I think what threw me was this... Should have read the precis Dyslexia gets me every time

Isn't one of the key points raised in the summing up that to claim for anything more than nominal damages to claimant needs to prove such? In addition didn't the judge say the claimant would need "trader" status to claim anything more than nominal damages. So was Mr K's 5.5K nominal? I'm interested because a CCP recently passed an account to a DCA who then issued a default notice. This was after I was promised that the account would be investigated by the bank's fraud dept... Turns out the account was indeed subject to fraud and the defaulted amount was due entirely to the fraudulent transactions and the CCP's own charges and interest.

I have one just like it

Hello Auntie I think the issue regards your job title is very interesting, but I would have thought it difficult to prove any wrong doing. The first copy is a typical HBOS agreement circa a few years ago. As it stands it is unenforceable, IMO. Certainly, HBOS dropped a claim against me having only this sort of doc as substantiation. To me, the more interesting question is whether the next load of bumph actually amounts to a correct reply to a CCA request. I.e., whether it is a 'true copy' or not. HBOS are saying it is. Paul Walton may or may not be somewhere near getting an answer from the OFT on this, but in the meantime I have a few words to say... I can imagine the scenario... Some bright spark at Trinity Road sees there are a lot of CCA requests coming in and dreams up this standard response listing the current T&C's along with a few prescribed terms and, hey presto, the costly and time consuming problem of answering all these requests is dealt with - Just change the name and address and interest rate on each reply. Gosh, it's a wonder no one ever though of it before! So tell me, why are all the doc's sent you (save the front sheet) for an account opened a few years back the same as one opened last year - VERBATIM? I'm not just talking about the T&C's but the whole agreement - HBOS are passing off their reply as a true copy. I know for a fact that the content of agreements have changed from around the time you opened your account and I have originals from 2003/4 to prove it. Either way, HBOS have not responded to your request from an agreement correctly. Moreover I would suggest that this practise is misleading. I would be tempted to write and explain that.

That one sounded like it originated from somewhere on the Indian subcontinent...

8am Boxing Day

You are -sort of- going in a direction I’ve been investigating lately here, tsiman. Is it acceptable to send generic documents with a bit of cut and paste to 'personalise' them, as seems now to be the MO employed by HBOS. We know form Paul Walton's story that creditors feel quite at ease 'conjecturing' agreements. The '83 document reg's say that a creditor may omit certain information - the debtor’s name for instance. But in all other respects it must be a true copy. The OFT seem to think that this can be a typed up version containing the correct information. From the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983: So IMO an account number may be omitted from an agreement sent under s77-79, but not from a copy of a cancellable agreement sent under s63. There is another point that people bring up a lot regarding copies and original docs – that a creditor must have the original to enforce. The Civil Evidence Act 1995 has some bearing here: The guidelines for this type of data storage are set out in the BSI’s “Code of Practice for legal admissibility and evidential weight of information stored electronically.” So, to enforce an agreement a creditor must have an actual copy of the agreement, not necessarily the original. But bear in mind that unless the copy is legible then the creditor would be ill advised to try and enforce as he couldn’t have properly complied with the copy doc's regs. Sorry I can't really help with the s85 issue.

Can you explain pls PT? I have just such a one.

HBOS may have changed their tack since I last dealt with them, but in my experience, this letter will have little or no effect. Report them to Trading Standards and the OFT. Log the calls. Record them if possible - this is important. I could have made things easier for myself I had done this, but have a look at this thread anyway: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/119530-what-would-you-do.html Read the case law for harassment. You need to know and understand the law and how this company runs roughshod over our rights. Suffice-to-say, if you take the advice on offer here you will have little to fear from this organisation. Good Luck Rosie

Hi there Unless you're undertaking a private prosecution under s1/2 you will be looking at bringing an s3 tort claim. The civil standard of proof applies see Hipgrave v Jones [2004] EWHC 2901 (QB) Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust ([2007] 1 AC 224) gave a wide definition of harassment & established vicarious liability Conn v Sunderland Council (CoA, 7 November 2007) is important. Study this as it will most likely be cited in an attempt to thwart any case you might bring. See also Test whether civil harassment has occurred - Times Online and http://www.crutesllp.com/content/articles/specialist/Specialist%20Autumn%20Winter%202007.pdf As you can see, this might be a cause for concern for anyone considering bringing an action for debtor harassment. I think the key here is context, but you’ll need to come up with arguments relating to your own situation. There is more out there, but these three are AFAIK the most pertinent.

I can only reiterate what others have said. Log each call. When the dust settles a log it will be important. Calling every hour is harassment by anyone's standard - though you will have hard job finding legal precedent. What I do know is that the OFT consider the over-frequent contacting of debtors to be oppressive (the word “oppressive” is important – read the Protection from harassment Act) and the CAB consider the most a debtor should be contacted is no more than three times a week - and even that seems excessive to me. The banks have and are settling harassment claims from debtors. Remember there may be cases of which we hear nothing, in addition to the causes celebres that have been in the media over the past year or two. I would recommend reading the pertinent cases to get a background should you wish to pursue this avenue: Majrowski v Guy's, St. Thomas' NHS Trust – Definition of “civil” harassment & vicarious liability Conn v Sunderland County Council – context Finally – know you have a right to enjoy you home in relative peace, free from harassment. These are criminal acts being perpetrated against us.

April 07 It also doesn't include the correct APR (Mine should be 0% for 12 months)

I have the same document in front of me

Standard response it seems, Davey. Is there even a date?

They do this habitually - I would love to see them try it on in front of a judge:o

That would be Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - Mr Kpohraror sued the bank for damage to reputation following a (wrongly) bounced cheque. The pertinent part of the CoA judgement follows: Which would seem conclusive; however to claim more than nominal damages (for stress, humiliation etc.,) would be difficult without, as you say, proving them. I could imagine that you would retort that you weren't that aware action could be taken until recently? I'm sure banks have settled these sorts of issues out of court on more than one occasion.

Hi there There is some case law out there with regard to salary overpayment, though I'm not completely sure whether it may apply to you. IIRC there was a precedent whereby if an employer was told of the error but neglected to act promptly he was liable. Please forgive my vagueness and feel free to undertake a bit of research to validate (or otherwise).

This is it http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/102011-blair-oliver-scott-bank-7.html#post1264469

I agree whole-heartedly with your feelings, but Meagain is considering bringing an action to, amongst other things, gain a court order under section 3 of the PfHA precluding contact from a creditor whom Meagain feels is harassing. In order to do that it would be necessary to prove that the creditor's actions could, in the balance of probabilities, be deemed as harassment as defined under section 1 of that Act. When you read the act the definition is wide, but recent cases, in the opinion of some legal commentators have narrowed it somewhat. I disagree with that interpretation. See Conn v Sunderland City Council. Ultimately, law in this country is, so far as I know, often not always matter of black and white allowing for many shades of grey, particularly with something like harassment where context is a consideration. So when bringing an action its best to get a bit of precedent behind you. The point of my post was to illustrate that there isn't much, to my knowledge, and I have searched long and hard. Interestingly though, one member has recently been awarded "substantial compensation" from the FOS for just such a situation.

They should attach a copy to their POC, though there have been claims brought and won (John Lewis v Dr *someone*) without one

Well, they are claims, as you say, but I don't think either were actually heard. The Plymouth lady settled (for a reputed 7K, though this has been denied in a conversation I had with a senior HBOS lawyer, ) and the later case was IIRC an injunction only. When you delve into the actual records there are none that have made it to the CoA, and I don't know whether any have made it to the HC. All we know at one has been heard in the CC. Nothing there, that I know of, that would bind a DJ.

Thanks Peter

Hello! This is something dear to my own heart and I have had to undertake a fair deal of research to get to the point that I am now at with another high street bank. Couple of things… With regard to your POC. I would add exactly which sections of which statutes you wish to claim under - eg the restraining order would be under s3 of the PfHA 1997 I’m fairly sure that the loss of earnings should be provable with an affidavit from the would-be employer – or an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) should they prove unwilling? What I’m not quite sure about is whether the default markers were logged after the bank defaulted on the agreement request. If so then it could be argued, as mentioned elsewhere on the board that such would amount to an unlawful recession of contract (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co [1999] 1 WLR 263), with damages for damage to reputation possibly being evinced citing Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society - 1996 4 All ER 1192. On a more general note re telephone harassment - We know the OFT regards contacting debtors too frequently to be oppressive which one of the determining factors in the definition of harassment under s1 of the PfHA. But what is the "too frequently" figure? The CAB put it at three times a week - but, so far as I’m aware, there's nothing in the records of the higher courts to give guidance to a DJ. I seem to recall someone here actually brought proceedings for phone harassment and won (a token amount), so if anyone can recall who I’m sure it would be of help - to me as well as you. One more thing - IMO it would be multi-tracked

A creditor, post April 2007, gives you a blank piece of paper, containing nothing other than your signature as a copy of an agreement post singing. Is there an agreement at all? The agreement is obviously improperly executed. But even with s127 now emasculated could a creditor hope to enforce an agreement without every requirement for content and terms? Has anyone been there?

Standard Retail Collections procedure