SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[noomill060]

"I think from a legal point of view the problem there is proving intent to decieve."

 

If this clear attempt to financially benefit by wriggling out of legal obligations in order tdoesnt constitute proof of intent, I dont know what would.

[tamadus]

well, If banks solicitors are misrepresenting the Copies of Documents regs......?

 

Pete

 

dont forget the banks are doing it as well.

[noomill060]

(I'll try this again in English)

 

"I think from a legal point of view the problem there is proving intent to decieve."

 

If this clear attempt to financially benefit by wriggling out of legal obligations doesnt constitute proof of intent, I dont know what would.

[tamadus]

Hi, thanks for this. I meant the 1983 thingy though!! :-/

 

The 1983 thingy is regulations from a ministers office which is supposed to clarify an act of parliament and/or alter it according to law without a full revision being made and passed in parliament.

[noomill060]

In an earlier posting, alanfromderby says that the request is "deemed to have been delivered" after two working days. Does anyone know if this also applies to DPA requests?

 

(This assumes proof of posting or Recorded Delievery)

[tamadus]

(I'll try this again in English)

 

"I think from a legal point of view the problem there is proving intent to decieve."

 

If this clear attempt to financially benefit by wriggling out of legal obligations doesnt constitute proof of intent, I dont know what would.

 

We know what you meant and it's easier to edit it

[kateandpete]

Here's the text from TSO. Hope this posts ok. It has ISBN's and dates of publication.... may help

 

The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) (Amendment) Regulations 1989

 

Statutory instrument 1989 591

 

• Publisher: HMSO

Black and white copy, 1-3 days

• Published: 11th April 1989
  
• ISBN 10: 0110965914
  
• £6.00

 

The Consumer Credit (Agreements and Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) (Amendment) Regulations 1988

 

Statutory instrument 1988 2047

 

• Publisher: HMSO

Black and white copy, 1-3 days

• Published: 5th December 1988
  
• ISBN 10: 0110880471
  
• £6.00

 

 

 

The consumer credit (agreements and cancellation notices and copies of documents) (amendment) regulations 1985

 

Statutory instruments 1985 666

 

• Publisher: HMSO

Black and white copy, 1-3 days

• Published: 3rd May 1985
  
• ISBN 10: 0110566661
  
• £6.00

 

 

 

The consumer credit (cancellation notices and copies of documents) (amendment) regulations 1984

 

Statutory instruments 1984 1108

 

• Author: Great Britain
  
• Publisher: HMSO

Black and white copy, 1-3 days

• Published: 3rd August 1984
  
• ISBN 10: 0110471083
  
• £6.00

 

The consumer credit (cancellation notices and copies of documents) regulations 1983

 

Statutory instruments 1983 1557

 

• Author: Great Britain
  
• Publisher: Her Majesty's Stationery Office

Black and white copy, 1-3 days

• Published: 3rd November 1983
  
• ISBN 10: 0110375572
  
• £6.00

[noomill060]

Sorry uniboy. I'm suffering from lack of caffeine!

[tamadus]

Thanks KateandPete I just ordered a copy, it's print on demand so hopefully it will arrive soon.

[un1boy]

Sorry uniboy. I'm suffering from lack of caffeine!

 

no problem, thanks for the explanation anyway - I gave you some rep!

[alanfromderby]

In an earlier posting, alanfromderby says that the request is "deemed to have been delivered" after two working days. Does anyone know if this also applies to Data Protection Act requests?

 

(This assumes proof of posting or Recorded Delievery)

 

Not sure what context I posted this under, but this is regarding documents relating to court proceedings, and is somewhere in the CPR's. In the case of DPA requests the onus would be on the sender to prove receipt.

 

I would therefore always advise you send letters or requests by, at the very least, recorded delivery.

[Peterbard]

If this clear attempt to financially benefit by wriggling out of legal obligations in order tdoesnt constitute proof of intent, I dont know what would.

 

Hey I agree with you but it could be argued that the missreading of one word might not be proof of intent . I am being practical and cannot see the CPS pressing charges on that evidance.

I still think a complaint to the Law society is the way to go.

[tamadus]

If this clear attempt to financially benefit by wriggling out of legal obligations in order tdoesnt constitute proof of intent, I dont know what would.

 

Hey I agree with you but it could be argued that the missreading of one word might not be proof of intent . I am being practical and cannot see the CPA pressing charges on that evidance.

I still think a complaint to the Law society is the way to go.

 

Misreading the same word by several companies and their legal advisors? Now I am hearing mutterings of a cartel

 

They must all be word blind as we all seem to be reading it right But I agree the law society is probably a better approach

[Number6]

My local library holds copies of every SI published! I was impressed. Reference only though so I photographed the relevant pages. Guess what? - the photo's are terrible quality

 

Anyway Section 3 of the 1983 regulations state:

 

3-(1.) Subject to the following provisions of these regulations, every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall be a true copy thereof.

 

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy -

 

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the doucument of which it is a copy.

 

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than in the case of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act the date of signature of an agreement to which section 63(2) of the Act applies)

 

© in the case of any copy of an unexecuted agreement delivered or sent to the debtor or hirer under section 62 of the Act the name and address of the debtor or hirer and

 

(d) in the case of any copy given to the debtor under section 77(1) of the Act of an executed agreement for fixed sum credit in which a person takes any article in pawn any description of the article taken in pawn.

 

And section 8

 

8 Every copy of an executed credit-token agreement given to the debtor under section 85(1) of the act where the agreement may be varied under a power contained in it shall comprise an easily legible statement of the current terms of the agreement (whether or not varied in accordance with section 82(1) of the Act

 

Discuss in no more than 500 words the above statements then compare and contrast with logic

 

Pete

[Number6]

I am pds that these regulations are *meant* to relate to copies left for approval or filing after the event and not under a S77 / 78 request but thats not how they read. Regulation 3 specifically states copies delivered ander *any* provision of the Act and that would of course include 77 / 78.

 

Pete

[Peterbard]

Originally Posted by noomill060

In an earlier posting, alanfromderby says that the request is "deemed to have been delivered" after two working days. Does anyone know if this also applies to Data Protection Act requests?

Found this in my cc bits and pieces as you say it only aplies to papers sent by the court.Although i have had the occasoinal case where ca's have tried to use it

 

 

 

Deemed service

6.7 - (1) A document which is served in accordance with these rules or any relevant practice direction shall be deemed to be served on the day shown in the following table -

 

 

Method of service Deemed day of service First class postThe second day after it was posted.Document exchangeThe second day after it was left at the document exchange.Delivering the document to or leaving it at a permitted addressThe day after it was delivered to or left at the permitted address.FaxIf it is transmitted on a business day before 4 p.m, on that day; or

in any other case, on the business day after the day on which it is transmitted.

Other electronic methodThe second day after the day on which it is transmitted.

(2) If a document (other than a claim form) is served after 5 p.m. on a business day, or at any time on a Saturday, Sunday or a bank holiday, the document shall be treated as having been served on the next business day.

[tamadus]

I can't honestly believe that it doesnt have to be a copy of the signed executed agreement. heck the legal definition of an executed agreement is that it must be signed.:o

 

For something that is supposed to protect the consumer that actually opens up the possibility of some horrific scenarios.

[kateandpete]

This is very troubling.

 

The wording agrees with what HSBC have sent me.

 

It is utterly illogical and a fraudsters charter.

 

Number6, are there any relevent amendments to this, or indeed any amendments that mention s77/78 requests?

[tamadus]

OK at first glance this looks like a major disaster but a bit of READING solves everything. READ what it says while I discuss this privately with somebody to confirm my idea

[Peterbard]

(other than in the case of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act the date of signature of an agreement to which section 63(2) of the Act applies)

 

Doesn't this refer to most credit agreements that require a cooling off period or have a cancellation clause and dosen't that mean that the request for a signed contract still applies to these docs.

[tamadus]

(other than in the case of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act the date of signature of an agreement to which section 63(2) of the Act applies)

 

Doesn't this refer to most credit agreements that require a cooling off period or have a cancellation clause and dosen't that mean that the request for a signed contract still applies to these docs.

 

Thats how I interpret it peter but I am waiting for a reply to confirm it now from the appropriate government department

[noomill060]

You have been busy, tamadus!

 

'twill be interesting to see how HM Govt interprets this.

[tamadus]

Thats why I emailed them no reply today so it's either been ignored or somebody is doing some homework in whitehall

[veryannoyed]

I am allowing another 14 days for the 2 companies I have slapped a section 78 on to respond favourably then I am seriously considering petitioning the court under CPR 31.6 for full standard disclosure of every document I can think of. They will then be in breach of a court order to add to their woes

 

oooh - whats a CPR 31.6 exactly? - I have a few outstanding CCA requests - is a CPR 31.6 the next thing to do when the 30 days after default are up and the criminal offence committed?

 

Is there / can we have a template and some instructions for CPR 31.6 ?

[tamadus]

oooh - whats a CPR 31.6 exactly? - I have a few outstanding CCA requests - is a CPR 31.6 the next thing to do when the 30 days after default are up and the criminal offence committed?

 

Is there / can we have a template and some instructions for CPR 31.6 ?

 

 

NOOOO its not the next recognised step. I am only airing a few thought on using the Civil Proceedure Rules to accelerate a settlement if possible. The rules are there to basically negotiate a settlement without having to issue in court. MY idea was to use 31.6 to be able to show a judge that I did make the attempt by petitioning the court for standard disclosure of documents being denied under the CCA sections 77/78 rather than actually issue proceedings. I have NOT proved CPA31.6 will be a workable solution yet.

 

It's nothing but an idea for a work in progress at the moment. Likewise a time delay order under section 129 of the CCA is something else I am looking into just to be mean and nasty to them I have a few other tricks I'm currently working on but for some reason people seem to be latching on very quickly to any possibility lately so I am keeping them under my hat until they are proven

 

As they say on TV please dont try this at home, but if it does work out (if I try it that is) then details will be posted in due course