Nice one...................

Agree Baggio. In my case they started about last June sending me a cca that had someone else's bank details on and no prescribed terms. Wrong employment info. They sent the same false document for a Subject Access Request. I sent them numerous letters informing them of this. They sent numerous letters back stating the cca was a true copy and an enforceable agreement. I.continued to complain they then must have realised and then sent a reconstituted document so they call it. Which in my opinion was to cover their tracks. I still complained and they sent a letter saying the blank application form with no signature and no prescribed terms which was the reconstituted copy was indeed an enforceable agreement. The reconstituted copy did not even comply with the requirements of the Waksman judgement. I just want them to take me to court. Instead they keep passing the alleged account to one DCA and then another. I was looking at an old letter today from one of the DCA`s. They stated they would return the account to the OC because of the annoyance I caused by keep insisting to see the credit agreement. You couldn't make it up....lol.

If everybody took them on just imagine the paperwork they would have to deal with. A very interesting and thought provoking thread. Agree with you questioner lets take the fight to them. Be proactive...........

I agree why should these cretins get away with the complete waste of people`s time. Surely they can be charged for the use of our time. Then let them fight the number of county court actions brought against them. I think we are missing something here. I tried it with one DCA after they had passed the account back to the OC. and I sent them an itemised invoice and reminders etc. They started to get hot under the collar about it and threatened severe costs should I take the county court route. They played on the fact that no legal contract existed between us. I replied that was the same situation existed between me and the OC. they had been harassing me about. The interesting thing was they did not just ignore me they kept answering my letters which was a first. So I thought maybe I was on to something but could not figure out what. I still send them a reminder just to annoy them and they still always reply. The above letter whilst it may be legally and factually incorrect. At the very least it is a step in the right direction. There are enough very intelligent people on here to maybe develop it further. So no division, unite and put a nail in the coffin of these dealers in misery.

Baggio that`s exactly my point. I have the proof in front of me. Soon as they realised about a reconstituted document. That`s what they then sent and even stated that it was enforceable. This was after they sent the previous unenforceable documents that they also said was a true copy. Even the reconstituted document does not comply with the word of the Waksman judgement. So surely proof positive if they try court proceedings. Which in a letter today from dcl they state they are about to commence. I just pray they keep their word.

Agree with you Bigdebtor. I believe the road ahead will be very interesting and full of twists and turns. I am sure we all the the direction the twists will come from. I just hope all of this is not part of a bigger picture. By that I mean parliament at some stage in the future says hey hold on all this consumer credit act is a mess. Lets replace it with a, b, c,.

So if the creditor had replied to your s77/78 and a Subject Access Request earlier with a non enforceable document and then continues to tell you that this is a true copy of the original, and continues to state this in a number of letters. Then for whatever reason they the creditor decides it is not. They then send you a reconstituted document and state this complies with their duty without a reason for the reconstituted document. Then surely they can`t get away with covering up the original non enforceable document they have produced which they stated was a true copy of the original. Serious question?

All very interesting Skem Dosser and Baggio. Thanks for all the input. The judgement spoilt my Christmas. Spent hours reading and rereading it. I think the oilyrag posts are very near the mark. Will sleep tonight and ready for a fight till death so to speak. Just glad I found the site and the excellent contributions made by some very clever people. I for one would have found the judgement very difficult to decipher without the help on here. Even if you deciphered it yourself you would never be sure without so many great second opinions. Lets find a decent strategy to defeat these.................................

Whilst it is interesting to view each others arguments. Surely we should be adapting a strategy to deal with DCA`s and OC`s. I thought that was the mainstay argument and I am sure Skem Dosser eluded to it in past posts. Whilst argument of the facts is good. I am sure the guests will enjoy the divide and conquer situation. So let us in the cool light of dawn dissect the judgement and find strategy. I think we are missing something relevant. Even Jossie who I respect as an honest poster stated it was not all in the banks favour. She had the actual judgement before anyone proof positive in my mind. I just wish we would all pull together and form a strategy. This post is not knocking anyone but an honest request for the direction we all agree on.

Thanks for returning with the info. Baggio. Also thank you to Seriously Fed Up and others for all the excellent work put in during the Christmas period. After reading and rereading and rereading the judgement. I do find it very ambiguous and sometimes contradictory. Perhaps that is the intention. Yet we shall plod on and hope is eternal. I do think there are trojan horses in the judgement yet it is all down to interpretation. I just try and interpret it as any lay man would.

Yes thanks Serious All letters sent to them tracked. All letters received and documents and envelopes filed safely. I thought the same. Thanks again for your time and help it is greatly appreciated.

Thanks SFU yes they sent the false documents in June. It was only after I kept complaining that they then seemed to realise and then sent the reconstituted document. I have all their letters and copy documents. In between the false documents and the reconstituted one they sent an illegible one. Thanks for your help.

I agree and probably an over reaction on my part. I have been asking them to take me to court for over twelve months. Yet they just pass it round the DCAs. Well it appears they can do what they want Even offered to go and view it at their offices but was ignored. Just my opinion but they have stated in their letter that the reconstituted document is a legally enforceable agreement. Surely even following the word of the recent judgement they should not be giving this opinion. I know 77/78 route is closed. Yet when cases go to court it will make more interesting reading.

Thus in my case they produce documents that are incorrect and when I explain it to them they then send a reconstituted document and that is enforceable. Well if that is the case the laws in this country are unbelievable. So why have a consumer credit act? Why bother with contracts if any old thing is enforceable? I just do not believe they can get round the spirit of the consumer credit act. So do cpr rules not apply to banks any more. Seems all questions and no answers.

M&S have wasted no time I have just received this letter this morning. "Thank you for your letter dated 15 December 2009 addressed to my colleague. As a member of the Customer Relations Team I have been asked to reply to you. The court case to which you refer to in Manchester was held on 23 December 2009. It was confirmed that the banks position regarding reconstituted agreements comply with our duty under section 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. M&S Money has provided you with all of the documents that we are obliged to under the Act. Our agreement is a legally enforceable document and our normal collections activity will continue. Our records show that your full Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 was received at M&S Money on 19 June 2009 and the documents were posted to you on 26 June 2009. I have liased with our Account Support Team regarding your query about the questions asked by Intrum Justitia. They have told me that Intrum Justitia have the right to ask questions regarding your household income and expenditure so that they can establish a suitable repayment plan for you. The name of our Chief Executive is Mr Colin Kersley and he can be contacted in writing. The address to write to is The Chief Executives' Office, M&S Money, Chester Business Park, Kings Meadow, Chester, CH99 9FB. Jayne Ellett Customer Relations Team Marks & Spencer Money, Kings Meadow, Chester CH99 9FB. Tel: 0845 900 0900. Fax: 0845 300 0326. M&S Money - Credit Cards, Insurance, Savings and Loans. See reverse for important information. Yours sincerely So they are saying that the reconstituted document is legally enforceable. They sent me an application form with no prescribed terms contained there in. The application form was not in my handwriting and did not contain my personal details. This was for the subject access request and the cca request. When I complained about this they then sent a reconstituted application form again with no prescribed terms contained. I complained about Intrum Justitia because they made all the nasty threats and demanded my wife`s personal income information and also a letter from her consultant that she was being treated for cancer. The alleged account is in my name and nothing to do with her. They have confirmed this in their record of manual intervention. They returned the account to M&S who have now passed it to dcl. Any advice welcome.

M&S have wasted no time I have just received this letter this morning. "Thank you for your letter dated 15 December 2009 addressed to my colleague. As a member of the Customer Relations Team I have been asked to reply to you. The court case to which you refer to in Manchester was held on 23 December 2009. It was confirmed that the banks position regarding reconstituted agreements comply with our duty under section 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. M&S Money has provided you with all of the documents that we are obliged to under the Act. Our agreement is a legally enforceable document and our normal collections activity will continue. Our records show that your full Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 was received at M&S Money on 19 June 2009 and the documents were posted to you on 26 June 2009. I have liased with our Account Support Team regarding your query about the questions asked by Intrum Justitia. They have told me that Intrum Justitia have the right to ask questions regarding your household income and expenditure so that they can establish a suitable repayment plan for you. The name of our Chief Executive is Mr Colin Kersley and he can be contacted in writing. The address to write to is The Chief Executives' Office, M&S Money, Chester Business Park, Kings Meadow, Chester, CH99 9FB. Jayne Ellett Customer Relations Team Marks & Spencer Money, Kings Meadow, Chester CH99 9FB. Tel: 0845 900 0900. Fax: 0845 300 0326. M&S Money - Credit Cards, Insurance, Savings and Loans. See reverse for important information. Yours sincerely So they are saying that the reconstituted document is legally enforceable. They sent me an application form with no prescribed terms contained there in. The application form was not in my handwriting and did not contain my personal details. This was for the subject access request and the cca request. When I complained about this they then sent a reconstituted application form again with no prescribed terms contained. I complained about Intrum Justitia because they made all the nasty threats and demanded my wife`s personal income information and also a letter from her consultant that she was being treated for cancer. The alleged account is in my name and nothing to do with her. They have confirmed this in their record of manual intervention. They returned the account to M&S who have now passed it to dcl. Any advice welcome. I have a thread in the M&S section this thought this would be of interest here.

Thanks for that Baggio. I dare say it is the long game. Patience is a virtue unfortunately................................

Baggio I notice you have been on site a few times this evening. Would it be possible for an update. Did you manage to find anything out from the QC today? I am sure that you will understand we are all impatient for any crumb of help. Thanks anyway.

Thanks for that Dizzy. I just really hope that someone does something about these people. A perfect example of why reconstituted documents will never work. Perseverance is the thing against these people and then the flows will really start to show. Truth will always win in the end. I keep thinking from the judgement that Wakeman is suggesting there should be some middle ground. For example the debtor you have spent the capital and that should be repaid plus stat. interest. The creditor you have failed to provide an agreement that complies in law with the consumer credit act. No contract exists so you should repay all the interest repaid on the capital from day one plus stat. interest. No doubt I am looking at it in a very simplistic manner. Just my opinion. Will be interested with what Baggio comes up with from the QC. that should be more informative than second guessing. Very interesting that their is no media coverage. If it was a big bank victory the bank PR machine would have been in full flow by now.

I will not post again but my opinion is never give up. Fight on and on against these idiots. In the end truth will win. Remember we have to live with in the law to be protected by the law. These people make their own laws to suit their god of greed and profitability. Just like the politicians with their expenses no one thought they would be found out. Yet eventually truth will always win no mater how long it takes truth will always win. I just feel very sorry for people who cannot defend themselves against these idiots. I just feel very sorry for wakeman`s naivety in his judgement that people can defend themselves from the harassment of creditors. I think he is suggesting by reporting them to OFT the harassment will stop, idiot.. It`s about time that people understand that OFT. the ICO are not here to help the consumer. So people for God sake wake up and fight these people do not leave it to others and expect a result. We have the perfect media here and the good people with the knowledge to fight, come on do not let these people win. After all we are the majority. That is my last word on the forum. But for god sake stand up and fight. For if we don`t pull together forget the future it is bleak. I hope he sleeps at night Wakeman should he have the blood on his hands from suicides.

cymruambyth that is the problem no definitive answer. The banks and DCA`S love it. Split and divide . The same with the charges fiasco and OFT. Another joke result to screw the consumer. Why with all the power of OFT behind them do they take on the banks with the wrong point of order. Simply to buy time for the banks and then give the consumer over to the wolves. I honestly believe the human rights of China and Russia at the moment are in comparison with this governments instruction to the judiciary. No definitive answer suits these idiots. Question when is a test case not really a test case? Whitehall instructs the judiciary deliver is what I believe, maybe I`am wrong. No Definitive answer. Why because then they can say eventually that the cause of justice was not obstructed. Even if they are right or wrong. At one time I really believed in our justice system and I can honestly say that. Now after this government Blair and Brown I believe in nothing unless I have 1000% proof. So yea I believe in nothing. What a country in which we now live. Thank you New Labour.

Look at it this way for example I have an agreement with Mr. x. Yet I do not have the paper work. So I reconstruct the document without the proof and so the British Legal Systems says great you have an enforceable contract. If this was the case why then have the consumer credit act. Why bother with a contract in the first place. Hence without it any one could produce a fraudulent document and say yea that is enforceable. So you reconstruct a document against a bank for any amount and that is enforceable. I do not think so. But part of the argument from this idiot judge is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Yes I agree therefore the argument is flawed. Otherwise that proves the judgement is guided by the banks. Surely not Mr. Wakeman if you are to have any credibility.

I for one am really impressed with the judgement. Thank god the judge really as gone against the banks. Brown envelopes forget it. This is a true judgement and I believe the banks thinking they have won and yet they will really live to regret it. Read the judgement over and over again and again and you will see the barn door is now open for multiple claims against the banks. They think they have won forget it. Their legal people know the score. In my opinion it is now obvious that we need to read between the the lines. I wonder which guy in Whitehall allegedly thought up the wording for this so called judgement.

Gyos yes totally agree. Till we get the word for word judgement there is still hope. Then it will be down to the various interpretations of the judgement. Hope is a great thing, like hope we have honest politicians, hope we have honest judges, hope we have a fair and true legal system. So hope is good. Trouble is when it comes to the real fight people seem to expect everyone else to fight for them but not get personally involved. So yes I still live in hope. They do say that hope is eternal. Others say it is fools gold. Have a great Christmas.