Lloyds TSB : Lloyds taking me to court?????????? *** Discontinued ***

[pt2537]

Amendments to statements of case 17.1 (1) A party may amend his statement of case at any time before it has been served on any other party. Taken from the CPR itself

[steven4064]

I had a look at the defence - it seems to me that on recent court rulings and our understanding that comes from them, they have complied with your s78 request. It is now established law that they don't have to provide an exact copy of the agreement and, unfortunately, it seems they don't have to provide anything with your signature

[Always Struggling]

Good to know thx..... Only been on this forum a few weeks and never read so much law in my life before...... probable equivalent would be what a blade of grass is to a football pitch, but even that's alot to digest, and my appendix is no help either lol.

 

Then you have to understand the workings of any particular law a bit like studying the single blade of grass on the pitch and find out why it's a different shade or length to one a few feet away

[Always Struggling]

I had a look at the defence - it seems to me that on recent court rulings and our understanding that comes from them, they have complied with your s78 request. It is now established law that they don't have to provide an exact copy of the agreement and, unfortunately, it seems they don't have to provide anything with your signature

 

Hi Steven, I'd like to ask a question please. I was wondering and posted before about this (perhaps not clearly exaplained though). Not so much to do with complying or not complying with s.78 so much but more along the lines of (this is where i don't know how to exalin what I'm getting at very clearly) ... could you not argue that the claiment should supply a reconstitued version if the original is not available? the fact that the original was/is available (provided by the claiment after starting court proceedings and having documents requested by defence), this same document had been requested a year previous and subsequently 2 or 3 further times after to no avail.

 

The fact that the CCA did exist but ltsb chose to send a constituted version rather than the original they held is surely an abuse of their control and shouldn't be able to decide what is or isn't sent out under CCA s78?

 

If they HAVEN'T got the original then they can send a reconstitued version which is, as laid out waksman v hsbc, no argument.

Surely this is only if they haven't got the orignal to copy and send?

 

It is only my interpretation (no one special lol) but i would have said that to send out a reconstituted version when an original DOES exist isn't for ltsb to decide?

 

This would surely fall under CPUTR and omitting information, relevent both at the time of the original CCA request and subsequently relied upon in the current court proceedings.

 

I guess what I'm trying to ask is the fact that if an original cca exists and the bank has it, surely they should have provided it under the orignal cca request or subsequent requests not when they decide to proceed to court as this looks to me to say:

 

We are ltsb, we can send whatever we want, until we go to court then we will use these other documents that we kept from you.

 

Just seems to me that ltsb have abused their position by sending reconstitued versions when an original did exist.

[steven4064]

AS You would think, wouldn't you. The problem is that there were a few appeal court cases last year which have now established that a reconstituted agreement is all that is required to satisfy s78 and that such a reconstituted agreement is enforceable so long as it has the prescribed terms and and so long as the consumer is not insisting that they never had an agreement at all. No signature is required because the courts' view is that, subject to the last proviso above, an agreement was almost certainly signed. Therefore no bank is going to bother to even look to see if they can find an original agreement.

Edited April 21, 2011 by steven4064

[Always Struggling]

Nothing much I can say i guess. It does appear wrong that ltsb can say we are looking for it and we will send it if we find it, a year ago, to then not send it until court proceedings.

 

Seems they are trying to prove a point.We have a 'true copy' you aren't having it until WE decide to go to court. In the meantime make do with these bits of paper that we wrote on saying whatever we want it to say.

 

Personally I feel they shouldn't be able to rely on something in court that they have previously stated, in correspondence, doesn't exist or can't be found as that has proven to be a lie.

 

Simply wrong and ltsb I believe, imo, trying to be smart a**e's by doing this are saying to consumers, request a cca, we won't send you it even if we DO have it.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Always Struggling

[Always Struggling]

This is why I am looking at this area. Looking at CCA1974/2006 amended and the OFT Guidelines to Businesses in relation to prevent Unfair Business Practices

 

2006 amendments to CCA1974

“Unfair relationships140AUnfair relationships between creditors and debtors.

(1)The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following—.

,br/>(a)any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;.

(b)the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;.

©any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement)..

 

(2)In deciding whether to make a determination under this section the court shall have regard to all matters it thinks relevant (including matters relating to the creditor and matters relating to the debtor)..

,br/>(3)For the purposes of this section the court shall (except to the extent that it is not appropriate to do so) treat anything done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, an associate or a former associate of the creditor as if done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, the creditor..

 

(4)A determination may be made under this section in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended..

[Always Struggling]

The bold section by definition is surely saying if there isn't one then a reconstituted one, therefore by the same token, if there is one, this information has been witheld for a year, therefore giving the creditor an unfair advantage as the debtor could easily (as stated in parliament)or is likely to have lost his original copy therefore not have access to the details of what he agreed (terms, apr etc.)

 

I think in a previous post foxy you stated that you had been sent terms and conditions that were also illegible.

 

If this is the case and you have no legible t&c sent from either CCA request or CPR then you could also still request a 'Stay of Execution' until complied with.

Legibility of any copy2.29 Any copy must be easily legible, as must any copy of notices ofvariation or statement of the terms of the agreement as varied.16 If thecreditor or owner has a poor quality photocopy or microfiche, it shouldretype it or repopulate a template of the relevant agreement form withthe details of the specific agreement, so that the copy sent can be easilyread.

 

6.3 It may be incumbent on traders affected by this guidance to providesuch documents or information as the OFT requests relating to thepractices and procedures that they employ in connection with theirregulated consumer credit business (for example where the OFT requestsdocuments pursuant to sections 36B or 36C of the Act) to enable theOFT to form a view as to whether the practices and procedures thatthey employ are effective. Amongst the matters that the OFT is likely towish to consider are whether the trader:

• provides accurate copies of documents that give the consumer theinformation they are entitled to under sections 77, 78 or 79 of theAct

• provides documentation that is easy to read• provides copies of documentation referred to in the agreementOFT1272 | 27

• is being obstructive in responding to a reasonable request.

 

The latter point as to legibility etc and therefore (short term) non-enforcement would allow a short respite as I'm sure that it would be overcome pretty quickly. It might allow you to better prepare in more detail for a later date though.

 

I'm sure pt and others will say how valid or not these points are as I'm still learning the 'ins and outs'

 

please wait for others to comment foxy

[pt2537]

But As per carey, if the Debtor is able to put forward a positive assertion that there was no signed agreeement, and is able to give details as to the circumstances when the agreement was executed then the bank will need to address in its evidence this point. It may be that only producing the signed agreement satisfies this provison Also lets not forget para 7 of the Court of Appeal in Kotecha!!

[foxyflugel]

Hi guysThanks for your responses.Pt - I did feel gutted tbh as I wrote my defence as best I could and posted it for advice and AS gave me some good points - which I did include. I didn't realise that I could send an amended version.I (probably like most others) have a lot on my plate at the mo and when I phoned the court she said it had to be in by 4pm as this is the last time they check for responses. I had to email it as I couldn't get logged onto mco. It was just a massive panick filled afternoon and I did feel somewhat overwhemed. Thanks for your response though Pt - it was much appreciated.Would you suggest that I submit and amended defence then? or go for a stay of execution as someone else suggested until they can provide me with a legible copy for my original t&cs? Also, am I able to (well I have done anyway in my defence) request that they bring the original application form to court? to clarify the details as the copy is bad (although the APRs can be read the other details are worse).I found discrepancies in an APR on the rec version to the original which I also stated in my defence.Many thanks everyone - much appreciated.Foxy

[foxyflugel]

Hi everyone

 

I received a letter shortly after I submitted my defence from courts (dated 26th April) stating that they had received my defence and would send it to the claimant.

 

They said that they had 28 days to proceed to further action.

 

I worked that out to the end of May. We are now on 3rd June and I haven't heard anything. Do I have to do something? I think I read somewhere that I apply for something to the courts with them not responding. Or do I just sit and wait?

 

Many thanks for all your help previously - it was much appreciated - things just got on top of me

 

Foxy

[cymruambyth]

I'd ring the court on Monday and point out the time scales and ask what is happening

[WelshMam2009]

Hi Foxy...I know when I had to acknowledge service the Courts allowed extra time for Bank Holidays (it was over Xmas/New Year) so it may possibly be the same for Lloyds to proceed. We've had 3 Bank Holidays since 26 April (inc Royal Wedding).

 

Another thing to consider is that, in my case at least, the courts were not very prompt processing paperwork. So Lloyds may well have decided to proceed but you haven't been notified of that yet.

 

I know it's not what you want to hear but I wouldn't read too much into the situation just yet.

 

Personally, I would follow CymruAmByth's advice and ring the court on Monday for an update.

[foxyflugel]

I've just phoned the court and they haven't heard anything from **** solicitors. The very nice lady explained to me that it has now been 'Stayed' and the other side will have to make an application to remove the stay and proceed again if they want to continue with it.

 

I'm just wondering if it's worth making an application to have it struck out for the sake of £80. What do you guys think? Risk v result?? Or wait to see if they make an application and then oppose it and ask for it to be struck out - if I can do that.

 

Thanks

 

Foxy

[Dotty50]

Hi foxy,

 

The advice I have read on here is that it is best to apply for a strike out as it makes it a bit more of an effort should the claimant decide to pursue it further.

 

Is it really £80? I thought it was less.

 

I have to do it on my Hillesdens case but simply have not had the time and if it's £80 then I don't have the money either at the moment!

[Happyhippy1959]

Foxy am reading with interest as I am now having to deal with these cretins... Well done on pushing them all the way.. Wish I had £80 to give you so you could kick em where it hurts...

 

Blooming Lloyds, they can lose billions and be bailed out by us, yet they use underhanded tactics...

[cymruambyth]

They also read CAG!

[Happyhippy1959]

what,,,, they can read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am surprised at that....

 

Well if any Lloyds trolls are on here,,,, GIVE US BACK OUR MONEY....

[foxyflugel]

Received a letter today from **** solicitors saying in response to my defence and to save costs on both sides...blah blah... our clients are willing to accept a 50% full and final settlement (this is 50% of court paper figure btw which includes sols fig court fee fig and all the default charges they have added!!). They then say that if I don't accept it they will lift the stay and apply for a hearing date.

 

What does anyone think?? pt??

 

Many thanks again

 

Foxy

[cymruambyth]

I think it is very strange that if they have such a strong case why are they willing to lose half of their money????

[foxyflugel]

That's what I thought - but they say it's to save costs on both sides. If they have such a strong case surely they would have just proceeded with it!!

[cymruambyth]

I think so as you paying their costs will add quite nicely to their profits!

[gandalfthegrey]

If you can afford it, write back offering 25% as a FFS.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Whatever/IF you do respond be sure to mark it "Without Prejudice"

 

Elsa x

[paulh1818]

Hi Foxy. Been following your story here as I could be going through this soon. Any news?

Paul