SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[elizabeth1]

Can I just throw in a cautionary note here for anyone who thinks that they can just stop paying until a copy of the original agreement is supplied.

 

In my opinion, if the lender took you to court, even without the agreement, a judge would have reasonable grounds to make an order against you if the lender could demonstrate that you had made payments to them. After all, you wouldn't randomly send money to someone that you didn't owe money to. By making repayments you are acknowledging the debt and a judge would be reasonable in seeing this. The only thing in question would be the amount of the debt, not whether it actually exists.

 

 

This is twaddle really!! I don't know where you got this info from but it's wrong really!!

[zubo]

If you take the trouble to read my original post again, it is neither advice, nor is it misinformation. It is an opinion and that is that an agreement MAY be inferred by virtue of previous repayments.

 

I am fully aware of the terms of the CCA - 1974, 2002 and 2006 regarding the production of an agreement - I am simply throwing another point of thought into the pot and that doesn't make me wrong - it means I'm opening up the debate.

 

I haven't read your original post and you clearly have not read all the threads AND as you claim CCA - that is pure b~~~~~it!!!

 

Why even bother making an assertion like that - you simply do not have a clue. And that is me being polite.

 

So please keep such mischiveous completely misinformed opinions which are completely unsupported by CCA to yourself. I would even hazard you are MIB.... but even they would not be so stupid....

 

What do you need in court??? let me think.... oh would that be compliance with CCA 1974??? will transactions do? will proof of use of a CC??

 

NONONONONO - getit? NO!!!

 

Now do something useful, put a rational argument together PLEASE

 

Z

[The cobbett slayer]

I'm playing devils advocate here but only because I can see a flaw in the legislation.

 

Ian - I have just read again the CCA 1974 and I can find nothing that prohibits a Judge from making an order and certainly not under S.60,61,65 or 127 as you quoted. The agreement is unenforceable if the creditor DID NOT GIVE the debtor an executed copy of the agreement. It makes no reference to requests under the Data Protection Act as this didn't come into force until 1998 and certainly does not say that the debt cannot be enforced.

 

For the benefit of Zubo - you have said yourself that you haven't read my original post - please do so before you declare it bull***.

 

Once more, I am offering an opinion - repayments to a creditor MAY infer that an agreement existed and a Judge MIGHT see it that way.

[hsbcfiddled]

bump

 

Question.

 

If the original document cannot be supplied and the 12 working days plus the following calender month (approx 43 days) has expired.

 

Can I request return of payments made?

 

or

 

Can I request refund of interest paid on loan? plus interest at same rate as charged?

 

Yes i know I can ask but have I or would I have a case?

 

Thanks in anticipation.

[The cobbett slayer]

..

The CCA 2006 is NOT retrospective (agreed) & a court CANNOT, under any circumstances, make an order without the creditor producing a 'properly executed signed agreement' if that agreement was entered into pre April 2006 (Can't find that in the act)

 

Why on earth do you keep insisting your correct when you not. (I'm not insisting that I'm correct - I'm hilighting a possible problem)Are you employed by a creditor or DCA No, I save lives for a living - I do this on my days off)

 

Take the time & trouble to read some of the threads on this site & you will see many members who have had debts canceled as a result of the OC or DCA not being able to produce a valid agreement (That may be true - AFD is a very good example of this - my point is that it won't necessarily work for everybody)

 

As a matter of fact even if the agreement is post 2006 then the OC still has to produce a valid signed agreement in order to enforce. (Not the case - A signed agreement must have been given to the debtor. Data Protection Act requests are still not covered by the CCA)

 

The difference is that the court can now enforce a debt even if the agreement is not technically correct. A signature is still required

[The cobbett slayer]

will transactions do? will proof of use of a CC??

 

Now do something useful, put a rational argument together PLEASE

 

Z

 

Will transactions proof (or even prove) use of a CC - YES

 

That's pretty rational - Thanks for your input.

[ian1969uk]

I'm playing devils advocate here but only because I can see a flaw in the legislation.

 

Ian - I have just read again the CCA 1974 and I can find nothing that prohibits a Judge from making an order and certainly not under S.60,61,65 or 127 as you quoted

 

FFS, you are starting to annoy me now.

 

Section 127 (3):

 

3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

Shall not = prohibited.

 

Get it yet?

 

I'm usually tolerant but you are now deliberately trying to mislead and that makes you a moron!

[zubo]

FFS, you are starting to annoy me now.

 

Section 127 (3):

 

3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

Shall not = prohibited.

 

Get it yet?

 

I'm usually tolerant but you are now deliberately trying to mislead and that makes you a moron!

 

Thank you Ian,

 

So FFS you cannot see why I haven't bothered reading your comments - because you do not have a rational argument which is supported by law. In short you have not bothered reading any of the truly great debates we have had with people whose opinion I respect. You have not bothered with researching the detail of CCA.

 

So offering an opinion like you have... well lets see how many people truly support the opinion of a moron.

 

Shut up, do some reading and listen to others giving good advice, you clearly have not got a clue - go save a life.

 

Z

[hsbcfiddled]

i give up

[Josie8]

..

 

What is the point of this? The House of Lords case Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry 2005 ruled thst in the event there wasn't an enforceable agreement then the creditor could not sidestep the CCA and use contract law to recover monies. The loss of their money and the fairness or not of it was fully discussed by the Lords before they reached their decision. No lower court once this decision has been cited can overturn this ruling.

 

If you can come up with another House of Lords ruling which counters this decision I would be interested in the citation. Otherwise may I respectfully suggest that you stop helping the MIB by deterring people from utilising their rights by giving misinformation

 

An informed debate is always to be appreciated but it needs to be factual.......

[rhsymonds]

Lol, i thought TCS was talking rubbish when i saw his first post, but i thought 'ill see if anyone else flames him before i start'.

 

Maybe ill join the queue, lol.

 

Another vote for the 'youre talking rubbish' im afraid cobbet Slayer.

 

Now go back to middle earth and slay cobbets or whatever it is you do !!

 

[elizabeth1]

I STICK TO MY EARLIER COMMENT ON THIS TOPIC

 

"IT'S TWADDLE REALLY"

 

What else can a girl say at this time of night? TCS you really don't want to push me to talk dirty to you at this time of night I can tell you!!

[The cobbett slayer]

I give up and I shall withdraw from this "debate". At least I can do so without making personal insults (I am not a moron Ian and I am intelligent enough not to retalliate) and with my dignity intact.

 

For those who can actually be bothered to read what it was I actually posted, you will note that the Act refers to whether or not an agreement was signed, not whether it can be produced. By making repayments to a credit provider, the inferrence is that there has been an enforceable agreement. The Wilson case dealt with precisely that - there wasn't (and never had been) an enforceable agreement under the CCA therefore the ruling of the Lords was correct in that case.

 

I shall however follow the advice and direction of the respondents to my original post and stop paying all of my creditors until such time as they produce a copy of my agreement. It is apparantly a water tight case. Let's see how long I keep my house!

[zubo]

I give up and I shall withdraw from this "debate". At least I can do so without making personal insults (I am not a moron Ian and I am intelligent enough not to retalliate) and with my dignity intact.

 

For those who can actually be bothered to read what it was I actually posted, you will note that the Act refers to whether or not an agreement was signed, not whether it can be produced. By making repayments to a credit provider, the inferrence is that there has been an enforceable agreement. The Wilson case dealt with precisely that - there wasn't (and never had been) an enforceable agreement under the CCA therefore the ruling of the Lords was correct in that case.

 

I shall however follow the advice and direction of the respondents to my original post and stop paying all of my creditors until such time as they produce a copy of my agreement. It is apparantly a water tight case. Let's see how long I keep my house!

 

If you took time to digest what other posters were suggesting to you, it is exactly which we are stating. Consider what an unenforceable agreement means: it has to be an agreement regulated by the Act containing all the prescribed terms and constructed in accordance with the Act regarding Headings, Signature box and it must be signed by the Debtor.

Time and time again the same comments as you have been made. Production of that agreement is a key requirement and should be asked for under CPR 4.6. Look at my thread regarding CCA Resources Workshop.

 

If a CCP or DCA took you to court and said to you - you must have had an agreement because you paid, you should always challenge them! I thought I had an agreement but under CCA 1974 I am obliged to receive a true copy which I have not received, the OFT make it quite clear as does the Act - without a true copy no Court is allowed to enforce the agreement. Think about it - how can they when they do not know what the provisions are... in fact the court has the authority to vary IN YOUR favour an unjust or unequitable agreement, so they do need sight of the agreement. It matters not one iota if there truly was a correctly executed agreement - inference cannot be drawn what might have been but what from evidence truly is. THAT is what the Act is there for.

 

Now lets close the debate and move on please.

 

Z

[hsbcfiddled]

If we have finished admonishing TCS for his views- FWIW I agree with the majority here - if the agreements have not been drawn up within the law or they have failed to adhere to the law then how can they be allowed to make monies by trading?

 

Now could someone please tell me or give me their views - within the law-of the following;

 

Questions.

If the original document cannot be supplied and the 12 working days plus the following calender month (approx 43 days) has expired.

 

Can I request return of payments made?

 

or

 

Can I request refund of interest paid on loan? plus interest at same rate as charged?

 

Yes i know I can ask but have I or would I have a case?

 

Added Question

 

ok.

 

I wouldnt be asking for a return of the payments I had made - well ok I would try that first - But I would be pointing out that ok payments have been taken from me but the balance has hardly reduced.

That 80% of the monies taken from me are for interest and as the agreement has not been executed properly how can they charge me interest on an agreement that has not been properly drawn up within the Laws of this country?

 

How can they profit/make money from not following the law?

 

If they havent followed the laws of this country then they are no better than 'Loan Sharks' in suits sitting in their plush offices

 

Thanks in anticipation.

[ncf355]

If we have finished admonishing TCS for his views- FWIW I agree with the majority here - if the agreements have not been drawn up within the law or they have failed to adhere to the law then how can they be allowed to make monies by trading?

 

Now could someone please tell me or give me their views - within the law-of the following;

 

Questions.

If the original document cannot be supplied and the 12 working days plus the following calender month (approx 43 days) has expired.

 

Can I request return of payments made?

 

or

 

Can I request refund of interest paid on loan? plus interest at same rate as charged?

 

Yes i know I can ask but have I or would I have a case?

 

Added Question

 

ok.

 

I wouldnt be asking for a return of the payments I had made - well ok I would try that first - But I would be pointing out that ok payments have been taken from me but the balance has hardly reduced.

That 80% of the monies taken from me are for interest and as the agreement has not been executed properly how can they charge me interest on an agreement that has not been properly drawn up within the Laws of this country?

 

How can they profit/make money from not following the law?

 

If they havent followed the laws of this country then they are no better than 'Loan Sharks' in suits sitting in their plush offices

 

Thanks in anticipation.

 

Hi,

 

firstly - "loan sharks" yes, totally agree, probably worse as themental anguish would be worse than grief a loan shark would inflict!

 

Anyhoo............

 

I personally would go for the payments back (see wilson v first county trust for case law)

 

But would take it one step further and add contractual interest and damages to that little lot

 

I wish you the very best of british my friend

[hsbcfiddled]

Hi ncf35,

 

Thanks for the reply

 

firstly - "loan sharks" yes, totally agree, probably worse as themental anguish would be worse than grief a loan shark (do you think that the tern loan shark is unfair to sharks?) would inflict!

 

Anyhoo............

 

I personally would go for the payments back (see wilson v first county trust for case law)

I have seen reference to this case

 

But would take it one step further and add contractual interest and damages to that little lot

well it is my intention to screw as much out of them as I can just like they have done to me.

I wish you the very best of british my friend - Thanks are reciprocated

[zubo]

If we have finished admonishing TCS for his views- FWIW I agree with the majority here - if the agreements have not been drawn up within the law or they have failed to adhere to the law then how can they be allowed to make monies by trading?

 

Now could someone please tell me or give me their views - within the law-of the following;

 

Questions.

If the original document cannot be supplied and the 12 working days plus the following calender month (approx 43 days) has expired.

 

Can I request return of payments made?

 

or

 

Can I request refund of interest paid on loan? plus interest at same rate as charged?

 

Yes i know I can ask but have I or would I have a case?

 

Added Question

 

ok.

 

I wouldnt be asking for a return of the payments I had made - well ok I would try that first - But I would be pointing out that ok payments have been taken from me but the balance has hardly reduced.

That 80% of the monies taken from me are for interest and as the agreement has not been executed properly how can they charge me interest on an agreement that has not been properly drawn up within the Laws of this country?

 

How can they profit/make money from not following the law?

 

If they havent followed the laws of this country then they are no better than 'Loan Sharks' in suits sitting in their plush offices

 

Thanks in anticipation.

 

Tossup between consolidation or restitution. This is very new with little if any case law. You will need to have a watertight legal argument, I know of only one failed case which would probably have been overturned on appeal.

 

Restitution has the edge on balance because, I seem to recall, the conditions required to support it is a lot stronger. You will need to google it and research the arguments. What you are after is to recover all penalties AND all charges - interest etc, and apply daily interest same as Bank Penalty charges.

 

ok?

 

Z

[Josie8]

Hi ncf35,

 

Thanks for the reply

 

firstly - "loan sharks" yes, totally agree, probably worse as themental anguish would be worse than grief a loan shark (do you think that the tern loan shark is unfair to sharks?) would inflict!

 

Anyhoo............

 

I personally would go for the payments back (see wilson v first county trust for case law)

I have seen reference to this case

 

But would take it one step further and add contractual interest and damages to that little lot

well it is my intention to screw as much out of them as I can just like they have done to me.

I wish you the very best of british my friend - Thanks are reciprocated

 

I would think that ANY payments you had made could be deducted fom balance originally borrowed. If you have paid back say 80% of amount then i n absence of an enforceable agreement they can't enforce interest payments. If you settled additonal 20% then I think any court would order default lifted etc....

 

Alternatively Z is quite correct & in theory all interest etc can be reclaimed etc but it is a new challenge to the courts & no ruling from HOL on this. Different courts may well have different views so you would need a well reasoned argument.

 

I am considering my different options too......

[clover46]

subscribing!

[noomill060]

Ok- this has probaby been done to death on other threads but just for confirmation:

 

After months of waiting and two final demands, a S. 78 request produces the original signed application form (which as peterbard has established) is really an unexecuted agreement. No prescribed terms.

 

Months after that, a photocopy of the relevant T&Cs, containing the prescribed terms ,turn up, unsigned by anyone.

 

Signed document doesnt contain prescribed terms and headed "application form" with sig box with

 

"This is a Credit Agreement, sign only if you agree with its terms"

 

Enforceable?

 

This has been done to death I know. Did we ever reach a satisfactory assesment?

[The cobbett slayer]

At the risk of laying myself open to ridicule and inappropriate responses, I would say not enforceable as it does not meet the prescribed requirements of the 1974 CCA or any of its amendments.

[noomill060]

Thanks for your response, cobbet slayer.

[zubo]

At the risk of laying myself open to ridicule and inappropriate responses, I would say not enforceable as it does not meet the prescribed requirements of the 1974 CCA or any of its amendments.

 

absolutely spot on.

 

z

[The cobbett slayer]

But - and I'm putting my head on the block again.

 

It says "This is a credit agreement, sign only if you agree with it's terms"

 

It does not say "This is a Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974".

 

By signing it, all be it a cheap trick on the part of the lender, are you not signing an unregulated agreement and therefore would have no legal challenge to the agreement under the CCA?