"Cut & Paste" CCA's

[rockwell304]

As some of you kind people on here may already be aware, I have a severely botched CCA from Morgan Stanley/Barclaycard. Desperate Daniella has been very helpful and I am confident I can challenge this. I have another Capital One CCA from 2006 that has all the prescribed terms, signatures etc. and seems watertight. However, D.Daniella is questioning the layout - it appears strange to her! I have written to Capital One asking permission to see the original in their offices, needless to say, no response.

 

My questions are;

 

1. As the OC is allowed to send a "reconstituted" agreement in response to a S78 request, how creative can they be?

 

2. Is there any definitive method whereby I can check if my Cap1 copy is pasted together. They say it is enforceable and they are not prepared to enter into any further discussion concerning this. Should I arrange a token payment, however small, just to show willing in case it ends up before a County Court Judge?

 

Sorry if I'm being simplistic about this!

[postggj]

They Have To Take All Details From The Original

 

No Creative Photo Shop

 

Ask Yourself

 

If They Had The Original, Why Send A Reconstructed Agreement

[rockwell304]

Postggi, thanks, in the BC case I feel reasonably confident in responding. Cap1 is another matter, I have tried to find other Caggers with agreements from this period to compare but no success so far. Should I arrange a token payment to show willing?

 

Could I put the Cap1 agreement in dispute over unfair charges not yet claimed?

[postggj]

You Need To Be Demanding A True Copy

[diddydicky]

i think that they are allowed to re create a true copy in response to a s78 request by taking information from various parts of their files and not necessarily directly from the original- but must state that they have done so

 

perssonally i would write to them and tell them that i had concerns as to the authenticity of the document they provided and that i was willing, at my own expense to travel to the current location of the alleged original document to inspect it, as indeed i would have a right to do under CPR31.15 if the matter went to litigation.

 

I would invite them, if they have been less than honest about the authenticity of this document, or if in fact they do not possess the orginal agreement that they should tell me so now

 

I would then suggest that in the event that they refuse to satisfy me in this respect that i intend not to make any further payments and regard the matter in dispute and that I will bring this letter and their response to the attention of any court that may deal with this matter at a future date

 

That should P*ss on their chips a little bit

[postggj]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-finance/231525-help-welcome-finance.html

 

HAVE A LOOK AT THE LAST FEW PAGES ON THIS THREAD FOR CREATIVITY REF RECONSTRUCTED AGREEMENTS

 

UNDER THE CCA THEY HAVE TO BE A TRUE COPY

 

NOTHING ADDED

NOTHING TAKEN AWAY

[harrassed senior]

I have been 'unsure' of several cobbled together so called agreements, and have challenged the lot, and left the ball in their Court (no pun intended). So far not one has gone any further than suggesting that it is valid and they could proceed to Court. All have been silent for months.

[postggj]

Now I Wonder Why

 

Typical Smoke Screen And Mirrors

[rockwell304]

Thank you for your advice everyone, very much appreciated!

 

I feel another letter to Capital One will be winging its way very soon.

[diddydicky]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-finance/231525-help-welcome-finance.html

 

HAVE A LOOK AT THE LAST FEW PAGES ON THIS THREAD FOR CREATIVITY REF RECONSTRUCTED AGREEMENTS

 

UNDER THE CCA THEY HAVE TO BE A TRUE COPY

 

NOTHING ADDED

NOTHING TAKEN AWAY

 

didnt carey v hsbc bank have something to say about this?

 

54. Accordingly, the copy need not be as contended for by Mr Uff and Mrs Thompson and instead, a creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself.

Two Riders

55. First, the Defendants contend that a key driver for the answer just given is the Current Information Purpose. For my part I do not consider it necessary to find that this is the purpose of s78 in order to find as I have on Issue 1 (a).

56. Second, I should record that at one stage, Mrs Thompson submitted that “disclosure of the [actual] agreement is often the start of a PPI claim. Consumers in those cases are looking not only to get out of their agreements but also, in most cases, to recover damages, damages in the form of the PPI premiums and interest that they've paid over the course of the years. Sometimes the first time that a borrower knows that he or she has taken out PPI on a loan or credit card is when they actually see the agreement.” It was not clear to me how far this particular point about PPI was being taken as it did not feature in anyone’s skeleton argument. Ms Tolaney directed me to another part of Mrs Thompson’s submissions where she said that “the only information that you need to see is whether the Prescribed Terms are there. We don't care about his annual income or all the other questions they asked him. That's irrelevant information about the debtor.” Ms Tolaney therefore submitted that in truth a question on the form about whether or not PPI was to be taken out is no more than irrelevant information about the debtor. Mrs Thompson then commented on that and said that it was not irrelevant personal information because if PPI was taken out a further set of terms and conditions became part of effectively the credit agreement - but that was not accepted by the Defendants. I invited both sides to address me further on the point if they wished but neither did so. In truth this was a matter raised somewhat obliquely in oral argument and the Claimants did not provide any detailed submissions on the point at all. For present purposes, therefore, I have disregarded it.

Information to the debtor as to the type of copy provided

Edited February 28, 2010 by diddydicky