"Reconstituted" Agreements

[diddydicky]

you can lead a horse to water.................

[Guest HeftyHippo]

No need for that DD, you haven't had all the paperwork/facts in front of you till now. What do I tell the Bank to start with, not the court, that's later.I have to start with the bank

[diddydicky]

No need for that DD, you haven't had all the paperwork/facts in front of you till now. What do I tell the Bank to start with, not the court, that's later.I have to start with the bank

 

i'll pm you

[Guest HeftyHippo]

yep, see what yu mean. Yes, I am puzzled by that, its something I had only briefly considered but it doesn't make sense does it? Guess asking for absolute clarity in the form of the original agreement is the only way to know.

 

My head is hurting again now.

[diddydicky]

OK, we have now "arrived"

 

you have confirmed that what has been sent to you is not the same as the original as you have part of the original in your possession

 

so you can now justifiably state that the creditor has supplied you with two agreements- which are different but each of which is alleged to be a true copy of the original

 

this is sufficient to ask the judge ( at AQ's) that the creditor provide a copy to you of the credit agreement that he intends to rely upon in his claim and that he bring the original agreement to the court

[Guest HeftyHippo]

yep,feel dim now (nothing new abut that)

 

now, as it stands, the 2 pages they sent don't form an enforceable agreement do they? (come to think of it, neither the recon or my original copy are signed so they're not enforceble either)

[diddydicky]

we are all dim - just in varying degrees!