SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[noomill060]

"I do not agree with your interpretation of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983. I believe that these regulations apply to pre-contractual documents or document copies issued by the creditor in the immediate aftermath of a credit agreement under the control of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) Sections 58,62, 63 and 64.

 

Sections 77 and 78 of the Act are not bound by the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983; any request under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act can only be fulfilled with a copy of the fully and properly executed agreement conforming to Section 61 of the Act."

[noomill060]

Hello Peter!

[noomill060]

We are not the first to consider this, you can be sure of that.

 

The Act came in on 31 December 1974, precedents will have been set long long ago.

[noomill060]

Heres another twist:

 

I sent s77/78 request on 19 October. This week I recieved a photocopy of my original application form.

 

The copy is approx 1/8th of the size of the original document, rubbish quality printer and too small to read most of the printed terms and conditions!

 

About the only things that are clear are what appears to my signature, a hand written date and the words "Credit Agreement".

 

Hmmmmm...

 

There are another 5 days before the 12 working days are up.

[noomill060]

Yup!

[noomill060]

Alan-

 

In my Morgan Stanley case, the entire "debt" is made up of unlawful charges and interest charged upon it.

[noomill060]

Or put another way, the amount I will be claiming back is in excess of the balance on my MS statement.

[noomill060]

"I would in no way condone using this tactic as a means to get out of paying a properly contacted debt"

 

Neither do I.

 

But the law is the law and we all have to abide by it. Borrowers and lenders alike.

[noomill060]

And after reading of lenders antics and the way some banks dispose of sensitive waste, it seems that some lenders need reminding of the fact thay they are subject to the law.

[noomill060]

"You may even make matters worse as once the agreement is cancelled then the whole sum becomes immediately repayable!"

 

Unless of course the sum the lender claims contains a proportion of unlawful charges and intrest levied on those charges. In which case the lender has a headache.

[noomill060]

Such cynicsm in one so young....

[noomill060]

After the creditor gets permission from a court to persue the debtor, he then runs into another quagmire when the debtor states in his defence that the debt consists partly or wholly of unlawful default charges, and is therefore unenforceable! Debtor then tells court (if appropriate) that the creditor is in breach of s7 of DPA and that a complaint has been made to the IM.

 

(Judge rolls eyes heaven ward)

 

(**thinks** If the debt is halved by a judge, what percentage of the remaining contains the unlawful default charges?)

 

The creditor then faces the humiliation of proving to the court that the charges are lawful, which as we all know, they arent.

 

 

Jayzuz! No wonder lawyers make a good living!

[noomill060]

"The agreement is then null and void but the outstanding money is due and payable, maybe in one lump as there is no repayment agreement. The lender then takes debtor to court and debtor gets a CCJ."

 

But the judge will of course take into account the debtor's financial situation when awarding a judgement, and after being shown the inept way the creditor has handled the case (ie:unlawfully applying default charges AND attempting to pervert the course of justice (I think) by attempting to enforce them, breaching the DPA, being in criminal breach (I love that phrase!) of the CCA 1978, Im sure the repayments the debtor would be expected to make would not be unreasonable.

[noomill060]

Ah yes!

 

CCA 1974 would be a better bet!

 

Doh! :o

[noomill060]

Hiya!

 

JAYZUZ! Thats what I call a result!

 

Somewhere, in the depths of the early part of this thread, alanfromderby posted a template for the letter you need.

 

Just start on page one and keep reading. Youll find it.

 

 

28k! dear God! Well done!

[noomill060]

Well, maybe well done isnt the right phrase, but what a shower of ncompetant nit-wits for losing such an important document. My heart bleeds for them. Not.

[noomill060]

matheos- note that the solicitor who wrote this twaddle is quoting his client, the solicitor isnt saying this himself:

 

"Our client wishes us to inform you that if they cannot provide you..bla bla"

 

He clearly wished to distance himself from this blatant lie.

[noomill060]

Sent my CCA request off to DCA at end of October, not a peep out them so far. another 9 days and theyre in criminal default.

 

I posted it by normal 1st class and retaib the certificate of posting.

 

According to Civil Proceedure Rules they are deemed to have recieved it the one day after posting.

 

Didnt want to give them option of not signing for Recorded Delivery.

[noomill060]

Try that again in English:

 

According to Civil Procedure Rules they are deemed to have recieved it the letter one day after posting. ie: the day after the next day after posting.

 

As I have proof of the date of posting the CCA, I count the allowed days from two days after posting.

[noomill060]

Cant help wondering if this isnt a bit, well, taking them on trust that they could get out of it by simply saying they didnt receive it, though.

[noomill060]

"Soul destroying sometimes isn't it? "

 

Thats what they want to do to you. Dont let them.

 

You are not a number- you are a free man.

[noomill060]

peter- I believe tape recordings are not admissable as evidence in court anyway!

 

Who is to say if the recording has been edited in some way or even that it is a recording of who they claim it to be? All you would to do is deny that it is your voice, or at least refuse to confirm that it was your voice and they would be stuffed anyway.

 

Clutching at straws- it shows how desparate they are!

[noomill060]

Let me get this straight- a finance company or DCA who fails to provide true copy agreement and/or a deed of assignment in the specified time frame cannot enforce that alleged debt under the original agreement (I get this so far) but can also be sued for all payments made under the original loan. Is that what we are saying here?

[noomill060]

I suspect that mental illness may be a total defence against any creditor's attempts to enforce the debt. In other words, it may be unenforceable.

 

But dont take any of this advice at face value, I suggest you see a solicitor and your doctor

[noomill060]

ecobabe- I think you can safely forget about this bunch of gangsters now. They know they cant enforce the debt now, and they know that you know. Result!