CPR COURT hearing tomorrow, just had banks defence.

[surprise]

With reference to the article in The Mail on Sunday. This refers to a thread in General Debt Issues and the cagger concerned was contacted by the Mail and this article was written in conjunction. This thread is well worth a read but be warned it will take hours but there is a lot of useful info in there on agreements.

 

The thread is Walton v RBOS

[Its WAR]

Should I make the suggestion to Halifax that I have doubts to the recon agreement being a true copy, or keep it secret, or let the court know of my concerns and adjourn the hearing for more time to prepare? Otherwise I only have a week to send in a skeleton argument.

 

Remember, the first hearing was to get a copy of the agreement. I now have a reconned one, (true or faked). So, do I need to discontinue the hearing and negotiate away the costs claim for now? or continue to get a court order for disclosure (which Halifax say, as they already disclosed before I applied for the application, I shouldnt have applied and they want wasted costs of £345 now, and no doubt more if we have the hearing)?

 

Of course, if I can prove the recon agreement is not true, that will help the judge award a proper disclosure and I win the costs issue anyway.

 

So, do I contest it in two weeks? but the hearing is only listed as an order to disclose, not to decide on enforceability. So the argument will be wasted then, although the doubts over the trueness of the copy would support my issuing of the claim, and therefore help me to win the disclosure order and costs.

 

Surely if the Recon is faked, that will only be important if the Halifax want to enforce it. I am trying not to be defaulted, which means I must be happy to pay up on a fake agreement. And only if I fail to pay up, and get a default, and have nothing to lose should I contest it. Or I can subsequently used it as a bargaining chip.

 

Time is too short I feel.

[nick20045]

Reading at the moment that walton v rbos thread to see why it was suggested to read it.

 

How many days have you got left?

[diddydicky]

RBOS provided walton with a reconstituted agreement and gave him a load of tosh about it being a TRUE representation of what his agreement would haev looked like

 

problem for them was that walton had the original in his possession (ok Ok - he "found " it later) and it showed that what they produced as true was in fact a lie

 

at which point grovel grovel we are a big organisation mistakes happen we dont make a habit of this - honest guv!!!

[Its WAR]

But I dont have my original. Only an idea that a phrase they say is on my original was not in use until 4 years later. But I cant prove that the phrase was only used from 2005.

 

I have 7 days left to file the skeleton argument.

[diddydicky]

But I dont have my original. Only an idea that a phrase they say is on my original was not in use until 4 years later. But I cant prove that the phrase was only used from 2005.

 

I have 7 days left to file the skeleton argument.

 

you need to get googling then

 

try asking the question in a new post and hit the triangle, perhaps one of the site team was responsible for or knew of the original posts on the subject

[nick20045]

But I dont have my original. Only an idea that a phrase they say is on my original was not in use until 4 years later. But I cant prove that the phrase was only used from 2005.

 

I have 7 days left to file the skeleton argument.

Have you checked what has been posted in posts 74 and posts 75?

 

I am not going to bluff and say anything that is misleading. From all the credit cards I had, I kept one, have had it for over 10 years and I am not in default. Hence I would not know what to look for. Unfortunately you have to do some asking (like diddydicky said try the Site Team ......... click on the triangle and make a small note asking for any help with your thread). What I can possibly help you with is "how to put the argument forward in a statement". Or as diddydicky calls me "Be your English teacher". :D

[diddydicky]

ok this is what you do

 

google

 

consumer credit act(agreements) regulations 1983

 

print it all off (around 50 pages) its easier to read

 

now to to the link in post 74 and print off the ammendments which came into force in 2005

 

look in the original (1983) for details of what should be under "your rights"

 

if you can find a change in the new regs to IMPRTANT READ THIS CAREFULLY TO FIND OUT ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS

 

then youve cracked it

[Its WAR]

I have spent the last two hours reading through this, and have missed the point completely. It might as well have been written in French. I just dont get what you are suggesting.

 

The amendment of the IMPORTANT READ THIS CAREFULLY...... is easy to note as coming into force as an amendment in 2005. But I cant see anything to suggest what the earlier agreements should have said.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Its WAR

[vint1954]

I have spent the last two hours reading through this, and have missed the point completely. It might as well have been written in French. I just dont get what you are suggesting.

 

The amendment of the IMPORTANT READ THIS CAREFULLY...... is easy to note as coming into force as an amendment in 2005. But I cant see anything to suggest what the earlier agreements should have said.

 

Hi IW

 

I have read through the 2004 ammendments, that clearly show what wording should be used and when. I have not been able to locate a copy of the 1983 document, that has not been updated to 2004 regs.

 

I have 2 pre 2005 agreements, 98 and 2002, that quote: Important........................, however I beleive that these are reconstructed prescribed terms.

 

The only help maybe, that the 1974 act does not specify wording at all, yet by 2004/05 it does.

[nick20045]

Right, think about this option but first you keep talking about Halifax then again you say you have two agreements. So Halifax skeleton in 1 week hearing in 2 weeks. What about the other?

 

What I am going to suggest is one of two options:

 

1: Apply for a stay. It should give you more time to work on it OR

 

2: You write a letter to the bank stating that "You have reason to believe that what they have sent you is not a true copy of the executed agreement. Therefore, they are to confirm (bit short on time I know) that they confirm under Penalty of Perjury that they say it is a true copy of the executed agreement. In which case, you will drop the case and pay them the fees but you are only doing this "Under Protest". Should you later on find otherwise you reserve the right to reinstate the case, and sue them for all losses/charges paid including interest at Court rates (that is 8%)"

 

The above is simply an idea that I am putting forward. Not nice but.........

[nick20045]

Just in case, attached is my "noted" copy of the regulations. Can compare to it or look for parts marked with and [ /B] where is where it is supposed to start with bold and [ /B] is where the bold finishes.

New Microsoft Word Document (2).doc

[Its WAR]

Thats gonna keep me studying, but tonight I dont have the docs with me to compare.

 

Thank you so much.

[nick20045]

Thats gonna keep me studying, but tonight I dont have the docs with me to compare.

 

Thank you so much.

Well, I think that is what diddydicky meant about checking the agreement to see what is different.

 

Check at the bottom (the part where it says Notes) and it will tell you what the main changes are. Then go to the top and start going down looking for where marked with bold. My advise is to open two pages. One with the proper agreement (you have the link) and the other one on here. Then you can scroll down and find how it really looks on the agreement as cut and paste on here did not go on properly (like on the agreement). Or you can print the amendments of the agreement and then go through what is on here compared to what is on the agreement and highlight them.

[MARTIN3030]

One post approved pending Admin review.

Users are reminded to observe copyright laws and if in any doubt seek clarification from site team.This is for everyones benefit.

 

Its War-I realise that you are working on your case and apologise if this action impedes that.Feel free to hit the report button if you need urgent help-but please understand team availability will be limited in the early hours.

 

Thanks for understanding.

[diddydicky]

This is the first time i have ever done this so forgive me if i sound brutal

 

on re reading some of the thread i believe that you are totally out of your depth and struggle to grasp the points being made,

 

i think that if you take this further without legal help you will make things a whole lot worse for yourself

 

my advice is to get legal help with this case or to seriously consider quitting now and cutting your losses

 

I am not trying to discourage you - i just think you will struggle very badly on your own

[vint1954]

Just in case, attached is my "noted" copy of the regulations. Can compare to it or look for parts marked with and [ /B] where is where it is supposed to start with bold and [ /B] is where the bold finishes.

Another point to look out for in post 2004\2005 agreements is:

 

15. In Schedule 7 (provisions relating to the disclosure of the APR) for paragraph 1 substitute -

" Assumptions about running-account credit

1. In the case of an agreement for running-account credit, the following assumptions shall have effect for the purpose of calculating the APR in place of the assumptions in Part 4 of the Total Charge for Credit Regulations that might otherwise apply -

 

(1) in any case where there will be a credit limit but that limit is not known at the date of making the agreement the amount of the credit to be provided shall be taken to be £1,500 or, in a case where the credit limit will be less than £1,500, an amount equal to that limit;

 

(2) it shall be assumed that the credit is provided for a period of one year beginning with the relevant date;

 

(3) it shall be assumed that the credit is provided in full on the relevant date;

 

(4) where the rate of interest will change at a time provided in the agreement within a period of three years beginning with the date of the making of the agreement, the rate shall be taken to be the highest rate at any time obtaining under the agreement in that period;

 

The use of a £1500 example in later agreements.

[diddydicky]

thats a nice little nugget vint , cheers

[nick20045]

Personally I would first think of applying for "A Stay". It should give you a bit more chance to assess your position.

 

Otherwise, I am also sorry but I have to agree with diddydicky. To be honest, it seems you thought that challenging a bank was something very easy. Unless the "faults are there" and you have "identified the faults, checked them, made sure and cross checked yourself" then you should not have gone anywhere near a Court. As it is said, the onus is on the Claimant to prove not on the defendant. Also read what vint1954 said. I have read on the amendments the words £1500 being mentioned so agree with him.

This is the first time i have ever done this so forgive me if i sound brutal

 

on re reading some of the thread i believe that you are totally out of your depth and struggle to grasp the points being made,

 

i think that if you take this further without legal help you will make things a whole lot worse for yourself

 

my advice is to get legal help with this case or to seriously consider quitting now and cutting your losses

 

I am not trying to discourage you - i just think you will struggle very badly on your own

[diddydicky]

Another point to look out for in post 2004\2005 agreements is:

 

15. In Schedule 7 (provisions relating to the disclosure of the APR) for paragraph 1 substitute -

" Assumptions about running-account credit

1. In the case of an agreement for running-account credit, the following assumptions shall have effect for the purpose of calculating the APR in place of the assumptions in Part 4 of the Total Charge for Credit Regulations that might otherwise apply -

 

(1) in any case where there will be a credit limit but that limit is not known at the date of making the agreement the amount of the credit to be provided shall be taken to be £1,500 or, in a case where the credit limit will be less than £1,500, an amount equal to that limit;

 

(2) it shall be assumed that the credit is provided for a period of one year beginning with the relevant date;

 

(3) it shall be assumed that the credit is provided in full on the relevant date;

 

(4) where the rate of interest will change at a time provided in the agreement within a period of three years beginning with the date of the making of the agreement, the rate shall be taken to be the highest rate at any time obtaining under the agreement in that period;

 

The use of a £1500 example in later agreements.

 

vint

 

i have an mbna (you know the ones small box on the front of a blank a4 with a signature and a similar small box on the back with pT's

 

it is june 2004 and has the 1500 example

 

do you know exactly when this came into effect?

 

cheers

[nick20045]

According to the amendments:

 

Made

5th June 2004

 

Laid before Parliament

9th June 2004

Coming into force

31st May 2005

 

 

Therefore definetely not before June 2004. Now according to Hansards, it has to go befoe parlament. Once parlament approves it then it has to go to the House of Lords. Once the House of Lords approves it it goes back to parlament to be enacted.

 

Hansard (Debate)

 

and according to Passage of a Bill

 

IF there is no contest in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords then it should take 11 days before it is given the Royal Assent.

 

So allow another say 3 days to notify banks. Then obviously they have to print the new agreements.

 

SO, calculator out............ if the amendments went in front of parlament on the 9th June 2004 I would not think the banks would have printed the new forms before at least the 23rd June 2004. (I would say at least before end June either).

 

Have I worked it out right?

[nick20045]

Also: (Bold part tells me that IF you have the £1500 inserted then it must be "After coming into force and only pre 2005 agreements that were executed (with the old agreements) not older then 3 months are allowed).

 

Transitional provision

18. - (1) This regulation applies to documents embodying regulated agreements, and modifying agreements treated under section 82(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974[4] as regulated agreements, which have

(a) been presented, sent or made available to debtors or hirers for signature but have not become executed agreements before the coming into force of these Regulations ("transitional agreements); and

 

(b) become executed agreements not later than 3 months after the coming into force of these Regulations.

(2) The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as they have effect immediately before the coming into force of these Regulations shall continue to apply in relation to transitional agreements.

 

(3) Accordingly the amendments and repeals made by these Regulations shall not apply in respect of transitional agreements and for the purposes of section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 such agreements shall be properly executed if they conform to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983[5] as they have effect immediately before the coming into force of these Regulations and otherwise comply with that subsection.

[vint1954]

vint

 

i have an mbna (you know the ones small box on the front of a blank a4 with a signature and a similar small box on the back with pT's

 

it is june 2004 and has the 1500 example

 

do you know exactly when this came into effect?

 

cheers

31st May 2005. The act was printed in June 2004.

[vint1954]

According to the amendments:

 

 

Made

 

 

5th June 2004

 

 

 

Laid before Parliament

 

9th June 2004

 

 

 

Coming into force

 

31st May 2005

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore definetely not before June 2004. Now according to Hansards, it has to go befoe parlament. Once parlament approves it then it has to go to the House of Lords. Once the House of Lords approves it it goes back to parlament to be enacted.

 

Hansard (Debate)

 

and according to Passage of a Bill

 

IF there is no contest in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords then it should take 11 days before it is given the Royal Assent.

 

So allow another say 3 days to notify banks. Then obviously they have to print the new agreements.

 

SO, calculator out............ if the amendments went in front of parlament on the 9th June 2004 I would not think the banks would have printed the new forms before at least the 23rd June 2004. (I would say at least before end June either).

 

Have I worked it out right?

Beat me to it

[diddydicky]

31st May 2005. The act was printed in June 2004.

 

bonza

 

thats one taken care of!!