Cap1 & CCA return

[car2403]

Ahh!!!

 

But that begs..... Or the right question to ask ought to be why then, since the introduction of reproduction systems (And it has been quite a while now) has not the specific section authorising lack of requirement of a signature not been amended....and to what purpose would that inactivity serve???

 

m2ae:rolleyes:

 

Because Parliament doesn't want to change the CCA/Regs, it wants to get rid of it.

 

Don't get me started! Lol

[means2anend]

Because Parliament doesn't want to change the CCA/Regs, it wants to get rid of it.

 

Don't get me started! Lol

 

Why bother with mere amendments of 1983 Regs CCA 1983 in 2004 if it's intent is to get rid of it...

 

m2ae

[car2403]

Why bother with mere amendments of 1983 Regs CCA 1983 in 2004 if it's intent is to get rid of it...

 

m2ae

 

Quite.

 

I'm a fan of conspiracies

[diddydicky]

it goes back much further than 1983 and to times when the only way to produce a "true copy" of a document was to handwrite it out

 

clearly it was not practical to re draw boxes and it would not be acceptable to copy signatures (not sure about the date bit)

 

it really is antiquated in this day and age when modern photocopiers can produce copies so faithfull to the original that forgers have actually reprodouced bank notes on photocopiers

 

nowadays, and until such time as some judge has the balls to say enough is enough- creditors hide behind its provisions to avoid producing what would the the obvious thing to produce...... a photopy of the original

[means2anend]

Are they hiding what they haven't got...no!....... obviously:)

 

m2ae

[mot22]

Yes, it would be nice to know which questions you are asking and why, but I think this post clears things up somewhat about signature boxes and may clear up any misunderstanding, or any misleading that has been done in your circumstances?;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...t-1193633.html

car, I was asking two questions, apologies if I confused things.

Firstly, why was 3.2(b) put in as a reg in the first place? which you say is because of lack of photocopy machines at the time, and you having said that I wondered if that had actually been accepted in court or was just a view taken.

 

Secondly, would 3.2(a) counter 3.2(b)? which m2ae I think is saying no it would not? Although are you suggeting that the link you gave says it yes would?

 

If I understand correctly Peter was asking for Terms and Conditions to be supplied. He was saying that the highlighted part of Reg 3.2(a) in his post did not allow the OC to omit the Terms and Conditions. (have I understood that correctly?) Where as I referred in my post, to the same highlights but was referring to the omission of signatures.

Or is it the reference to 7.(1) that deals with signitures being required?

 

As to the "why" I asked? I thought that if the reason for there being reg 3.2 (b) was as simple and obvious as something like you say re:lack of photocopiers at the time, then an OC might be held to account for, as you say "any misleading that has been done".

 

I'm trying to understood these things better. Apologies..

Edited June 19, 2010 by mot22

[means2anend]

I have looked at the above link and am interested to know if anyone out there who has had a cancellable agreement...when requesting a copy of the executed agreement has been sent with the date of signature missing also...if so then I think problems cos if the date is missing when it has not been authorised the rest of that particular copy would be questionable under the ''Waksman Test.

 

I have a funny feeling that ALL copies requested are missing date of signatures in relation to cancellable agreements...that means a sizeable proportion of copies do not meet the test and contravene the 1983/1557 Copies Of Documents Regs too.

 

m2ae

Edited June 20, 2010 by means2anend

[car2403]

car, I was asking two questions, apologies if I confused things.

Firstly, why was 3.2(b) put in as a reg in the first place? which you say is because of lack of photocopy machines at the time, and you having said that I wondered if that had actually been accepted in court or was just a view taken.

 

Not that I'm aware of, but there are several very informed members of this forum that take this view - not sure how much weight that carries, but it's a lot IMHO.

 

Secondly, would 3.2(a) counter 3.2(b)? which m2ae I think is saying no it would not? Although are you suggeting that the link you gave says it yes would?

 

If I understand correctly Peter was asking for Terms and Conditions to be supplied. He was saying that the highlighted part of Reg 3.2(a) in his post did not allow the OC to omit the Terms and Conditions. (have I understood that correctly?) Where as I referred in my post, to the same highlights but was referring to the omission of signatures.

Or is it the reference to 7.(1) that deals with signitures being required?

 

As to the "why" I asked? I thought that if the reason for there being reg 3.2 (b) was as simple and obvious as something like you say re:lack of photocopiers at the time, then an OC might be held to account for, as you say "any misleading that has been done".

 

I'm trying to understood these things better. Apologies..

 

I may have misunderstood the intentions behind the question - too many Haribo Tangfastics?

 

Anyhoo, previous discussions on the copies of docs regs have nearly always surrounded the "have they complied with my CCA request?" question. The more relevant question to ask is "can this be enforced, with the missing information and how reasonable is it to assume the information is missing because it's not required to be provided under the copy regs, or for some other (potentially misrepresenting the situation) motive?".

 

I have looked at the above link and am interested to know if anyone out there who has had a cancellable agreement...when requesting a copy of the executed agreement has been sent with the date of signature missing also...if so then I think problems cos if the date is missing when it has not been authorised the rest of that particular copy would be questionable under the ''Waksman Test.

 

I have a funny feeling that ALL copies requested are missing date of signatures in relation to cancellable agreements...that means a sizeable proportion of copies do not meet the test and contravene the 1983/1557 Copies Of Documents Regs too.

 

m2ae

 

Yes and yes, but as I've said above, that doesn't mean the debt is unenforceable, as you won't know if the document is or isn't dated if they won't supply it under the CCA request due to the copy regs.

 

If a cancellable agreement isn't dated, it's improperly executed and incapable of enforcement as a result.

[means2anend]

Not that I'm aware of, but there are several very informed members of this forum that take this view - not sure how much weight that carries, but it's a lot IMHO.

 

 

 

I may have misunderstood the intentions behind the question - too many Haribo Tangfastics?

 

Anyhoo, previous discussions on the copies of docs regs have nearly always surrounded the "have they complied with my CCA request?" question. The more relevant question to ask is "can this be enforced, with the missing information and how reasonable is it to assume the information is missing because it's not required to be provided under the copy regs, or for some other (potentially misrepresenting the situation) motive?".

 

 

 

Yes and yes, but as I've said above, that doesn't mean the debt is unenforceable, as you won't know if the document is or isn't dated if they won't supply it under the CCA request due to the copy regs.

 

If a cancellable agreement isn't dated, it's improperly executed and incapable of enforcement as a result.

 

 

Naturally if the copy is not supplied then one would not know whether a sig was or was not on it...but by not supplying the copy any way puts the account in dispute..This is not really what I was concerned about...My main concern is that is focusing on NOW that lenders are becoming more 'proactive' in that s77/78 requests are being 'complied' with...that a large number of copies are being sent by them and confirmed as 'true' that IF a signature box is missing the fact that it IS cancellable would be indicative of this...I know that you have answered in the positive to this..

 

I'm just saying that we should not accept a copy as being 'true' just because the signature date is missing.....consumers may not realise that their agreement is cancellable

 

After all how many do in fact understand the definition of 'cancellable agreement' in the first place...

 

m2ae

[pt2537]

the best thing to do is read Rankine vs MBNA court of appeal judgment as its binding on lower courts,

 

this sets out the issues on cancellable agreements

[means2anend]

the best thing to do is read Rankine vs MBNA court of appeal judgment as its binding on lower courts,

 

this sets out the issues on cancellable agreements

 

 

Good Morning PT

 

I shall do..

 

Thanks

 

m2ae

[pt2537]

Rankine

[vint1954]

I meant to also ask if anyone knows if there is any case Law having covered or referred to this or if/how it has been largely accepted by a court ?

Many thx

That is for their response to a request under s78 of the act. For documents in court, you should push for the original agreement.

 

If they seek to use a system copy, I beleive I am right in saying that this is hearsay evidence.

[mot22]

That is for their response to a request under s78 of the act. For documents in court, you should push for the original agreement.

 

If they seek to use a system copy, I beleive I am right in saying that this is hearsay evidence.

vint, thx, I am presuming a "system copy" is anything other than the physical original document with perscibed terms and signatures?

From occasional posts on other threads the OC are commenting on the enforceability of the document they send in response to s78 request, there may there for now be the point that an OC has an obligation to not mislead in regards to what it does and does not supply to a S78 request.

ie: they can say that what they have sent complies with a s78 request but they can't say it is enforceable if it is not.

ie: the OC knows what complies with a s78 but use signature omissions as per 3.2(b) to imply its more than just a reply to s78 because they know s61(1)(a) and 127(3) also apply. This is imo misleading!

This has no doubt been covered before (I'm new to all this) but is what I'm trying to get clarity on.

Thx also to car and m2ae and all, I appreciate the feedback/help. It can be really difficult to understand all this and as car and m2ae say, sometimes it's about needing to understand the correct questions to ask an OC.

Edited June 21, 2010 by mot22

[Bigdebtor]

car, I was asking two questions, apologies if I confused things.

Firstly, why was 3.2(b) put in as a reg in the first place? which you say is because of lack of photocopy machines at the time, and you having said that I wondered if that had actually been accepted in court or was just a view taken.

 

 

I started work in the late 60's and every major office had either a large Rank Xerox or IBM photocopier back then - they actually became quite common in big businesses in the early 60's - well before the CCA 1974 - so that can't be the reason (unless Parliament and the Courts were behind the times even then:D).

 

BD.

[mot22]

I started work in the late 60's and every major office had either a large Rank Xerox or IBM photocopier back then - they actually became quite common in big businesses in the early 60's - well before the CCA 1974 - so that can't be the reason (unless Parliament and the Courts were behind the times even then:D).

 

BD.

Thx for that info, so I'm not the only "old codger" around here

Edited June 21, 2010 by mot22

[diddydicky]

Naturally if the copy is not supplied then one would not know whether a sig was or was not on it...but by not supplying the copy any way puts the account in dispute..This is not really what I was concerned about...My main concern is that is focusing on NOW that lenders are becoming more 'proactive' in that s77/78 requests are being 'complied' with...that a large number of copies are being sent by them and confirmed as 'true' that IF a signature box is missing the fact that it IS cancellable would be indicative of this...I know that you have answered in the positive to this..

 

I'm just saying that we should not accept a copy as being 'true' just because the signature date is missing.....consumers may not realise that their agreement is cancellable

 

After all how many do in fact understand the definition of 'cancellable agreement' in the first place...

 

m2ae

 

 

a word of caution here

 

many lenders will now send out what the say is a copy of your original agreement (but will be careful not to say it is a copy of an "executed" agreement)

 

 

remember that s78 requires the lender to provide a true copy of the "Executed" agreement- not an unexecuted one

 

 

similarly , in many court actions their witness statements are referring to original agrements - being careful to avoid the use of the word "executed"

 

you need to keep an eye out for this omission and where necessary press for clarification

[means2anend]

That's a good point you make DD and I thoroughly understand their subtle subversive ploy in remaining silent on ''executed agreement'' so as not to ''draw attention'' to 189(1) definition of executed agreement....that the 'true copy' must have been taken from an agreement that satisfied the above section 189(1) 'signed by....... BOTH parties's...BUT my main concern is here in bold

 

 

3 General requirements as to form and content of copy document

 

(1) Subject to the following provisions of these Regulations, every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act

shall be a true copy thereof.

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy--

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor,hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the

Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of the signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies)

 

It appears that the copies mentioned above in relation to s68(b) in section (b) aboveSTILL require a date of signature!!!!!..How many copies have we seen with that still intact???

 

m2ae

Edited June 21, 2010 by means2anend

[diddydicky]

That's a good point you make DD and I thoroughly understand their subtle subversive ploy in remaining silent on ''executed agreement'' so as not to ''draw attention'' to 189(1) definition of executed agreement....that the 'true copy' must have been taken from an agreement that satisfied the above section 189(1) 'signed by....... BOTH parties's...BUT my main concern is here in bold

 

 

3 General requirements as to form and content of copy document

 

(1) Subject to the following provisions of these Regulations, every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act

shall be a true copy thereof.

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy--

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor,hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the

Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of the signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies)

 

 

It appears that the copies mentioned above in relation to s68(b) in section (b) aboveSTILL require a date of signature!!!!!..How many copies have we seen with that still intact???

 

m2ae

 

 

if they send a "generic copy" of the agreement ( ie a copy of the master which was used at the time) and re populate it with your details then it clearly would not contain the date or the signature - and would ONLY comply with their obligations if they then make a statement that it is a true copy of your EXECUTED agreement,

 

the ommission of the word executed clearly suggests (to me) that they do not have the original or copy of the original executed agreement and this then gets them out of the allegation that they have misled you into beleiving that what they sent you was a copy of the executed agreement

 

i personally would write back recorded delivery and demand a statement that what was sent is a true copy of an executed agreement - or alternatively an admission that they do not have the original agreement- with which to confirm that what was sent is a true copy

 

if they dont have the original (not even a microfiche of it) then how can they make a statement that what they produce is a TRue copy of the original document

 

ties them up in all sorts of knots if they dont come clean

i must admit most of mine have included the signature and date of signature of the debtor (it is the creditors sig and date that are missing usually)

 

clearly one that does not contain your signature should be viewed with suspicion-

[means2anend]

I would view EVEN more as suspicious if they had a debtor's signature on it if we are to believe that most of the executed agreements way back had been destroyed...the two sets of circumstances and what we know now do not sit easily together with me

 

m2ae

[Chalkitup]

DiddyDicky ...... read your last post but confused with 1st Credit answer ...... are they actually telling me they have sent a true copy of executed agreement ......... (you may remember they sent two generic T&Cs with my name and addresses just typed on ..... they put in their letter the following.....

 

"The two agreements are reconstructed agreements using details taken from Citi computer records and which is regarded as a "true copy" of original. 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 apply. Regulation 3(1) sets out that "every copy of an executed agreement shall be a true copy".

Regulation 3(2) goes on to state that there may be various information omitted from this true copy. Details which are not required to be in the agreement by law include the signature box, signature and date of signature. Therefore 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."

 

"The two copies sent to you refer to the original agreement with Associates and then the amended copy of your agreement with Citi"

"We would consider the documents provided are legally enforceable and will be prepared to place the matter before a Judge"

 

Thanks

Onwards and Upwards

Chalkitup

[diddydicky]

DiddyDicky ...... read your last post but confused with 1st Credit answer ...... are they actually telling me they have sent a true copy of executed agreement ......... (you may remember they sent two generic T&Cs with my name and addresses just typed on ..... they put in their letter the following.....

 

"The two agreements are reconstructed agreements using details taken from Citi computer records and which is regarded as a "true copy" of original. 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 apply. Regulation 3(1) sets out that "every copy of an executed agreement shall be a true copy".

Regulation 3(2) goes on to state that there may be various information omitted from this true copy. Details which are not required to be in the agreement by law include the signature box, signature and date of signature. Therefore 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."

 

"The two copies sent to you refer to the original agreement with Associates and then the amended copy of your agreement with Citi"

"We would consider the documents provided are legally enforceable and will be prepared to place the matter before a Judge"

 

Thanks

Onwards and Upwards

Chalkitup

 

 

the first sentence IMO still evades a direct confirmation that what they have provided is a true copy of the original "executed agreement" and then cleverly goes on to recite regulations regarding copies of executed agreement

i would write and ask them to confirm- for good orders sake- whether they are confirming if they have the original executed agreement in their possession and if not- by what means have they established that what they have "created" is a true copy of an executed agreement

 

tell them that you are equally confident that, in the absence of any confirmation from them that they have the original executed agreement in their possession - and which you will require production of - you beleive that they have been erroneously emboldened by mis reporting of certain recent cases and you are confident that a court will find that what they have falls far short of that which will give a cause of action and that rather than "rack up any furthe costs in the matter" that they get on with the court action they are so confident of winning

[iconoclash]

Hi - been reading this interesting thread - another thing that strikes me about this lark of theirs: without the actual contract how can you see if the 'form and content' is correct as per regulations, signature boxes etc on the right page and so forth??

[Dotty50]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/257521-capital-1-short-application.html#post2993999

 

Hi, you may find this Capital 1 response of interest.

 

Or not!

[car2403]

Hi - been reading this interesting thread - another thing that strikes me about this lark of theirs: without the actual contract how can you see if the 'form and content' is correct as per regulations, signature boxes etc on the right page and so forth??

 

Because big financial institutions wouldn't enter in to an agreement that wasn't enforceable under the CCA, apparently

 

NB: That's a joke, but is actually something that a Judge told me when he enforced an unenforceable debt against me!