Cosalt V MBNA

[cosalt]

Hi, I have another thread going in getting out of debt, but as this is MBNA specific I thought it should go in here !

 

Spoke to MBNA today, after they agreed to reduced payments and freezing charges subject to a budget planner.

 

After doing my budget planner I only have £112 spare to give them between the two accounts. They wont accept it, they want at least £200 between them to stop charging interest and charges. Obviously I am keen for them to stop the charges and interest ASAP but on paper I cant afford the £200 ?

 

If I accept the £200 now can I re negotiate after ? Any way I have sent two CCA request letters yesterday to see if that will give me more leverage.

[reallymadwoman]

Do not offer any more than you can reasonably afford. The worst thing that could happen is you agree to the £200 then can't make the payment - you will immediately be labelled as unreliable and they'll be even less likely to agree something in the future.

 

Write back to them with another copy of your budget and stick to your guns. I think there's a letter in the templates section if you need help.

[cosalt]

Thanks, I will persevere, its just tempting as they said they will stop the interest and charges as soon as we can agree. And it is a big reduction on the minimum payments. But you are right, not been able to afford it got me into this mess in the first place so I need to get it right !

 

I have sent CCA request for both accounts anyway on monday so hopefully this should give me some leaverage !

[cosalt]

Ok, as said in my previous post I sent a cca request for both of my mbna accounts, also my barclaycard which is been dealt with by mercers. All are well past the 12 working days and as expected I have had no response.

 

I still get phone calls and texts form both but ignore them. Should I now send them a letter as in the templates saying they are in default etc or just ignore them and do nothing ?

[cosalt]

Any thoughts on this ? Just need to know if now they have defaulted on sending me copys of my agreements, should I leave alone or send the letters informing them they have done so ?

[dpick]

Hi it's up to you what you do MBNA are known for acknowledging a request then if they don't have any agreement to ignore you though it seems that the latest response has been to send latest T&C and say they have complied with your s78 CCA request. I sent a copy of the following amended for my claim.

 

I would: here's a good one courtesy of Berrylover.

Make sure to wait your 12+2 working days.

 

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to your company

Dear Sir,

 

Re:−

 

FORMAL NOTICE - ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE.

 

This letter is further to letter from yourselves dated (enter date).

On the (enter date) I wrote to you requesting a copy of the credit agreement and other information under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Sections 77-79).

 

To date you have failed to comply with these requests in any way.

 

These documents I requested should be readily available as proof of your legal right to collect this account under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Furthermore, you are aware that the Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for a request for a true copy of a credit agreement to be carried out before you enter into a default situation.

 

These limits have expired.

 

As you are no doubt aware the Consumer Credit Act states:

 

If the creditor fails to comply with Subsection (1)

 

He is not entitled , while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

 

Therefore this account has become unenforceable at law.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Furthermore I shall counter-claim that any such action constitutes unlawful harassment.

 

Please note you may also consider this letter as a statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect.

 

This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies.

Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days of the initial request to stop processing my details, provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data.

 

It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’. You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

 

Furthermore you should be aware that a creditor is not permitted to take ANY

Action against an account whilst it remains in dispute.

 

The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies.

 

* You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

* You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.

* You may not pass the account to a third party.

* You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.

* You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

 

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit including but not limited to Trading Standards, the Office of Fair Trading, the Information Commissioners Office, The Financial Ombudsman Service and my MP .

You have 7 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Adapt to suit.Dont use your signature & send recorded.

 

 

all the best with this dpick

[cosalt]

Ok, sent the letter as kindly provided by dpick by recorded delivery on 11/11/08 Have received no reply at all.

 

I am still getting stupid letters from MBNA about them starting court proceedings and also default letters. They are also still adding charges and interest to the account.

 

I feel the best course of action is to ignore ? Is this the right way to go ? I dont see any point in sending any more letters as they are just ignoring them.

 

Thanks

[dpick]

Ok, sent the letter as kindly provided by dpick by recorded delivery on 11/11/08 Have received no reply at all.

 

I am still getting stupid letters from MBNA about them starting court proceedings and also default letters. They are also still adding charges and interest to the account.

 

I feel the best course of action is to ignore ? Is this the right way to go ? I dont see any point in sending any more letters as they are just ignoring them.

 

Thanks

 

Hi you know send them letter asking for their formal complaint procedure, this way when or if you or they take this further you have a paper trail of the efforts you have made in this dispute with them.

 

dpick

[cosalt]

Ok received a big envelope today containing copies of 'agreements' and current terms and conditions and statements.

 

I have scanned agreements would be grateful if someone could take a look to see what they think.

 

Fingers crossed.

 

Image of Agreement1 - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

 

Image of agreement2 - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

 

Image of back1 - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

 

Image of back2 - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

[citizenB]

Hi Cosalt,

 

I have put a link to your documents on a couple of threads, requesting assistance for you.

 

You have one similar to SB100. The other one looks a bit cut and paste as well. Hopefully, someone with more knowledge will be able to advise you further.

[cosalt]

Hi Cosalt,

 

I have put a link to your documents on a couple of threads, requesting assistance for you.

 

You have one similar to SB100. The other one looks a bit cut and paste as well. Hopefully, someone with more knowledge will be able to advise you further.

 

Thank you.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Cosalt!

 

That's a bunch of Microfiche Scans all flying in close proximity.

 

Will take a close look over the Weekend, but these don't look to be linked together...my guess is they have thrown in some handy Terms to go with the Application Form/Signature Page Copies.

 

If they are copies, then they will have some issues with CPR PD 16 7.3.

 

If they are copies, then these Copies are Hearsay Evidence, and are not hard Evidence as would be the case if they had an Original Agrement to produce in Court.

 

See The Civil Evidence Act 1995.

 

If they are Copies, then you can jump on this the moment a Court Claim comes fluttering through your Letter Box.

 

See:

 

Getting Them To Reveal Their Vitals. Using CPR 31.14 to Your Advantage

 

If they are Copies, then you will need them to explain how these Copies came into being, and when, and ask them to explain to the Judge why they felt the urge to Shred a live Statutory Agreement.

 

If they produce a tame banker in Court willing to swear blind he/she knows all about the Copies and how they came into being, then you will cross-examine their ass to make sure they do know every last detail, first question being to ask the tame banker what date they started at the bank, and how does their history at the bank tie in with the history of the Copy Agreements!

 

You may find they were not even employed by the bank when the alleged Agreements were Scanned and Shredded.

 

All is not lost, now lets take a closer look at the Copies over the Weekend!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[citizenB]

The following link is worth a read as well.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Cosalt!

 

I've had a good look at the two Agreements, and can comment as follows. Please do be aware that these are just my own observations, you need to seek other opinions and read up on the details to make up your own opinion.

 

These alleged Agreements look to be Copies of Copies, but you must allow for the fact that they may have an Original Document. Unlikely, but always keep that in mind. If they have not got an Original, you must also be aware that they will be doing their level best to try and convince you that they have.

 

All you can do when faced with what are clearly at least 2nd Generation Copies of the Original, is to use reasonable judgement based on what you can see and read from these 2nd+ Generation Copies.

 

1st Generation Copy = something copied directly from the Original.

 

2nd Generation Copy = something copied from a copy of the Original.

 

The Four Copies are now four Documents if that is all they have, so it's now near impossible to link them 100%. All the Court can do in a Civil Case is work on the balance of probabilities.

 

To help put this into perspective, please ask yourself how far would you get saying you have won the National Lottery, and here's a 2nd Generation Copy of your Winning Ticket to prove it!

 

Your task is to make sure any weakness in the MBNA's plans are undermined at every opportunity. Best way to do that is to analyse the Copies to death, and spot any and every weakness. You must break any attempt to link them, and introduce significant doubt that the Copies are either compliant with the Act or linked to each other.

 

The fact they almost certainly do not have the Original, is their first major and potentially fatal weakness. This could be deliberate on their part, because if they know the Original did not have any Prescribed Terms, then how better to cover up for that omission than to shred the Original and then say this is what it would've looked like by throwing in a handy 2nd Document, claiming the two were once back to back on the same Original piece of paper.

 

Your strategy has to be as follows:

 

Question the Copy Agreements at every step, and break any implied links between the copies they may try to claim.

 

Then be on standby with CPR 31.14 to immediately question these Copies should the MBNA attempt Court action.

 

Make sure your Defence stresses the need to see the Original, and the fact that you do not accept the alleged Agreement they may include on their Particulars of Claim (POC) is a Copy the actual complete document you once Signed.

 

Make sure your Defence and Allocation Questionnaire response stresses the above, plus highlight their likely failure to comply with CPR 31.14, and amplify their requirements under CPR PD 16 7.3 to bring the Originals to Court.

 

This CAG Link should be read to see what SI 1983/1553 says:

 

Consumer Credit Act (1974) and related Regulations

 

Agreement One Front (A1F):

 

(A1F Flaw One)

 

This is not headed correctly if they want this Application Form to become a Regulated Credit Card Agreement...they've omitted the word Card!

 

SI 1983/1553 (see link above) says:

 

(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, a heading in one of the following forms of words--

 

(a) "Hire Purchase Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974";

 

(b) "Conditional Sale Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974";

 

© "Fixed Sum Loan Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"; or

 

(d) "Credit Card Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974",as the case may require.

 

(2) If none of the headings in 1(a) to (d) above are applicable a heading in the following form of words--

 

"Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974".

 

(3) Where the document and a pawn-receipt are combined, the words ", and Pawn Receipt," shall be inserted in the heading after the word

"Agreement".

 

(4) Where the document embodies an agreement of which at least one part is a credit agreement not regulated by the Act, the word "partly" shall be inserted before "regulated" unless the regulated and unregulated parts of the agreement are clearly separate.

 

(5) Where the credit is being secured on land the words "secured on" followed by the address of the land shall be inserted at the end of the

heading.

 

(A1F Flaw Two)

 

It looks like they may've Signed in your Signature Box, as there's a big fat Stamp in there, plus what looks like a Signature. That could be your Signature, but if it is one of theirs, then they have Executed the Agreement in your Signature Box, which is not allowed. If this is considered to be an Agreement, that would make it improperly executed and Enforceable only by a Court Order (when other major flaws can be shown).

 

(AF1 Flaw Three)

 

It's hard to read. If any of it is actually hard to read when holding the Copy that they have sent, then this Copy fails the legibility issue, and cannot be regarded as a valid response to your s78(1) Request.

 

The relevant Legislation being:

 

Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557)

 

2 Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms

 

(1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in 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, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily

distinguishable from the .

 

(2) The wording of any Form prescribed by these Regulations shall be reproduced in copies of unexecuted or executed agreements or in Notices of Cancellation Rights sent [by an appropriate method] under section 64(1)(b) or (2) of the Act without any alteration or addition, except that--

 

(a) the creditor or owner may enter the name and address of the debtor or hirer in any Cancellation Form prescribed by these Regulations; and

 

(b) every Form shall be completed in accordance with any footnote.

 

(3) Any such footnote shall not be treated as part of any Form prescribed by these Regulations and may be reproduced in addition to any such Form.

 

(4) Where any such footnote requires any words to be omitted, those words shall be omitted or deleted.

 

(AF1 Flaw Four)

 

I can't see any Prescribed Terms, so that would make this an Application Form that could not become an Enforceable Agreement. This was signed in 1998, so the alleged Agreement was well before the Consumer Credit Act 2006, so s127(3) remains applicable. Without any Prescribed Terms, they are stuffed.

 

Obviously, this is why they have included the 2nd Document and they would like you and the Court to think this 2nd Document was part of the Application Form. I can't see any direct links, and no mention on the Application Form about any Terms being overleaf (I may've missed this but cannot see any sign at first inspection).

 

Agreement One Back (A1B):

 

(A1B Flaw One)

 

I can read this, and it has a Date of 1998, but there's nothing obvious to link this to the above.

 

Indeed, it is a worse Copy than A1F, suggesting these two Documents were not Copied at the same time, otherwise why is one so much worse than the other? The Text is reasonably clear on A1F but very blurred on A1B.

 

This may have Prescribed Terms, but it's hard to tell. Looks like it, but having them is not enough, this must be shown to be a part of the Agreement for them to be considered part of the Agreement.

 

Agreement Two Front (A2F):

 

This is hard to read, so falls down on the legibility issues above.

 

It's almost certainly a Microfiche Scan.

 

It's not Headed Correctly, as they have omitted the word Card, same as on A1F above.

 

The text does say something like:

 

I have received a copy of and agree to be bound by the MBNA Credit Card Terms & Conditions. I understand that MBNA reserves the right to issue a standard Card.

 

This could be any Terms, and is clearly mentioning another Document. These Terms could be things like they'll give you a Chocolate Easter Egg in Spring, or they'll charge you a Fine if you go over limit. These are general Terms not the Prescribed Terms. The latter must be within the four corners of the Agreement, that's if an Application Form is to become an Enforceable Agreement.

 

Agreement Two Back (A2B):

 

(A2B Flaw One)

 

I can't really read this, so I think straight away it should fail the same legibility issues as above.

 

Indeed, it is at least as bad a Copy as A2F. Looks worse, suggesting this wasn't copied at the same time as the Front.

 

This may have Prescribed Terms, but it's hard to tell. The dark black borders do suggest this is a Microfiche Scan, and the poor quality seems to confirm this.

 

In summary:

 

The above are just my own observations. I welcome others to please inspect as well, and comment if anything I say is not accurate or is not valid.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[cosalt]

Wow ! That has to be the most comprehensive response to a post ever ! Thank you so much BRW

 

Looking at the alleged agreements, my observations are as follows.

 

Agreement 1 F

 

I would say that appears to be a copy of an original, however their signature above the verified stamp is most definately stuck on, on my copy you can see the out line of the label, or whatever it happens to be. Does it have to be signed by them ? It clearly says application form at the top and does not say 'credit card agreement' It says to apply, it does not suggest I am signing an agreement.

 

Agreement 1 B

 

These Say 'Financial and related conditions' should this say 'terms and conditions as reffered to on the front ? Why if the front is that size would the backj be condensed into half the size ? Also many times in the terms its refers to the MBNA terms and conditions, should theyu not be printed here ?

 

Agreement 2 F

 

I cant see how this could be classed as an agreement, as in agreement 1 there is no reference to 'credit card agreement'. Also whats under that barcode sticker ? The other interesting point is that their signature is almost definately the same one as on the front of agreement 1, yet it is half the size ? My writing is the same size on both so one of the signatures is incorrect.

 

Agreement 2 B

 

My copy is better than what shows up on photobucket, however it is still almost illegible, you have to strain your eyes to read any of it and some of the text in the interest box is totally illegible. This is clearly a copy of a copy.

 

I would be most grateful if you could comment on my views to see if you agree or any other views.

 

Thanks in advance

 

C

[fedup74]

Hi cosalt:) What are the default charges on the terms and conditions? In my opinion this is an application form, I think I can make out "Please issue an MBNA card. There are no prescribed terms on your signature page so IMHO unenforceable (Just my opinion though.) Welcome to the strange and pestering world that is MBNA:(

[cosalt]

Hi cosalt:) What are the default charges on the terms and conditions? In my opinion this is an application form, I think I can make out "Please issue an MBNA card. There are no prescribed terms on your signature page so IMHO unenforceable (Just my opinion though.) Welcome to the strange and pestering world that is MBNA:(

 

Hi, there are no default charges in the 'financial and related conditions' the only terms and conditions they sent are their current ones ( which they admit are the curremt ones ) these show default charges of £12.

 

Are the terms that they claim are on the back not ok to be on the back ( not that they believe they ever were ) ?

 

Thanks for your help !:grin:

[fedup74]

I was of the opinion that the prescibed terms needed to be within the 4 corners of the signatory box. (I could be wrong though) Other people will advise.

[cosalt]

Just for everyone to note, I was a photocopier technician for many years and so can spot a copy of a copy a mile off ! When you copy a copy you get a very distinctive end product.

 

Example my agreement 1 is clearly a copy of an original or a laser print of a scan of the original. The back looks the same although I doubt if it is the same document.

 

My agreement 2 is clearly a copy of a copy or a laser print of a scan of a copy. It is definately not a copy of an original or a scan of the original.

 

If I can help with any others please ask.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello fedup74!

 

I was of the opinion that the prescibed terms needed to be within the 4 corners of the signatory box. (I could be wrong though) Other people will advise.

 

It's the four corners of the Agreement. That is a little hard to get across, but the basic issue is the Prescribed Terms must be part of the Agreement, and must not be found in another Document.

 

For example, you could have an Agreement that was, say, 9 Pages. That would be OK if the Pages were all clearly numbered, and the Agreement was clearly a single Document with the Prescribed Terms somewhere between the Heading on Page 1, and the Signature Box on Page 9.

 

Thus, the Prescribed Terms would be within the four corners of the Agreement.

 

What would not be acceptable would be if there was a 2nd Document with, say, 2 Pages, and the Prescribed Terms were in that. Then the Prescribed Terms would not be within the four corners of the 9 Page Agreement.

 

Where it gets messy is when we have single Sheet Application Forms, with a Signature Box on the Front, and some Terms on the Rear.

 

Arguably, because the Prescribed Terms follow the Signature Box, then it can be argued that they are not within the four corners of the Agreement. However, in turn, it can also be argued that because they are on the back of the same sheet, then they could be within the four corners of the Agreement.

 

It is exactly this issue that the banks want to try and use to their advantage, hence the reason why they are so creative at losing the Originals and creating Rear Pages that have some Prescribed Terms on them (often appearing like magic).

 

If there does exist an Original piece of paper that has your Signature on it and the Prescribed Terms somewhere on it, even the rear, then it's quite likely that such a piece of paper would be enforced by a Court. You may be able to argue that if the Prescribed Terms are on the back, that doesn't count, but it's likely the Court would in most cases disregard that and Enforce. Not certain, just likely.

 

However, you may now see why the banks are so desperate to conjure up Rear Pages that have Prescribed Terms, particularly if they have a Copy of the Application Form Front Page that has your Signature.

 

But you must treat these with the utmost suspicion if they cannot produce the Original.

 

I'm quite sure that many banks have deliberately shredded Unenforceable Agreements to get rid of the evidence that they do not have a properly executed Agreement.

 

In other words, they are grasping the opportunity to make an Unenforceable Original into a potentially Enforceable Copy, if they can hold their nerve and convince a Judge the Copy is what the Original once looked like.

 

To be fair to some banks, they may well have once possessed a properly executed Original, but then they elected to Scan just the Front Page and Shredded the Original and, in so doing, destroyed all actual evidence of what was on the back.

 

But, many banks never had an Enforceable Original in the first place, and so they are the ones who are trying to exploit the issue by relying on edited Copies. Proving they are edited is hard work. But the fact remains they are Copies and not the Originals, so they should not carry the same weight as Evidence in Court as the Original would [see The Civil Evidence Act 1995 (CEA 1995) and the issue of Hearsay Evidence].

 

Original Agreement = Evidence.

 

Copy Agreement = Hearsay evidence (CEA 1995 then applies).

 

You can see why some banks are so tempted to jump on the Copy Agreement bandwagon: if, say, a few thousand pounds is at stake per Agreement, then some banks will know that if they shred all of their Unenforceable Originals, create a new version of the rear page and just put on a stern Poker Face, they may be able to bluff their way into forcing 90% of Debtors to Pay or keep Paying. These same people would not Pay if shown an Original Unenforceable Agreement.

 

This is the disgraceful aspect of all these cobbled together 2nd Pages that are appearing. Why so many? Why are all the Front Pages reasonably accurate Scans of Applicaton Forms, and why are so many of the Rear Pages so suspect?

 

This is why you must treat anything that looks like a Copy of a Copy with suspicion, and if it looks to be cobbled together, then you must smell a rat.

 

You must also ask yourself why are so many banks reluctant to simply say:

 

Yes, we do have the Original, and you may come and inspect it at any time.

 

How often have you heard that?

 

Cheers,

BRW

[angel_1]

hiya BRW

 

i have printed a copy of your above reply as this now has helped me fully finally understand what all this cca is all about

 

when i came here first it was like so much info that the real evidence got hidden but now with time and understanding others views i can begin to pick at it

 

so ive also and always wondered myself, why cant i demand to see the original copy after ive had a suss copy?

 

i have been referred to fos after final letters ref compliants been sent to me as im saying illegible, so just finalising my fos complaints

 

could i in effect ask the Fos as part of my request to resolve this matter once and for all, Can the original be seen by me at one of the banks branches to satisfy myself its a proper executed agreement? and to obtain a better quality copy to show my "legal Advisors"

 

appreciate your thoughts thanks maz

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Maz!

 

I think the main reason why banks are so reluctant to let people see the Original Agreements, is because once they start allowing this, they won't be able to hide the fact that most of them are hiding a great deal more!

 

For every Original Copy, they probably have 100 Scanned Copies!

 

It's the Scans they don't want you to see, so even when they know they have an Original, they won't allow you to see it.

 

Indeed, this may also explain why few Originals seem to make it to Court.

 

If you look at it from their position, they'd rather risk losing a case by not producing an Original, than win a case by producing it and then having the same Judge expect them to bring Originals every time thereafter!

 

For the big lie to hold true, they can't be seen to be telling the truth every now and again!

 

Better to Scan and Shred the lot because, overall, they'll get more people to keep Paying that way.

 

No point using Originals to win 2 battles and then lose 98 Battles because they don't have Originals.

 

Far better to use Copy Agreements and lose 10 battles in order to win 90 Battles with no Original Agreement being needed!

 

It's our job to re-educate the Courts, and make it clear that...

 

...only the Original Agreement will do in Court!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[angel_1]

thanks BRW

 

of course this does make sense,

 

i just feel i want to rattle their cage a bit by informing fos that to clear this problem up speedily then allow me to view th original copy, i know fos will say not in their standing to say if its enforceable or not but i want to try another tact

 

why can they not let me see the original, they would need to bring it to court so why not resolve this matter now with my fos complaint as ive already tried myself and mbna have blocked me

 

i dont know if my reasoning is reasonable or just hopeful lol ?

 

thank you MAZ

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Maz (and Cosalt, not forgetting it's their Thread)!

 

The issue of copies is so messy, because the alleged Debtor is always going to be at a disadvantage because, in most cases, the Original would have gone back to the Creditor.

 

At best, all the alleged Debtor may have is a good Copy of the alleged Agreement, i.e. if they Copied both sides of the thing before sending it back.

 

But, that's then also Hearsay Evidence, because it's a Copy of the Original not the Original.

 

The banks, by comparison, should have the Original.

 

But, when they Copy and Shred it, they then also have Hearsay Evidence, and that allows them to start being creative with it, such as fiddling with the Copy of the Rear Page. After all, how can anyone prove that is not what it looked like?

 

They know that in Court, the worst that can happen will be it's their Hearsay Evidence against the alleged Debtors Hearsay Evidence.

 

If the alleged Debtor says, hold on a moment, my Copy of the Rear Page has no Prescribed Terms...the bank will say, but ours does M'lud. We are sure that is what it looked like, the alleged Debtor must be mistaken, or is making this up to duck his responsibilities. Or if it's looking serious for them, they'll blame it on a banking clerical error, apologise, and run away from Court knowing full well they'll be back to try the same trick on with someone else (some we win, some we lose)!

 

So, there's no real come back against them if they are creative with the Rear Page. That is why so many dubious Rear Page Copies are knocking around, because there is almost no come back against the bankers. They can be as creative as they like, and know the chances of being picked up is more or less zero.

 

However, the main weapon to use against them remains questioning the validity of their Copy. Starting with CPR 31.14 before Court, and when in Court you must highlight CPR PD 16 7.3, and The Civil Evidence Act 1995.

 

When they try to big up the validity of their Rear Page Copy in line with their requirements under CEA 1995, then that is when you must shoot them down in flames, by severe cross-examination of any Witnesses they bring along to Court to try and swear blind the Rear Page Copy is genuine.

 

All the better if you also happen to have your own Copy of the Rear Page showing no Prescribed Terms (provided you Sign a Witness Statement to confirm it's a Copy you took of the Rear just before you sent the Application Form back to the Creditor...i.e. to make sure you comply with CEA 1995 too)!

 

i dont know if my reasoning is reasonable or just hopeful lol ?

 

I think you are being entirely reasonable, but given the above issues, it probably won't get you anywhere, and especially with FOS, who are pretty tame towards the bankers when ever they can get away with it.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited December 24, 2008 by banker_rhymes_with
Spelling

[angel_1]

thanks again and my apologies to cosalt on your thread,

 

i understand i can only try and play dumb and advise fos it would only be reasonable to request sight of the original cca to resolve my compalint, will update you all

 

and worst scenario as mine is still with oc ,if they refuse, they can take legal action if they so wish and i would come back with the

CPR PD 16 7.3 and the The Civil Evidence Act 1995

 

not easy i know

 

good wishes to all

Edited December 12, 2008 by angel_1