dadofholly - this is exactly the way I shall fight this case. As I've said previously, I assumed the judge would be aware of the relevant law, test cases etc, but I was very very wrong. On an appeal my defence will be totally robust.

Thanks P1 Debt Star nice try and I've not even checked your previous posts! scrible

I have finally decided to appeal the decision. I do not believe the judge was aware of Carey and I wish to have the claim reviewed.If anybody would like to help me with regard to the appeal and also with the best way to let people know on this forum about the details then please pm me in the first instance. I look forward to an interesting ride and a beneficial outcome. scrible

No date whatsoever, just a name and address.

I have no idea what the judges intentions were but essentially the the answer is yes!!. Its very worrying but I truly believe that a reconstituted agreement could be presented to just about anybody in a court and a judgement be made upon it. If you think it through its extremely concerning!.

Hi BD - I put a similar argument to him albeit in less detail. I said I wasn't denying a debt but that I required set aside in order for me to ascertain how the sum claimed had been arrived at bearing in mind that I had no agreement, 2 differing "opening credit limit" amounts, (they varied by £6,000), 2 default notices and a Priority application form (reconstituted agreement). I suggested that because of the various anomolies, Restons/HFC could have got their sums wrong and that I needed time to query them. He was not interested as I've stated. He seemed to think that irrespective of any possible errors that the money stated by Restons/HFC was the money owed period.

Here you go http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?285616-**WARNING**-quot-Reconstituted-quot-CCA-perfectly-acceptable-says-Judge(10-Viewing)-nbsp

BD - I got this on my phone and wanted to reply to it on the forum but have just realised I think you may have posted it to my previous thread. Can you resubmit it to the current thread and I will reply. tks scrible

Thanks for the nudge Mr.Angry! I am looking through the posts and will make a decision soon on which way to proceed.

Thanks again for all the comments. Several points spring to mind. Firstly I thought my defense was pretty solid because I thought I had to be presented with a copy of my signed original agreement. I thought my defense was solid because I thought a reconstituted agreement was unacceptable. I thought I would win easily because I thought the judge would be well versed with the Carey judgement. Perhaps too many assumptions were made on my behalf. What you feel is a strong defence, becomes a poor defence if you and the judge are not singing off the same hymn sheet. So I started with a very strong defence and clearly ended with a poor one, its the judge who judges that point!! Secondly I am terribly concerned, and nobody seems to have picked up on this yet, that the judge granted in favour of the claimant based on a document that meant absoloutley nothing. At the end of the day anybody could reconstitute an agreement, enter anybodies name and address on it an attempt to enforce it!! Finally I truly am concerned that the judge passed judgement on this matter based almost exclusivly on such a flimsy document which by default cannot carry any legal argument.

Sorry to take a long time in between posts but I'm studying and rereading to make sure I've understood. Thanks for the support and helpful comment. The debt was circa 12k. I need to check and check again for ppi and other charges. I stated to the judge that at the time the agreement was alledgedly signed I was not employed. He queried whether I was implying HFC had mis sold the credit. I didn't at the time seek to further the question. I do believe the judge was unaware of Carey, he certainly was far more comfortable 'chatting' with Restons solicitor, and he most certainly weighed heavily on the fact that I had stated I had used the facility. Ergo I have used the facility therefore I must owe money. My argument was not that I owed the money but on what basis the debt had been calculated, and in order for me to see exactly the correct figures I required the original signed documents. The judge really wasn't concerned with that from what I could tell. Scrible

I can submit a form N244 for set aside/reconsideration etc, however my concern is that the judge was adamant that he was correct. A reconstituted agreement was acceptable. My defence I felt, was sufficiently strong although he stated that he didn't believe I had a defence. My worry is that any tom dick or harry can now turn up in court with a reconstituted agreement and demand monies, charging orders, whatever. The judge also stated that I should be careful when seeking advise from these no win no fee organisations as they invariably are not upto speed with the current laws. I NEVER even considered using one of these herberts!! copy of my defence defence2.pdf Further background information can be found under this thread link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?278225-Default-Judgement-entered-due-to-late-return-of-AoS-whose-to-blame-what-to-do I am not prepared to be hung drawn and quartered if I am correct. I will be happy to argue with whoever to get this absured situation clarified and I will make it my cause to ensure this doesn't happen again to anyone. scrible defence1.pdf

I was confident in court in terms of if they produced just a reconstituted agreement then the judge would at least grant set aside and at best kick out the agreement and therefore the charging order.

They could not produce ANY document with my signature on it. I pointed the fact out to the judge that the agreement that he was relying on could have been made up! The only item that it included was my name and address written in an unknown handwriting. What also concerns me is that if this judge has made an error, then the independent solicitor acting for Restons must have known the reconstituted agreement was unacceptable and should not have produced it. I have to make it clear that I did state to the judge that I had used the credit facility and had presumably operated it according to its terms.What I had been seeking from HFC/Restons was the original in order for me check amounts, credit limits, aprs etc.

]I went to court last week in a dispute with HFC (GM card). Acting on behalf of HFC were Restons. Quite a straight forward case. I owed an amount on my credit card, I stopped paying when I was concerned that the agreement might not be accurate, (I don't remember signing it or when or where (1994)), I sought to get the original agreement from HFC but they couldn't produce it stating they didn't have it. I used section 77/78 and threatened CPR. 7 days before the court case Restons produced a reconstituted agreement (see below), and some statements, and the judge ruled in their favour! Result, a charging order for the debt placed upon my property. Reconstituted agreement - priority app form.pdf terms & conditions.pdf Now two things strike me instantly. The judge has got this completely and utterly wrong or their is incorrect or misleading advice on this forum. I suspect it the former, however I would caution people to do their own homework. I received some superb assistance from this site but ultimately the judge ruled that "a RECONSTITUTED agreement is now days perfectly acceptable in place of the original'. Scrible