**WARNING** "Reconstituted" CCA - 'perfectly acceptable' says Judge

[cymruambyth]

Hi for what it is worth, I have just lost in court on a 'balance of probabilities' with a reply form with my signature, nothing from OC and separate unlinked t&cs. I argued all that variations of t&cs should be supplied and s127(3). [There were also other matters such DN etc that were pleaded.

I have been advised that reconstructions of this type are regularly accepted by courts and that the courts are in a rather pro bank cycle at present.

 

"Remember the lawyer's favourite expression in all the world is the client who says, "But it is a matter of principle"! However galling it is and however unfair it is, making a repayment plan with XXXX is at least safe, compared with the financial risks involved in starting an appeal. With court fees and the cost of a transcript you would end up spending well over £2,500 and spending certainly over £3500 for the creditor. You are putting £6,500 plus on the line for a case which may well not succeed in the current climate."

[The Debt Star]

Post #151 says it all.

 

Thanks C for providing the estimate on adverse costs order faced by the OP.

 

 

Scrible IF you have that sort of money and IF those voices encouraging you to appeal are going to help you with drafting your court papers etc, then chance it. But IF you don't have either of these then you might want to re-think.

 

Post #151 above is pretty darn clear that you're going to be up against it regardless of what the CCA says.

Edited December 7, 2010 by The Debt Star

[Bigdebtor]

Post 151 also says there WAS a signature! Do the reconstructed/forged documents in scrible's case include such a signature?

 

OF COURSE scrible will get ALL the help available - but I also said scrible should leave it as late as possible - and see what case law there is to support him in the meantime.

 

BD

[Undercover-Elsa]

You guys could do with cheering up..

here you go:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?254718-Cabot-(Morgan-s)-taking-me-to-Court

 

Elsa x

[Basil Fawlty]

Wonderful news Elsa, thanks for that.

It all comes down to knowing your stuff!

 

BF

[Bigdebtor]

Scrible

 

Any update?

 

BD

[Sirensinger]

Hi, just thought I'd mention my case - already posted elsewhere on here, butit might help others to read some of the points. I also lost where there was no Agreement, and didn't appeal, though I really wanted to, feeling that either the judge had been wrong, which meant that the appeal judge might also be wrong and land me with even more costs, or that something I'd said in court had lost me the case - I did say I didn't remember whether or not I'd signed an agreement, and the judge actually said something like 'if Sirensinger had said she had never signed an agreement, it would be a different story' - but I was under the impression that unless I actually stated I'd done so, then with no copy it had to be unenforceable. A previous judge had set aside an earlier judgment by default in the case, agreeing that the blank template produced by HSBC was not valid.

 

In my case, HSBC didn't even provide a reconstructed agreement, just a blank template, arguing it was the one I 'would have signed'. They said that Section 127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act doesn't state that the creditor has to produce the agreement, just to prove that it 'must have been signed', and that on balance of probabilities, the statements and the fact that I'd had the money proved that.

 

I also got a charge on my house as a result of the case, with 8% interest per annum because the debt was over £5,000 - been fuming ever since, and wondering what really messed things up for me.

 

I had Wilson & First County Trust, Dimond & Lovell and Meadows and London North Securities, the OFT Guidelines, the Consumer Credit Act 74, the Admnistration of Justice Act, and other supporting documents in my bundle, and a letter from the OFT agreeing that a creditor can't enforce without the agreement The judge said it was 'unfortunate' that they had said that, and that they were wrong. In the judgment (which the court sent to the wrong address, so I didn't get it for a whole year after the case, by which time the creditor had applied for the charging order - I felt they might not have done so if I had started paying before that, but since I couldn't prove they wouldn't have, I didn't see how I could fight this), he said I 'seemed to have based my argument on a letter from the OFT', and didn't even mention my case law. What riled me particularly was that he'd stated that he 'had some sympathy with me' because the law was complicated for a layman to understand!

 

Any thoughts on any of these points? I wish scrible all luck with the appeal!

 

Sirensinger

Edited March 11, 2011 by Sirensinger

[paulwlton]

Hi, just thought I'd mention my case - already posted elsewhere on here, butit might help others to read some of the points. I also lost where there was no Agreement, and didn't appeal, though I really wanted to, feeling that either the judge had been wrong, which meant that the appeal judge might also be wrong and land me with even more costs, or that something I'd said in court had lost me the case - I did say I didn't remember whether or not I'd signed an agreement, and the judge actually said something like 'if Sirensinger had said she had never signed an agreement, it would be a different story' - but I was under the impression that unless I actually stated I'd done so, then with no copy it had to be unenforceable. A previous judge had set aside an earlier judgment by default in the case, agreeing that the blank template produced by HSBC was not valid.

 

In my case, HSBC didn't even provide a reconstructed agreement, just a blank template, arguing it was the one I 'would have signed'. They said that Section 127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act doesn't state that the creditor has to produce the agreement, just to prove that it 'must have been signed', and that on balance of probabilities, the statements and the fact that I'd had the money proved that.

 

I also got a charge on my house as a result of the case, with 8% interest per annum because the debt was over £5,000 - been fuming ever since, and wondering what really messed things up for me.

 

I had Wilson & First County Trust, Dimond & Lovell and Meadows and London North Securities, the OFT Guidelines, the Consumer Credit Act 74, the Admnistration of Justice Act, and other supporting documents in my bundle, and a letter from the OFT agreeing that a creditor can't enforce without the agreement The judge said it was 'unfortunate' that they had said that, and that they were wrong. In the judgment (which the court sent to the wrong address, so I didn't get it for a whole year after the case, by which time the creditor had applied for the charging order - I felt they might not have done so if I had started paying before that, but since I couldn't prove they wouldn't have, I didn't see how I could fight this), he said I 'seemed to have based my argument on a letter from the OFT', and didn't even mention my case law. What riled me particularly was that he'd stated that he 'had some sympathy with me' because the law was complicated for a layman to understand!

 

Any thoughts on any of these points? I wish scrible all luck with the appeal!

 

Sirensinger

 

The judge was wrong to award statutory interest.

[charlie*]

Seems to me that they are getting away with too much... not only do the banks NOT lend you money, they have somehow got the judges to accept a typewritten reconstituted 'paper' as proof sufficient.

 

There are too many reports on the internet (and some hard evidence, ie; copies of court papers) clearly suggesting that the banks cannot produce an original document - signed by the alleged borrower (wet ink) because they have been securitised, (pay to the order of) sorted into multi-£million bundles and sold to pension funds, investment funds and others in the world market... often at higher than face value. Certainly this is so with mortgages - I have actual photocopies in my hand direct from America - NO contract, NO debt - this was a young couple and a Chase Bank mortgage.

 

There must be a way to attack the system on the grounds that they fraudulent - because, I do not think there is any clause in any of the agreements, certainly older ones, allowing the banks to securitise and sell the agreements as valuable investments.

 

Just a few thoughts from reading what I can find - Australia is a good source - they operate under our laws.

 

I am well aware that this forum cannot involve itself in matters outside the conventional way of debt - but, with so much going on in this area, with people now actually attacking the banks and the courts, surely, people here should be made aware of how we have all been taken for mugs for over 300 years.

Edited March 12, 2011 by charlie*

[basa48]

...............people here should be made aware of how we have all been taken for mugs for over 300 years.

 

So true .... and its not just the financial systems which are now so sophisticated they keep the rank and file in near poverty almost automatically, the corruption runs throughout the ruling classes in all aspects of life.

 

Why else would the governments import cheap labour and destroy our chances of an education if it is not designed to subjugate us all?

 

I just feel so sorry for my children who now have so little chance of a good education, a good job and a home. We have allowed them to do this to them whilst we watch Coronation Street!!!!!

[PriorityOne]

I just feel so sorry for my children who now have so little chance of a good education, a good job and a home. We have allowed them to do this to them whilst we watch Coronation Street!!!!!

 

Actually.... we've been force-fed a diet of celebrity tosh for years to ensure we don't think about the realities of life too much, while our kids get sucked into the Dream Factory.... If we just work a bit harder.... If we just take any job... If we just educate ourselves more.... if we can just win the lottery... then we can ALL have those lifestyles, big houses and holidays!!! Yeah right....

 

Cack economic policy more like; protecting the rich at the expense of everyone else....

[basa48]

................ protecting the rich at the expense of everyone else....

 

The revolution begins here brothers !! Off with their heads !!

 

(I'll take Charles Krulak [CEO MBNA]) ;=)

[minmoo]

David Icke? I am not afraid to say that he has been saying this stuff for quite some time. What you all say is true, its the dumbing down on a mass scale that is most worrying

[the tinkerman]

Anyone advise what would happen if you CCA the DCA because you wanted to know the figures relating to the PPI you had paid on the original agreement and they just sent you a reconstructed version of a application form with your address on it, no signature, and no figures relating to the loan

apart from APR figure as at now.

 

Say you then stopped paying your monthly payment plan to them,If then they took you to court would their reconstructed version still stand up if you stated to the Judge that you had PPI on this loan, maybe you could not prove as you had, but then again the claimant could not prove as you hadn't if they only sent

you a reconstructed version as above.

 

Also surely a copy of the Original agreement would be vital to give you the opportunity to check all the prescribed terms & conditions were correct, if the claimant then can only produce a reconstructed version with next to nothing on it, again surely you could argue the point with the Judge that a econstructed version is denying you that opportunity as I believe people have won cases due to errors made on the CCA.

.

Any thoughts please.

Edited March 13, 2011 by the tinkerman

[charlie*]

If one is to make a stand, it must be done intelligently.

 

FIRST - What is the problem? The real problem at the root of it all is USURY - banks charging interest on money they have you believe they lend you when it is YOUR money that you gave to them to lend back to you. This is achieved by you signing away your future wages in interest and principal (try getting a card or a loan if you are unemployed or retired or cannot generate). This gives them the facility to create money out of thin air by making a few keystrokes at a computer (used to be pen and ink).

 

Second, we need a solution to stop them from charging usury (eg; a £100,000 mortgage over 25 years totals £300,000 repaid).

 

A solution that is legal and viable.

 

HERE IT IS: A simple amendment to the 1844 Bank Charter Act will solve the problem - and here is a complete plan to do it... it took a lot of hard work over FOUR years to design a new Bank Act that will treat people fairly.

 

Progress to date..... it was introduced as a new Bill in the House on 15th Sept last by Douglas Carswell, Con MP. It was then referred to a backbenchers debate led by Michael Meacher and took place in November last. It was then prsented to the Independant Banking Commission led by Sir John Vickers who has to come up with a solution to the banking problem in early September. Positive Money was recently (March) presented and explained in great detail to the Commission by the designers of the proposed new Bank Act. They went away with various technical questions and will be reporting back in due course.

 

On March 4th PositiveMoney attended a Round Table discussion at Oxford University. It was attended by the public - tickets were available. Others there were from the Bank og England, government AND... clever clogs smoothie Angela Knight representing the Bankers Association. She and others were given a hard time - but, a law was invoked, bit like the OSAct - so what happened cannot be made public.

 

This would stop the banks from stealing, risking and using our money to line their own pockets - REMEMBER, banks are privately owned and they use this system to line the pockets of the elite and super-elite - the money we pay in interst is, morally THEFT on a grand scale.

 

Here is a taster, quite short about the banks.

 

www.onegoodcut.org

 

and here is the main website.... please sign up for the newsletter - they do ask for help, but if you cannot afford anything, that's okay, just sign up - every name helps.

 

www.positivemoney.org.uk

 

Other national leaders have done it, Mr Lincoln and John F Kennedy (to foil the same banksters) - they were both assassinated - but times have changed, the cat is out of the bag now with the internet and they know it.

 

We are not alone, there are resistance groups starting up all over the internet, mainly America, Canada, Great Britain and Australia.... they are all controlled by the same banksters and the same laws - Admiralty Law - all franchised to the Inns of Court in the City of London.

 

Changing the system would NOT effect the country - all that would happen is that the banks could only use our deposits WITH OUR WRITTEN PERMISSION - the alternative would be to deposit your money for safe keeping and pay a small admin fee.

 

 

Other money needed can be created HM Treasury by increasing the amount it already produces (3% - coins and banknotes) free of interest and distributed into the economy - INTEREST FREE.

 

It would NOT be controlled by politicians.

 

This would result in income tax rocketing down, council tax rocketing down and other taxes I daresay leaving more of your money in your pocket.

 

THERE NEED BE NO NATIONAL DEBT.

 

Thanks

Edited March 13, 2011 by charlie*

[dadofholly]

Anyone advise what would happen if you CCA the DCA because you wanted to know the figures relating to the PPI you had paid on the original agreement and they just sent you a reconstructed version of a application form with your address on it, no signature, and no figures relating to the loan

apart from APR figure as at now.

 

I stand to be corrected - but an "agreement" as you have described above is not a reconstituted agreement that complies with the Carey ruling, and i believe would be unenforceable in that state.

 

Charlie*

 

Great Post

[the tinkerman]

Fair comment

The reconstructed agreement I described does not comply with the Carey ruling but from what I can make out neither did scrible, and from what coledog said "he has seen WS from solicitors where they are claiming that a pre-approved Application Form and statements are proof that there was an account and money is owed" it seemed to me anything will do regardless of the Carey ruling or a lot depends on what Judge you get.

 

My point being if you had PPI on the loan and it is not on the reconstructed agreement would the Claimant still chance their arm with court proceedings if you stopped your payments,

 

Second point being, if you did not have all the prescribed terms & conditions APR, figures of loan, Signatures, etc on the reconstructed agreement and from what I can see a lot of theses reconstructed agreements do not.

 

Then surely you could argue the point with the Judge that a reconstructed version is denying you that opportunity to check all the prescribed terms & conditions APR, figures of loan, Signatures, etc are correct, as I believe people have won cases due to errors made on the CCA therefore only the Original copy would suffice .

 

Just trying to give a different angle in which might help a defence, if it is not going the way it should do.

Edited March 13, 2011 by the tinkerman

[Abby25]

A reconstructed agreement, under Carey, must contain all information that was in the original - that is what makes it a reconstructed (or replica) agreement which the lender is saying mirrors exactly the document which you signed. So it should have your name and address at the time you applied for the credit, the interest rates applicable at that time, details of PPI etc .. etc ... all pertinant at the time the agreement was signed ... the lender MUST also advise the basis upon which they have supplied a recon agreement, instead of the requested copy of the original ...

 

A recon agreement is NOT sufficient in court, if there has been any variation to the original agreement, or the debtor challenges the accuracy of the information in the recon agreement - in such a case the lender is reqd to provide a true copy of the original agreement to satisfy both the courts and your own requirements ...

 

Creditors sending out recon agreements with bits missing, wrong etc are doing this to satisfy (in their opinion) the debtors request for their CCA - and thereby take the account out of dispute for non-supplying of the agreement which is lost, destroyed, does not exist etc .. etc ... it doesn't mean they have any intention of actually using it in court ..... its all in the game of bluff ....

 

I have found that if your responses to them demonstrate that you are aware of CCA law and legislation ... they would rather not chance their arm with you, and instead concentrate on those peeps who are less informed of their consumer rights .. and the consumer laws to which the creditor is bound ...

 

Just my pennys worth ... on a v interesting thread ....

 

Abs x

[basa48]

Fair comment

The reconstructed agreement I described does not comply with the Carey ruling but from what I can make out neither did scrible, and from what coledog said "he has seen WS from solicitors where they are claiming that a pre-approved Application Form and statements are proof that there was an account and money is owed" it seemed to me anything will do regardless of the Carey ruling or a lot depends on what Judge you get.

 

My point being if you had PPI on the loan and it is not on the reconstructed agreement would the Claimant still chance their arm with court proceedings if you stopped your payments,

 

Second point being, if you did not have all the prescribed terms & conditions APR, figures of loan, Signatures, etc on the reconstructed agreement and from what I can see a lot of theses reconstructed agreements do not.

 

Then surely you could argue the point with the Judge that a reconstructed version is denying you that opportunity to check all the prescribed terms & conditions APR, figures of loan, Signatures, etc are correct, as I believe people have won cases due to errors made on the CCA therefore only the Original copy would suffice .

 

Just trying to give a different angle in which might help a defence, if it is not going the way it should do.

 

I am due to argue a case over a similar situation later this month.

 

I don't want to say too much except that there is a *sort of* 'reconstituted' agreement and I am using Carey, Copies Regs and CPUTR against its use.

 

We'll see how it goes.

[the tinkerman]

Good luck Basa48

 

Tinks