I presume they can if they have got to court reword the poc or if not at court got back to lenders etc asking for it by other methods just like we can not all claim managemnt companies are bad ....some just charge too much Regards Gaz

Thats just tip of iceberg I Think Paul Regards gaz

I think Paul that your case notes ie copies of made up agreements could become part of bundles agaisnt RBS LLoyds and Nasty Westy while we speak of this as you havelong threads so to speak can you guide me to copies of original and their copies etc and any notes explaining why they reconstituted them regards Gaz

Under s78 etc request they do not have to produce copy of original agreement and also due to ruling they only have to prove on "balance of probability " that you signed the agreement subject to their own witness statement proving it was usual practice etc . What they are saying is partly right not showing you copy of original shows they have abided by your request whether a judge would enforce it is another matter they probbaly would even if it didnt have a siggy as they might say it was "lost in a fire " etc its a grey area now worsened in my view by this Manchester case anyone can make anything up and say its rehashed agreement it doesnt prove they have one or not Regards Gaz

thansk hope they squirm regards Gaz

Id also like copy of letter saying default notice was reconstructed thats a help too regards Gaz

And the way the text is set out is slightly different. Yes like correct one too as no one will know its wrong unless original there too think many people should show how they lie ie Paul Waltons problems with fictitious accounts these should become part of bundles etc Regards Gaz

sorry can you put this plain english im not sure what your referring too ws is probably witness statement os may be ombudsman service but im not sure what your replying to regards Gaz

Help please drove down thorugh a local small town I had been doing so for 30 years a police officer stopped me and said it was no entry to traffic . It had changed 3 months ago . She said she was giving me £30 fixed penalty notice . I asked to see sign saw it never seen before i said thought a warning would be sufficient asked her for her id she said she was i uniform and dint have to show it . I said anyone could wear an outfit she then said said I was being abusive I said in what way she then threatened me with a "caution twice " I asked what for she wouldnt reply . She asked me for id I hadnt got any she asked for my name I said Ill give it you if you tell me why you said i was abusive and why you threatened me with a caution . She didnt answer I said I wanted to make a complaint about her and despite keeping me waiting for ages wouldnt give me the ticket . She asked me to sign the fixerd penalty ticket I did . I asked if was offence not to give name she said no . So i drove to police staion and wanted to make a complaint . Kept waiting 90 minutes no one to see me a so I went home waiting for a call duty officer told me he wouldnt accept the complaint and put phone down on me and told me to pay the £30 fine . I called back he put phone down again . Got a letter from police asking who was driver I wrote back giving my details expecting the fixed penalty notice for £30 didnt get anything but summons to magistrates court . Summons is for wrong date , pc has not put all info down on her statement , I cant plead guilty to an offence on a day I wasnt there !!!!!! So have pleaded not guilty and am going to court though worried about it Any advice or comments please guess i should have just took fixed penalty notice and paid now could be worse but pc was just so arrogant rude and wouldnt answer my genuine concerns about the way it was done Regards Gaz

Hi Car But if banks etc have signed witness statement is that WS classed as "heresay ? " regards Gloomy Gaz who wants to be in Xmas spirit so needs either a stiff drink of find some loopholes

I hope so but I cnat see nay good things at present ..... regards a gloomy Gaz

Thanks Basil Il ruin my eyes looking through it again hows Sybil & Manuel by the way ?

But this overlooks the fact that there is no obligation to produce a copy of the signature and that "sl27 (3) does not apply merely because a signed document is not available at the court hearing; the section requires that a document containing the Prescribed Terms "was" signed by the debtor...The creditor may be able to provide evidence that its practice was always to require a signature and that its agreements always complied with section 61 (1) (a) and the debtor ...may be unable to satisfy the court that he or she did not sign an agreement

But this overlooks the fact that there is no obligation to produce a copy of the signature and that "sl27 (3) does not apply merely because a signed document is not available at the court hearing; the section requires that a document containing the Prescribed Terms "was" signed by the debtor...The creditor may be able to provide evidence that its practice was always to require a signature and that its agreements always complied with section 61 (1) (a) and the debtor ...may be unable to satisfy the court that he or she did not sign an agreement Regards Gaz

In my view Baggio your wrong you read the wording " Seems an unsigned agreement may be enforced through the courts as long as the creditor can prove "on the balance of probabilities" that a document was signed by the debtor or hirer This is the main crux in my view if there is a reconstrued agreement with a letter from some big wig in law firm or the bank stating it was usual practice to do things such a way etc any bank any credit card company can "enforce " an agreement without actually producing a signed one in court that is a major major problem for everyone Comments please regards Gaz this can be used to be enforced its just not for S78 request read it all the transcript you will find they were asking for statement on "unforceability of agreement as there wasnt one with signature but this means a reconstrued can be used and on according to courts "balance of probability " it was signed so no signature here but its still valid sorry your wrong and putting faith in these people may not be warranted at court as they have cocked up for a lot of people unless Im mistaken regards Gaz

No that was on S7-79 requests this is on enforceability which is different matter

Seems an unsigned agreement may be enforced through the courts as long as the creditor can prove "on the balance of probabilities" that a document was signed by the debtor or hirer This is what worries me it doesnt say it "has to have a signature "

Seems an unsigned agreement may be enforced through the courts as long as the creditor can prove "on the balance of probabilities" that a document was signed by the debtor or hirer This is the main crux in my view if there is a reconstrued agreement with a letter from some big wig in law firm or the bank stating it was usual practice to do things such a way etc any bank any credit card company can "enforce " an agreement without actually producing a signed one in court that is a major major problem for everyone Comments please regards Gaz

So if they havent got one or lost it they can make one up sounds 100% fair to the creditor uggghhh

I think if you look back account closed they dont have all the statements and as some of the claim is more than 6 years ago the Limitation Act will come into it using S32 is possibility but if they are not confident about arguing this it may be a problem but yes tehy cna claim compound but makes it more difficult

Right im with yu now you need to show that your son never wnated it but it was condition of loan or card etc to have it as you say it was pre ticked or that it wouldnt cover him anyway as for banks profits really I think statutory interst at 8% woudl be much easier to try to get than compund Regards gaz

sorry why are you saying agreement is not executed properly ? If it isnt then debt does not disappear but it means they cannot legally enforce it but if your taking it to court dont you run the risk of the judge saying the debt is enforceable ? If they dont have an agreement wouldnt it have been better just to not pay any more until they find it as thy are in default ? I am a little confused you said compound interest now u speak of simple interest Regards Gaz