Banks And Reconsituted Agreements

[rhos123]

why are banks , credit card companys, sending "reconsituted agreements"

when you request a copy af your cca, ? what do they gain by doin this?

 

 

surely if they have your original agreement why dont they just send a copy?

are these "reconsituted agreements" worth the paper they are printed on?

 

anyone any idea to the legal standing to these "reconsituted agreements"?

also is there any way to challange, the banks ,credit card companys, when

they send these" reconsituted agreements"?

 

any comments welcome:)

[Bill Shidding]

Hi, I think you need to read -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case.html

 

That will give you the answers you seek.

 

Bill

[rhos123]

thanks bs, will read

[baileyboy]

You will need a mug of tea or something a little stronger, as it has many pages now.

[MandM]

why are banks , credit card companys, sending "reconsituted agreements"

when you request a copy af your cca, ? what do they gain by doin this?

 

 

surely if they have your original agreement why dont they just send a copy?

are these "reconsituted agreements" worth the paper they are printed on?

 

anyone any idea to the legal standing to these "reconsituted agreements"?

also is there any way to challange, the banks ,credit card companys, when

they send these" reconsituted agreements"?

 

any comments welcome:)

 

Are you refering solely to a S77 - 79 request?

 

m

[rhos123]

You will need a mug of tea or something a little stronger, as it has many pages now.

cheers i will have something a little stronger, so after reading them many pages, clear and simple, dont challange them, let them challange you. so by sending a "reconsituted agreement" they have laid their cards on the table,

now do they stick or do you twist.

[Bill Shidding]

do they stick or do you twist

 

You do the sticking, they can twist all they like ()

[rhos123]

Are you refering solely to a S77 - 79 request?

 

m

hi, m yes

[rhos123]

You do the sticking, they can twist all they like ()

i think i will stick, aces are high," reconsituted agreements" the joker in the pack.

[MandM]

all been said above then. Manc cases have given us a small problem for S77-79 requests, but if that's all they've got then "stick". If they had it they'd probably show it! I would!

 

M

[rhos123]

all been said above then. Manc cases have given us a small problem for S77-79 requests, but if that's all they've got then "stick". If they had it they'd probably show it! I would!

 

M

yes a game of bluf on their part ! if they had it they would show it

"stick " dont call their bluf.

[make them aktiv runners]

yes a game of bluf on their part ! if they had it they would show it

"stick " dont call their bluf.

 

Don't agree. If they had 10 originals out of 100, chances are they would play their cards close by issuing reconstituted CCA's for all. In their position would you make it obvious which 10 you had a legimate claim for?

 

A new template reply is required for the site. By replying carefully, in the instance of you being one of the 10, you do at least have a counterclaim for the interest since your letter to date of any court claim. Bearing in mind they can only claim the last 6 years interest payments, it is in their own interests to be honest over what they do have.

[michellej]

Hi ,... think you might find this helpful in your search

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is

under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

watch them move ,..

[make them aktiv runners]

Hi ,... think you might find this helpful in your search

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is

under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

watch them move ,..

 

Depends how you ask for (a) ----> manchester case gives them the opening to provide reconstituted agreements to meet the legal requirements under s77.

 

If you get past (a), (b) can only be proven if a later court case shows makes an order under S127(3) and payments have been made since reply to fraud act letter.

 

There are many unenforceable debts. It is down to personal choice whether to make payment or stand your ground. Payments tend to count as acknowledgement of what you owe, not what you could have otherwise done if you knew enough.

 

Sites like this empower individuals to find the laws to fight back against unreasonable demand, not go to all lengths to avoid paying.

[michellej]

Depends how you ask for (a) ----> manchester case gives them the opening to provide reconstituted agreements to meet the legal requirements under s77.

 

If you get past (a), (b) can only be proven if a later court case shows makes an order under S127(3) and payments have been made since reply to fraud act letter.

 

There are many unenforceable debts. It is down to personal choice whether to make payment or stand your ground. Payments tend to count as acknowledgement of what you owe, not what you could have otherwise done if you knew enough.

 

Sites like this empower individuals to find the laws to fight back against unreasonable demand, not go to all lengths to avoid paying.

 

I do not agree ,... its fraud if they do not disclose information requested ,.. simple as, why bring out a newish law if old law was replaced because of flaws and loopholes ,..

NOT TO GO TO ALL LENGTHS TO AVOID PAYING..... well if you are implying to me as sounds the case ,.. then yes I will go to all lenghts not to pay , on unfair conditions , if lenders do not safegaurd the consumer then its only right that agreement should be unenforceable

 

do you not agree??????????????

Edited January 17, 2010 by michellej

[michellej]

yes a game of bluf on their part ! if they had it they would show it

"stick " dont call their bluf.

 

could not agree more ,... and good luck also if you are one who will go to all lengths to not pay ,.. why should you pay if been getting screwed for years ,.. (excuse the French),... and if disclosure can prove you concerns , then if not disclosing you are at risk of any loss , then this is FRAUD regardless how you ask ,.. no room for none complience in the law my friend regardless how you ask ,..

[make them aktiv runners]

Michelle, if you ask for something under the Consumer Credit Act and that Act is complied with, you cannot then rely on another law.

 

NB. I am not in any way suggesting it is right to produce reconstituted agreements at all, I am just resonding to the situation as it seems to legally stand with the Manchester case.

 

Lengths at avoiding paying was not aimed at you directly, it was a statement of fact of this site. Yes there are legal reasons for people to refuse payment, however, you cannot ask under one law and then hope to use a different one when you do not get what you want. As I said earlier, there should be a new template for the site members to use.

[rhos123]

Don't agree. If they had 10 originals out of 100, chances are they would play their cards close by issuing reconstituted CCA's for all. In their position would you make it obvious which 10 you had a legimate claim for?

 

10 originals 90 reconstituted , how many aces are in the pack!

[michellej]

Michelle, if you ask for something under the Consumer Credit Act and that Act is complied with, you cannot then rely on another law.

 

NB. I am not in any way suggesting it is right to produce reconstituted agreements at all, I am just resonding to the situation as it seems to legally stand with the Manchester case.

 

Lengths at avoiding paying was not aimed at you directly, it was a statement of fact of this site. Yes there are legal reasons for people to refuse payment, however, you cannot ask under one law and then hope to use a different one when you do not get what you want. As I said earlier, there should be a new template for the site members to use.

 

I do apologise then , as thought it was aimed at myself ,.. as I will certainly go to any lengths not to pay these criminals ,.. as that what their are ,.. if committing criminal offences day after day ,.. even a small lie is fraud ,.. did you know that ,.. if so then can you see the crimes these are committing ,.. so who supports criminal intentions? certainly not me ,... and I understand your point regarding the use of another law after requesting under another,.. then obviously ,.. you are correct that the right law should be quote when requesting the info you want ,.. now if you intend to challenge this in court ,..then you can request your agreement/underwriters sheets under CPR 31.16 ,.. refusel is a crime ,.. and if these companies have done no wrong then supply the info from request made ,.. as at the end of the day onus must be placed with lenders ,..

[make them aktiv runners]

Don't agree. If they had 10 originals out of 100, chances are they would play their cards close by issuing reconstituted CCA's for all. In their position would you make it obvious which 10 you had a legimate claim for?

 

10 originals 90 reconstituted , how many aces are in the pack!

 

A lot going by what they usually make.

 

If all 100 are caggers, of course the 10 can be identified. In the real world only a fraction of consumers know their rights, so realistically there is more chance of people paying if they all receive the same reconstituted agreements.

[michellej]

also another point ,... a reconstruction can be supplied under other requests ,.. but an original bearing your signature would be needed for court ,.. you can not reconstruct agreements / thats like reconstructing evidence for court ,... how can you reconstruct 100% if no original agreement to take reconstruction from ? ,... also county court judges might side with lenders and screw you ,.. thats why you can shoot the fraud option,.. as this would be a criminal court , and evidence can not be reconstructed for a court dealing with criminal intentions,...

[make them aktiv runners]

I do apologise then , as thought it was aimed at myself ,.. as I will certainly go to any lengths not to pay these criminals ,.. as that what their are ,.. if committing criminal offences day after day ,.. even a small lie is fraud ,.. did you know that ,.. if so then can you see the crimes these are committing ,.. so who supports criminal intentions? certainly not me ,... and I understand your point regarding the use of another law after requesting under another,.. then obviously ,.. you are correct that the right law should be quote when requesting the info you want ,.. now if you intend to challenge this in court ,..then you can request your agreement/underwriters sheets under CPR 31.16 ,.. refusel is a crime ,.. and if these companies have done no wrong then supply the info from request made ,.. as at the end of the day onus must be placed with lenders ,..

 

I agree CPR31.16, the whole point is to cover your back by asking the right questions the right way, not as some others suggested to sit back using CCA 74.

[rhos123]

Michelle, if you ask for something under the Consumer Credit Act and that Act is complied with, you cannot then rely on another law.

 

NB. I am not in any way suggesting it is right to produce reconstituted agreements at all, I am just resonding to the situation as it seems to legally stand with the Manchester case.

 

Lengths at avoiding paying was not aimed at you directly, it was a statement of fact of this site. Yes there are legal reasons for people to refuse payment, however, you cannot ask under one law and then hope to use a different one when you do not get what you want. As I said earlier, there should be a new template for the site members to use.

i dont think the issue here is pepole not wanting to pay thier debts. its the banks and there total disregard to its legal obligations . request a cca what do you get, recon version, why do they do it?

[make them aktiv runners]

i dont think the issue here is pepole not wanting to pay thier debts. its the banks and there total disregard to its legal obligations . request a cca what do you get, recon version, why do they do it?

 

Simple answer is because they can get away with it, for now at least.

[michellej]

I agree CPR31.16, the whole point is to cover your back by asking the right questions the right way, not as some others suggested to sit back using CCA 74.

 

SNAP ,...Totally agree ,..CPR is a powerful tool ,.. and believe it or not I am making good headway using this act ,... I have the RESOLUTION MANGER offering to deal with my concerns ,.. without the need for court yet ,.. And offering proposal for resolution ,..