Reconstituted agreements - a pathetic example

[palomino]

For your interest and amusement.

(Note that the name and address have been blanked out.)

 

http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz299/palomino00/CAG/Agreement.jpg

 

The interesting point is that any purported agreement was with HSBC, not Midland, and would have happened many years after the takeover.

 

Back to the drawing board ...

[Nagasis]

I thought even reconstituted ones had to have the prescibed terms

 

116. In practical terms what this is likely to mean is that if the creditor chooses to use as the s78 copy, the s63 copy which would have been provided to that particular debtor at the time following execution of the agreement, this will be sufficient provided that the information referred to at paragraph 113 above is supplied. This exercise is not a mere

formality. The creditor will need to check carefully that the details of the debtor at the time are indeed correct and that those are the particular terms (including Prescribed Terms) that he agreed to. This is to ensure that it is an honest and accurate copy.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Nagasis

[247orbital]

Looks like they have knocked it up on microsoft word in about 3 minutes. Shocking really but funny also.

[Hardupnotfedup]

LoL at least they didn't forge a bank officials signature as well. 1/10 for nerve

[palomino]

Yes, the name and address on this reconstituted copy are correct.

 

There were no accompanying terms and conditions - all that was enclosed was the page uploaded as above.

 

The accompanying letters contains this paragraph -

"With reference to CPR Pre-action Protocol 4.6©, regarding the Signed Application form, we have conducted a reasonable search, and at the time of the request, the document cannot be located. It was in our control but is no longer in our possession therefore, a reconstituted application is enclosed."

I've no idea what CPR Pre-action Protocol 4.6© is or says - can someone enlighten me?

[Huff&Puff]

4.6

 

If the defendant does not accept the claim or part of it, the response should –

(a) give detailed reasons why the claim is not accepted, identifying which of the claimant's contentions are accepted and which are in dispute;

 

(b) enclose copies of the essential documents which the defendant relies on;

 

© enclose copies of documents asked for by the claimant, or explain why they are not enclosed;

 

(d) identify and ask for copies of any further essential documents, not in his possession, which the defendant wishes to see; and

(The claimant should provide these within a reasonably short time or explain in writing why he is not doing so.)

 

(e) state whether the defendant is prepared to enter into mediation or another alternative method of dispute resolution.

 

 

From here:

 

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – PROTOCOLS - Ministry of Justice

[Nagasis]

does that mean they could only use that as a defendant?

[dannyboy660]

I'd kick their a,,, if I were you!!!

 

Thank the big G they can't link you to that debt.

 

As long as you've never acknowledged it in any way you're home and dry.

 

You didn't ask for a CA did you?????

 

"Courts will now have discretion to enforce all invalidly executed agreements; the restrictions on this discretion, which applied in respect of certain infringements, have now been lifted;......." An explanation of the Consumer Credit Act 2006

 

 

DO NOT ENGAGE!!!!!

[veryweary]

"Courts will now have discretion to enforce all invalidly executed agreements; the restrictions on this discretion, which applied in respect of certain infringements, have now been lifted;......." An explanation of the Consumer Credit Act 2006

 

 

Is this relevant to agreeements signed before the the 2006 changes came into force, because they were not in themsleves retrospective?

 

If it is I'm in deep trouble.

[palomino]

H&P : many thanks for looking that up.

 

Nagasis : no, that is the response they would give if the matter went that far. They are just getting in first.

[palomino]

As far as engaging goes we have been doing this for about two years.

 

They have argued, prevaricated, lied and actually prevented us from making repayments. There is a corporate culture of mendacity, duplicity, aggression and bullying - which has got them precisely nowhere.

[dannyboy660]

"Courts will now have discretion to enforce all invalidly executed agreements; the restrictions on this discretion, which applied in respect of certain infringements, have now been lifted;......." An explanation of the Consumer Credit Act 2006

 

 

Is this relevant to agreeements signed before the the 2006 changes came into force, because they were not in themsleves retrospective?

 

If it is I'm in deep trouble.

 

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think so. I think it is in force for agreements signed under CCA2006, but there has been a difference of opinion about that.