Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[PriorityOne]

As has been said many times before ..the Creditors would be reluctant to BRING the claim as it is THEY who will have to produce the Original in Court.

 

Long live us "feckless" then eh?....

[bustthematrix]

No doubt the CCA wasn't implemented to allow "won't payer's" to get away with paying nothing

In my view, the alleged "won't payer's" are the REAL lenders!!!

 

Yes we should all lawfully repay what we lawfully owe. The key is the word lawfully.

 

Ever since the discontinuance of precious metals as money and paper money backed by such, a great theft has been underway. Since the introduction of credit based lending, credit bookkeeping and accounting, this crime has prospered magnificently.

 

SEE Here Money, Banking and Monetary Policy - Everyday Economics - FRB Dallas and Web of Debt - How Banks And The Federal Reserve Are Bankrupting The Planet...

 

So the "won't payer's" are the REAL lenders after all. To me, all these modern methods of getting debts "written off" by Statutory 'loopholes' and such like are simply a part of the outworkings of justice for the masses who have been looted and defrauded in these matters for centuries!

 

Make no mistake about it, if you believe as I do that the Almighty designed this Universe, including our world and planet as an ultimately just system, then it all makes sense. Evil will never triumph indefinitely nor ultimately.

[means2anend]

As per post 2098

 

''why not ask if it is copied from the original''

 

In relation to the Last Paragraph in post 2098 before your question above...

 

Would it not be better to ask first ''IF THE ORIGINAL IS IN EXISTENCE''?

 

How THEN can a copy be a true copy OF THE ORIGINAL if it is no longer around.And if it were around why then all the fuss about reconstituting agreements, as a straightforward copy of THE ORIGINAL would suffice.

 

Surley this is THE subtle but critical question at POINT IN TIME.. The very fact that they are making reconstituted agreements ''from other sources'' is implicit that the originals are no longer in existence.

 

Could it be that we are asking the Creditors the wrong questions/requests at the wrong time....At this point then would they now be misleading pursuant to

CPUTR 2008 REGS 5 and 6

Edited April 6, 2010 by means2anend

[means2anend]

We may be in danger of working from/accepting the premise that before the Originals were lost copies of that original HAD ALREADY been made and so we NOW simply ask for A TRUE COPY of that original..accepting the 'fact' that they are..

 

..But the real question here should be ''Do you have the originals''? I know it is an obvious question but it gets an answer from them and potentially puts them in a corner in view of Consumer Protection Regulations and then all sorts of problems can arise in our favour...misleading statements, unfair practices, criminal offences..etc...

 

And also it would give a critical insight at an very early stage whether if they could ultimately produce an original in Court..

Edited April 6, 2010 by means2anend

[bustthematrix]

As we all know, for s78 it can be a reconstruction.

 

Here is the OFT view on the matter:

 

''Sections 77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 refer to supplying a copy of the ‘executed’ agreement within 12 working days of receiving a written request from the debtor. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable against the debtor until a copy is provided.

 

Execution involves signing the agreement. If no agreement has been executed, it is impossible to supply a true copy of the agreement. Should a creditor supply a copy agreement, even though the debtor has never signed any agreement with that creditor, no indication should be given that it is a true copy or a copy of an executed agreement.

 

To do so may contravene Regulation 5 of the CPRs and be an unfair or improper business practice.

 

The consequence of the debtor not having signed a credit agreement with the creditor is that the agreement is unenforceable except where the court orders that enforcement may take place. Where the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 the court is not able to make such an order unless the agreement was signed by the debtor.

 

Therefore it is misleading to state, when complying with a section 77 or 78 request, that the debtor has signed or would have signed (or similar) the enclosed agreement where the debtor has not done so. From 26 May 2008 such a statement will be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Regulation 5 of the CPRs states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ (Regulation 5(5)(d) of the CPRs).

 

Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is also a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Regulation 5(4)(k) of the CPRs. It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it.

 

Breach of Regulation 5 of the CPRs is a criminal offence under Regulation 9 and can also be enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Under section 218A of the Enterprise Act, where an application for an Enforcement Order is made the court may require the Respondent ‘to provide evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim’ (such as a claim that a debtor has signed a credit agreement).

 

In addition, it should be noted that threats to take action that cannot be taken is listed as one of the factors that will be considered in assessing aggressive practices in Regulation 7(2) of the CPRs.

 

May 2008 ''

 

and:

 

The copy of the executed agreement need not be an exact copy but it must be a ‘true copy’ and not some reconstruction of what the original might have been and it must contain the same terms as the original. Where the terms have been varied as provided for within the agreement, the copy of the original agreement must be accompanied by a document setting out the current terms, as varied. Certain details may be omitted from the original agreement eg the signature but the debtor must be in no doubt as to the true nature of his obligations under the loan.

 

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. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.

 

Why not ask if it is coppied frrom the original.

 

Vint

Absolutely brilliant reference Vint

[bustthematrix]

We may be in danger of working from/accepting the premise that before the Originals were lost copies of that original HAD ALREADY been made and so we NOW simply ask for A TRUE COPY of that original..accepting the 'fact' that they are..

 

..But the real question here should be ''Do you have the originals''? I know it is an obvious question but it gets an answer from them and potentially puts them in a corner in view of Consumer Protection Regulations and then all sorts of problems can arise in our favour...misleading statements, unfair practices, criminal offences..etc...

 

And also it would give a critical insight at an very early stage whether if they could ultimately produce an original in Court..

...Cracking...

[angry cat]

Civil monetary penalties - setting the maximum penalty - Ministry of Justice

[diddydicky]

i just read todays mail

 

in it the conservatives mock the increase in tax for the well off to 50% as a retrograde step because it will not result in any greatly increased revenue "because those affected will find loopholes not to pay it"!!!

 

what's good for the goose......................

[eagleforms]

Oilyrag is absolutely right in his analysis of the banking industry. They are no more than usurers of the worst kind. Barclays, in the guise of the Woolwich, charged me interest on £16,000 of arrears for 5 months after I had paid it off on an interest only mortgage, when they had already told me that the interest on the arrears was included in the monthly payments before it was paid off. I have complained to the FOS and Barclays have told them that they were quite entitled to continue to charge the interest. I just hope the FOS don't go along with this, it is no more than theft.

[angry cat]

The FOS...roll eyes!

[CCAMAN]

We may be in danger of working from/accepting the premise that before the Originals were lost copies of that original HAD ALREADY been made and so we NOW simply ask for A TRUE COPY of that original..accepting the 'fact' that they are..

 

..But the real question here should be ''Do you have the originals''? I know it is an obvious question but it gets an answer from them and potentially puts them in a corner in view of Consumer Protection Regulations and then all sorts of problems can arise in our favour...misleading statements, unfair practices, criminal offences..etc...

 

And also it would give a critical insight at an very early stage whether if they could ultimately produce an original in Court..

 

I have asked the question as to to the existance of original agreements of two credit card providers on very old agreements -one replied -While we try and locate the full original agreement we shall not be seeking to enforce the agreement. The other card provider simply stated that they had nothing further to add and would not enter into any further correspondence-ie either could not/would not answer the question.

[the_shadow]

I have asked the question as to to the existance of original agreements of two credit card providers on very old agreements -one replied -While we try and locate the full original agreement we shall not be seeking to enforce the agreement. The other card provider simply stated that they had nothing further to add and would not enter into any further correspondence-ie either could not/would not answer the question.

 

Hmm sounds like a Barclays response ;-)

 

S.

[egg-sterminator]

I have asked the question as to to the existance of original agreements of two credit card providers on very old agreements -one replied -While we try and locate the full original agreement we shall not be seeking to enforce the agreement. The other card provider simply stated that they had nothing further to add and would not enter into any further correspondence-ie either could not/would not answer the question.

perhaps a email to the oft ? on the subject of original signed agreements, i though you have a right to view the originals at the cc's head office ?

[PriorityOne]

perhaps a email to the oft ? on the subject of original signed agreements, i though you have a right to view the originals at the cc's head office ?

 

My own view is that I have a right to see anything that I'm alleged to have signed. No signature = no evidence. If no signature can be produced... then they can go swivel.

 

If they had an original doc., they'd be quick enough to send it to you.... so why waste your time trekking to HO to find out when there's nothing to find?

[diddydicky]

My own view is that I have a right to see anything that I'm alleged to have signed. No signature = no evidence. If no signature can be produced... then they can go swivel.

 

If they had an original doc., they'd be quick enough to send it to you.... so why waste your time trekking to HO to find out when there's nothing to find?

 

the original reason that a signature and signature boxes were not required on a "true copy" is a throwback to pre photocopier days when they only way to have provided a true copy of an agreement complete with signature- would have involved the person producing the true copy- having to forge a copy of the signature

 

the banks are simply holding on to outdated legislation when clearly it would be far less time consuming to simply photocopy an original document- and therefore usually indicates that they have done so as they have recreated the document from sources other than the original document

[bustthematrix]

1. They usually don't have it.

2. If they do, it probably incriminates them in some way so they'll say it's lost etc.

3. So they prefer to recreate from 'other' sources. Well they have to establish that whatever they recreate is a true copy of the original.

4. Therefore, let them confirm exactly what sources they've used to ensure that IT IS a true copy.

5. Let them confirm exactly what's happened to the original, even if they don't have it anymore.

[angry cat]

The consumer credit cancellation notices & copies of documents regulations 1983.

 

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.

 

We 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".

 

HHJ Waksman concurs...!

 

AC

[bustthematrix]

HHJ Waksman concurs...!

The ruling's not quite as bad as the mainstream media makes out eh?

 

It's important to know one's enemies.

[means2anend]

the original reason that a signature and signature boxes were not required on a "true copy" is a throwback to pre photocopier days when they only way to have provided a true copy of an agreement complete with signature- would have involved the person producing the true copy- having to forge a copy of the signature

 

the banks are simply holding on to outdated legislation when clearly it would be far less time consuming to simply photocopy an original document- and therefore usually indicates that they have done so as they have recreated the document from sources other than the original document

 

Whilst I agree with you usually DD..I do not here!!!

 

Photocopiers have been around sufficiently long enough to have had the originals and their accompanying signatures/sig boxes copied.Indeed this technology was far less prone to ''cut and paste'' technology today and far less susceptible to forgery.At least there would have been a signature on it.

 

Bustthematrix in post 2116 makes clear reasons as to why they are reconstituting agreements...the reason being that the originals themselves were in breach of legislation right from the start...so they can ''throw away'' the messed up originals and ''start again'' by picking and mixing prescribed terms onto a blank sheet and calling it a ''true copy''.

 

In fact if it were not for sites such as this from which those sneaky guests are peering into they should not have learned what a prescribed term was from year dot.

 

It is as plain as day..that ORIGINALS never adhered to legislation in the FIRST PLACE.

[means2anend]

I have asked the question as to to the existance of original agreements of two credit card providers on very old agreements -one replied -While we try and locate the full original agreement we shall not be seeking to enforce the agreement. The other card provider simply stated that they had nothing further to add and would not enter into any further correspondence-ie either could not/would not answer the question.

 

Your answer is staring you right in the face in the first reply...while they are locating the original they will not enforce the agreement..AT THIS MOMENT THEY DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL otherwise why are they not enforcing...make a note of the date that they said this better if it is in a letter sent to you as this may be crucial in the future in relation to credibility.

 

They would not be prepared with a copy because THEY DID NOT EXPECT YOU...

 

If they subsequently cannot locate the original then they could not have made a copy ''later on''...and again I refer you to POSTs 2103,2104 and 2116

 

Ask the right question to elicit the right response and the answers can shed alot of light on the current situation.

 

Here it appears that they are cornered..but you must KNOW what you are looking for!!!

 

It is in this scenario that it is most likely that the agreement will be made up from ''other sources'' and a 'true copy honest AND accurate'' is less likely..check out the archive procedures ..all the procedures that lead them to ahem! cough! cough! suddenly present you with a wahey!!! eureka!!! copy.

Edited April 7, 2010 by means2anend

[PriorityOne]

Every so often, posters come on here and try to push really hard for a true copy of their alleged Agreement.

 

Why?

 

It's in you interest for them not to have it. They won't tell you they don't have it though.... it's normally left for you to read betweent the lines.

 

Please do that CCAMAN...

[seriously fed up]

is there not a question here about what we mean by "original". This could be the actual bit of paper that you signed back whenever when. That is one meaning of "original" (and for the record, it would be mine). However, (many) banks opted either

 

1. to just junk these agreements (these will include no doubt ccaman's two institutions)
   
2. but many while they opted to get rid of the original original (ie the actual bit of paper that you signed whenever when) photocopied/ microfiche at least one side first. Thus they would have to rely on this photocopy/microfiche, and in that case it really depends on the willingness of a court to accept a copy as "the original".
   

There are a number of cases in Scotland where the Sheriff has insisted on the original document and not a "type 2" original. If we could be sure that courts would always do this then it would be a substantial change in the burden of proof, even when the bank was the pursuer. And that's before we get to whether even the original (actual bit of paper)is enforceable.

[PriorityOne]

is there not a question here about what we mean by "original". This could be the actual bit of paper that you signed back whenever when. That is one meaning of "original" (and for the record, it would be mine). However, (many) banks opted either

 

1. to just junk these agreements (these will include no doubt ccaman's two institutions)
   
2. but many while they opted to get rid of the original original (ie the actual bit of paper that you signed whenever when) photocopied/ microfiche at least one side first. Thus they would have to rely on this photocopy/microfiche, and in that case it really depends on the willingness of a court to accept a copy as "the original".
   

There are a number of cases in Scotland where the Sheriff has insisted on the original document and not a "type 2" original. If we could be sure that courts would always do this then it would be a substantial change in the burden of proof, even when the bank was the pursuer. And that's before we get to whether even the original (actual bit of paper)is enforceable.

 

A lot depends on the strength of your own argument and how much you believe in what you're actually saying at the time. A&L tried to threaten me with a microfiche copy years ago but called off their solicitors and never went to court with it.... after a few heated exchanges went back and forth between us.

 

A microfiche is not an original. It's not a copy of an original either. What you'd get would be a copy of a copy of an original.

[CCAMAN]

Every so often, posters come on here and try to push really hard for a true copy of their alleged Agreement.

 

Why?

 

It's in you interest for them not to have it. They won't tell you they don't have it though.... it's normally left for you to read betweent the lines.

 

Please do that CCAMAN...

 

Thank you Prioity One-I had actually worked that out, nontheless your comment is appreciated and reassuring-I tend to look more at the white bits than the black bits in a letter now-the white bits have less BS!!!

[diddydicky]

Whilst I agree with you usually DD..I do not here!!!

 

Photocopiers have been around sufficiently long enough to have had the originals and their accompanying signatures/sig boxes copied.Indeed this technology was far less prone to ''cut and paste'' technology today and far less susceptible to forgery.At least there would have been a signature on it.

 

Bustthematrix in post 2116 makes clear reasons as to why they are reconstituting agreements...the reason being that the originals themselves were in breach of legislation right from the start...so they can ''throw away'' the messed up originals and ''start again'' by picking and mixing prescribed terms onto a blank sheet and calling it a ''true copy''.

 

In fact if it were not for sites such as this from which those sneaky guests are peering into they should not have learned what a prescribed term was from year dot.

 

It is as plain as day..that ORIGINALS never adhered to legislation in the FIRST PLACE.

 

 

my point was that the rules with regard to producing True copies - and not having to produce the signatures - have been around, i believe for a hundred years or more- slightly longer than photocopiers or carbon paper i think

 

i was then pointing out that creditors were USING that as an excuse when, s you rightly say- it would be a lot easier just to produce a photocopy

 

However, what some people may fail to understand is that the immediate non production of a signed true copy of the agreement does NOT show that the creditor does not have the original

 

more, that he may not have the original "easily available"

 

the £1 fee is in reality a joke and does not represent the cost of having to search (often through off site storage facilities) for archived documents- the purpose of a s78 is for you to obtain a copy of the agreement NOT as a means to find loopholes, therefore a copy of a copy (microfiched copy) is usually provided

 

there is a danger that the creditors may eventually persuade the courts that if hundreds of thousands of debtors send in requests for true copies of their agreements in a fishing excercise- that the courts allow them to debit the true cost of finding the originals (where they have been archived and not destroyed) to the debtor.

 

the way forward is for creditors to be forced to admit , at the outset whether they do or do not have the original agreement (wherever that may be)

Edited April 7, 2010 by diddydicky