Cap1 & CCA return

[Guest Mincemeat]

HI

 

The credit limit is a prescribed term on an running credit agreement regulated by the consumer credit act and if missing or incorrect would render the agreement unenforceable uner section 127(3) of the act.

The court would have no option in the matter.

 

Peter

 

But taken in context to the question posted, where the statement is something along the lines of 'We will inform you of your credit limit, it will be X, Y or Z' and the credit limit is something different, the court would have a harder time deciding on whether or not enforcement would be allowed.

[Guest Mincemeat]

Hi

 

Not being funny but wouldn't you have thought that the banks would have

thought they would get stuffed for unlawful charges or incrrectly executed agreements.

 

Perhaps they make mistakes you think

 

Peter

 

Yes, people are infallable. Banks make mistakes. Remember that if a mistake is too large for them to rectify, the legislation is changed and the banks are again protected. The whole consumer revolution thing here has yet to kick in completely and it is my belief that we're going to see an SI that makes the removal of s127 protection retrospective from the 2006 act to cover the 1974 act.

[Guest Mincemeat]

Right, that's made up for the fact that I was online at 8am yesterday and didn't come back online until about 14 hours later. Just thought I'd set the record straight. Apologies if Peter can't work out a clue as to who I am and misconstrues it as a personal afront but hey, what the heck!

 

I'm off now to see the GP where Hamilton becomes world champion.

[conar686]

Hi, conar, the simple argument against the arguments that I've raised is that as I said, you require a handwriting expert to assess the signature (if this is disputed), and in practical reality (rather than legal fiction) it is rather easy to select an expert who will state that they are unable to determine whether a signature was signed by you without the original document.

 

For example

 

Forensic handwriting analysis in the UK

 

 

Fair comment Tom, my view was more General and based on a judge agreeing the legalities or not of allowing copies on the balance of probabilities & what's reasonable, after all I think neither side will want to undertake the costs of a large amount of 'expert witnesses' to recover a debt of £1000:oops:

[conar686]

Conar, do you really think TS are going to show up in Court just because we ask them to?

 

No, Ian, and thats my point. If we produce evidence in our case based on TS/OFT/DTi statements surely we need to be able to corroberate them if challenged by a representative from falsifier, fabricator & fibber, Sols.

[conar686]

H

it just gets worse now i am being caled a liar

all the letters posted are complete with the senders identification i assure that if in doubt it would be an easy to contact their office for authentification . i thought i would never have to hear the day when my honour was put in question this way.

 

Regards

Peter

 

Not what I meant at all Peter, and if I gave that impression I apologise unreservedly. The point I was making was we need to be able to corroborate statements we produce in evidence and you've done that in the post above.

 

I like all the others appreciate your knowledge on the subject and freely given assistance when requested.

[conar686]

Peter, please try not to worry about it, it's just a couple of users. The vast majority are very grateful for your input here!

 

The above is really unhelpful Ian, See post above re my apology. Your comments are just the sort of statement that kick off acrimony and argument rather than adult debate.

 

Just as well I'm not a shy retiring young flower and don't take offence easily.

[conar686]

Tomterm, Mincemeat & co may be right in that on occasion a DJ may well allow a microfiche copy despite the debtors protests but I doubt if that decision was appealed that the Higher Courts would take the same view.

 

I suppose I'm the & co, I may have got this whole debate wildly wrong but weren't we discussing what the other side may do & how we could counter this.

 

If Wilson does it - great, I've not had a chance to read it yet as I too busy defending myself on this thread.

 

My stance yesterday & this morning was, once the doubt door was opened, its not important by whom, I personally wanted the comfort of knowing how this would be countered when/if I go to court.

 

There is nothing wrong with being the 'devils advocate' in a grown up debate.

[conar686]

Well if that's the case then it is a big mistake. No doubt I will be banned now for arguing.

 

Also, Shane, no disrespect to you but if you weren't aware of the quality of postings of either of the above, then comment ought not be passed. I have purposely stayed off here for quite some time now, but I do hate to see those that I consider to be valuable contributors treated with such disdane.

 

Further, Peter knows all of us (well enough now I would hope) and would surely agree.

 

Regards,

 

Cornucopia

 

Hear Hear, I'm about to do the same. Everyone is entitled to a view even if its the dumbest thing you've ever heard (I exclude none of my posts anywhere from that statement).

 

Peter as the recognised SME on this & other CCA threads is to be cherished but thats not to mean he can't be challenged (politely)

[conar686]

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

 

Please show/point out the threads where Peters knowledge or contirbution have been denigrated.

 

No one is bullying Peter, I do not see him complaining (other than my misunderstood post) and I'm sure he does not need your help in defending himself.

 

His advice, knowledge & contribution are greatly appreciated but as he says himeself - he's not infallible.

[tomterm8]

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.

 

 

Aha! Now I see where you are coming from!

 

The document introduced as a microfiche copy via the legislation would be subject to exactly the same law in terms of enforceability and prescribed terms, as the original document.

 

In addition, if the agreement was split in several places (i.e. to record it) they would have to be able to prove each document was related to the other.

 

The only argument I was responding to was the argument that a copy of a document couldn't* be admitted into evidence, which is simply not correct, regardless of the wilson cases or any of the other precident mentioned so far(none of which are precidents whose ratio is about evidence; in each case, there was no dispute that the consumer credit agreement was the one the parties actually signed).

 

Statute law trumping precident.

 

Fair comment Tom, my view was more General and based on a judge agreeing the legalities or not of allowing copies on the balance of probabilities & what's reasonable, after all I think neither side will want to undertake the costs of a large amount of 'expert witnesses' to recover a debt of £1000:oops:

 

There are many cases where we are talking about debts around £20,000. What is appropriate in one case, isn't in another.

 

 

* i note, peter never said that such a copy couldn't be admitted into evidence, but felt many people were misinterpreting what I believe he and the OFT have said, which is that it would be very hard to prove that such a document was an exact duplicate of the one you have signed.

[paulwlton]

Yes, people are infallable. Banks make mistakes. Remember that if a mistake is too large for them to rectify, the legislation is changed and the banks are again protected. The whole consumer revolution thing here has yet to kick in completely and it is my belief that we're going to see an SI that makes the removal of s127 protection retrospective from the 2006 act to cover the 1974 act.

 

After speaking with the OFT on Friday this is my belief as well

[ian1969uk]

After speaking with the OFT on Friday this is my belief as well

 

That is most worrying, and could cause chaos as previously *resolved* issues were dragged before a court to be looked at again. It is very difficult, though, to make legislation backdated and I hope that this will not happen as once again it shows that the CCA is being moved from it's original purpose of protecting the consumer and shifted towards supporting the creditor whatever wrongs they have committed.

[Peterbard]

Right, that's made up for the fact that I was online at 8am yesterday and didn't come back online until about 14 hours later. Just thought I'd set the record straight. Apologies if Peter can't work out a clue as to who I am and misconstrues it as a personal afront but hey, what the heck!

 

I'm off now to see the GP where Hamilton becomes world champion.

 

Hi m55/mincer

Fifteen consecutive posts total sum of reliable useful and helpful information 0.

Nice to see you keeping to your old standard

 

Best regards

PETRBARD

[Peterbard]

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.

 

Hi please see my piece on distance marketing on my enforceable agreemnts thread.

Peter

[Peterbard]

See an earlier post

 

 

 

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.

 

No we go into court without one

 

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.

 

What a good idea must write it down

 

 

Hi

wisdom indeed

[Peterbard]

Hear Hear, I'm about to do the same. Everyone is entitled to a view even if its the dumbest thing you've ever heard (I exclude none of my posts anywhere from that statement).

 

Peter as the recognised SME on this & other CCA threads is to be cherished but thats not to mean he can't be challenged (politely)

 

hI

 

By all means argue with me but lets do it with a degree of mutual respect and humour if possible .

 

Whats an SME??

Hope its a good thing

 

Regards

Peter

[caro]

For information some posts which were unacceptable have been removed, so please can we stick to the issues here.

 

No-one should ever take any posts on here as gospel unquestioningly, and should always check the facts for themselves before deciding the best course of action for themselves, if necessary taking advice from a qualified/certified professional.

[Guest Mincemeat]

Fifteen consecutive posts total sum of reliable useful and helpful information 0.

Nice to see you keeping to your old standard

 

Best regards

PETRBARD

 

And you to making statements refuting statements without actually countering anything that has been said.

 

You have said a copy agreement will automatically be thrown out by a judge. This is wrong and there are thousands of CCJ's out there to refute that. But hey, I'm not making any useful posts. I would just like to say that you heard it here first - go straight into court and don't worry about the fact that they've only got a copy of your agreement because the judge is on your side, he won't give you a CCJ that superceeds the agreement at all, he'll stop them in their tracks. Don't worry, you'll be able to sit there all innocently and say 'but they have forged it'. The judge will take this and throw the case out.

 

Continue giving such wonderful advice Peter, continue lining people up for financial woes, continue making people not wise up to the reality of what is in store for them and continue to make people feel rosy inside. What is it going to take to make you realise the errors of your ways? Pathetic attempts to insult me are meaningless, but your gung-ho, inability to take criticism and debate, taking things too personally and basically being unable to see the errors of your ways is astounding.

 

Think about the absurdities of your posts. You are stating that a copy is inadmissible, or at best will be hard to get past a judge (both wrong!) by making people quote letters you have received are absurd. Your asking a judge to throw out a copy of a document on one hand (signed by you that may well be enforceable) on the basis of a letter or an email from someone you have never met sent to someone else you have never met but told you on a website somewhere that a copy was inadmissible? Do you think their solicitor is going to let that slide? You're attempting to advocate a hobsons choice, a catch 22, an absurd absolute on a wing and a prayer. The facts of the matter are this: CCJ's are issued on a daily basis across the UK using microfiched copies of an agreement, this is, and will continue to be, accepted by the judges in county court. You must have a reason to believe the copy agreement is not acceptable and it must be convincing. A judge that sees payments made by you, a microfiched copy of an agreement signed by you and an outlandish arguement along the lines that the agreement is in some way falsified will get you a CCJ, end of story.

 

So, are you going to go back and edit your posts this time like you did the last time we argued, so as to put a positive spin on what you had written?

[Guest Mincemeat]

Apologies Caro, I'm not being personal and the last post obviously took longer to write than the 1 minute after you had posted.

[Peterbard]

Hi never gone back and edited posts

never said any of the above absurd nonesence

not worth responding to

 

Peter

[paulwlton]

The fact is court claims issued by creditors need to be challenged on the basis that the agreements are unenforceable by virtue of sec 127 (3).

 

Judges will continue to hand out judgments even if there is no agreement submitted at the hearing. in the first 6 months of this year judgments are reported to be at an all time high, the creditor plays on our ignorance.

[Peterbard]

The fact is court claims issued by creditors need to be challenged on the basis that the agreements are unenforceable by virtue of sec 127 (3).

 

Judges will continue to hand out judgments even if there is no agreement submitted at the hearing. in the first 6 months of this year judgments are reported to be at an all time high, the creditor plays on our ignorance.

 

HI

And this is the function of this site to arm ourselves with as much knowledge as possible in order to defend ourselves.

Nobody gets a free ride in court or anywhere else knowledge is power.

 

Regards

Peter

[shane5408]

This is getting ridiculous now.

 

Mincemeat, I personally can state of 4 cases i know of (as i was present at court at the time) of instances where due to the original agreement not being produced the creditor lost and enforcement order was not granted.

 

1 of the cases the creditor failed to show up so, yet even so it shows in that instance they were not willing to risk it. All they had as proof was a mailshot type agreement which was signed by the debtor.

 

the other 3 cases were all argued in court in front of a district judge, creditors produced statements and copy agreements (some with, some wthout prescribed terms). In each instance the overriding argument used was without the original agreement which contained prescribed terms etc agreement is unenforcable. In 1 case the debtors did produce mock up statements, actually used the judges name as well which he found quite amusing. I am sure there are many others here who know of similar cases as well. Not once have i heard a creditor bring up the evidence act.

Can you just agree to disagree and leave it at that please.

[paulwlton]

HI

And this is the function of this site to arm ourselves with as much knowledge as possible in order to defend ourselves.

Nobody gets a free ride in court or anywhere else knowledge is power.

 

Regards

Peter

 

Totally agree.