Cap1 & CCA return

[B3rty]

I have a question I hope the knowledgable here can help with

 

In SI 1553 Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 I am interested in section 2, form and contant of consumer credit agreements

 

I gather that the layout that the precribed terms come between the named parties and the signatures was introduced in 2005, but I cant find out what the situation was before this amendment.

 

What did this section show in the original 1983 S1 1553?

 

Any one help me with this

[BigBadCAGBagger]

A copy of an agreement does not have to be certified to be accepted. Also, if they swear under oath that the worst photocopy in Christendom is a true copy, the judge will accept it as so. I have never heard of a judge throwing out a case for not having the original paperwork, and of the six cases mentioned earlier on this thread, I would like to hear about them as I believe some other reason must have come into play.

 

Be careful including letters and responses other people have written to and received from other people in court bundles and do not attempt to use them in court without the author in court with you to answer questions from the other side.

[pt2537]

A copy of an agreement does not have to be certified to be accepted. Also, if they swear under oath that the worst photocopy in Christendom is a true copy, the judge will accept it as so. Really? well at that point i would be drawing the Judges attention to regulation 2 of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents)

Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) and ask him to throw their backsides out of court for failing to comply with the requirements of the SI1557 I have never heard of a judge throwing out a case for not having the original paperwork, and of the six cases mentioned earlier on this thread, I would like to hear about them as I believe some other reason must have come into play.I agree it is highly unlikely that a case would be struck out because the original document couldnt be supplied, however, if you were to argue that the signature was not your own,it would give the judge a dilemma

 

 

Be careful including letters and responses other people have written to and received from other people in court bundles and do not attempt to use them in court without the author in court with you to answer questions from the other side.

 

......

[Having_A_Knightmare]

A copy of an agreement does not have to be certified to be accepted. Also, if they swear under oath that the worst photocopy in Christendom is a true copy, the judge will accept it as so. I have never heard of a judge throwing out a case for not having the original paperwork, and of the six cases mentioned earlier on this thread, I would like to hear about them as I believe some other reason must have come into play.

 

Be careful including letters and responses other people have written to and received from other people in court bundles and do not attempt to use them in court without the author in court with you to answer questions from the other side.

 

I cant believe that it is possible for a judge to enforce an agreement with the documentation below.

 

 

 

This is clearly not the original and it is so easy to add information via copy and paste.

 

I have not got the program for editing PDF files but if somebody has please can they alter the doc to prove it can be tampered with.

 

HAK

[butwhy]

Hi patrickq1,

 

Yes i DID sign my CCA request, was i incorrect to do this? I have sent a S.A.R and now collated all the charges in a spreadsheet so I know how much they owe me but they refused to refund this and provided that form.

 

I have another question, my form is dated 2001 - I was only 17 at this time so definately could not have applied for a credit card or the PPI at this age. BUT the form is stamped 2002 - I assume that this means the person who filled out the form put the wrong date. Does that mean the agreement is void?

[davefirewalker]

re-subbing AGAIN.......

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I have just changed things about on paint and it took me about 5 mins.

 

If it was run through the photcopier a few times the text would blur like the rest of it.

 

Proves it can be done on the most basic PC program.

 

[car2403]

HAK, what you are saying is that you throw doubt over the legitimacy of the document by telling the Court it wasn't what was originally agreed to.

 

Firstly, this is the first time you've said this, if that is what your saying as much of this is implied from your posts, so the advice would change accordingly. If a photocopy is submitted and is not disputed as being a copy of the original, the Court will accept it as such and enforce.

 

Secondly, whether it is a copy of the original or not is still a question of fact - one that the Judge will decide. I'd imagine that they are pretty hard nosed about such arguments, as it could be implied you're trying to escape liability by doubting the document, which is something that can be neither proved nor disproved beyond a witness statement saying either way, and would probably still enforce the agreement anyway.

 

If we're saying this is a fraud, that is a different matter again.

 

Basically, do you doubt this is a true copy or not? If so, on what basis? If not, what is your point again?

[pt2537]

Spot on there car with your reasoning;)

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Chris

 

I had four CC with the above and I realy cannot remember signing the agreement.

My point is that if they are stupid enough to destoy such an important document and scan and save it into a PC thats there problem.

 

OK lets say I did sign the agreement, I certainly can not remember if the perscribed terms where in it at the time. These perscribed terms could have been added at a later date.

 

Can you see where I am coming from.

 

HAK

[pt2537]

But that would mean an act of Fraud? you need to be very very sure of your arguement if you are going to claim that they have commited an act of fraud

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Paul

 

I know where you are coming from but surely it is my right in Court to see the original evidence the creditor produces.

 

HAK

[car2403]

Paul

 

I know where you are coming from but surely it is my right in Court to see the original evidence the creditor produces.

 

HAK

 

By admitting you don't remember signing the agreement, that alone not stop the Court enforcing.

 

If you didn't sign it, (or what was signed has been changed) it's fraud and - as Paul says - is a hefty allegation to be making.

 

If you did sign it and forgot, that won't stop enforcement, as you can't say if you did, or didn't, sign it.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Car/Paul

 

This could go on for days. I can see both points to this and I will deal with this if it goes to Court.

There is still one factor and that it the original T&C have still not been produced. i know this a requirment of Section 78 but they are hiding behind the copy doc 1983 regs.

Any idea on what a judge would say about this as they are still in default.

 

Cheers

 

HAK

[car2403]

Yes, he'd say that they can't enforce while in default and need to comply with the s.78 request, including original T&C's.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Cheers Chris.

 

I wish T/S would take that approach!!

[car2403]

Cheers Chris.

 

I wish T/S would take that approach!!

 

TS will say only a Court can decide to enforce while in default, a Court can't enforce while in default because of s.78(6)

[BigBadCAGBagger]

Originally Posted by BigBadCAGBagger

A copy of an agreement does not have to be certified to be accepted. Also, if they swear under oath that the worst photocopy in Christendom is a true copy, the judge will accept it as so. Really? well at that point i would be drawing the Judges attention to regulation 2 of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents)

Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) and ask him to throw their backsides out of court for failing to comply with the requirements of the SI1557

 

Then the opposing counsel will read the agreement in court from the document from their court bundle. The judge will rule on how much you have been disadvantaged by this and will in all honesty enforce the agreement anyway. Request to dismiss denied.

 

 

 

I have never heard of a judge throwing out a case for not having the original paperwork, and of the six cases mentioned earlier on this thread, I would like to hear about them as I believe some other reason must have come into play.I agree it is highly unlikely that a case would be struck out because the original document couldnt be supplied, however, if you were to argue that the signature was not your own,it would give the judge a dilemma

And what proof do you have to say that they are lying? They have sworn under oath that it is a true copy. No dilemma, probability lies with the OC and you may well have to remove the remark.

 

 

Be careful including letters and responses other people have written to and received from other people in court bundles and do not attempt to use them in court without the author in court with you to answer questions from the other side.

 

Just attempting to make sure people are more clued up to the broadside the OC / DCA will fire at them and that they cannot hide behind flimsy premises and small technicalities as their principal arguements and must have depth of response to anything the other side throws at them.

[BigBadCAGBagger]

Yes, he'd say that they can't enforce while in default and need to comply with the s.78 request, including original T&C's.

 

I agree, but you need to think of some reasons why you have been disadvantaged by them not providing this information and have a number of responses ready to fire back at the judge. Don't just say that the regs state this or that, explain your reasoning why you believe it is so - otherwise you may well get bamboozled by the waffle the other side spews.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I agree, but you need to think of some reasons why you have been disadvantaged by them not providing this information and have a number of responses ready to fire back at the judge. Don't just say that the regs state this or that, explain your reasoning why you believe it is so - otherwise you may well get bamboozled by the waffle the other side spews.

 

I though the law is the law.

 

Like Car says 78(1) (6) is very clear.

 

HAK

[BigBadCAGBagger]

I though the law is the law.

 

Like Car says 78(1) (6) is very clear.

 

HAK

 

The law may appear to be the law, but waffle designed to redress the letter of the law to suit the views and position of the party is how the game is played. The law falls by the wayside, it is the person who puts forward the best arguement and sways the county court judge who is the winner, and many a judge may well side with those with whome they have more in common, which is, unfortunately, against the LiP.

 

The answer is, be prepared to fight the waffle spouted by the other side and have your own convincing arguements present. Be careful when quoting case law, as you will need to know it inside out and back to front and know exactly why it relates to your case as if you don't, you may well find it bites you back.

 

I'm not being negative, I'm just attempting to make people realise that walking into a courtroom without sufficient preparation is dangerous and at best counter productive.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Point taken BBCB.

 

Thanks for the advice hopefully it will not come to this but who knows.

 

HAk

[car2403]

The law may appear to be the law, but waffle designed to redress the letter of the law to suit the views and position of the party is how the game is played. The law falls by the wayside, it is the person who puts forward the best arguement and sways the county court judge who is the winner, and many a judge may well side with those with whome they have more in common, which is, unfortunately, against the LiP.

 

The answer is, be prepared to fight the waffle spouted by the other side and have your own convincing arguements present. Be careful when quoting case law, as you will need to know it inside out and back to front and know exactly why it relates to your case as if you don't, you may well find it bites you back.

 

I'm not being negative, I'm just attempting to make people realise that walking into a courtroom without sufficient preparation is dangerous and at best counter productive.

 

I'd agree with you to an extent, BBCB, but HAK is right - the law is the law. When Parliaments intentions are clearly stated, (as in s.78(6)) there's little the other side can do to sway a Judge, IMHO.

 

The part I agree with is that this won't stop them trying, a litigant in person not getting the benefit of legal training and being inundated with jargon - all this will confuse the Judge as much as it will the LIP, as he's in the same boat, (remember Judges aren't legally trained in the specifics of Consumer Credit Law) but ultimately it will come down to which argument he prefers, so could go either way.

 

I like the way that tomterm8 puts this, in that most CCA cases are heard on the small claims track, meaning that the detail of whether they are in default and can enforce or not is overlooked as the SCT is designed to hear volume of cases not the detail - it's up to the LIP to state their case.

[davefirewalker]

And a point to remember...........its civil law, not criminal.........it would go on the "balance of probabilities" (and what the judge thinks of you, and what mood he/she is in)

 

the law doesn't always come into it (though it should be the overriding concern)

 

Dave

[star_scream]

I have CCA'd CITI and they rec. on 8/2/08. They have replied with the letter on this thread. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/citicards/133304-citi-refusing-send-copyof.html

 

What can I do now?