Cap1 & CCA return

[car2403]

Am i right in saying compensation was awarded to the value of the dishonored check for £4550, and £1000 for damages he was likely to suffer in Nigeria.

 

Paul

 

Is this case, yes - in translation to another case, I believe the result would be that the outstanding debt would be unenforceable and a counterclaim of £1k in damages can be made. (That's how I'm progressing with my claims, as I don't think the Court would give Default amounts + £1k in damages together)

[rosierose]

Is this case, yes - in translation to another case, I believe the result would be that the outstanding debt would be unenforceable and a counterclaim of £1k in damages can be made. (That's how I'm progressing with my claims, as I don't think the Court would give Default amounts + £1k in damages together)

 

Isn't one of the key points raised in the summing up that to claim for anything more than nominal damages to claimant needs to prove such? In addition didn't the judge say the claimant would need "trader" status to claim anything more than nominal damages. So was Mr K's 5.5K nominal?

 

I'm interested because a CCP recently passed an account to a DCA who then issued a default notice. This was after I was promised that the account would be investigated by the bank's fraud dept... Turns out the account was indeed subject to fraud and the defaulted amount was due entirely to the fraudulent transactions and the CCP's own charges and interest.

[dad]

Am i right in saying compensation was awarded to the value of the dishonored check for £4550, and £1000 for damages he was likely to suffer in Nigeria.

 

Paul

 

I think this is where we disagree. Remember the Woolwich replaced the cheque on the day that Mr K made his complaint.

The cheque was presented at the payee's bankers on 10 September with a request for special clearance. It was dishonoured on the ground that the cheque was reported lost. The payee informed the plaintiff of that. The plaintiff went to the branch at which he had his account before 5 pm, the mistake was acknowledged and at the plaintiffs request the manageress told the payee that there were sufficient funds in the account. The plaintiff accepted the building society's own cheque, which he received about 5.15 pm. The next morning the plaintiff took the cheque to the wholesalers, who accepted it and released the cosmetic goods the plaintiff required for shipment to Nigeria.

 

By the time of the court case Mr K had had his £4,500 back from the Woolwich. So my view is that all £5,500 was for the damage to his reputation.

[dad]

Isn't one of the key points raised in the summing up that to claim for anything more than nominal damages to claimant needs to prove such? In addition didn't the judge say the claimant would need "trader" status to claim anything more than nominal damages. So was Mr K's 5.5K nominal?

 

Rosie,

 

That is the exact opposite of what the judge is saying. Before this case that was the position. As I see it the three key points of this ruling are:

 

1. You no longer have to be a trader to claim substantial damages for wrongful damage to your reputation and credit.

 

2. Damage to your reputation and credit is an exception to the general rule for breach of contract that a plaintiff can not recover substantial damages in the absence of proof that some actual damage had been suffered.

 

3. The calculation of the amount of damage starts with the disputed sum with an addition depending on the behaviour of the defendant. (and I suppose if the claimant was negligent it could be reduced)

 

Dad

[rosierose]

Rosie,

 

That is the exact opposite of what the judge is saying. Before this case that was the position. As I see it the three key points of this ruling are:

 

1. You no longer have to be a trader to claim substantial damages for wrongful damage to your reputation and credit.

 

2. Damage to your reputation and credit is an exception to the general rule for breach of contract that a plaintiff can not recover substantial damages in the absence of proof that some actual damage had been suffered.

 

3. The calculation of the amount of damage starts with the disputed sum with an addition depending on the behaviour of the defendant. (and I suppose if the claimant was negligent it could be reduced)

 

Dad

 

I think what threw me was this...

So the question becomes, whether the authorities compel the conclusion as a matter of law that the presumption cannot extend beyond the category of trader. In my judgment, they do not.

 

Should have read the precis Dyslexia gets me every time

[noomill060]

rosie- how did your battle with Sainsburys end up?

 

Victory, I hope!

[rosierose]

rosie- how did your battle with Sainsburys end up?

 

Victory, I hope!

 

Hi noomill060. Thanks for your interest. Things have come to a conclusion but I'm afraid I can't comment on that.

 

Kind Regards

 

Rosie

[noomill060]

Hope it concluded to your complete satisfaction and that they paid dearly for your silence, and that the advice you received from CAG was helpful.

[car2403]

I think what threw me was this...

 

Should have read the precis Dyslexia gets me every time

 

Don't worry about this detail from this case, as its obiter (outside of the binding decision, but potentially pursuasive precedent) to the issue beind discussed here.

 

To clarify, this was a customer with a personal bank account using it for business purposes - the question thrown up in the banks defence was whether the customer should have told them he was running a business using his account, without telling the bank. They implied they may have made a different decision on honouring the cheque, had they known this fact, but didn't as he hadn't informed them of his situation. The Judge did take this in to account, (to what extent we don't know, as it isn't outlined in detail - the reason its obiter, IMHO) when he made his decision.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hi ALL

 

If a Creditor took you to Court do they have to Produce the ORIGINAL agreement or would a copy do???

 

Cheers

 

HAK

[car2403]

A copy would do, if it was a signed certified true copy of the original. (A photocopy, for example)

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I am going back to the RBS 5"X4" agreement.

 

Surley a judge would not permit this as it could have been made up

[car2403]

Which RBS agreement? (gone back a few pages and can't see it)

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hi Car

 

Its on here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/109294-rbs-responce-cca-something.html

 

HAK

[car2403]

It's a true signed certified copy, so can be relied on for enforcement.

 

What grounds do you have for believing it to be "made up"?

[Having_A_Knightmare]

As with Paul Walton the RBS have been making up agreements.

 

Therefor I would be asking the question that I want to see the signed original as i never remember signing this agreement.

 

What do you think

[car2403]

You can ask the question, but the Judge can enforce on a copy of the original.

 

Unless you can show there's been some fraud, (wrong customer signature, for example) I can't see how you can question it legitimately? The Judge is more than likely to see it as an attempt to avoid the debt, so will enforce the agreement anyway, IMHO.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Good point Car.

 

I am possitve tho I have read on here that they must produce the original copy

 

HAK

[sharon08]

just wondering how i go about gettig a cca is there a template letter and do i have to pay.i am new to this forum stuff sorry if this sounds stupid.

[elizabeth1]

just wondering how i go about gettig a cca is there a template letter and do i have to pay.i am new to this forum stuff sorry if this sounds stupid.

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/20758-creditors-dcas-letter-templates.html you need letter N here it costs £1 - but do make sure you say on the request that the payment is to be used for the CCA document and for nothing else.

 

I highly recommend you read loads here across the various boards as it's the best way to learn and you'll see so much of what goes on etc.. - the more you read the better off you'll be.

 

When you are ready set up your own threads in the relevant forum and you'll find all the help you need in replies when you get stuck.

[B3rty]

HAK.....its in CPR 16- 7.3 about producing the original if its an agreement in writing.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

HAK.....its in CPR 16- 7.3 about producing the original if its an agreement in writing.

 

 

Sorry Barty Im going mad.

 

So basically are you saying it has to be the original

 

HAK

[car2403]

I disagree - a true copy of the original would suffice for enforcement, so long as the prescribed terms and a signature (copy signature) is visible.

 

Proceeding with a defence otherwise could leave you open to costs, even in SCT.

 

Let me turn that around - would a copy of a Default Notice be sufficient to rely on for enforcement? I believe so. The same should be applied to an "agreement" - given that most are stored digitally and an original copy is in existance and possessd by the creditor. What I'm saying is that a certified copy will suffice for enforcement, so long as the creditor can state the original is in their possession.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

so long as the creditor can state the original is in their possession.

 

In my case 99.999%, I know they have not got the original.

 

Where does this leave me

 

 

HAK

[ncf355]

CAR/HAK

 

In my experience i have found the judge has wanted the original - they have stated this clearly

 

I am yet to have a case go to final hearing, but the Judges I have dealt with seem to agree with me when I state anything less than the original is open to question

 

Look at what they have to gain in producing recreated docs - this is worth millions to them and I believe any Judge with common sense will see that

 

Of course, this comes down to a bit of luck having a non biased judge who looks from a purely legal point of view rather than bringing morality into the whole process

 

I have seen around 6 judges, all of which seem to go for the original