a WS (post 324 on http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/153641-monument-cabot-17.html).

Is it best to ignore the Manchester Cases or go on the attack stating why it isn't applicable? I do not think a Reply Card with separate T&Cs and stating Subject To Credit Checks is an agreement!