CCA Request Response - "original executed agreement no longer available"

[catquest]

I looked at your photos but I couldn't find a copy of your CC defence that was struck out

 

Also I have just noticed on the left of your signatue box you agreed to the terms " overleaf " - that is enough cf Waksman in his section on enforceable documents, although as far as CCA request is concerned of course a true copy of that page had to be sent

Edited September 11, 2012 by catquest

[ZENTRIX9]

I looked at your photos but I couldn't find a copy of your CC defence that was struck out

 

Also I have just noticed on the left of your signatue box you agreed to the terms " overleaf " - that is enough cf Waksman in his section on enforceable documents, although as far as CCA request is concerned of course a true copy of that page had to be sent

 

What, its enforceable because agreed to terms overleaf? If so there is only a booklet supplied with the cca Also no prescribed terms supplied.

[catquest]

Can you display a copy of the original terms and condition they supplied you with the CCA ?

[ZENTRIX9]

Heres a link to the CCA terms and conditions they sent when I requested them. I cant remember the HSBC person giving them to us. I think she said that they were out and would forward them to us.

 

http://s911.photobucket.com/albums/ac318/zentrix9/Mrs%20HSBC/CCA%20Terms%20and%20conditions/

[catquest]

Can't view, it's a "private" album

[ZENTRIX9]

It should work now

 

http://s911.photobucket.com/albums/a...%20conditions/

[catquest]

Well for instance the page with 2.5 on has the interest rate stated.

Remember they don't have to give you an exact photocopy of the "overleaf" section, only a copy ( from other sources )but the terms have to be exactly the same.

[ZENTRIX9]

Ok, am I right thinking the following.

 

I signed an application form (1992), to be enforcable it has to have all the prescribed terms within the 4 corners (which it doesnt have). A document that fully conforms to the CCA 1974 must be presented in court to be enforced. This is not an agreement and they should have sent a debtor signed doc that contains all of the prescribed terms (if s127(3)(4)). for my wife to sign.

As the document they sent me for my CCA request is an application form and not a debtor signed document then they have not complied with my CCA so it is not an accurate recon so would not satisfy a cca request. If not deemed accurate, then unenforceable in court re cca request until it is so (kotecha case).

I would then need to mention s127 3,4 and put them to strict proof that they have satisfied it (they have the initial burden of proof anyway, but should mention s127 3,4 anyway just in case cred friendly j forgets s127!). note that if using s127 3,4 would require careful argument if required ready to rebut any of their usual arguments why s127 satisfied. They also closed the account before issuing the default notice which is in breach of the consumer credit act, not to mention that DG Solicitors lied about my wife getting a CCJ (Harassment). Also misold PPI which they have paid back.

Would this be enough to appeal?

[catquest]

Not correct. The "four corners" is not literal, it can be "overleaf" or " attached" see Waksman s 173. The application form IS an agreement, it says so on the top and in the signature box, so it is ok for s127 3 . Kotecha dealt with the contents of the TOCs being exactly the same. The original document does not have to be produced in court, only balance of probabilities that such a document was signed

[Old Cogger]

Ok, am I right thinking the following.

 

I signed an application form (1992), to be enforcable it has to have all the prescribed terms within the 4 corners (which it doesnt have). A document that fully conforms to the CCA 1974 must be presented in court to be enforced. This is not an agreement and they should have sent a debtor signed doc that contains all of the prescribed terms (if s127(3)(4)). for my wife to sign.

As the document they sent me for my CCA request is an application form and not a debtor signed document then they have not complied with my CCA so it is not an accurate recon so would not satisfy a cca request. If not deemed accurate, then unenforceable in court re cca request until it is so (kotecha case).

I would then need to mention s127 3,4 and put them to strict proof that they have satisfied it (they have the initial burden of proof anyway, but should mention s127 3,4 anyway just in case cred friendly j forgets s127!). note that if using s127 3,4 would require careful argument if required ready to rebut any of their usual arguments why s127 satisfied. They also closed the account before issuing the default notice which is in breach of the consumer credit act, not to mention that DG Solicitors lied about my wife getting a CCJ (Harassment). Also misold PPI which they have paid back.

Would this be enough to appeal?

 

Signed application form - 1992 ???? HSBC????? (Midland Bank)?

D.G. non Solicitors stating CCJ obtained = As If they would ==== YES They do and get away with it in as much their solicitors in court inform DJ that the proceedures vis Northampton etc after submission of N1 acceptance form is automatically entered into CCJ, (they forget that DD Sol at the time make areas of mistakes) the DJ then states oH well mistakes happen, and the FOS state well you are not out of pocket because of that, ?? well there you are, my case is on going.

[Guest]

zentrix

as catquest says, to satisfy s127 3,4 they would need to prove on balance that there was a signed document that includes the prescribed terms. such a document could be an application form signed with terms.

kotecha re a cca request ie any recon must be accurate. they would have to show that it is accurate, any evidence of which can be rebutted by def if available (as in kotecha). if court deems recon re cca request is inaccurate, with reference to kotecha, then ct can't enforce until accurate recon served.

unfortunately, cpr only says that where there is a claim re a written agreement that the original should be available at court, not must.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ford

[jackospades]

I think in context 'should' means that if the document is available , whereas 'must' assumes the document is available.