Cap1 & CCA return

[diddydicky]

hence the reason why i think every defence- if it is the case that you are not disputing that you entered into an agreement with the creditor- should include a clear statement that it is not the debt that is being disputed but the creditors right to legally enforce it

 

take away that embarrassing question in court by putting it right up in front of the judges eyes from the outset

 

The Defendant admits entering into an agreement with the Claimant and which was regulated by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act). No admissions are made as to the terms, conditions or other provisions of the agreement and the extent to which the Claimant may or may not have complied therewith and the extent to which the Defendant may or may not have complied therewith. Further and alternatively, it is denied that the agreement was properly executed and/or is now enforceable in whole or in part.

 

[diddydicky]

and there would be nothing wrong in saying to a judge who asked the question something along the lines of

 

Once these proceedings are out of the way and then creditor is obliged to talk to me on a level playing field, without the use of unlawful threats of enforcement, i am sure the claimant and myself can come to some mutually acceptable resolution of the matter

 

 

in other words:-

 

you make a decision on the legality of the creditors ability to enforce, which is what we are here for ,

 

after which, how the matter is settled between me and the claimant is none of your business!!

[diddydicky]

Hi

Hi

I think I probably would have agreed with you to an extent a couple of years ago but there has been quite a lot happened in courts up and down the land that would not .

Ranken, Mcguffuicc, many many others all thought they could hide behind section 78 or section127(3)

 

Mention in court of people trying to evade their debts is on almost every judgement transcript,you don’t have to believe me read it for yourself ,are you trying to say that this does not have an effect on that judgment.

Going back to Dave’s original point if you do what you suggest on a technicality I seriously question your sanity There have been a lot of cases that have thought they could hide behind section127(3) only to see the barrier evaporate before their eyes in front of a self righteous judge. .

And after section127(3) disappears and the judges is required to access the prejudice caused by the breach good luck.

Peter

 

oh, i believe you!!

[diddydicky]

dont think they will take submissions from members of the public

[diddydicky]

Seems they bend over backwards to accomodate these "Institutions" but the implications of a Subject Access Request does not get a mention.

 

Surely if the original is not set out the way that it should be with all terms and conditions, limits etc. it is invalid, and obviously they are not going to admit that!

 

Looks like consumers are going to have to rake their cupboards to unearth any original agreements to prove them unenforceable.

 

Thought that if you send an SAR that they had to supply the original signed agreement by return?

 

a subject access request is for any information that is held about you

 

there is no complusion for them to produce it in its original form

 

(although many do)

 

there is NO sure fire way of getting a true copy of the alleged agreement without actually going down the CPR31.16 and court route!! and even then many obstacles will be put in the way.

 

Hopefully the new OFT guidelines will resolve this issue insomuch as if the creditor has not got the original agreement he will (hopefully) be requird to tell you at the initial request stage

 

 

oops sorry just saw it had already been answered

[diddydicky]

the law will presume, if you have proof of posting, that a first class letter arrived 2 working days later or 4 working days if it was sent second class,

 

the law will not be interested in arguments put forward by the creditor that he did not receive it (it is an excuse akin to "the cheques in the post- honest guv")

 

the 40 days time starts from the date it was served on them , as described above

 

If they claim not to have received the payment they CANNOT send the request back to you and make you start again, nor can they ignore it and later say it was incomplete

 

they are obliged to make every effort to contact you and sort out the problem

 

In the meantime they can stop , but not reset the clock and if you send a further payment or respond correctly to their queery the clock will recommence from that time

 

the fine for non compliance is up to 5000 pounds

[diddydicky]

My point being unless you had some proof of what you sent (ie a letter in your file that shows a recorded delivery number etc to match what they have received), they can simply turn round and say 'the only thing in the envelope was a cheque so we assumed it was a payment'.

 

The fine for non compliance may be £5000 but is it ever enforced? (this is a genuine question as I don't know)

 

And as we've seen recently, the law isn't exactly being used to the letter where banks are concerned.

 

All I'm saying is that for the sake of 75p it is in my opinion a little dicey not to bother, particularly when using a tracked method is advocated for sending any mail to banks/dca's anyway - why would you not bother with something as important as an SAR?.

 

they can indeed, just as you could say the Dn envelope was empty

 

in general the law will not accept such excuses and even a simple proof of posting slip (which is what i use all the time) is sufficient for the court.

 

clearly key documents are better sent recorded but there is no need in terms of general correspondence (IMO)

[diddydicky]

Nice idea but I doubt it would hold any weight at all if put up against a judge. You try and argue to them that despite the fact you've had money from someone, anyone, and not paid it back that there was not a debt there.

 

However you word it, if someone lends you actual money in the bank then you have borrowed it, regardless of what they then do with any money received in payment. They may have 'essentially' taken your real money, but until they are paid with your real money then they have taken nothing physical - what they do with the notion that you are now in debt to them for £xx is neither here nor there. Credit may not be legal tender but the money in your pocket when you use it is. A logical dissection of the above still shows that they have given you actual money (when it is used, not when it is just sat on a card) and you have not parted with anything.

 

Technicalities of language may point to something else, but in the real world if you tried to tell a judge that the bank had in fact borrowed from you I honestly can't see you getting anywhere - especially with the moralistic judgements that seem to have been popping up.

 

Also, I may have just mis-understood your point with , but if you are saying they don't need the original in court then that's not actually what went on. The judge was referring to the need to supply copies for a CCA request - nothing was said about a reconstruction being used in place of an original in court.

 

as you said, there is the real world, and there is this other place that the disciples of Nuke em inhabit!!

[diddydicky]

yep its an almost identical copy of what Nukem posted last year

[diddydicky]

I have no idea who nukem is but it does sound like he has also found the truth.

 

Alternatives are abundant for those who can see the truth that money does not exist.

 

Please keep fighting your corner with the CCA but I don't see many results forthcoming that are helping the masses of people having problems. And of course, the CCA route has been hammered for several years now without any real progress. You are wasting your time and energy. Please show with proof just one 'person' who has managed to get hold of their 'original wet signature agreement'.

 

Conspiracy? Oh thats ok then I must be a nutter. That's a typical comment from someone who is making money from the poor victims of the lenders as they tell them the CCA is your only remedy. It is also a typical comment of someone who is ignorant and too lazy to actually discover the truth for themselves. Please debate with me and put forward your own arguments to counter my points.

 

Your remedy is withn courts of Equity and private processes. If you want to go blindly down the worn out path of CCA then so be it. You will lose amost every time. Then again maybe a Court of Equity is a figment of my conspiracy imagination.

 

For those that are waking up to the fact that there really isn't any money and you've been taken for the ride of your life I suggest you start looking away from the CCA into other avenues that work.

 

You have to discover this for yourself though, if you are happy thinking the CCA is your answer then good luck, if you want to be directed to research information of what I am talking about and discover the real truth then please pm me.

 

There are those who are stuck in their own Conspiracy of believing real money exists. They will find out the truth one day.

 

Namaste

 

it's not so much a case of you being a "nutter", more that you should start a thread to deal with such discussion rather than hijack threads that are trying to give practical help rather than sermons to other caggers who need assistance.

 

the number of posters onto you thread will then reveal the true level of interest in your "theories"

[diddydicky]

PT,

 

I also find your remarks quite insulting. I have evidenced everything I have said yet you attack me without provocation and without offering to support your argument with any evidence, why? Is it because you know I am right?

 

CCA is not getting the results is it? be honest, tens of thousands of cases now on hold, why? because the banks will not allow the mass results to happen, and you know it. Bank Charges case is a classic example.

 

I pointed out why agreements are flawed and I gave my evidence and you are attacking me now for putting that information forward and you do not even have the curtesy to rebut what I am saying but you are happy to attack me. I suspect that is because you know I am right.

 

The evidence that I am right is overwhelming and for anyone half bothered they will see for themselves.

 

As a solicitor or legal rep pt, is your first duty to the court or to the client? You haven't rebutted or mentioned that comment previously so I take it I was right. The client comes second.

 

I know about the CFA, I have been involved with CCA and that route for 2yrs now and discovered why it doesn't work like we would want it to or even like it is meant to do.

 

You have seen the CCA completely disregarded by the courts, especially in relation to having to produce the original agreement.

 

I am not saying and never did say that you were taking tender directly form 'clients' but there is no doubt that there is financial motivation behind your stance. That motivation to help others I am sure is well intentioned.

 

My argument is not with you, my point is that there is no such thing as a financial agreement as people have been led to believe. The Bank do not have to produce the original agreement because it's a negotiable instrument/promissory note. Why I seriously ask has no soilicitor or Barrister challenged that in Statute?

 

There is also other reasons that this issue has not been raised in the main courts and that is because the banking [problem] is so Big.

 

I urge you sir to check out if real money exists, or, as I profess, do we only have promissory notes. If real money does not exist how can we have lawful contracts? Any lawful contract has to have lawful consideration brought by all parties including the Bank.

 

The Bank as you will see do not add their signature to any financial contract, have you ever wondered why?

 

That makes financial contracts Unilateral and not Bilateral. As you will know, that has severe implications alone as far as contract law is concerned. Why have the solicitors never challenged that aspect of financial contracts? One signature on a contract does not make a contract. There has been no meeting of minds.

 

So we have obvious aspects of contract law not being challenged, why not?

 

I know the answers because I wasn't getting the results from CCA.

 

You must surely know that the signed agreement is a promissory note but you have decided not to comment on that. You have also decided not to comment on the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. And the fact that 'clients' are in fact being 'lent' their own money off the back of their own promissory note. These are the same notes you hear about day in day out on the news when you hear about Banks Monetising their assets.

 

Those assets are our promissory notes that they are using to give Credit back to the 'person' signing the agreement. People are 'borrowing' their own money and then paying it back with interest.

 

Why are solicitors not challenging those aspects? 99% of what I said there can be proven beyond all doubt.

 

 

These are highly important features to any apparant contract. Why are solicitors not challenging them?

 

Now, remedy. As you can see, there is little remedy (imho) using CCA. Where else and how else can contracts be challenged? Is the High Court the only route open to victims of the banks? Please answer that one for the sake of the people on here. Also what about commercial remedy in international Law, what about UNIDROIT Principles of 1994, are solicitors taking that to the court to challenge contracts? I don't see that but I do see people getting great results who are privately addressing these issues in the right environment.

 

I will reitirate, my argument is not with you, you decided to attack my information that was addressing 'Agreements' in connection with financial contracts.

 

My points are very valid.

 

Namaste

 

whether your "points" are valid or not pal- you should follow the site protocol and stop hi jacking other threads to spout your drivvel

 

 

you are, what the americans call " A heater"

 

 

why don' you either start your own thread or withdraw from this one if you have no practical advice to offer

 

failing which i invite the site team to remove your posts to a new thread for you

[diddydicky]

DiddyDicky, I am a peaceful man, you are attacking me for no reason atall. You are rude and offensive. I have not highjacked anyones thread, I am contributing what I find to be valuable and relevant information on financial agreements under the CCA and why they are not 'agreements'.

 

I won't even lower myself to comment on your childish 'drivel' statement.

 

In peace

 

I don't know how old you are tinytots, but i suspect that mine and many other caggers minds have been "opened and closed" on a wide variety of subjects , some of which you have not yourself yet discovered, before you were a twinkle in your fathers eye.

 

the nievety of people like you who think you just invented the wheel is unbeleivable.

 

 

if you start a new thread as suggested then

 

if you get lots of people debating on there with you then you will be spreading your gospel which i presume is your intent.

 

if not - then given that there are thousands of people on these forums you will know that perhaps "your time" has not yet come.

 

you certainly won't win any friends by attacking the motives or ethics of people on this forum who have tirelessly helped very many people on this forum .

 

 

so why don't you show us all that you have the courage of your convictions and start a new thread to debate your philosophy

 

or are you just going to run away with your tail between your legs at the first sign of opposition to your views!!

[diddydicky]

Well put DD:)

 

i'll probably get a B*****ing for it though:D

[diddydicky]

steady on pedross- you'll have a nose bleed!!

[diddydicky]

the statement which Pedross doth plead,

are likely to give him a nose bleed,

talk of unidroit and such matters

will make him as mad as the other hatters

[diddydicky]

And they say poetry is dead

 

them poets cant not rite like wot i can

[diddydicky]

re arrange these words into a well known phrase or saying:-

 

off ripped been you've

[diddydicky]

what about kid creole?

[diddydicky]

Originally Posted by diddydicky

what about kid creole?

 

 

 

 

He's not Annie's daddy either:D But he does have coconuts.....

 

 

oh, iive got a luverly bunch of coconuts

 

there they are a standin in a row

 

big ones, small ones, some as big as yer ed,

 

yer picks em up, yer flicks yer wrist , and tosses them over yer ed

 

oh ive got a luverly bunch of coconuts

 

 

(bugger- got to go- the school bell just went!)

[diddydicky]

I tried to resist moving away from the serious point of the threads but I could not last, so here goes:

 

Diddykipling thinks he's a poet

I first thought he had what it takes

But his rhymes are not strong

I think I was wrong

I suggest that he should stick to cakes!

 

Pedross

(The full collection can be purchased fom Amazon)

 

exceedingly good pedross:D

[diddydicky]

 

when i got my first job the foreman said "your'e late- the hooters gone"

 

I said "really, who pinched it?"

 

he said "no, i mean - don't you know what time we start work here"

 

i said "no, you are always working when i get here"!!

[diddydicky]

that's funny bigdebtor, - my 4 yr old grandchild calls me an old duffer!

 

kid goes up to his granded and says

 

" can you make a noise like a frog grandad"

 

grandad says "probably, why?"

 

the kid says

 

"cos my dad says when you croak we 're all going to disney"!

[diddydicky]

sorry folks - promise to behave now

[diddydicky]

[diddydicky]

these companies usually keep an archive of their blank agreements

if they "re populate" a blank agreement of the time with your personal details i think the court is going to accept that this complies with s78