Cap1 & CCA return

[Peterbard]

Good God you so and so! You absolutely MUST!

 

I totally agree with you 100%, I hope you didn't think that I was spilling bile! Absolutely not! Merely defending my good friends who I respect enormously and in fairness to Shane, he is a reasonably new poster and doesn't know our history. Crikey Peter, it would be SO much better if everybody could work together!!

 

Anyway, I will bugger off and leave you to it, it would be great to see you again, hope all OK with you and that health back to 100% and of course will pass on your wishes to the other renegades!!!

 

Nice to see that you are still flicking v's at the Oxford English Dictionary! Love it!!

 

Hugs,

 

Corn xxx:D

 

Hi Corn i am on haemo dialasys a thte moment and stabe so it so far so good, anyway you know me you old cauldren stirrer i have to have the last word.

What do you meen my spelling is much improved in't it.

 

Best regards

Peter

[caro]

Come on chaps and chappesses. Let's keep it friendly. Differences of opinion are fine, but there's no need for anyone to be personal or offensive.

[Cornucopia]

Come on chaps and chappesses. Let's keep it friendly. Differences of opinion are fine, but there's no need for anyone to be personal or offensive.

 

Forgive me, but where was anything personal or offensive???? If you are referring to chat between posters who know eachother, then you are way off the mark!!!

 

For the record, I do not and never have posted anything personal or offensive about anybody.

 

You've just reminded me why I don't post here anymore.

[Peterbard]

Caro

 

Threats ok then are they and refrence to my peosnal life as in "I know where you live" scenario.

 

I expect a response

 

Peter

[Cornucopia]

Hi Corn i am on haemo dialasys a thte moment and stabe so it so far so good, anyway you know me you old cauldren stirrer i have to have the last word.

What do you meen my spelling is much improved in't it.

 

Best regards

Peter

 

OK my friend, hope it goes well, please do let me know how you get on, I do worry! Despite being an old Cauldron stirrer, you must remember that I am the junior of the cauldron!!!

 

Your spelling is absolutely F-A-B!!! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

See you when you can?????

 

Hugs,

 

Corn x:)

[Peterbard]

HI Cornn

 

I don't think caro was reffering to you.

Better not be anyway

 

Peter

[Cornucopia]

Caro

 

Threats ok then are they and refrence to my peosnal life as in "I know where you live" scenario.

 

I expect a response

 

Peter

 

P, you know nobody's threatening you! I certainly wouldn't be involved if that were the case.........a red herring!!!! xxx

[Cornucopia]

HI Cornn

 

I don't think caro was reffering to you.

Better not be anyway

 

Peter

 

Bless you Peter, I do hope not! I have never been anything other than friendly and helpful on CAG, at least I like to think so!!

 

Anyway, will take my leave and hope you will let me know how you're getting on!

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[noomill060]

peterbard rocks!

 

bankfodder is asking for site helpers, I nominate peter. His tireless work in this thread goes above and beyond anything we could ask for.

[Peterbard]

Hi Noo

Never been asked

 

always a bridesmaid

never mind

 

Nice to here from old friends though don't you think

 

Best regards

Peter

[caro]

I was not referring to you Corn, but reading back through the thread, it had got a bit heated at times. Say Hi to my old mate Tam from me.

[elizabeth1]

peterbard rocks!

 

bankfodder is asking for site helpers, I nominate peter. His tireless work in this thread goes above and beyond anything we could ask for.

 

 

I totally agree!! Peter and some other posters here have gone beyond anything we ever expected from this forum!!

 

CAG has a lot of very helpful posters who go beyond our expectations - it would be nice to see their tireless work recognised.

[JonCris]

Quite right!! Caro.

 

To those others leave peterbard alone. His knowledge & contribution to this & other sites is invaluable - as are his what must be time consuming campaigns for justice for the put upon debtor

[make them aktiv runners]

A place I worked for transferred all their documentation into electronic rather than paper form. The paper form was destroyed. It was a very expensive exercise but in the long-term is was less expensive than paying rental costs of storing an ever increasing paper file. Before embarking on the exercise legal opinion was sought as to the admissability of the electronic documentation as evidence in court. Legal opinion said the documentation could be issued in electronic form provided there was a legal statement made at the point it was put into electronic form, ie the legal statement was copied at the same time as the documents.

 

Now, I admit these documents were in a different business and therefore not subject to s77-79. Equally I can see how the s77-79 could be abused. Personally I think if anything other than the original document is produced hen further evidence must be provided, eg for microfiche, the original microfiche to show exactly that the CCA was copied in whole and is compatable with the rest of the microfiche.

 

Again my opinion (from many evidence submitted on here), the banks staff did not transfer these documents into electronic form in full, eg they accidently ommitted copying the terms & conditions, in which case the original microfiche would prove that.

[Guest Mincemeat]

Oh, don't upset the apple cart, don't say anything against the consensus of opinion.

 

I mean, the knowledge of all posters here only goes back what, 18 months at most on the majority of these issues. Of course, the banks and credit card companies who grew up with the act would not have done anything as silly as checked into the legality of admissibility before wholescale destruction of the original documents, hoping that no-one would counter them?

 

Check out section 8 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995:

 

8 Proof of statements contained in documents

(1) Where a statement contained in a document is admissible as evidence in civil proceedings, it may be proved–

(a) by the production of that document, or

(b) whether or not that document is still in existence, by the production of a copy of that document or of the material part of it,

authenticated in such manner as the court may approve.

(2) It is immaterial for this purpose how many removes there are between a copy and the original.

 

Now, lets go back to what I said in the beginning shall we, before this got stupid. You need an arguement, a point, a reason to question a copy document in court if it is produced in lieu of the original. You could be up against an expert witness and / or a signed statement from the person or department who archived the documents in the first place. Simply stating 'I didn't sign it', 'they must have forged it' etc will not wash.

 

You're going to have to convince the judge, who will be shown direct debit receipts, or payment receipts etc that prove you have some sort of arrangement with them, that you've been happily paying for this agreement for some time.... Do I need to go on?

 

Oh, and re-read section 127 of the CCA 1974 and see what you think their solicitor is going to make 'a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer' sound like.

 

As far as cases, show me one where a copy document has not been accepted then?

[Guest Mincemeat]

As for you personal problem with me i really don't have the time to deal with it.

 

If you think I have a personal problem with you (I don't, actually) this is possibly down to the fact that whenever questionned, mostly about the distance marketing regs, rather than provide any information on any point you would simply state 'read the regs'. There are many posts out there.

[Guest Mincemeat]

I would just be sat in court asking them to produce the legislation that allows a copy to be used as proof for the purpose of enforcement

 

See an earlier post

 

I cannot see any way a judge could honestly accept anything less than the original document with the debtors signature, and that would certainly be my argument were micro produced in court

 

So you would have an arguement prepared then would you? Good. That's all I said. You need a reason to question the production of microfiche or some other reproduction of the agreement.

 

The basis of any Defence needs to be clear proof that the Claimants claim is invalid - e.g: a original document complying to the regulations (signed in the prescribed manner and containing the prescribed terms) exists

 

In my experiences so far they are just trying to blind the judge with waffle - it remains to be seen if this will work

 

(most certainly not if I have anything to do with it)

 

The bottom line here is, be prepared, expect them to come up with this and counter it. Don't just freeze at that point or you'll be in trouble.

[Guest Mincemeat]

The standard directions require the documents to be sent to the court before the hearing.

A direction to bring original documents to the hearing is made in all cases.

 

How can a judge make an enforcement order if the above is not complied with.

 

A copy can be accepted as proof, it is up to the parties at the table to question this. If a creditor turns up with a copy agreement and proof of payments etc, if you don't question this - and I mean say the right things, the court will accept the copy, so the judge can and will make an enforcement order.

[Guest Mincemeat]

I am not misquoting the judgement. The Lawlords ruled that S.127 was to protect the debtor from unscrupulous lenders. That would show that the Lawlords were under little illusion as to sharp practices etc being carried out by possibly some lenders. That is why it would be unlikely that the Higher Courts would accept a one sided microfiche copy and a blank agreement containing the missing prescribed terms to make an agreement enforceable.

 

Those same law lords who have removed that part?

 

A one sided agreement, as you put it, and a pre-printed piece of stationary that is two sided may well prove to be compelling evidence for a judge actually. Again, be sure of the reasons why you don't accept it. Again, simply stating it may be fraudulent will probably not wash - you are going to need a reason.

[Guest Mincemeat]

I don't need to do the legwork, I'm just trying to stop misconceptions being perpetuated on this thread that we discussed to death previously. Ask youself what happened to the original contributors to this thread and where there expertise and knowledge has gone......[/quote]

 

HI

 

Feel i must resopnd to the last bit highlighted.

Some of the previous and learned contributers felt justifyabley or not they were being misstreated by this forum that is why they chose to post elswhere. I was invited to join and them and have the honour of being part of their new community in my function as moderator.

I have the greatest respect for the integrity of all these and am in fact pleased on occasion to contribute along with them.

 

 

I however remain here because i feel this is where i can be of the most use.

Different people have different motives for posting on here.

 

I think the aggressive attitude taken by you is counterproductive and covers a basic missunderstanding of the issues you are attempting to discuss.

If you have proof of what you say and can present it in an intellegent and unconfrontional manner i wil be pleased to acept it otherwise i ahall continue to ignore your imput

 

Regards

Peter

 

Again, a personal attack on me. Where was one on you?

[Guest Mincemeat]

If a document is to be relied on in court it must be authentic.

 

The usual directions remind the parties that the originals should be in court. If the document is in dispute the "maker" of the document will be needed to prove that the document itself is authentic if the case is about the autheticity of that particular document.

 

I would argue that anything other than the original doesn't comply with the above, and a party relying on a document need to prove that the document is the original if disputed

 

See where this post falls down? So the usual directions therefore accept that there are cases where this is not possible then? If it was a requirement, I think the word MUST would be where that SHOULD word is.

[Guest Mincemeat]

Hi

 

None of the corrsponence or literature i have quoted says that the court definately would not enforce if the orriginal agreement is not provided what they do say is that it wouuld be very difficullt to enforce without the orriginal aggreement.

Dispite what has been said the burden of proof is on the creditor to prove authentisity and not the debtor.

 

I actually agree with this, but the fact is, if a microfiched agreement is produced, along with safeguards to the court that it is a true copy etc etc etc, it will be allowed unless you can counter it

 

If the agreement presented to court is not the orriginal it is not up to the debtor to get the leave of the court not to admit it quite the contrary.

Regards

Peter

 

This part is hardly going to provide solice to all of those people out there who have CCJ's against them as the didn't question the validity of the photocopied agreement provided by the CCP. If you don't question it, the judge will accept it!

[Guest Mincemeat]

Mincemeat,

 

First let me say thank you injecting some adrenaline into this thread, its great to see some in depth debating going on on this topic. You have certainly made your views clear, some of which contradict slightly with what atleast I have always believed. However, I simply cannot accept your view that anything but the original copy of an agreement is acceptable to a court when making a judgement on enforcability. If this is your contention please show evidence of case law or other legislation to that effect.

 

What you are saying goes against the very crux of our argument, the prospect of us debtors being able to challenge creditors in court pretty much goes out the window if the judge is able to make an enforcement order without the original agreement. I look forward to your response

 

regards,

shane

 

Judges have, do and will continue to make enforcement orders against the naive and underprepared. A court will do whatever the CCP or DCA want them to unless YOU stop them. If you don't challenge something, the judge is not going to outwardly say 'psst, say this or that' so the crux of the arguement with regards to admissibility of microfiche is wrong. Be aware that this is a thread in which I have posted hundreds of times and I have heard all of the permutations of the various sections of the CCA.

 

On a different note, despite whatever comments are made by PM's down to the paranoia between posters on this thread, I am not a MiB, nor do I have any affilliation on a professional level to any financial organisation. I am not an expert witness used by financial companies for CCA cases that end up in court either. If the consensus of opinion has veered off the straight and true on this thread, every now and again a correction is needed. Think of this as a credit crunch for consumer consensus.

[Guest Mincemeat]

Peter has the original letters/emails from the DTI/OFT etc and would, I am sure, be happy to provide any of us with a copy if needed. If we produce this in Court, and state to the judge that this is the opinion of the regulatory bodies, do you really think the judge will discount this just because the creditor says it isn't so.

 

The fact remains that the original is, and always has been, needed as long as the debtor has the sense to ask for this. If they don't challenge the creditor to produce the original and in effect acknowledge the debt, then the judge won't do the work for us (as has been stated on here many times before).

 

Ian, a small point I know, but valid non the less.

 

You are going to argue in court that the DCA / CCP needs to provide the original agreement and for proof you are going to provide second hand copies of correspondence between two third parties? Do you really think the judge will accept this? or even pay it any credence? You can't have your cake and eat it I'm afraid, these are mutually exclusive.

[Guest Mincemeat]

You are far from stoping missconseptions you are in fact introducing them.

 

Sorry you took it so personally Peter, it wasn't meant that way. I strenuously dispute your supposition that I am introducing misconceptions though. You continue to misquote what I have said and, quite frankly, automatically stating I am wrong without understanding what I have written. The misconception you are continuing to promote is that if a copy of a document is provided in court you automatically win, and this is categorically wrong and reckless in the extreme.

 

 

Your points are fatuous and irrellevant it is clear what was meant in my posting regarding copies of copies,(i do not say photo copies of photo copies)any way how would you tell if something was a photocopy of a photocopy and to begin with wouldn't you need the orriginal anyway. irrelavant Rubbish.

If you had bothered to read the post from the begining you would see that all it does is quote the legislation.

 

I had no problem with the legislation, but the misconceptions that sprung forth from the statement you yourself have admitted in the above statement as being ambiguous needed to be addressed.

 

 

I notice you say you have posted 400 times so i presume that means you felt it nessesary to change your name i have posted over1800 and not found the need wonder why that is.

 

I actually stated 'in this thread', but you again misquote me and don't read or understand what is written. I am impressed with the 1800 posts though, I've only managed 2400 on the sites I contribute to, so I bow to your expertise.