SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

You do & if you write to tell them that unless they provide a signed properly executed copy you will not only cease payments until they comply you will also seek a refund of monies already paid.

 

If they don't produce after that then the chances are they can't.

[Movingon]

You do & if you write to tell them that unless they provide a signed properly executed copy you will not only cease payments until they comply you will also seek a refund of monies already paid.

 

If they don't produce after that then the chances are they can't.

 

Please read the previous several posts regarding this matter. The only time they are required to produce a SIGNED copy is in Court.

[Peterbard]

Hi

Sometime ago i draghted a leter which puts the ball back in their court i have used it a couple of times, of course now i want it i cant find it, any way it went something like this.

 

 

Dear creditor

RE: MY request under section77 of the consumer Credit Act 1974 for a true copy of my orriginal signed agreement.

 

Dear Sirs

 

Thank you for the reply and the documentation you encolsedd as per the above request.As you quite rightly say section 3 of s.i 1998/1957 states that you are not required to enclose a signed copy in response.

You will however realise that due to the time ellapsed since my alleged agrement was signed and the complexity of the document, it would be impossible for me to verify this as a true copy of the orriginal executed agrement, without the presence of my signature.

As I am sure you are aware in proceedings of thes nature the burden of proof rests with you to confirm that you posess such a document, it is not for me to prove that you do not.

If such a document exists surely it would be far simpler for you to produce it now rather than to have to produce it later in a court setting.

You would then be in the unenviable position of explaining to the judge the reason for wasting the courts time in bringing an action that could have been resolved so easilly.

Finally i am afraid that since the document cannot be verified you have not met your commitments under section 77 of the act and remain in default untill such a time that you produce the signed verifyable documentation.

 

Yours

 

 

Regards

Peter

[joesoap]

My post 2170 refers. I've just received a letter from Wescot (dated 15/4 but the envelope is franked 25/4 first class) acknowledging my CCA request; that was made an awful long time ago! They've not mentioned my "out of time you are comitting an offence letter" which was sent on 5/4 and signed for 6/4. Wescot advises "your request has been noted and we will be in touch in due course. We confirm the account has been placed on hold. In touch in due course? Do time limits mean nothing to these clowns? What next I wonder?

 

Ian

 

Just thought (have a bad head for the rest of the day now). As Wescot have not supplied the CCA, do I give them more time or should I remind them on that they have comitted an offence and they should return all payments that I have made, as previously requested on 5/4

[Movingon]

*sniff* that's beautiful Peter... just... *sniff* beautiful.

[Movingon]

Just thought (have a bad head for the rest of the day now). As Wescot have not supplied the CCA, do I give them more time or should I remind them on that they have comitted an offence and they should return all payments that I have made, as previously requested on 5/4

 

They don't need to know about the offence... they just need to know that their time has expired. Don't forget that the Offence can be mitigated if they end up producing this document later so there's a risk in demanding your money back in that when (if?) it comes to Court, you may find that a panic-stricken search of their office has turned up the document. (I know, I know... )

 

However, I would writie to them stating that the time has expired and that they therefore have no proof that you are in any way indebted to them and that you require therefore immediate reimbursement of all your payments within 7 days. Make clear that you will pursue this through the Courts if necessary.

[Peterbard]

HI

 

Steady old fella

 

 

Peter

[weaver440]

Thanks ncf355,

 

That does help but am still unsure as to what to do now. Do I write to the loan company and tell them that I am not going to be making anymore payments as I am no longer liable for this debt as they have failed to provid the executed agreement or any anything at all for that matter and do I write to the TS and FSA or do I just sit quiet?

Weaver -

 

Its Section 78 for running credit (such as credit cards) and Section77 for fixed sum credit (such as a loan for a fixed amount)

 

For both, time limits are:

Time starts the day after receipt of the request, then -

12 working days = Default

Further one month (So 12 WORKING days + 30) = Offence

 

There has in the past been some debate about all this, but its generally agreed that this is a generous interpretation that can only be in our favour should we start litigation

 

Hope this helps

[noomill060]

It is indeed a touching piece of prose.

[noomill060]

I just stopped making payments after the 30 days ran out. Never heard owt from the DCA again!

 

OK six months later and Wescot has taken up the torch, but another CCA request went to them 12 working days ago today, and the only thing in todays post was a letter from the Northern Bank saying that they need my old account number to process my SAR for a list of all my charges from the late 80s.

 

No Barclaycard agreement, valid or otherwise.

[noomill060]

OK, there were application forms from Citicards and Cap 1 as well, along with the usual junk mail!

 

Whats in my wallet?

 

A court order against Morgan Stanley- thats what!

[Movingon]

Steady old fella

 

It is indeed a touching piece of prose.

 

*wipes away a tear*

[rhsymonds]

Hi

Sometime ago i draghted a leter which puts the ball back in their court i have used it a couple of times, of course now i want it i cant find it, any way it went something like this....

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to type that peter, +1 to you. ill be sending a copy next week.

 

Im glad you're on our side !!!!!

 

R

[noomill060]

Yes, thanks for that Peter. Ive saved your letter in Word for use at the appropriate moment.

 

I hope you didnt take my comment on your prose as unpleasant, it wasnt meant as such. Its so easy for friendly banter to seem like a cutting comment on re-reading. Your letter was clearly written fast to give assistance to others.

 

Its thanks to you and your advice six months ago that Im now in control of my creditors.

[noomill060]

Make that creditor- singular. Thanks to the advice on this site Ive been able to pay off my Morgan Stanley card- with their own money- the s.69 interest which I asked for at the contractual rate of 20.9% thanks to CAG advice.

[Peterbard]

Yes, thanks for that Peter. Ive saved your letter in Word for use at the appropriate moment.

 

I hope you didnt take my comment on your prose as unpleasant, it wasnt meant as such. Its so easy for friendly banter to seem like a cutting comment on re-reading. Your letter was clearly written fast to give assistance to others.

 

Its thanks to you and your advice six months ago that Im now in control of my creditors.

 

HI

 

All compliments greatfuly accepted, sounds like your doing the business with the nasties.

"In control of my credtiors".

Thats what we are after on here.

 

Best regards

 

Peter

[noomill060]

Not only do I now feel in control, Im having immense fun winding them up and tieing them in knots!!

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Please read the previous several posts regarding this matter. The only time they are required to produce a SIGNED copy is in Court.

 

I have 'read' the several posts & say again they are required as per the CPR to supply a signed properly executed agreement BEFORE the issue of proceedings

[Movingon]

I have 'read' the several posts & say again they are required as per the CPR to supply a signed properly executed agreement BEFORE the issue of proceedings

 

Which section of CPR deals specifically with matters prior to an Action under the Consumer Credit Act?

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

The failure to provide a 'true' copy of an agreement when requested by a potential defendant in a civil court action, is in breach of pre-action protocols, in particular CPR PD 4.6, a fact that you should bring to the attention of the court should they persist with enforcement action.

[Movingon]

Indeed but breaches of pre-action protocols do not preclude a claimant from bringing an action; they will simply make it easier for a defendant to show unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Claimant when it comes to court. A Judge would be extremely unlikely to strike out a claim on the basis that a single document was not sent when requested; epsecially as that document is not required to be presented by any regulation or statute. The CPR simply indicates that a failure to produce all documentation reasonably requested by the Defendant will be seen as unreasonable. Courts don't like unreasonable.

 

I admit it's a string to your bow, but really doesn't change what I said.

[Peterbard]

HI STone

 

very eloquent

Must be catching,

I have looked at the P,A,C, and as you say it is another string in the bow.

I mentioned it to a friend of mne who woks in a solicitors office in conection with the letter i tried to recreate earlier with a view of including it.

He said that it pretty much stated the outcome that would derive from none complience ie they would have to explain to the judge, and while it might make the letter look more official by mentioning the pre action protocol 4.1 the effect in court would be the same.

 

 

Regards

Peter

[zubo]

Indeed but breaches of pre-action protocols do not preclude a claimant from bringing an action; they will simply make it easier for a defendant to show unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Claimant when it comes to court. A Judge would be extremely unlikely to strike out a claim on the basis that a single document was not sent when requested; epsecially as that document is not required to be presented by any regulation or statute. The CPR simply indicates that a failure to produce all documentation reasonably requested by the Defendant will be seen as unreasonable. Courts don't like unreasonable.

 

I admit it's a string to your bow, but really doesn't change what I said.

 

Tom

 

My emphasis above: I may be missing the point here and taking you out of context - but - if a creditor is seeking to enforce a debt - how can the prime document - the Agreement be not required????

 

or are you talking about something else???

 

Z

[Peterbard]

Tom

 

My emphasis above: I may be missing the point here and taking you out of context - but - if a creditor is seeking to enforce a debt - how can the prime document - the Agreement be not required????

 

or are you talking about something else???

 

Z

 

HI

The answer is the court will deffinaltely require the signed agreement with all the prescribed terms, as without they have no option but to throw the case out, if the agreement was made befor April 6th 2007.

 

What is meant is that the pre-action protocols are their to ensure that the creditor knows that he is required to produse documentation relavant to the hearing, it does not mean that the hearing will be summaraily judged or thrown out because they do not comply, it does mean that it may be wayed against them in the proceedings as they could have saved the expence and time of the court by so doing.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[zubo]

HI

The answer is the court will deffinaltely require the signed agreement with all the prescribed terms, as without they have no option but to throw the case out, if the agreement was made befor April 6th 2007.

 

What is meant is that the pre-action protocols are their to ensure that the creditor knows that he is required to produse documentation relavant to the hearing, it does not mean that the hearing will be summaraily judged or thrown out because they do not comply, it does mean that it may be wayed against them in the proceedings as they could have saved the expence and time of the court by so doing.

 

Regards

 

Peter

 

yes I know Peter, but Tom said

A Judge would be extremely unlikely to strike out a claim on the basis that a single document was not sent when requested; epsecially as that document is not required

 

oh.... I get it... pre-case dismissed.... however the statement does read odd since THAT document is most definitely required. If I were defending this I would certainly seek a strike out before court since my defence relies entirely on this... which means there would be a strong case for the judge to do just that...

 

Z