CPR COURT hearing tomorrow, just had banks defence.

[nick20045]

Halifax are screwed.

And so are the cupboards on the wall in my kitchen and so are some shelves I have got up.

 

Care to elaborate? How did you come to this conclusion?

[charlie*]

Thank you for this guys, just confirms my own suspicions....

 

Sainsbury's are lying b*****rds too

 

A tip for all re Sainsbury's - watch their DN's very carefully, they

are not too bright.

One in my close family received an areement termination

dated ONE DAY after the date on the Default Notice.... same person

Charlotte Gurnell, Senior Operations Manager.

 

[Its WAR]

Well, if not screwed, I see the bullets slowly entering their boot leather.

 

They have a duty to supply a true copy of my 2001 agreement, and they are claiming the reconstituted agreement they have supplied is that true copy. However, the agreement they have supplied was not drafted until the amendments were drawn up in 2005, so they have mislead the court and me.

[diddydicky]

i know you have two or three agreements there and i think you said they had sent you the current as well as original one

 

just be 100% sure that the one they rely on (ie signed in 2001) is the one that has the wrong un's on the back !!

[diddydicky]

This is something you CAN use as an ambush in court but you must make sure you include the old regulations and the new (ie the changes as published) in your bundle

 

it is such a large document i doubt they will realise the significance - but you cant refer to it in court unless you have disclosed it.

 

what they DON'T know however is what questions you are going to ask in respect of it

[nick20045]

To be honest I am lost. (If you want an excuse blame it on me not knowing how to read English or if you want blame it on the "amber nectar).

 

Anybody can claim "I struck gold". Argument is: Have you?

 

So back again: "Care to elaborate? How did you come to this conclusion?"

[nick20045]

This is something you CAN use as an ambush in court but you must make sure you include the old regulations and the new (ie the changes as published) in your bundle

 

it is such a large document i doubt they will realise the significance - but you cant refer to it in court unless you have disclosed it.

 

what they DON'T know however is what questions you are going to ask in respect of it

You should never submit a large bundle in Court. In fact the shorter it is the better as long as it will strike out any claim against you. OR unless you know how to get the Judge intrigued into reading all of it.

[nick20045]

i know you have two or three agreements there and i think you said they had sent you the current as well as original one

 

just be 100% sure that the one they rely on (ie signed in 2001) is the one that has the wrong un's on the back !!

I think that ITS WAR really needs to advise what he has really really got in that bundle.

[Its WAR]

In reply to my s78 request I have:

 

1. An agreement (1.5 pages of A4) with my name and address typed in, between me and Halifax, (which Halifax say in the witness statement and covering letter, is my true reconstituted copy), with a stapled on set of Halifax T&Cs . The agreement has nowhere to sign for either parties and has no dates to show when it was produced. It incorporates the phrase IMPORTANT -YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY.YOUR RIGHTS. (which was the phrase introduced in May 2005)? There are no Prescribed Terms on it, but it does say I am bound by the Halifax Credit Card Conditions which are stapled on. These do quote some APRs and interset rates and have an entry saying they are correct as of date of printing Dec 2000.

2. An agreement (5 page A4 which includes the T&Cs) (which Halifax say is their current agreement). This agreement also has my name and address on it but is between me and Bank of Scotland. It is closer to the details of the May 2005 Statutory Instrument. But also has nowhere for either party to sign.

3. An unreadable photocopy of the front page of my application form dated 2001. Signed by me and the bank.

4. Statement of account.

 

In the court bundle Halifax produced is:

5. Witness Statement.

Exhibits

6. Copy of application form (same as 3 above)

7. Statement of account (same as 4 above)

8. Halifax T&Cs (different to 1 above) but no agreement.

9. An agreement which the witness statement says is the current version of the agreement with my name and address typed in. (document dated Oct 2008 and appears to be a more recent version of 2 above.

10. 3 letters from Halifax saying they have supplied the s78 docs.

11. Somebody elses application form (which is readable, to show what my application form says) It shows their name, address, date birth, phone numbers, mothers maiden name, Occupation, salary £123,000.

[Its WAR]

Regarding the importance of the IMPORTANT - YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY being in the May 2005 requirements. The Stat Inst drafted that, but of course it could still be written into a 2001 agreement. Except Diddy says the earlier agreements wouldnt have said this phrase but would have used the phrase YOUR RIGHTS The Consumer Credit Act.....

 

Just because the Stat Inst appears to make the amendments, Halifax could have been using them in 2001, couldnt they? So lets not celebrate yet. The agreement Haloifax say is a true copy of the 2001 doesnt comprise all the amendments of tghe 2005 Stat Inst.

[the main man]

Regarding the importance of the IMPORTANT - YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY being in the May 2005 requirements. The Stat Inst drafted that, but of course it could still be written into a 2001 agreement. Except Diddy says the earlier agreements wouldnt have said this phrase but would have used the phrase YOUR RIGHTS The Consumer Credit Act.....

 

Just because the Stat Inst appears to make the amendments, Halifax could have been using them in 2001, couldnt they? So lets not celebrate yet. The agreement Haloifax say is a true copy of the 2001 doesnt comprise all the amendments of tghe 2005 Stat Inst.

 

I don't want to rock the boat but I think this point needs double checking.

 

The term IMPORTANT-YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY applies to both sets of regs

 

YOUR RIGHTS seems to only apply to an Agreement to which section 58(1) of the Act applies, which is an agreement secured against land.

I hope I am wrong.

[diddydicky]

To be honest I am lost. (If you want an excuse blame it on me not knowing how to read English or if you want blame it on the "amber nectar).

 

Anybody can claim "I struck gold". Argument is: Have you?

 

So back again: "Care to elaborate? How did you come to this conclusion?"

 

Creditors sometimes send a document to the debtor which they claim to be the original executed credit card agreement containing the prescribed terms on the reverse and claiming the agreement to be legally enforceable

 

however, it is known that some of these documents are in fact a "cut and paste" job in that they have photocopied prescribed terms onto the reverse that were not there when the document was signed by the debtor

(usually involves application forms that did not have PT's anywhere on them), and which could never have been there at the time since they were not promulgated until a later date

 

the above clause has "found out" this practice as have other little niceties such as the wording of other parts of the T & C's and giveaway printers codes.

 

This information can be very useful in court, the more so with certain dodgy solcitiors who have a penchant for swearing statements that it is within their knowlege that this document was in this form at the time of signing

[diddydicky]

I don't want to rock the boat but I think this point needs double checking.

 

The term IMPORTANT-YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY applies to both sets of regs

 

YOUR RIGHTS seems to only apply to an Agreement to which section 58(1) of the Act applies, which is an agreement secured against land.

I hope I am wrong.

 

YOUR RIGHTS appears on one of my own pre 2005 agreements and it is a credit card

I beleive that this was changed on these agreements due to major changes to the consumer credit (agreements) regulations 1983

 

this information was found by another cagger in a fight with CL financne but i cant remember who it was

[diddydicky]

only possible if you are a "man of straw"

 

ie no house no assets nice position to be in in order to tell your creditors to take a hike!!

[Its WAR]

So I am getting confused again. There is nothing on the reverse of my application form. All I have is reconstitued agreement which Halifax claim is a true copy. It contains the phrase that Diddy suggests was not used prior to May 2005. Isnt that Game Over?

[nick20045]

11. Somebody elses application form (which is readable, to show what my application form says) It shows their name, address, date birth, phone numbers, mothers maiden name, Occupation, salary £123,000.

Hallelulja for the Data Protection Act. :D

[Its WAR]

I wonder what mischief I can make! Should I phone her up?

[nick20045]

I wonder what mischief I can make! Should I phone her up?

No, but a nicely worded letter to the Information Commissioners Office with a copy to whoever it is drawing their attention that the bank is "making the private data of clients public contrary to the data protection act 1998" might be something to do.

 

Then a simple letter to whoever it is drawing to their attention that their private data is being made public and drawing to the persons attention that you have reported this to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

Then let them two argue with the bank.

[nick20045]

Incidentally both you and diddydick should have a read of this thread. Post 7 is the most important.

 

Post 17 if you want to laugh

 

And post 20 especially the reply received from the creditor.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/227605-guidance-cca-templates-esp.html

[Its WAR]

Ok Nick, Are you saying that minor changes in the reconstituted copy wont contribute to its enforceability. Or highlighting the dangerous ground the bank is on in misleading? I am still confused re the wording on my agreement being post 2005, therefore the recon agreement is fake and meant to deceive.

 

As to reporting to the Data Protection, will this make Halifax pay a £500 fine, or should I report it to the FSO instead. Also, I have two other seperate complaints with Halifax, 1. Their insistence that I pay their new charges regime when I would rather close the account (they will have had loads of these complaints). 2. I paid in cheques (through their letterbox) which they filed in a drawer and I bounced a payment, they refunded the charges once they found the cheques lurking around collecting dust. So, 2 or 3 complaints made a week or so apart to FOS, will Halifax be faced with 3x£500 bills from the FOS?

 

What criteria does the FSO use to actually make these charges? or is it an old wives tale that they charge them.

[diddydicky]

No, but a nicely worded letter to the Information Commissioners Office with a copy to whoever it is drawing their attention that the bank is "making the private data of clients public contrary to the data protection act 1998" might be something to do.

 

Then a simple letter to whoever it is drawing to their attention that their private data is being made public and drawing to the persons attention that you have reported this to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

Then let them two argue with the bank.

 

i think i would be more inclined to make a phone call to the creditor and ask him if he would be minded to come to a mutually acceptable arrangement as to the alleged debt- viz writing it off, naturally of course you would point out that you beleive from correspence received from them in response to your sar that Mrs XXXX also seems to have financial problems although if you had a salary of 123,000 like her you would be well happy

 

not that the two are connected of course:D

[diddydicky]

Ok Nick, Are you saying that minor changes in the reconstituted copy wont contribute to its enforceability. Or highlighting the dangerous ground the bank is on in misleading? I am still confused re the wording on my agreement being post 2005, therefore the recon agreement is fake and meant to deceive.

 

As to reporting to the Data Protection, will this make Halifax pay a £500 fine, or should I report it to the FSO instead. Also, I have two other seperate complaints with Halifax, 1. Their insistence that I pay their new charges regime when I would rather close the account (they will have had loads of these complaints). 2. I paid in cheques (through their letterbox) which they filed in a drawer and I bounced a payment, they refunded the charges once they found the cheques lurking around collecting dust. So, 2 or 3 complaints made a week or so apart to FOS, will Halifax be faced with 3x£500 bills from the FOS?

 

What criteria does the FSO use to actually make these charges? or is it an old wives tale that they charge them.

 

i suggest you read the full page article in today's mail on sunday and in particular the "mistake" a bank made in reconstituting an agreement

 

rest assured an agreement presented as evidence to a court as genuine which is proven to have been doctored to include information on it that was not there when you signed it will drop like a bombshell on the claimant

 

no doubt they will convince the judge that mistakes do happen in such a large organisation as they grovel and apologise but soom or later, when enough have been caught out, the axe will fall

[Its WAR]

I have to prove the reconstituted agreement they say is a 2001 version, really is a 2005 version first. And I have less than 2 weeks.

[nick20045]

I have to prove the reconstituted agreement they say is a 2001 version, really is a 2005 version first. And I have less than 2 weeks.

I will be honest I am not "really" into agreements hence I am not going to give advise on that. What I believe I can maybe help is in filing a statement (or really I prefer an affidavit as being taken under oath then it has more "power". This being that anybody can make a statement and declare it is believed to be true but an affidavit, as it is on oath and then liability of perjury comes into force, it is more accepted by a Judge).

 

I think that diddydicky is the one you have to ask most of the questions. In a previous post I refered you to The Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 No. 1482

 

Maybe you and diddydick might want to have a good read of 6, 16 and 17 on there Schedule 2 part 1 Forms of Statement of Protection and Remedies Available under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to Debtors under Regulated Consumer Credit Agreements

 

e.g. Anything like this? "This agreement modifies an earlier agreement. Once you have signed this agreement your right to cancel [that part of]* the earlier agreement [which was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974]* will be widened to cover the [regulated]* agreement as modified. The cancellation period itself will be unchanged. Details of how to cancel are given in your copy of this agreement."

[diddydicky]

try asking PT or one of the site team if they have links as to when the changes took place