CCA's and Dave against the world !!!

[speedtrip]

sounds like a g8 idea to me .... will inspection take place at hearing prior to trial because that must be your objective so you can prepare your defence.

 

If you have no PS you should be on good ground anyway ....im not sure about my agreement and its not easy to get a good copy on here for you all to read.

 

I want to see the original before i go to court, or at least go down the route you are or, ask them if they intend to use "hearsay"

[macie]

In my case inspection of the originals is by arrangement between the Clamant and Defendant and is not dependent upon the court. It should have taken place before witness statements but obviously there are no originals to inspect??

 

I would appreciate any input whether 16.7.3 can be used equally by a Claimant or a Defendant as the Practice Direction states "attached to or served with the particulars of claim"

[JonCris]

Just a point but what's the DPA got to do with NOT having true copies. If that's what they are claiming it's complete rollocks If the account is active ie unpaid then they should have the documents.

 

Lets face it only an idiot disposes of the proof BEFORE a matte/account is settled. Don't let them get away with that rubbish about the DPA if that's what they intend to plead in court

[speedtrip]

I agree its rubbish and also dont understand why they couldnt find the agreement they now have when I issued them with a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)!!!

 

this is letter re no agreement (notice they use word application).

 

[mcuth]

I maybe in a similar situation. In my the judge has ordered Standard Disclosure followed by inspection of originals.

 

I think I'm in the similar situation too - though no inspection has been ordered...

 

The opposition have stated that they only have a photocopy of the documents as the originals destroyed. The documents concerned are a signed application form with no prescribed terms and a current set of terms and conditions (unsigned).

 

Ditto

 

I was thinking about serving Notice to prove documents at trial under CPR 32.19

 

"Notice to admit or produce documents

32.19 (1) A party shall be deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed to him under Part 31 (disclosure and inspection of documents) unless he serves notice that he wishes the document to be proved at trial.

(2) A notice to prove a document must be served –

(a) by the latest date for serving witness statements; or

(b) within 7 days of disclosure of the document, whichever is later."

 

Oooh, that's very interesting - just how do you go about doing that notice?

 

Cheers

Michael

[speedtrip]

you def want to have proof before trial

[BlueSquirrel]

I got a letter from our Humpty Dumpty friends today telling me they did not have the original of the agreement as "the FSA did not require them to." What's that got to do with anything? And where in the FSA regs does it say that anyway?

 

They say scanning documents makes for easier access. Well whoopy do, that might be true be they could keep the originals archived away couldn't they. Quite a snotty letter really. They offered me 16 quid back in charges if I accepted by the 11th or the offer would be withdrawn. And despite sending a detailed SAR letter using a template from this site, they said they thought I only wanted the agreement and statements as this is "what most customers want."

[pford]

I agree its rubbish and also dont understand why they couldnt find the agreement they now have when I issued them with a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)!!!

 

this is letter re no agreement (notice they use word application).

 

lol you will love these i got.

 

Whilst I appreciate your situation we can enforce repayment of this debt under Criminal Justification as spending on the account you have automatically agreed to the terms and conditions of the account and therefore remain liable for the above balance and can be continually pursued as such by our recovery Agents Blair Oliver Scott.

 

i do like par 3 of this letter

I refer to your letter received 1st may 2007 and please accept my apology that you still remain dissatisfied with our service.

 

I understand that you remain unhappy, as we have not yet provide you with a copy of your original application form to which you believe that you have paid a fee of £1 for and feel that we have acted unfairly by not issuing you with this document.

 

As advised in my last letter, as you have used the facilities of the account which have amounted to the outstanding balance under the new terms of the Consumer Credit Act section S15 we do not hold any obligation to issue you with a copy of said agreement as the legal timescale for such documents to be held is within the last 6 years period, in this case our records are held from 3rd May 2001 until the present day.

 

I can confirm that I have again requested for a copy of your original application form to be found however as your accounts opening date was the 23rd November 1998 we are not legally obliged to retain said information therefore I have arranged for a credit for £1 to be paid into your Halifax Current Account ********** which will reimburse you for the paid cost which should be credited in the next 7 days.

 

At all times Halifax Plc aims to provide the highest possible standards to customers and I am sorry that on this occasion we failed to meet your expectations. It is only by letting us know your concerns that can ultimately improve our service.

 

I sincerely hope your concerns have now been resolved to your satisfaction although should you remain unhappy we will escalate your concerns accordingly with a few to granting ombudsman referral rights.

 

then this

 

Your case has been referred to me in my role as a Customer Relations Manager with full authority to respond to customer concerns.

 

Can I firstly apologise for the delay in responding to your complaint. My understanding of your complaint is that you are unhappy that you have not been provide with a copy of your Credit Card Agreement. As such, you have advised that you feel that the debt is unenforceable under section 78 of the Credit Consumer Act 1974.

 

I am sorry that we were unable to provide you with a copy of your Credit Card Agreement. From our systems I note that you were made aware of this, in writing, by Halifax in January 2007.

 

I would like to confirm that the outstanding dept of £****** was written off by Halifax in March 2007. I fell that it is important to advise you that although the decision was made to write off the outstanding debt, this is not n admission of liability on the part of Halifax and should not viewed as such. The decision to write off the outstanding debt was a business decision based upon commercial viability.

 

Although the outstanding debt has been written off, Halifax are not disputing that you had the debt. As advised, the decision was based upon commercial viability and does not negate your responsibility towards the debt. As such, I regret to inform you that I am unable to alter the information held on your Credit File. Your Credit File will continue to show a default in regards to this account as it is a genuine reflection of the conduct of your accounts. You are also not entitled to a refund of any monies paid to lower the outstanding debt.

 

I appreciate that this will not be the answer that you were hoping for, however, I trust that this clarifies the Bank’s final position.

 

To comply with legislation, I would like to let you know that if you remain unhappy you can refer your concerns to the Financial Ombudsman Service

 

 

nottice the 2nd letter was sent in may but they wrote the debt of in march in their last letter ermmmmmmmmm

[citizenB]

Those of you who are being advised that original documents for whatever reason do not have to be kept for longer than 6 years might want to have a look at this thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/93884-wescot-rbofs-oh-dear-2.html#post935411

 

(post 32 if the link doesnt take you directly)

 

Rory42 was advised by Westcot (sp) that they didnt have original documents and in any case werent expected to keep them for longer than 6 years. Rory's reply is priceless and I believe won the day.

[JonCris]

They really do talk rubbish.

 

The DPA requires that they remove any adverse public data after 6 years as any unsecured debt is no longer enforceable because of limitation

 

It does NOT say they have to destroy data/agreements they hold for legitimate reasons after 6 years otherwise why are many of the banks producing statements they have held for many years longer than 6 years. In once case we know a particular bank has records going back to 1923!

 

As is so often the case with the DPA & the ICO weakness in policing it these companies are trying to use it to their advantage as they no full well that their desire to cut costs whilst totally ignoring their legal obligation has now come back to bite them

[The GodMother]

well said JC.

[macie]

Mcuth Oooh, that's very interesting - just how do you go about doing that notice?

 

Form N268 from courtservicedotgovdot.uk

[macie]

Mcuth Oooh, that's very interesting - just how do you go about doing that notice?

 

Form N268 from courtservicedotgovdotuk

[mcuth]

Form N268 from courtservicedotgovdotuk

 

Cool, thanks

 

Cheers

Michael

[The GodMother]

not the right web addy.

 

Her Majesty's Courts Service - Home

[citizenB]

 

Quote:

Whilst I appreciate your situation we can enforce repayment of this debt under Criminal Justification as spending on the account you have automatically agreed to the terms and conditions of the account and therefore remain liable for the above balance and can be continually pursued as such by our recovery Agents Blair Oliver Scott.

 

 

Exactly what, do they mean by this please ? It is my understanding that if they are unable to produce a signed document then they have given you a gift.

[Curlyben]

As ever more Bovine Excrement.

Consumer borrowing of this kind is regulated by CCA, as we all know.

Unless there was PROVEN fraudulent activity, like ID theft, this wont happen.

[citizenB]

Thanks CurlyBen

[car2403]

Exactly what, do they mean by this please ? It is my understanding that if they are unable to produce a signed document then they have given you a gift.

 

They are in breach of OFT Debt Collection Guidance by even mentioning the word "Criminal", IMHO;

 

e. falsely implying or stating that failure to pay a debt is a criminal offence or that criminal proceedings will be brought

[JonCris]

For a creditor or their agents to imply criminal sanctions against a debtor for non-payment is not only reprehensible but also illegal & would be a cause for action under the Fraud Act 2006.

 

but what can you expect from such people the law is meaningless to them

[pt2537]

Dave, any update on the Barclays situation???

[davefirewalker]

Dave, any update on the Barclays situation???

 

Just got back from my hols........tonight

 

nothing apart from them wanting to write the whole thing off

 

Am going to start giving them mega Sh*t ASAP

 

What does worry me though is UNI's decision, but I would expect to take this to appeal anyway.

 

Dave

[pt2537]

Just got back from my hols........tonight

 

nothing apart from them wanting to write the whole thing off

 

Am going to start giving them mega Sh*t ASAP

 

What does worry me though is UNI's decision, but I would expect to take this to appeal anyway.

 

Dave

yes , it was a bit of a shocker, but with a copy of Goode Consumer Credit Law and Practice on the table in front of you, i doubt that you would have the same result

 

Un1boys result was purely due to the judges ignorance of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 thats for sure

[andrew1]

 

Un1boys result was purely due to the judges ignorance of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 thats for sure

 

I had exactly the same myself last week - didn't even read my skeleton!

[patrickq1]

maybe this would have helped uniboy for the late disclosure of documents and may still help

patrickq1

 

 

Judge Wrong to Refuse to Vacate Trial where Party Awaiting Disclosure

Gilbart v. Thomas Graham, CA, 24/6/08

The Court of Appeal held that, having regard to the overriding objective, the judge had been incorrect to refuse to grant a defendant’s application to vacate a trial. The Appellant had realised that specific discovery of certain documents had not occurred and applied to the court on the basis that the Respondent had not given up the documents that were pertinent and required. The judge had held that the parties could comply with the discovery requests before the commencement of the trial. The appeal court disagreed, noting that there was a substantial sum of money at stake and that the Appellant would need to instruct an expert following receipt of the disclosure.