Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Here's something I'm hoping to clarify before I get in trouble for it:   There is a street close to where I live that was transformed into a temporary Pedestrian and Cycle Zone due to a school that's there. I know I can't enter it during those times, but can I be fined for having my car parked on that street while the zone is active? So far I have only heard one interpretation, from my neighbour, who said you can have your car parked there and you can exit the zone while it is operational, oddly enough, but before I take her word for it I want to get some more opinions on the matter.   For reference, here is what the Council's own website states: "It is an offence to enter or drive in an active school Street without a valid school street permit." (emphasis mine) Would this prove my neighbour right or can they still find a different interpretation to it that would carry the risk of a fine if I park my car there?   The sign for the zone is very similar to the image attached below, only different operating times.      
    • good i can see where you got that from  pers i'd put back, suitable adapted the line:   3.Throughout this period XXX only ever served estimated bills which were grossly over estimated with values unrelated to actual use. There was and still remains an unresolved dispute with XXX which was never resolved prior to the assignment of the alleged debt.
    • Hi Mr S,   Read other threads here posted over the last year or so.   We pretty much advise the same thing - ignore demands from the gym, their admin company, any DCA they use and any legal firm they use.   No need to engage with the gym or admin company to discuss or argue your wish to cancel - it'll get you nowhere.   If you want to leave the gym now, just give a month's written notice then cancel the DD m,andate .   If you want to cancel from October 2021, confirm this to the gym in writing early October, allow the final DD to be taken in October, then cancel the DD mandate.   You'll see from other threads that no action is taken to claim money and gym m/ships do not affect your credit records.
    • Update on the situation:   Following the run in with the police he has actually gone to the police station himself to question what he was told and was told there is no issue with him idling or moving the car around the car park, so the police officers who told him that were wrong.   As a side note, he knows who it is that's reporting him. Seems to be a bit of a feud between them, but the clarification he got from the police should at least stop them coming around every time a report is made.   Thank you to everyone who replied to this question!
    • I have had another good look around but still struggled to find any templates. I did find a defence on a thread that I have adapted below. I would greatly appreciate some input before I file it. Again, many thanks in advance.   Defence   1. I the Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   2. It is admitted that I have had a supply and service agreement with Co-operative Energy in the past. During the period, Co-operative Energy actively blocked me from hanging to a cheaper tariff or switching provider as there was an outstanding balance on the account.   3. Throughout this period Co-operative Energy served estimated bills. This is shown in the one copy of a bill that the claimant has been able to provide. The claimant has given no details as to the full breakdown of their claim and what dates it relates to, so I am unable to defend specifically until the claimant can particularise and quantify its pleadings.   4. Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges are now over 12 months old and relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging.   5. The claimant does not have access to the agreement nor was the Assignor required to retain a copy. Therefore their claim is unsubstantiated.   Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a written agreement.   1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement,  the original(s) should be available at the hearing along with a complete breakdown of how the charges accrued by date and amount.   With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: -   a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.   6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   7. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3132 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi All.

 

I have a thread elsewhere on another debt I have.

 

This is my first post about this one. Now owned by a DCA, it is for a credit card that originally started in 1998.

 

In response to a CCA request for it, the DCA that now owns the debt has provided a reconstitution that is missing the original terms.

 

They also state

Due to the age of the account the original executed agreement is no longer available...
I am assuming that this soundly makes the debt unenforceable?

 

I know I should know this stuff by now - but please could someone confirm?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they cannot supply a copy of the original signed agreement then unenforceable as per CCA 127(3) as in photo copy etc with your signature and all prescribed terms.

 

dpick

cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi All.

 

I have a thread elsewhere on another debt I have.

 

This is my first post about this one. Now owned by a DCA, it is for a credit card that originally started in 1998.

 

In response to a CCA request for it, the DCA that now owns the debt has provided a reconstitution that is missing the original terms.

 

They also state

I am assuming that this soundly makes the debt unenforceable?

 

I know I should know this stuff by now - but please could someone confirm?

 

They are precluded from enforcement whilst in breach of your cca request. If they do comply by providing the original terms the agreement would be enforceable. However, if you were to deny signing any agreement this would be a different matter and the evidential hurdle would be hard to overcome.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Parliament's intention in enacting section 127(3) of the 1974 Act was to make a loan, made under a regulated agreement, unenforceable in certain events. The courts cannot defeat that intention by allowing some alternative means of recovery.' Wilson case.

in general, Q is what proof would be required (or would a J accept) to show that there was/is a signed doc that contains all of the prescribed terms? and can such 'proof' be rebutted, if required, to tip the balance.

any recon should be accurate as defined (kotecha v phoenix case), which should include copy original terms.

Edited by Ford

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they cannot supply a copy of the original signed agreement then unenforceable as per CCA 127(3) as in photo copy etc with your signature and all prescribed terms.

 

dpick

Not true. They only have to prove that on the balance of probabilities an enforceable agreement was signed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry friend but CCA 1974 s127(3) still applies for agreements prior to April 2007 and this agreement was from 1998

 

dpick

cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of course 127 applies. However the bank does not have to present the original in court if they can prove that an enforceable agreement must have been signed , this was quite clearly stated by Waksman see section 229

Link to post
Share on other sites

just to be sure, which case do you refer to? afaik, W was referring re a cca request. which was later addressed in kotecha, ie yes a recon, but recon must be accurate?

s127 (3) relates to an improperly executed agreement s61 (1) (a) and s65, not s77/78. so, if they can't show a properly executed agreement then they need to rely on s65. which in turn is dependent on s127 (re pre 2007). as per my post #4, q is what proof is required re showing that? cca request proof excepted.

 

also, in any event, where a claim is based on a written agreement a copy of the original 'should' be available in court according to the cpr. but, what weight does that have? :)

Edited by Ford

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
just to be sure, which case do you refer to? afaik, W was referring re a cca request. which was later addressed in kotecha, ie yes a recon, but recon must be accurate?

s127 (3) relates to an improperly executed agreement s61 (1) (a) and s65, not s77/78. so, if they can't show a properly executed agreement then they need to rely on s65. which in turn is dependent on s127 (re pre 2007). as per my post #4, q is what proof is required re showing that? cca request proof excepted.

 

also, in any event, where a claim is based on a written agreement a copy of the original 'should' be available in court according to the cpr. but, what weight does that have? :)

 

I'm afraid there isn't a one cap fits all aproach to this, each case would be settled by evidence provided and if the claimant proves on balance that a document was signed containing the prescribed terms the DJ will enforce, however, as i've previously stated if the debtor denies signing then the DJ would probably insist on the claimant presenting the original.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not sign the agreement - it was posted. Call me cynical for not signing it and posting it back. And call them cynical for supplying the credit despite this.

 

Is the admission that the original agreement is no longer available sufficient evidence for defence of a claim that stated in the Particulars that an agreement was in force?

 

Or would I still need to ask the opposing side to produce a signed agreement (under S.127(3)) as part of my defence?

 

I.e. is my position the same as if I didn't have a letter stating that they do not have the original agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not sign the agreement - it was posted. Call me cynical for not signing it and posting it back. And call them cynical for supplying the credit despite this.

 

Is the admission that the original agreement is no longer available sufficient evidence for defence of a claim that stated in the Particulars that an agreement was in force?

 

Or would I still need to ask the opposing side to produce a signed agreement (under S.127(3)) as part of my defence?

 

I.e. is my position the same as if I didn't have a letter stating that they do not have the original agreement?

 

IMO, the DJ would require sight of the signed original document.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Ok, so my scenario is similar. I have an "credit card request form" sent to me as the copy of my agreement taken out in 2002. It has no prescribed terms on it. Do I take it that this is un-enforcable? When I said it didnt comply to my CCA request they said they had sent me a copy of my "Application", their words, not "Agreement", is that an admission that what they have sent me is not an Agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Ok, so my scenario is similar. I have an "credit card request form" sent to me as the copy of my agreement taken out in 2002. It has no prescribed terms on it. Do I take it that this is un-enforcable? When I said it didnt comply to my CCA request they said they had sent me a copy of my "Application", their words, not "Agreement", is that an admission that what they have sent me is not an Agreement?

 

An application is not an Agreement. They must provide a copy of the signed Agreement that includes all the prescribed terms or at least refers to them so that they can be easily seen. If they do NOT have that agreement, they could cobble one together by taking an agreement from the same period and showing your signature on the application and I guess hope the Judge gives them the balance of probability. depends what sort of Judge you get, but the onus is on them to prove it... maybe someone else would confirm if this is how it is ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts have accepted applications as the agreement as long as the application has all the required items under the CCA1974.

 

dpick

cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then as post 2 unenforceable under s127(3) see fords post 8 above.

 

dpick

cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so what do I do now, the judge found in favour of the claimant and refused me the right to appeal in court.

 

Just re read you thread no mention of court, no posting of POC etc. We cannot help without proper information.

 

dpick

cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, they should if they have one. if not, then they would have to show that there was such a debtor signed doc that contains all of the prescribed terms (if s127(3)(4)).

an accurate recon (not a cut and paste job) would satisfy a cca request. if not deemed accurate, then unenforceable in court re cca request until it is so (kotecha case).

bandit - 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. and, no gaurantees.

if appealing, bear in mind costs.

also, there is the requirement for compliant default notice (if applicable), woodchester, harrison, brandon cases.

Edited by Ford

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Folks, here are all the letters and details for my wifes case. I could do with someone having a look as we have had a letter from the court confirming the CCJ and that we have to contact the creditors. How long do I have and can I appeal even though it says appeal denied on the letter.

 

heres a link to all the scans of the paperwork

 

http://s911.photobucket.com/albums/ac318/zentrix9/Mrs%20HSBC/

Edited by ZENTRIX9
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok Folks, here are all the letters and details for my wifes case. I could do with someone having a look as we have had a letter from the court confirming the CCJ and that we have to contact the creditors. How long do I have and can I appeal even though it says appeal denied on the letter.

 

heres a link to all the scans of the paperwork

 

http://s911.photobucket.com/albums/ac318/zentrix9/Mrs%20HSBC/

 

 

Thanks for that info in your files, same situation as myself to a degree, falsely stating CCJ when not at the time etc.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...