Cap1 & CCA return

[hellhasnofury]

Hello,

 

This is better than any action film I have seen, I am sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for the next installment.

The NW tried this on with me, no signature, so I told them what I thought.

[Maggiebroom]

Hello,

 

This is better than any action film I have seen, I am sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for the next installment.

The NW tried this on with me, no signature, so I told them what I thought.

 

I'm with you Hell. I too am sitting on the edge of my seat, (but I also have a carton of popcorn).

I am currently expecting a 20 year old CCA from Debenhams, and not holding my breath, so this is relevant to what I have asked for.

 

maggiebroom

[paulwlton]

Hello,

 

This is better than any action film I have seen, I am sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for the next installment.

The NW tried this on with me, no signature, so I told them what I thought.

 

My agreement was recreated from incorrect banking records subsequently i received a capital and interest variable rate loan agreement as my "true copy" instead of my peronal loan agreement a clause in the agreement allows the bank to apply compound contractual interest after default. This has been applied since 1998 and currently stands at £21000.

 

I have an hearing date in 3 weeks.

 

I'm afraid i cannot reveal anything else on a public forum, besides i don't want to hijack this thread.

 

Paul

[hellhasnofury]

My agreement was recreated from incorrect banking records subsequently i received a capital and interest variable rate loan agreement as my "true copy" instead of my peronal loan agreement a clause in the agreement allows the bank to apply compound contractual interest after default. This has been applied since 1998 and currently stands at £21000.

 

I have an hearing date in 3 weeks.

 

I'm afraid i cannot reveal anything else on a public forum, besides i don't want to hijack this thread.

 

Paul

Dear Paul,

 

I understand the seriousness of your problem and apologise if I appeared a bit flipant. It was not my intention truely. I just found someone in a similiar situation as myself, with the reconstructured ca and was looking for guidence.

 

I sincerely wish you good luck in your fight and I understand that you cannot reveal the information on a public forum. I to have now stopped posting letters that I send and keep things a bit close to my chest for fear of prying eyes.

[paulwlton]

Dear Paul,

 

I understand the seriousness of your problem and apologise if I appeared a bit flipant. It was not my intention truely. I just found someone in a similiar situation as myself, with the reconstructured ca and was looking for guidence.

 

I sincerely wish you good luck in your fight and I understand that you cannot reveal the information on a public forum. I to have now stopped posting letters that I send and keep things a bit close to my chest for fear of prying eyes.

 

No offence taken.

[andrew1]

Contents of a leaked internal document of an High street bank date June 07.

 

Recreating lost CCA Agreements.

 

Under current legislation a Customer can request a "true copy" of their CCA Agreement - failure to do so within 12 days could lead to difficulty enforcing the agreement and more worrying if we fail to do so within 30 days the bank is breaking the law.

 

On occasion the CCA Agreement cannot be found quickly and in the past this led to the debt being written off. On identifying this problem ------- -------- introduced a new process whereby if the CCA cannot be found quickly ----- is able to create a "true copy" using data keyed at the time the loan was granted and the "style2 of the agreement used at that time- this can go back a number of years.

 

65 agreements have been recreated so far involving £250k of debt.

 

A classic example of thinking under pressure and adding real value to the bottom line.

 

I would just add that i am one of those 65 but unfortunatley for the bank i already had in my possession the carbon copy of the original.

 

Paul

 

If this is true, and I have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise Paul, then this hits me as Fraud and needs exposing to the Police apart from regulatory bodies. This is a criminal offence in the making. I cannot believe what you are saying it is an astounding revelation. I sincerely hope with your track record on here that you are prepared to expose this.

[JonCris]

Be WARNED the high street bank referred to are not alone in doing this.

 

I would advise that anyone who's lender appears to have complied with their CCA request assume the document sent is reconstructed from their records & if not admitted by them at the outset I would ask them just that question.

 

If they confirm it is (which they must do if asked otherwise they could be accused of fraud) then you can be sure they no longer have an enforceable agreement namely a properly executed 'signed' agreement making any debt recovery unenforceable

[dpick]

Be WARNED the high street bank referred to are not alone in doing this.

 

I would advise that anyone who's lender appears to have complied with their CCA request assume the document sent is reconstructed from their records & if not admitted by them at the outset I would ask them just that question.

 

If they confirm it is (which they must do if asked otherwise they could be accused of fraud) then you can be sure they no longer have an enforceable agreement namely a properly executed 'signed' agreement making any debt recovery unenforceable

 

Totally agree I have had this with 3 CCA requests where from reading threads I was fairly sure no agreement existed have now had two fold and agree no agreement will no pursue debt(I did not ask for this they just sent it I wanted to reclaim charges etc) the other is being daft and trying to say I have had the goods so must pay as they have sent me a true copy of my agreement (I moved three years ago guess which address they used on my true copy).

 

All the best dpick:D

[noomill060]

All the best Paul-apologies for my flippant comment as well.

 

This is an outrage.

[BLADES65]

Today received the application form with T&C's on a seperate sheet for a NWS Preference Account Card dating back to 1995.

 

Now I think I have said previously that this account was a card that also came with cheques. It had a limt of £2000 and you paid interest on the debit balance via a minimum payment on a monthly statement.

 

Now you may think as I do that this is a credit card account but looking at the application form that has come nowhere does it say it is regulated by the CCA 1974.

 

My obvious suspicion is that BoS will say this is a current account but the whole concept of the card was to use the limit given so therefore they are giving you credit to use as per a credit card.

 

Nowhere is there any reference to having a credit balance on the account.

 

I would urgently like your opinions on this.

[andrew1]

Today received the application form with T&C's on a seperate sheet for a NWS Preference Account Card dating back to 1995.

 

Now I think I have said previously that this account was a card that also came with cheques. It had a limt of £2000 and you paid interest on the debit balance via a minimum payment on a monthly statement.

 

Now you may think as I do that this is a credit card account but looking at the application form that has come nowhere does it say it is regulated by the CCA 1974.

 

My obvious suspicion is that BoS will say this is a current account but the whole concept of the card was to use the limit given so therefore they are giving you credit to use as per a credit card.

 

Nowhere is there any reference to having a credit balance on the account.

 

I would urgently like your opinions on this.

 

 

 

Not sure what NWS means, but I had a BOS preference account attached at the time to a BOS Loan. On the Loan Agreement document there were all the prescribed terms, but the details for the Preference Account ran down the right hand side of the document with all the terms & Conditions on the back. If you PM me your email address I'll send you a copy. I had the cheque book and a card and it gave an additional £2k at the time over and above the loan. bit of a sharp practice when you think about it..

[BLADES65]

NWS became Capital Bank which was subsequently took over by BoS.

 

PM sent.

[patrickq1]

dp best one ive heard of yet i for one would be temted to go into court all the way on a fraudulent agreement...would also put all agreements from this company under severe scrutiny from all corners of not just customers but athourities

patrickq1

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hi

 

Could do with some help on this link please.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/110330-natwest-cca-response-help.html

Cheers

[Goldlady]

dpick I love the fact that they have used your new address!!! How are you going to 'address' this one? Superb example of their idiocy.

[TideTurner]

Fraud / Counterfeit documents

 

'Lazarus Estates Ltd. -v- Beasley'

 

"....I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgement of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgements, contracts and all transactions whatsoever; see as to deeds....... So, here, I am of opinion that if this declaration is proved to have been false and fraudulent, it is a nullity and void......" ( Denning LJ).

Section 1 of the Counterfeiting Act 1981, qualifies:-"A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument with the intention that he or another shall use it .......

and in law "..the 'actus reus' of forgery is the making of a false instrument. This obviously includes the original production of an instrument which is false as soon as it is produced".

and ".....a person is to be treated for the purposes of this part of... as making a false instrument if he alters an instrument so as to make it false in any respect whether or not it is false in some other respect apart from the alteration; in other words making includes :-

1. Making an instrument which is false

2. Making a genuine instrument false

3. Making a false instrument even falser. and

4. "It must also be proved that the person procuring or making the false instrument intended the false instrument to be used so as to induce the person accepting it, to or not to do some act to his own or someone else's prejudice". and

5. ".... An act or omission intended to be induced, is to a person's prejudice if and only if it is one if it occurs (a) will result (1) in his temporary or permanent loss of property or (2) in his being deprived of an opportunity to earn greater remuneration, or (3) in his being deprived of an opportunity to gain a financial advantage otherwise than by way of remuneration". and

6. " or will result in somebody being given an opportunity (1) to earn remuneration or greater remuneration from him, or (2) to gain a financial advantage from him otherwise than by way of remuneration, or (3) will be the result of his having accepted a false instrument as genuine in connection with his performance of any duty". and

7. ".. the concept of an intent to cause prejudice is very similar to that of intent to defraud in the old law. It is sufficient if the maker of the instrument intents some other person to suffer financial loss or somebody else to gain a financial advantage at that person's expense". and

8. ".. the law on FORGERY is supplemented by two offences under section 20 of The Theft Act 1968: - (1) The offence of procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception contrary to section 20.2 is considered ..... together with the other offences of deceptions. It may be a useful alternative to FORGERY where the instrument is not made by the offender/user himself but by a person whom he has deceived into making it. and ".. a person who dishonestly with a view to gain for himself or another with intent to cause loss to another destroys, defaces or conceals any valuable security any Will or other testamentary document or any original document of or belonging to filed or deposited in any court of Justice or any government department shall on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years".

Forgery

"A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person's prejudice."

Section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

The offence is punishable on conviction on indictment with 10 years imprisonment. Its elements will be considered under the following headings:-

· Instrument.

· False instrument.

· Making a false instrument.

· Acceptance of the instrument as genuine.

· Causation.

Section 8(1) Defines the word 'instrument' as (a) any document, whether of a formal or informal character.

Lord Diplock's advice to Privy Council " ….. the expression 'instrument, whether in the context of the Forgery Ordinance is not confined to a formal document, but includes any document intended to have some effect, as evidence of, or in connection with, a transaction which is capable of giving rise to legal rights or obligations.

 

Tide

[BLADES65]

TIDE,

 

Would this apply to Terms & Conditions supplied which have been cut and pasted to make a document purporting to be the original Terms & Conditions from 1997.

 

My suspicions have been raised as they contain not only current charges not applicable back in 1997 but also the duplication of paragraphs within the document.

[patrickq1]

that is weird ive just been reading this as well ...there is a glimmer for them by using non fraudulent misrepresentation isnt their..but the same result or simmallar damages or innocent fraud section2(2)of the mis representation act 1967 but unclear wther this has beed updated

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

but even so i think even the most biased of judge would see this passing off as an origional as an attepted fraudulent act

[paulwlton]

Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 is worth a look, the new Act came into force 15th Jan 2007.

 

Paul

[patrickq1]

its rather like oh its ok we will produce some more fifty pound notes because we reconstructed it from a origional section 7 and 8 are just right

[TideTurner]

Blades,

 

Of course. The 'Actus Reus' is the actual copying and pasting. The 'Mens Rea' is the intention to cause you to do something (pay or stop an action) to their priveledge.

 

They produce a document with the intention of acheiving some form of a gain, and you a loss.

 

This is why a true copy or the original is required.

 

For a long time, digital photos were not allowed as evidence in Court because they could have been 'touched up'. All the while, the possibility of this occuring was being investigated by the Legal system.

 

These are now allowed.

 

Is there any reason why the actual agreement is not available? A fire at their headquarters perhaps? Even so it would be negligent for a Corporate to not have a backup kept off site.

 

Tide

[patrickq1]

i got lawbook diarriah going to bed sore head been reading all day good work

patrick

[BLADES65]

Blades,

 

Of course. The 'Actus Reus' is the actual copying and pasting. The 'Mens Rea' is the intention to cause you to do something (pay or stop an action) to their priveledge.

 

They produce a docement with the intention of acheiving some form of a gain, and you a loss.

 

This is why a true copy or the original is required.

 

For a long time, digital photos were not allowed as evidence in Court because they could have been 'touched up'. All the while, the possibility of this occuring was being investigated by the Legal system.

 

These are now allowed.

 

Is there any reason why the actual agreement is not available? A fire at their headquarters perhaps? Even so it would be negligent for a Corporate to not have a backup kept off site.

 

Tide

 

I have no idea Tide, I suspect it is just a sloppy attempt at placating me in order to fob me off without going to the trouble of finding the original documents in order to get me to pay up.

 

On the other hand they may not have the original.

 

Either way they have reconstructed what they claim to be 1997 T&C's from other documents.

[TideTurner]

Blades,

 

Both parties should keep a copy of the original. The difference is they should have a system in place to ensure their original is kept securely.

 

Where they look to bring an action or enforcement, they must have proof.

 

You CAN guarantee that after a request and failure to provide, they will go to extreme lengths to disguise any past mistakes (such as procedure problems - no contract exists in the first place).

 

To then try and rectify this mistake by providing a false document in place of the original with the intention of getting you to do something to your detriment is fraudulent.

 

A lot to take in I know, but it's Friday night so maybe have another look tomorrow at my post.

 

Tide