TBI and Liverpool Victoria

[cups]

Hi

 

You will like this update.

 

Today l r3eceived a new agreement,,all it is is the one they have already given me with my name now written on it at the top in someone's handwriting? Not mine and there is no speace for it they have shoved it in where they can!

 

Now they hae also supplied me with an original DN from LV, from 2006, that l have never had from LV despite a SAR being sent ot them 2 years ago, LV say it is an 'extract recreation'.

 

Now TBI hant me another DN,,because they think they can? It is dated yesterday (11th) and gives me until 27th to remedy??

 

Can they really now start reissuing DN and crudely rewriting agreements??

 

I have taken a deep breath, this is complete ~~~~~~ks!

 

Any advice appreciated

 

Cups

[cups]

Hi

 

Can anyone tell me what they think?

 

LV have never ever sent this DN to me, they had a SAR over 2 years ago and this did not form part of the corries they sent me?

 

As for the new TBI DN, can they do this after the start of proceedings, their POC state that they DN'd me in 2007?

 

Cups

[cups]

I also know that my cedit eport does not show any N from LV??

 

Although TBI did check on my credit report in July 2010?

[cups]

Anyone out there??

 

Does anyone know what l should do?

 

I have written to the OC, asking about their sudden intervention and failure to provide the DN as part of a SAR and proof that it was ever sent?

 

I sent it to their Chief Exec!

[cups]

Hi

 

Can anyone advise me or take an interest?

 

I now have a new DN from the Claimant, on top of a DN from the OC from 2006, that l never rec'd from the OC when l sent them a SAR in May 2008?

 

The Claimant now has also ammended the original copy agreement and inserted at the top my name and address which is handwritten by them and now say that the 'original' agreement is now reconstructed by them to hold my name and address???

 

Can l throw this back at them, they have sent me a WS that clearly states that what l have is a true copy of the original agreement,,which from day 1 l have said is not mine,,all they have done is 'scan' my signature on it from something else, possibly an app form that has no prescribed terms on it! This original has never had anythng esle on it and l have always maintained that l would never have signed such a document. They say that they do not have the original and never have had it! But now they have reconstructed this same doc and just written my nae and address on it.

 

Can they get away with this?

 

What can l quote, or ll just ignore it,,,

 

I cn't help but think that original trial date in July was vacated at their behest,,shall l see if the court will confirm this? If l can then l can say that they have vacated the trial deliberately to try and recover their case by ''making up'' all this new crap!!

 

Help please anyone

 

Cups

[citizenB]

Hi

 

The POCs were pretty standard, that I entered in to an agreement with LV for a credit card, spent money and then defaulted.

 

LV sold this to TBI in 2006 and I paid them for about a year before l found the CAG.

 

I requested my CCA in January 2008 and they ignored my request, they eventually responded in April 2008, after they pretended that they never got my first request but it is in their 'client notes'.

 

What they sent was a single sheet that said something about being an app for a card, it has none opf my details on it at all, no name, address or anything. The first one they sent was a single sheet that had a fax headre at the top that showed that it had ben sent to them in 1996, four years before l ever made any application. It has some prescribed terms but it is a very poor copy.

 

When l asked for another more clear copy, l got the same again, this time it has no date or fax header on it and it was accompanied by a second sheet that looks like T and Cs, again not clear.

 

They say they dn'd me in Febriary 2007, they sent it on the 8th and gave to the 22nd to remedy. They have a note of me calling on the 12th Feb,,re a letter they sent me, but do not say what l am talking about in their notes. I do not recall the DN and they cannot prove they sent it. I think it is fair to say if they try to convince the DJ that l got the DN with no proof, l only got it with 10 days to remedy the fault anyway? The DN also included a fee? I cannot see how they can do that.

 

Letters went back and forth and they issued proceedings in August 2008, it has taken so long for no real reason?

 

They totally ignore the fact that l have mentioned several times the issue of the date on the first agrrement and say that tye ndon't require my details on any agreement,, but am l right in thinking that Carey states that it has to have pertsonal details on it to be an agreement. I can honestly say that l would never have signed anything that didn't have my name on it.

 

I think that it is quite clear that they have taken their time in responding to my original CCA request because they were trying to decide what to do ,,they were obviously trying to scan my signature in to the boxes!!!

 

The OC can provide the copy that they have supplied but nothing else. The second page of T and Cs LV do not have,,

 

I have a letter from TBI stating back in 2008 that @at no time have they ever told me that the copy agreement they have supplied me is in it's original format'. yet their WS says that it is in it's original format..

 

I keep thinking that the DJ will feel sufficiently sceptical that he will not order enforcement,,but you never know..

 

From day one they say they have never had the original and cannot get it,,

 

I have defended on the basis of no efffective DN and no original agreement, so you cannot order enforcement..

 

I think that l have the right to see the original on the basis of th fax header with the date of 1996 on it..

 

Interested to hear what anyone thinks,,

 

Cups

 

Hi

 

You will like this update.

 

Today l r3eceived a new agreement,,all it is is the one they have already given me with my name now written on it at the top in someone's handwriting? Not mine and there is no speace for it they have shoved it in where they can!

 

Now they hae also supplied me with an original DN from LV, from 2006, that l have never had from LV despite a SAR being sent ot them 2 years ago, LV say it is an 'extract recreation'.

 

Now TBI hant me another DN,,because they think they can? It is dated yesterday (11th) and gives me until 27th to remedy??

 

Can they really now start reissuing DN and crudely rewriting agreements??

 

I have taken a deep breath, this is complete ~~~~~~ks!

 

Any advice appreciated

 

Cups

 

Just a couple of questions.. You say "They" say they DN'd me in 2007 ? Who is "They" Especially when this account was apparently assigned to another company in 2006 ?

 

The original creditor should have Issued a Default Notice prior to assignment (someone will correct me if I am wrong). If they terminated or sold the account prior to the remedy date on the DN then it is unlikely the DN is safe. If you remedied the breach prior to the remedy date then they will be entitled to issue another Default Notice.

 

Did you check your Credit file to see when the Default Notice was first recorded with the CRAs. I dont think the date of the default can be changed.. it can only be updated.

 

As for issuing a further Default notice once proceedings have started, I would say that is wrong as well.. once they started litigation, the account is terminated.. surely.

[citizenB]

If you believe there is something hinky with the agreement. Then you should clearly state what is wrong with it and put the other side to strict proof that it is accurately reconstructed.. although if you can prove without doubt that your signature has been scanned, then that takes it to a whole new level. They an reconstruct documents for s78 but need to provide the originals for court.. but no where does it state that they can scan your signature on to a reconstructed document.

 

HTH

[cups]

Hi CB

 

Thanks for the help.

 

The OC allegedly DN'd me in June 2006,,never got it and have never seen it, got nothing from them after original SAR to them in 2008, so if they had DNd me then they would have sent it to me. I also wrote to them again after l got the reply to the SAR and asked if there was anything else, a big fat nothing!! There is nothing on my Credit Report at all from them.

 

The Claimant (TBI) then DNd me in February 2007, this is the DN that does not give sufficient time to remedy etc, as if to cover their a@@@@ they say that there is nothing wrong with that one, so they have sent me another dated October 2010,,and also sent me this mysterious original DN from the OC.

 

The original copy of the agreement that TBI say is a copy of the original, blah blah blah,,and have written a WS to that effect is now suddenly not compliant because of Carey,,what a great shock to them,,l have kept saying that all along,,they have now reconstructed it,,from what l do not know and done some computer trickery and written (by Someones hand) my namd and address, not my full address either) and now say that this was an oversight by the original OC,,and a clerical error and that the original original agreement must have had my name on it!!!!!

 

They are making it up as they go along.

 

I have written to them and asked for originals etc,,they are amateurs..

 

I can now say with great confidence that they must have copied my signature,,if they can take the alleged copy original and change the format to insert my name and address they must have had the ability to scan my signature on to a document that originates from 4 years before l ever entered into an agreement.

 

I have the date stamped fax that shows this,,it is sent to their fax number that has always been theior fax number,,l have checked with BT archives.

 

If l am successful then this will get reported to the police in TVP and the young lady solicitor that has put her name to false WSs will get reported the SRA,,she may have to find herself a new job.

 

I have laways known this but the latest TBI antics have just now confirmed it..

 

I have read through everything they have sent me and there are massive holes all over it,,

 

If anyone else would like to give me their views l would really appreciate it.

 

Cups.

[cups]

Please, please, please can someone give me some advice here...

 

What do l do abut the now reconstructed agreement????

 

The first had no name or address on and no space for one,,now the Claimiants have just cut a sentence in half and put my name and address on it in their handwriting???Thay say they can reconstruct it because the original copy which they gave me had a clerical error in it that left out my name and address?????????????? There is no space for a name and address on the document,,they cannot provide a blank one either to prove their point?

 

I spoke to the OC today and they also say that they never terminated my agreement, and they never registered a default with a CRA.

 

The OC could not explain why they never ever sent me 2 and a half years ago a copy of the DN,,must have been an error, it's all automated you know,,they were sheepish but they did let the cat out of the bag by saying that they wouldn't have a blank form as they don't know what the Claimant (TBI) have done !!!

 

They also said that they have sold on debts to this company for years,,they don't like getting their hands dirty at the OC but they will sell any old crap on to a DCA!!!

mnot

[IdaInFife]

Hi Cups,

 

as this is now in legal process will moe to the legal forum

 

for starters can you please post up the poc's and the creit agreements and dns' - removing any persoanl data?

 

have you acknowlegded the claim and if so when ?

 

ida x

[cups]

Hi

 

I haven't got a scanner. I will get the details and post up later, this is at court soon for trial.

 

They are now quoting Carey, and say that the original copy is defective, as no name and address, so Carey lets them reconstitute what it should have looked like!!!

 

If the original was defective, due to an admin error that is there problem, isn't it??

 

They cannot supply me with a copy of what an original looked like either ?

 

Is this right??

 

Cups

[citizenB]

Hi

 

I haven't got a scanner. I will get the details and post up later, this is at court soon for trial.

 

They are now quoting Carey, and say that the original copy is defective, as no name and address, so Carey lets them reconstitute what it should have looked like!!!

 

If the original was defective, due to an admin error that is there problem, isn't it??

 

They cannot supply me with a copy of what an original looked like either ?

 

Is this right??

 

Cups

 

If they are saying the original was defective, then I reckon they have shot themselves in the foot. They cant reconstruct / reconstitute an agreement to be correct if the original was flawed.

 

I will flat your query for site team attention.

[cups]

Hi CB

 

Thank you for that,,they have written it in black and white,,

 

I also now have proof they got my original CCA request in Jan 20089, wonder why they never replied until April, possibly trying to work out how to get my signature on their form that they had had for some years??

 

In June 2008 they said 'at no time have we told you that what we have provided you with is in its original format'!

 

In June 2009 they say that the same copy is a 'true' copy,,

 

Now in October 2010, they are reconstituting the agreement,,as there is an admintsrative error and what they have provided is what it should look like???

 

Also l have now found that they have supplied me with several different copies of the same T and Cs,,and the second page of the agreement is different to the first because of something that clearly fails to link them!

I won't say what it is b ut you would have to look at it very carefully to see it and they have not only failed once this has changed three times..

 

Also l have found that although they say that they get the assignment in Sept 2006,,they have entries on theior own logs that are quite clearly 'cut and pastes' from the OC's system.

 

The OC's DN is defective, it is dated but says that l get 14 days from the date of this letter to remedy the breach, it has to state a date, and even after it is sent first class l still won't have enough time!!

 

Although they have done on the latest reconstructed agreement is cut and paste it so there is a gap in mid sentence and handwritten my name and address in,,but they haven't even done that right,,it is not complete.

 

This all adds to my assertion that thye have copied my signature into a blank form,,

 

The person that allegedly signed it at the OC has quite distinctive handwriting,,there are two other hands that have written on this form,,one has put on muy account number and the other has quite crudely scrawled my name at the top of the form for no apparent reason,,

 

I spoke to thje OC the other day and l think they are panicking, they could not tell me what the Claimant had done, they clealry want to distance themselves from this matter, l think that they know what has been going on and have buried their heads in the sand. If it was so cut and dry why not take me to court themself?

 

I am building up a strong case l think,,but the DJ lottery still looms large, so help would be appreciated,,

 

Cups

[the_shadow]

Hi Cups,

 

I've tried to read through this thread and understand but its a bit of a muddle and confusing (probably my bad tho)

 

You state the first "original" they gave you didnt have a space for name and address, are you saying that the first COPY of the agreement didnt? or are you saying the Original Original didnt?

 

They are allowed to reconstruct for s78 responses as CB has pointed out, for enforcement they shouldnt but creditors have got away with that argument recently in court.

 

If the agreement they have given you and that which they will ultimately rely on in court now has your name and address on it then you need to attack it which whatever you have.. if they claim they can reconstruct then you'll need to show the DJ the relevant passages in Carey vs HSBC and if you can find some credit agreements from the same original creditor that DONT comply with the CCA and have no prescribed terms that'll go to show how the creditor makes mistakes and cant be relied on to make a true and honest copy.

 

S.

[cups]

Hi

 

The original agreement does not have a space for a name and address, and l can prove it,,all they have done is cut a sentence in half at the top where it says customer, and write my name and address in it (they haven't even got that right). It has taken them 2 and a half years to do this and they have already said that the first ever copy they gave me is a true copy of the original? But they say that it has a 'admin error' in it?

 

Can they do this, l didn't think so?

 

The second page of the agreement came a month or so later, it has basically the T and Cs on it but it also has a tell tale bit on it that fails to link it to the agreement. Thye have now sent me a number of different versions of this, and l can prove it.

 

I think that they started out trying to [problem] me, an have gone down a road that they cannot turn back, so they are now reconstructing stuff after all this time. They have no original agreement on which to base their argument so they cannot even show that the reconstruction is even based on any blank document. The OC will not get involved, they see what is going on and don't want to get involved.

 

This is going to court very soon so l am getting my stuff together, l would have always paid them had they not threatened me at every opportunity and made my life a misery.

 

I also have their client notes which shows that they have had info from the OC prior to the new DN that they have provided from the OC,,four years after it was ever allegedly issued.

 

The court say that the original trial date was put off because of judicial problems,,could that be the Claimant. All this new info came after that trial was put off, l am worried that they DJ knows someone on the other side??

 

Any advice would be great.

 

Thanks

[the_shadow]

Hmm well this is a turn up...

 

if you have a copy of the agreement without your name and address and if this is the original then its not a proper agreement afaik.

 

According to the consumer credit (agreements) regulations 1983 it needs to have the name and postal address of the creditor and debtor on it to make it binding.

 

Take a look at Consumer Credit(Agreements)Regulations 1983 schedule 1(2)

 

S.

[the_shadow]

The only caveat is if they say its just a true copy as they are allowed to leave out details... if they say its a reconstruction they are allowed to recreate the data from their records so long as its "honest and true".

 

I would class that if you ARE SURE you didnt sign a document that had your name and address on it then its not a true and honest copy.

 

S.

[cups]

Thanks for that,,

 

They have given me a copy that is true,,that is written on their WS, and for 2 and a ahlf years that has been the case.

 

I have always maintained that l have never signed anything that doesn't contain my name and address, this is further supported by the fact that they left on the first copy ever sent a date fax header that is 4 years prior to me ever even applying for a card. Also this has 'punch holes' in it. l know this is a little point but the second page does not.

 

Also the second page came weeks later, and although the numbers run consec on it, ie page 1 has points 1 and 2, and then page 2 carries on with point 3 etc,,they have now sent me three copis of this second page that all have different ref numbers on.

 

The DN's, 1 and 2, are defective, and their last one was only sent this month, their POCs talk about the DN from 3 years ago.

 

l want to win this one,,as l have lost before.

 

Cups

[cups]

Sorry, they said it is a true copy of the original,,they are now saying that due to a 'admin error' my name and address isn't on it.

 

The oc have kept quiet and will not provide anything, l think they know the score.

 

Presumably the OC could provide a WS saying that what they have done is correct? and provide a blank copy, doubt that is ever going to happen in a month of Sundays.

 

I didn't sign it and l know l didn't,,the date isn't even in my writing!

[the_shadow]

Ok, lets back up here a bit then.... so if I understand it you are saying that the first "true copy" they sent you didnt have your name and address...

 

Ok a bit of a schoolboy error there by them.. I take it this was a response to a s78 request. Ok that wasnt compliant with carey as it needed your original name and address on it to comply as a reconstruction of the original agreement.

 

So they then forwarded a new copy with your name and address on it that does comply with Carey, imo the judge will allow them to suppliment the original s78 request even tho court activity has taken place.

 

Carey shouldnt be sufficient for enforcement actions but its up to you to point to the relevant places in carey vs hsbc that clearly state this.

 

As to defaults, they can issue as many as they want prior to termination but not after. Taking enforcement action like court should be a termination event and thus they shouldnt be able to issue another default notice after court action has been started.

 

S.

[cups]

Hi

 

Think l got all that.

 

The first ever copy supplied they say was a true copy of the agreement. And that has remained the same for all this time, they even said that it was NOT a reconstruction of the original agreement in January 2010. They have maintained all along that it is the agreement that l signed, and my stance has always been that l never signed a document that looked like that,,what surprises me is that they cannot even provide an application form ? I am of the opinion that they have scanned my signature from an old letter into this 'agreement' .

 

They now say that due to an admin error they have reconstructed the agreement to include my name and address, in essence they have taken the first sentence of the agreement, and where it clearly says between ******and the customer, they have created a space and someone (not me) has handwritten in my name and address,,they have not even put my address correctly.

 

The agreement says that l have a right to cancel and that these rights will be sent to me, never had these.

 

Also they state that because my defence is ever changing????????????Only ever submitted 1 defence, they have issued me with a third DN to satisfy me!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It seems that no one has looked at this for some time (Claimant) and suddenly has realised that they have made mistakes and are trying to correct them at the last minute.

 

The additonal WS by them also states that the person who made the WS made enquiries of the OC (only this month) and that they found that there was a DN in 2006. The letter from the OC about the DN has not been sent to the person who made the WS, it has been sent to someone else in the company, just another bit of sloppiness.

 

I have managed to copy and enlarge what they have sent me so that the differences can be easily seen, thought that might help.

 

Cups

[the_shadow]

Ok, so basically they've had numerous attempts to show something akin to an agreement and have yet to succeed.. thats good from your point of view as it shows the judge that they possibly dont have all the information about this debt that they are chasing and are flying by the seat of their pants here....

 

Now here's the downside... the judiciary at the moment are seeming to make decisions based on common law principles.. i.e. you have had the money, you must pay it back, never mind who to or how inflated the debt is in regards how much the dca paid for it.

 

S.

[cups]

Hi

 

Thanks for that, l am not trying to avoid paying but l am loathe to just succumb to allowing enforcement. TBI from day one asking for charging orders etc and don't let go, if the judiciary are going to carry on and allow this then so be it.

 

l am always hopeful of winning the DJ lottery, and l appreciate that it is just that in a civil court. l am not unused to the court systems but the civil system is not even based in these matters on 'the balance of probablilties'. I think that l do have some evidence to counter their claims and l will be looking to covince the DJ that they cannot enforce on such a lack of firm evidence.

 

l have been figting DCAs for some years now,,like may here,,and hope that l would never behave as they do. The manner in which they seek to convince people that they are always right and that the consumer is always wrong is sad, it would help if the occasional DJ realised that we are just seeking to be treated fairly, if they haven't got their house in order why should we suffer?

 

I have a friend who is a criminal DJ and he hates the civil DJs, he says it is the easy life!!

 

Cups

[cups]

Hi

 

I need to reply with a lega argument to the issues of Rankine and Carey, l wil update very soon in full.

 

Rankne re DNs and deminus issues and Carey regarding reconstructions of agreements. I have already mentioned that Carey is Sec 78 not enforcement and proceedings.

 

Any help would be gratefully received,,

 

Cups

[cups]

Hi

Just waiting for update from court, luckily l got some legal help and submitted a further legal argument. l just await a judgement which was due to be handed down today aftger nearly 3 months.

Will update when l get it,,fingers crossed.

 

PS Didn't get to go to court today, sadly couldn't make it because of other commitments.

 

Cups