Morgans/Cabot claim form - on citi Card debt with a recon *** Claim Dismissed by Consent***

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

That would be the case molly, Citi tok over

from the Associates Capital Corporation, and

replaced the cards with the Citibrands, caused

some confusion at the time as customers were

not fully advised of the changes.

 

Brig.

[consumeredge]

Hi Molly

 

Below I’ve bullet pointed the Default Notice and letter received you from Cabot for ease of reference.

 

I believe you have a strong case to have the claim struck out.

 

Where Citi state they were to sell your account, your repayment terms were expressly to remain the same, the only clause is that in the event of you defaulting on a payment to the purchaser, the purchaser would be free to negotiate alternative terms with you.

 

IMO Cabot had no lawful right to then state they would review your account annually or monthly, ie Citi. It is not intended by this Notice to alter the payment terms of our previous agreement with you. Citi will sell the account subject to the terms of its agreement with you and on the understanding that the purchaser will continue to honour those terms

Cabot Financial have failed to provide any form of Statement of Account since alledging to be the assignee.

 

You rightly asked for sight of the original terms and conditions, Cabot failed to provide you with a copy eventually asking you yourself contact Citi, imo it is the responsibility of Cabot Financial to provide you with a copy of the original terms and conditions, nothing else will do.

 

Lastly, if you defaulted on a payment the purchaser was obliged by the terms of purchase from Citi to negotiate alternative terms with you, Cabot ignore this and proceeded to instigate legal proceedings against you.

 

I would be thinking Abuse of Process, Cabot have failed to honour the terms of purchase from Citi.

　

　

Citi’s Default Notice

　

Citi has agreed to accept less than the contractual minimum monthly payment in order to enable you to repay your outstanding debt

 

As part of its business strategy, Citi has decided to sell those accounts, such as your own, which are subject to long term payment arrangement. In order to sell the account, we have sent out the Default

Notice to conform with the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

As long as you maintain your payments.

 

In the event that you default, the purchaser will be free to negotiate alternative terms with you

　

Cabot Financial

1. The arrangement was agreed upon the express terms that all payments to be receivedby Cabot Financial on or before the due dates

 

2. Cabot Financial would review the account annually, including the applicable interest rate and monthly payment amount.

 

3. If for any reason payments were not received by the agreed dates, the arrangement would be cancelled and Cabot Financial would enforce the right to payment under the original terms and conditions.

 

4. Such enforcement will include, but will not be limited to, the reinstatement of the full balance and interest due as of today's date, together with all additional interest that would have accrued but for this arrangement

[consumeredge]

Hi Molly

 

This is how I would be thinking to start completing your allocation questionnaire

As Defendant I Ms XXX XXXX take issue with the Claimants Particulars of Claim

 

I respectfully bring to the courts attention the case of Nomura International Plc v Granada Group Ltd & Ors 2 All ER (Comm) 878 where the Claimants claim was struck out for failing to plead adequately the nature of the claim or to set out adequately even in a rudimentary fashion the facts of the claim against the Defendant..

 

The pleaded claim is insufficient, there is no mention of the specific terms of purchase from the Original Creditor.

 

I bring to the courts attention details of Assignment and the Original Creditors Terms of Sale as specified on the Default Notice received by the Defendant from the Original Creditor month 2005

• Citi has agreed to accept less than the contractual minimum monthly payment in order to enable you to repay your outstanding debt
  

• As part of its business strategy, Citi has decided to sell those accounts, such as your own, which are subject to long term payment arrangement. In order to sell the account, we have sent out the Default Notice to conform with the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
  

• As long as you maintain your payments.
  

• In the event that you default, the purchaser will be free to negotiate alternative terms with you.
  

I bring to the court’s attention under the original creditorsTerms of Sale the Defendant commenced monthly payments to the Claimant from March 2006

 

The Claimant has no recourse within the terms and conditions of purchase to instigate legal proceedings against the Defendant.

 

It is averred the Claimant demanded payment or is entitled to interest.

 

I respectfully bring to the court the Defendant has a complete documented defence against the Claimant’s claim.

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

[molly13]

Hi,

 

Thank you for that consumeredge. However it has not got to the allocation questionaire yet.

 

I have to file a defence by tomorrow or apply for a strikeout as previously mentioned.

 

I have been spending most of the day poring over the few documents that I do have available.. ie letters from Cabot.

I have come across one letter , a response to puting the account in dispute due to non-compliance with CCA). In it it states:

"You shall note from section 10(2)a of DPA,the words"any of the conditions" and paragraph 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 of the DPA are entirely relevant to your case, as you signed a credit agreement which has been assigned by CitiFinancial to the Cabot Financial Group."

 

This was received prior to Reconstituted agreement was received.

 

CPUTR 2008 Summary The CCA 1974 s. 77 and 78 states that: 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 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 nonne 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.

Maybe I could use that as part of the defence??

 

Molly:-)

[consumeredge]

allocation questionaire was a slip, I have been looking at mani and simongee's thread, all three have the exact identical particulars of claim. imo you have a get out of jail card, the original Default Notice works in your favour, the terms of purchase forbid the purchaser to demand any I&E or instigate legal proceedings, in the event of a default they are merely entitled to negotiate alternative terms with you. my only advice would be when you submit a defence you have to be aware of what the other party will counter with, if you read mani's post you will see how Cabot circumnavigate Default Notices and Agreements.

 

Good Luck

 

Kind regards

 

Clive

[molly13]

Hi,

 

Just wondered if anyone could clarify a few questions for me please:

 

1. When you request CCA 78, does the Creditor have to supply a statement of account as well?

 

If so, does that statement of account have to be signed by the Creditor in itself. Or is it enough that the accompanying letter saying here is your reconstituted agreement is signed, with notes at the bottom saying that Statement of account is included.

 

 

 

2.THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 - Sections 77 and 78

 

Summary

On request and when accompanied by £1, a consumer has the right to:

 

• a copy of their executed agreement

• any other document referred to in it

• a statement showing

 

- the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor

 

- the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due, and

 

- the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due. If the creditor is unable to give this information, he can state instead how the dates and amounts fall to be ascertained.

 

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.

 

In our view a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’ and as such takes on the liabilities of section 77.

 

Under section 77(4), if the creditor is unable to provide this information, he is not entitled to enforce the debt while he remains in default (Decriminalised from 26 May 2008 on the coming into force of the CPRs).

 

Legal Argument

 

A copy of the executed agreement

 

Under the prescribed condition, section 77 of the Act requires the debtor to ‘...give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any)....‘. The ‘if any’ most naturally refers to the exception for agreements older than 1985.

 

Where a creditor receives a request to supply a copy of the executed agreement, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (‘1983 regs’) apply. Regulation 3(1) sets out the basic position that ‘every copy of an executed agreement... shall be a true copy’.

 

Regulation 3(2) goes on to concede that there may be omitted from this true copy various information such as details which are not required to be in the agreement by law: the signature box, signature (it should be noted that sub-ss 3-5 of section 127 do not apply to agreements entered into after 1 April 2007.A Court may then, for example, enforce unsigned agreements if it considers it is just to do so.) and date of signature. In our view the effect of Regulation 3(2) is that the creditor is only obliged to send out a generic copy of the agreement the debtor has signed up to. The creditor is not obliged to make an actual photocopy of the agreement.

 

However, the copy does have to be a ‘true copy’. This is a technical term, which has been discussed in a number of cases, mostly relating to bills of sale and the need to register a ‘true copy’ of the bill with the High Court. These cases come from the days before typewriters, when copies were made by hand. The consequences of filing a copy which was not a true copy were severe, since the bill would then be void and the creditor deprived of his security.

 

Meaning of ‘true copy’

 

In this context, the courts decided that a ‘true copy’ need not necessarily be an ‘exact copy,’ but it must be ‘so true that nobody reading it can by any possibility misunderstand it’ or be misled by it (In re Hewer ex parte Kahen (1882) LR 21 Ch.D. 871 at 875). The copy must contain ‘every material provision which is contained in the original’ (except that if the defect is made good by reading the document as a whole, the omission will not be fatal) (Court of Appeal in Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 at 98-99). Further, it is not sufficient for the copy merely ‘to state with complete accuracy in a summary form the effect of the stipulations contained in the original. It is not merely a document that is to state the true legal effect of the original; it is to be a copy of the original’ (per Atkin LJ in Burchell at 105).

 

Hewer, ex parte Kahen - the filed copy of the bill omitted the precise day of the month on which payment was to be made. The court held this was trivial, and no debtor would be misled by it.

 

Sharp v McHenry (1888 )LR 38 Ch.D. 427- the copy contained blanks which were not in the original. The court decided that the blanks were unimportant, since the omitted words were not required for the original bill to be valid.

 

Burchell v Thompson [1920] 2 KB 80 - the copy failed to include the words ‘per annum’ after the interest rate of 55%. The reader of the copy would have to guess whether the interest was per annum, per month or something else but as one could sensibly assume, correctly, that it was per annum it was a true copy.

 

Commercial Credit Company of Canada Ltd v Fuiton [1923] AC 798 - suggested further that where there are a raft of smaller differences in a bill of exchange copy, this could prevent it being a true copy. However where the differences were such as to make the copy contract actually different to the original, the copy will not be true. Lord Sumner, speaking of the man who may wish to refer to the copy, concluded that ‘the Act promises him ... a true copy, not a puzzle. He is to inspect it, not to recover the original by a process of conjectural emendation’ (at 807).

 

Terms and Conditions

 

Regulation 7(1) of the 1983 Regs requires that a requested copy of an agreement which has been unilaterally varied under section 82(1) of the Act, shall be accompanied either by the latest notice of variation or a copy of the terms and conditions as varied. Regulation 7(2) extends the principle to copies of varied securities supplied either to the consumer or the surety.

 

debt collectors as creditors

 

A consumer credit debt can be assigned in two ways: in law under the Law of Property Act 1925 or in equity but in practice we need to be concerned only with statutory assignments.

 

For a debt to be assigned in law, there are three conditions:

 

• the assignment must be absolute.

 

• the assignor must make the assignment in writing.

 

• express notice of the assignment must be given in writing to the debtor (see section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925).

 

The reason the debt is assigned is immaterial. For instance, books of loans may be sold on to be collected as an asset rather than as a discounted debt.

 

In some instances, the debt collector may have purchased a debt but not have the relevant agreement. Whilst, in general, ‘liabilities’ cannot be assigned there must be a question mark over whether ‘duties’ are the same. This is important since there is a rule, expressed in Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106 at 289 to 302, that where a benefit is conditional upon some burden, the assignee must also take the burden. An example is where the contractor has the right to mine on condition that they pay compensation to those disrupted by the mining. If they assign their right to mine, the assignee takes this right subject to the duty to pay compensation.

 

Therefore, there is a strong argument that under the Act, the right to payment is never absolute. It is always subject to duties (many of which are imposed under the Act). For instance, the right to enforce the credit agreement at all is subject to the duty to comply with section 77 or 78. This duty is not a ‘liability’ as such under the credit agreement but is a condition of the right to repayment.

 

There has been a suggestion that debt collectors can avoid complying with section 77 and 78 by claiming that the agreement is no longer `live’ in some way as it has been ‘terminated’ based on section 103 of the Act. This talks of a ‘trader’ who was the creditor under a regulated agreement, implying that ‘trader’ is no longer a creditor once an agreement is ended. Section 103, however, deals with where the customer no longer owes any money at all and therefore it is correct to say that he is no longer a debtor and the trader is no longer his creditor. Where money is still owed, section 103 would not apply, since the consumer would not be entitled to a termination statement.

 

The first issue on when the debt collector becomes the creditor is relatively simple. Section 189(1) of the Act defines ‘creditor’ as ‘the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law.’

 

Where the debt collector is not acting as the creditor’s agent, or otherwise on his behalf, the only legal basis he can have for demanding payment from the debtor is if the creditor’s rights and duties have been assigned to him. Therefore we can be reasonably confident that a debt collector who has bought the debt is the ‘creditor’.

 

Unpalatable though section 77 and 78 may be for some creditors, if the debt collector is unable to prove the debt, they should be more careful about the debts they buy. They cannot complain that the sections are somehow unfair as it is in the Act and so must be complied with. It is up to them to ensure they purchase and maintain sufficient records to be able to prove the debt and comply with the other requirements of the Act.

 

Misleading statements to debtors

 

Sections 77 and 78 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. In addition, if the default continues for a period of 1 month the creditor is in breach of the Act.

 

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

 

Susan Edwards

Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading

 

(The above pinched from another thread)

 

Now the highlighted in red has happened to me three times. Who do I make complaint to?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Regards

Molly:-)

[dx100uk]

yes they should provide a statement of account

 

dx

[molly13]

Thanks dx,

I have been provided with 4 pages of a computer printout of payments made, just looks like a book-keeeping record. In any event, should these pages be signed by the Creditor?

 

Molly:-)

[dx100uk]

thats good and no

it does not need a sig

 

dx

[molly13]

Thanks dx,

 

I'm just trying to take everything apart,where I can, in regards to their errors.

They have three times claimed I signed an agreement, which I never did.. hence my questions as who to complain to.

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Molly:-)

[Happyhippy1959]

subbing

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

OFT for this complaint failure under CPTUR regs.

[molly13]

Hi,

 

Thank you brigadier... complaint sent to OFT.

 

A bit of further advice needed please on a couple of issues:

 

1. With regard to statements of account having to be signed..

According to the OFT leaflet 1266, Need information about your credit or hire agreement? it states:

"You should also get a statement of your account (that they have signed) "

 

Also,according to OFT leaflet 1272:

Guidance on sections 77, 78

and 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

– the duty to giveinformation to debtors and the

consequences of non-compliance on the

enforceability of the agreement

October 2010

 

3.3 The statement must be signed by or on behalf of the creditor or owner.

 

The so called statement of account that Cabot sent to me with the reconstituted agreement was NOT signed.

 

So have Cabot in fact fully complied with CCA request??

 

In one of their letters Cabot qoutes from CCA s78 and states that "therefore it is evident that the statement provided in response to your request is sufficient to provide in the circumstances."

 

 

2. Due to the vague POC's I felt unable to submit a defence and applied for a strike out without a hearing, (prior to defence being due).

 

A judge at Northampton then ordered that the application be heard on notice to claimant, and transferred to my home court.

I now have a date for a hearing for late January, however the order states that the hearing may proceed via telephone conference if both parties agree.

 

Now does anyone know:

Do I have to agree to this? I'm not really bothered either way.

Is a telephone conference better than a Court hearing?

Do I have to have special facilities for this?

Are there extra costs?

Am I to approach Morgan or do they contact me with their choice? and do I have to inform the court of what has been decided?

 

Sorry about these questions, but I don't have a clue to any of this.

The court was not very helpful and didn't seem to know when I phoned them.

Any help much appreciated as usual:-)

 

Thanks in advance

 

Molly:-)

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Q1 in my opinion no the statement must be

accurate and ''attested' as so.

Telephone conference where do

you feel most comfortable??

Wait for the to contact you.

[molly13]

Thank you brigadier:-)

 

I really don't mind either court or phone, but I suppose if I don't hear from them I'll just turn up in court on the day.

 

Regards

Molly:-)

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Thank you brigadier:-)

 

I really don't mind either court or phone, but I suppose if I don't hear from them I'll just turn up in court on the da

Molly:-)

 

Wait and see what they suggest.

[molly13]

Hi,

 

My hearing for the strike-out was adjourned till next week, due to me being in hospital with pneumonia early Jan. Letter from consultant was sent to Court, and hearing rescheduled.

 

But.. I now need some further help on this please. I am now getting extremely confused... sorry:???:

 

HoweverI have now received a letter from Morgan Solicitors stating that a Default Notice is not required as the claim relates solely to arrears, referring me to Goode,Consumer Law and practice paragraph 5.167 and enclosing a copy of this.

 

At the same time I received a 'Notice of Arrears' dated end of January 2012,also from Morgan. This is the first I have ever had??

It states Amount in Arrears: £ XXXXX

Minimum payment required:£ XXXX

 

The two amounts are the same, and the same as is being claimed on the claim form issued in August 2011??

This is the first time that it has been mentioned that it relates to arrears...

 

I just don't understand and don't really know what my next step should be.

 

To be honest at the moment I just feel like throwing in the towel.

 

Any help gratefully accepted as per usual.

 

Regards

Molly

[molly13]

This is the copy from Goode that they attached.

Goode001.pdf

[the_shadow]

Hi,

 

My hearing for the strike-out was adjourned till next week, due to me being in hospital with pneumonia early Jan. Letter from consultant was sent to Court, and hearing rescheduled.

 

But.. I now need some further help on this please. I am now getting extremely confused... sorry:???:

 

HoweverI have now received a letter from Morgan Solicitors stating that a Default Notice is not required as the claim relates solely to arrears, referring me to Goode,Consumer Law and practice paragraph 5.167 and enclosing a copy of this.

 

At the same time I received a 'Notice of Arrears' dated end of January 2012,also from Morgan. This is the first I have ever had??

It states Amount in Arrears: £ XXXXX

Minimum payment required:£ XXXX

 

The two amounts are the same, and the same as is being claimed on the claim form issued in August 2011??

This is the first time that it has been mentioned that it relates to arrears...

 

I just don't understand and don't really know what my next step should be.

 

To be honest at the moment I just feel like throwing in the towel.

 

Any help gratefully accepted as per usual.

 

Regards

Molly

 

Ok, they are claiming that there is no need for a default due to the fact this is money that would be due through normal payments, I have to say I've seen this used in loans where fixed repayments were the norm and where it was easy to work out when the account would be paid off but never for a credit card but that may just be me

 

If they are claiming ANY kind of interest on this amount or have added any interest on the sum since the last statement you recieved then they HAVE to have supplied you with ongoing statements up until issuing proceedings, failure to do so under the CCA1974 means they cannot charge you interest whilst in that period of non-compliance.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

This is the copy from Goode that they attached.

 

Molly, I'm pretty sure this is copyrighted material so we cant allow it to be posted as is, However one or two relevant paragraphs could be extracted from it and quoted under fair usage rules if you so wished.

 

S.

[molly13]

Ok, they are claiming that there is no need for a default due to the fact this is money that would be due through normal payments, I have to say I've seen this used in loans where fixed repayments were the norm and where it was easy to work out when the account would be paid off but never for a credit card but that may just be me

 

If they are claiming ANY kind of interest on this amount or have added any interest on the sum since the last statement you recieved then they HAVE to have supplied you with ongoing statements up until issuing proceedings, failure to do so under the CCA1974 means they cannot charge you interest whilst in that period of non-compliance.

 

S.

 

Thank you shadow for your response:-)

 

I just can not get my head around this arrears business at all.

 

They have loaded the account, to date with approx. £ 4.000 interest, it would seem that it is from date of assignment in 2006... but I have NEVER had a statement of account, other than the computer print-outs sent with the reconstructed agreement. Part of their claim is also interest under s.69 County Courts Act, which I was under the impression that they are not allowed to claim?

 

Regards

 

a still very confused

 

Molly:-)

[molly13]

Molly, I'm pretty sure this is copyrighted material so we cant allow it to be posted as is, However one or two relevant paragraphs could be extracted from it and quoted under fair usage rules if you so wished.

 

S.

 

Oh , and many apologies for this, I hadn't thought of the copyright aspect:oops:

 

I'll try to find and post the relevant bits, and see if someone can give an opinion.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Molly:-)

[molly13]

Hi again,

 

Could someone please take a look at the attached reconstituted agreement and advice please...

I would like to know, if possible,:

 

a. is this enforceable.. i.e does it have all prescribed terms etc. I note it does not have a credit limit.

 

b. The numbers at the top...0300 ASSOC 98/00..... does that mean the years that the agreement applies to.

 

c. The bits I've scribbled out were 4 numbers i.e 88-99.. I assume that is my ID no. from OC, is that correct?

 

d. Page 4 at the bottom...Annual Fee... This looks to me as if it has been added on at a later stage.. ie the lettering is not the same size as the rest of the documents. (or am I just seeing things?)

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

Molly:-)

assoc agreement001.pdf

[dpick]

Well I could type something like that up on my computer is there a place for you to sign if not then it is a reconstructed agreement and if agreement prior to April 2007 and they don't have the original or a true copy of the original not worth the paper it's written on.

 

dpick

[molly13]

Hi,

 

Thanks dpick...

 

I know it is a reconstruction and that no copy of original is available.

 

I don't know where the signature ought to have been?? And yes the agreement is well before 2007.

 

So now I've just got to,possibly, convince a judge that 'it's not worth the paper it's written on'.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Regards

Molly:-)