You wont find anything TOS because it is a fallacy put around on here I don't know who came up with that interpretation but they are simply wrong. The change in the law was s127(3) was removed in april 2007 “The Court shall not make an enforcement order under s 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 s60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor ..(whether or not in the prescribed manner).” This is taken as magically you have to produce the original agreement in court for a pre 2007 agreement? A somewhat bizarre conclusion when at Carey 46 "It is common ground that the s78 copy need not be a photocopy or other form of literal copy of the executed agreement"

Indeed you would need to seek permission to appeal which you would need to do within 21 days of the verdict. Upon what grounds would you seek to appeal?

All companies are required to keep records for 6 years for tax purposes on that basis alone I would submit an sb defence. Unless that is provi is getting revenue and not declaring it for tax purposes.

Seems to me that HSBC initially merely provided a blank, in effect generic, agreement then added the name and address later but it's not clear at what point they added it. It isn't saying that two separate agreements with different addresses were provided. It also uses the phrase "copy" implying there can only be one, I know that it's only semantics but you might need to use them. I wouldn't be using the phrase amended recon agreement I would be using the phrase separate agreements.

I recon agreement is never going to have a signature if they had that they wouldn't need a recon in the first place. As a recon doesn't require a signature I fail to see how you could somehow make the leap and say that you couldn't have signed any agreement. You need to be very careful about making such an assertion. If you never signed an agreement why isn't that in your defence/witness statement? The most you could say with any degree of accuracy is that you don't remember the agreement and/or of the signing of it - after all isn't that why you made the s78 request in the first place. However we know from carey that the original address is required on the recon. Now the important bit here is at carey 60 (6) (7) and (8) at around page 20 in the judgement. The latter scenario postulated at 60(7) seems to be the situation here i.e: "On the other hand, assuming that the address was indeed on the original executed agreement but the s78 copy omitted it, the result would be continuous unenforceability under s78 (6) until and unless the address were found and inserted into or onto the reconstituted copy." Now as you pointed out ToS what is there to stop the claimant going away and filling in another with the required address? the claimant may well even suggest this. Well we know from carey that a recon needs to be "honest and accurate" well they have submitted a document that clearly isn't accurate if they were allowed to go away and submit another document they would then have two different documents pertaining to the same event that they would have to claim are both honest and accurate. That would be the route I would take, it avoids the silliness about what you did or didn't sign, and ironically uses the very case they love to quote against themselves.

the address is incorrect for the time of the original? I'm assuming they did at least manage to get the name right! Actually you could use Carey here and throw it in their face - in the judges summary at the end of his judgement "(2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement.." (It is actually issue 1c in the case). Now as to them going away and producing another recon with a different address, I see massive flaws for the claimant trying to go down that route. To borrow the phrase from carey a recon needs to be "honest and accurate". Clearly only one version of a recon can follow that mantra multiple versions cannot. I do see a possible way forward with this given your last post.

Certainly agree with that Andy. Personally I would suggest that s69 interest was envisaged to compensate the claimant for been deprived of the original capital. Clearly if you have bought the debt you cannot have been deprived of any capital quite the opposite in fact.

To quote yourself Andy from my thread "It is generally accepted from the cause of action..... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/28/section/69 Regards Andy"

Well it wasn't in my case which you posted on. There can only be one cause of action.

That is different to what you told me, that it can accrue from the cause of action, which I did check on and would appear to be the case i.e s69.3 "the defendant shall be liable to pay the plaintiff simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed, on all or any part of the debt for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of the payment."

Not really. The only difference between a pre and post april 2007 is the removal of s127(3). That means if the document you signed doesn't contain the prescribed terms they are stuffed - it would be “irredeemably unenforceable - on a pre 2007 agreement. If this does actually end up in court in December and they trot out the "we've produced a recon that satisfies carey blah blah..." you need to consider what your response would be...

The ICO would have arrived with a date for the final hearing.

There would have been a hearing to make the charging order final at that time (the rules changed this year). However once the creditor has registered the ICO at the land registry they don't need to re-register it as a FCO at the LR, they could but it would cost money for no gain, as the ICO is sufficient to register their interest in the property, so they don't as a rule.

"We write further to the above and confirm receipt of your defence. We have written to the court to inform it that we wish to proceed with our claim." They have responded to the court within the specified time, so the case wont be stayed and hence why you can expect a notice of allocation arriving

Expect a notice of allocation then

What does that sentence mean? Do you mean default notice rather than agreement? The original creditor wouldn't retain an actual DN as they are generated at the time. They would (should) be able to supply the template used with the empty fields showing and should be able to show it in their comms log. Did you just claim in your defence you never received a DN?

Why don't you just post the links to the ones that you know about then we could all see what you mean.

'1 years worth is generally seen as reasonable' What has reasonable got to do with it? Where does the county court act mention reasonable ? It does use the phrase " simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed, on all or any part of the debt or damages in respect of which judgment is given, or payment is made before judgment, for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose" That does give massive discretion and as you say depends on the circs but I don't think you could make any assumption it would be limited to one year, not that I'm saying you are doing that, but it seems to me given the discretion allowed you could get (if you lost of course) between 0-8% for a date from the cause of action to any date up to the date of judgement.

Well the section 69 of the county court act states from when the cause of action arose. Maybe there have been cases where it was limited to one year, for whatever reason, but as far as I'm aware there isn't any precedent for this. Personally I've considered when I have seen POC's limited to one year they seem to be on relatively low value claims to make the claimant seem more reasonable.

Something we have both remarked on before Andy where else can you get a potential 8% p.a with interest rates as they are (On something you had bought for pennies on the pound in the first place.)

Just what are the costs associated with an SJ. There is the application fee (a fixed cost) a WS with associated evidence produced by the claimants solicitors. The advocate for the claimant will 99% be likely the local solicitor the claimant uses in that particular area it would be highly unlikely to be a barrister - I have only ever come across a barrister at an appeal hearing for a fast track case - of course that is my personal experience. Effectively a SJ is to determine whether or not there is a trial-able issue or not, if you are not reasonably confident there is such an issue and that you can put it across in pretty quick time, then you would really need to consider your position. The only SJ's I have personal experience of have always been dismissed with no order as to costs and I don't recall any horror stories on here on people been stung for massive costs on SJ's. So I must agree with Sham as to what is the source of your claim.

"At SJ they will seek an Order to pay legal costs associated with the application on a contractual (indemnity) basis." Well for starters credit card agreements don't have indemnity clauses (thankfully).

If they go for a summary judgement (quite possible considering the circumstances) it will cost £255 for the hearing and the other costs would be assessed at the hearing and would be small (£80). A summary judgement hearing is covered by cpr 24 it is no way trying to circumvent the small claims process.

I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Clearly part of administrating mortgages could include instructing solicitors. No I don't misunderstand it. You seem to be suggesting that everything took place in one big sale? Each set of mortgages were bundled up and offered at around 3 month intervals apart from the name you can tell that by the date of incorporation. The quicker you get this kind of product off your own books the better! Sort of they created the trust which all the companies assign their rights to. Well certain high risk credit cards are bundled into these type of products, in the usa they have started doing it recently to phone contracts!

Sorry to be a killjoy but here's an alternative view.. It seems to me that you are trying to argue there was an improperly executed agreement prior to april 2007? First off a reconstituted agreement is NOT effectively an improperly executed agreement that assertion is frankly absurd. What is a S78 request? This was examined at some length in Carey (seen as everyone is using it) at issue 1. 46 "It is common ground that the s78 copy need not be a photocopy or other form of literal copy of the executed agreement." It then examines the situation further at 53 it was contended that the creditor must prove execution of the agreement by reference to the original document itself - this was rejected and lists the 14 reasons for that following and concluding at 54 "Accordingly, the copy need not be as contended for by Mr Uff and Mrs Thompson and instead, a creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself." Note the use of the phrase reconstituted version of executed agreement. In view of that I fail to see how anyone could come to the conclusion you asset that "Waksman QC, in the aforementioned case, was quite clear that a reconstituted agreement (which is effectively an improperly executed agreement) could only be enforced at the discretion of the Court, but this discretion only exists for post-April 2007 agreements." No he doesn't at all. He asserts that the recon must be honest and acurate. In reality when you get into court there is no question of there been an agreement both sides accept that, the fact that you were paying a dca would indicate the was terminated correctly. Then you're likely to get asked if you signed an agreement, using your para 2 are you suggesting that at the original time of creation (of the agreement) that there was no box to sign - good luck with trying to convince the court of that - which would certainly render the agreement bad because there would in fact be no agreement! The point about an agreement is it's either properly or improperly executed at the time of creation it doesn't suddenly turn improper. That may be an obvious statement to make but any decent claimant will (try to) switch the onus onto you as to why the agreement was improper at the time of its inception. As for s127(3) that actually relates to enforceability with regards to prescribed terms (which do form part of the ececuted agreement). This is addressed at Carey 199 I have already held that the purpose of the s78 copy is not to provide proof. Here it needs to be remembered that under s127 (3), the Court must not make an enforcement order “unless a document… containing all the Prescribed Terms… was190(1) signed by the debtor” [judges emphasis]. The failure to provide a s78 copy (which need not contain the signature in any event) does not mean that an agreement was not signed at the time. That seems to me quite specific on what makes an agreement irredeemably unenforceable on that piece of removed legislation.