SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[tamadus]

I still haven't found a copy of the 1983 act but the 1988 ammendments to it clearly state that when a copyof a new agreement is sent for signing then a second copy must also be sent and that this copy does not need signatures etc as it is only a copy for the debtor to retain.

 

Perhaps this is what the banks are trying to use and is what is causing the confusion?

[Mike220359]

I agree Tam, this talk about the 1983 Act is just muddying the waters to scare people off. The 1974 terms and conditions are exact in what is required of creditors end of story.

 

Mike

[Number6]

I still haven't found a copy of the 1983 act but the 1988 ammendments to it clearly state that when a copyof a new agreement is sent for signing then a second copy must also be sent and that this copy does not need signatures etc as it is only a copy for the debtor to retain.

 

Perhaps this is what the banks are trying to use and is what is causing the confusion?

 

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. The infamous regulation 3 only only relates to "approval" or retention copies, not to a CCA S77 / 78 request.

 

Pete

[tamadus]

I agree totally with you Number6 and so do the legal eagles I am consulting. I understand what you have been saying but I like to do the homework myself sometimes

 

This entire 1983 SI has been thrown in by the companies to muddy the issue as they are now realising how hard they are going to be hit through their own ignorance and flouting of the law. It does not apply to a section 77/78 or 85 request.

 

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

[noomill060]

I think its fairly safe to assume that we arent the first to query this reg 3 issue since 1983 and that somewhere, there is a case where a court that has put creditors back in their collective box when attempting to wriggle out of their requirements under the CCA.

 

Just wish someone with this precise info could come on this thread and give us the reference.

[tamadus]

I did a search on Bailii earlier today and found no case law where it was involved. I think its been thrown in by the companies to muddy the waters, and if that's the case then they are going to have to explain themselves at some stage as they aint supposed to do that.

 

I think they have got their collective heads together (do I hear muttering of a cartel) and now realise their flagrant and wholesale ignoring of the laws has landed them in some water that's a bit hotter than they like.

 

We are seeing some classic symptoms of divide and conquer over this along with a lot of symptoms of blind panic on their behalf:D

[un1boy]

I think its fairly safe to assume that we arent the first to query this reg 3 issue since 1983 and that somewhere, there is a case where a court that has put creditors back in their collective box when attempting to wriggle out of their requirements under the CCA.

 

Just wish someone with this precise info could come on this thread and give us the reference.

 

I'm a bit confused - what exactly does this require of the creditors?

[noomill060]

tamadus- I have also sent Barclaycrud section 77/78 request.

 

(I wish this euphamism "request" could be replaced by something a little more honest. "Request" gives the impression that the creditor actually has a say in the matter. It is, of course, an "order" which carries a criminal penalty if not complied with)

[Number6]

Is it not illegal for a solicitor (or any legally qualified person acting in an official capacity) to deliberately tell a mistruth about a point of law?

 

Pete

[Number6]

tamadus- I have also sent Barclaycrud section 77/78 request.

 

(I wish this euphamism "request" could be replaced by something a little more honest. "Request" gives the impression that the creditor actually has a say in the matter. It is, of course, an "order" which carries a criminal penalty if not complied with)

 

Statutory Request?

 

Statutory Demand?

 

Pete

[un1boy]

Is it not illegal for a solicitor (or any legally qualified person acting in an official capacity) to deliberately tell a mistruth about a point of law?

 

Pete

 

Of course!! why?

[Number6]

I agree totally with you Number6 and so do the legal eagles I am consulting. I understand what you have been saying but I like to do the homework myself sometimes

 

Sorry if I gave offence - it wasn't intended. I like to see physical proof as well.

 

I'd still like to see an actual copy of the 83 regulations though instead of OFT documents.

 

Pete

[kateandpete]

Looking at TSO online bookshop TSO Online Bookshop - Bookshop there are the 1983 regulations and then amendments made in 1984, 1985, 1988 and 1989.

One of these may hold the key. Library time, methinks.

[noomill060]

uniboy- CCA 1974 Section 77/78 gives debtors a power to force creditors to produce a copy of the original signed agreement with 12 days. If they dont, the debt is unenforceable. If after 30 days they still havent complied, the creditor is comitting a criminal offence.

 

You will read to go back and read this entire thread again to get the whole story.

 

It only costs £1 to make this request, so is worth a try.

[tamadus]

I'm a bit confused - what exactly does this require of the creditors?

 

un1boy, the statutory instument of 1983 basically says that when a company sends you an agreement for you to sign they must also send a copy of that agreement (along with any other document refered to in it like terms and conditions) for you to retain. The copy is advisory and does not need some parts of the agreement which will be executed when you sign it.

 

In some cases they are using this as a way of avoiding supplying the signed executed agreement people are requesting under the Consumer Credit Act (1974) sections 77/78 and 85.

 

It seems to be nothing but a delaying tactic, designed to cause us to abandon attempts to get a copy of the executed agreement. I suspect they are using it to delay us as they dont have the executed agreements available. Plus it might give them time to abandon ship and escape before we drag them into court and ruin there obscene profit margins at our expense

[Number6]

Of course!! why?

 

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

 

Pete

[tamadus]

Sorry if I gave offence - it wasn't intended. I like to see physical proof as well.

 

I'd still like to see an actual copy of the 83 regulations though instead of OFT documents.

 

Pete

 

no offence taken Number6 and I have been following your posts closely.

[Number6]

Looking at TSO online bookshop TSO Online Bookshop - Bookshop there are the 1983 regulations and then amendments made in 1984, 1985, 1988 and 1989.

One of these may hold the key. Library time, methinks.

 

I'm off to the library in a few minutes anyway, I'll ask them.

 

Pete

[Peterbard]

Is it not illegal for a solicitor (or any legally qualified person acting in an official capacity) to deliberately tell a mistruth about a point of law?

 

I think from a legal point of view the problem there is proving intent to decieve. Although the law society might take a very dim view and question the solicitors proficiency might come into question.

[tamadus]

tamadus- I have also sent Barclaycrud section 77/78 request.

 

(I wish this euphamism "request" could be replaced by something a little more honest. "Request" gives the impression that the creditor actually has a say in the matter. It is, of course, an "order" which carries a criminal penalty if not complied with)

 

I agree with you its an order not a request

[kateandpete]

I'm off to the library in a few minutes anyway, I'll ask them.

 

Pete

Wonderful! I can't go until tomorrow. We eagerly await your return;-)

[tamadus]

Is it not illegal for a solicitor (or any legally qualified person acting in an official capacity) to deliberately tell a mistruth about a point of law?

 

Pete

 

Thats what I refer to in a post I just made and it also applies to these companies

[un1boy]

uniboy- CCA 1974 Section 77/78 gives debtors a power to force creditors to produce a copy of the original signed agreement with 12 days. If they dont, the debt is unenforceable. If after 30 days they still havent complied, the creditor is comitting a criminal offence.

 

You will read to go back and read this entire thread again to get the whole story.

 

It only costs £1 to make this request, so is worth a try.

 

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

[Number6]

Is it not illegal for a solicitor (or any legally qualified person acting in an official capacity) to deliberately tell a mistruth about a point of law?

 

I think from a legal point of view the problem there is proving intent to decieve. Although the law society might take a very dim view and question the solicitors proficiency might come into question.

 

I'm sure I've seen a post somwhere else on CAG that stated it was illegal - with or without intent to decieve but I haven't a clue where it was now. Might just be worth waving a threat under the solicitors nose...???

 

Pete

[tamadus]

Looking at TSO online bookshop TSO Online Bookshop - Bookshop there are the 1983 regulations and then amendments made in 1984, 1985, 1988 and 1989.

One of these may hold the key. Library time, methinks.

 

I emailed TSO this afternoon asking if they have a copy and the mail bounced back