Cap1 & CCA return

[shane5408]

lol, beat me to it ian!!

[shane5408]

I know never mind.

 

 

 

I will be givin the above a try

 

Hiya,

 

I think your best option would be sec 59 (1) see attached for skeletal argument propounded by Tomterm and adapt where necessary. in particular see arguments below Unexecuted Credit Agreements

 

 

could you also post a link to your thread

 

cheers,

shane

 

hope you don't mind sharing this tom

Skeleton Argument.doc

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hi

 

Heres One

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/116128-hak-o-h-barclaycard.html

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hers another one Shane

 

This says Application at the top but has all terms. No T&C

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/107900-ro55e30-liverpool-victoria-equidebt.html

[tomterm8]

Hiya,

 

 

 

hope you don't mind sharing this tom

 

Hi shane, I don't mind you sharing anything, however, a natural warning should be attached: this is a skeleton argument against a summary judgement application. The arguments mentioned in it don't have to be right, they just have to be arguable enough to convince the judge to dismiss the application.

 

Also, hopefully, scare the bejeezus out of the other side, and give them a bad morning... LOL:oops:

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Just had a thought

 

About the application form. Has anybody gone to Court and actually defended against an application form.

 

If so or If anybody does and the judge goes for the side of the debitor would it then be an example for all future cases.

[Goldlady]

I have had a claim withdrawn because of dubious CCA

[tomterm8]

Just had a thought

 

About the application form. Has anybody gone to Court and actually defended against an application form.

 

I've had a few cases with people on the forum where I've used this argument, although as part of a larger set of ideas. Always hard to tell exactly which part won it for you. You've seen my skellie, above... with a skellie like that, the creditor normally withdraws or tries to settle.

AFAIK, no district judge has ever said the argument is wrong.

 

If so or If anybody does and the judge goes for the side of the debitor would it then be an example for all future cases.

 

A county court judgement isn't precident. it would need to be appealed

 

...

[shane5408]

Hi shane, I don't mind you sharing anything, however, a natural warning should be attached: this is a skeleton argument against a summary judgement application. The arguments mentioned in it don't have to be right, they just have to be arguable enough to convince the judge to dismiss the application.

 

Also, hopefully, scare the bejeezus out of the other side, and give them a bad morning... LOL:oops:

 

hiya,

 

thanks for that:)

 

no worries, as you say it is skeletal, just need to expand and adapt to suit each persons needs!

 

regards,

shane

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Thanks Tomtom

 

its been a long day thanks everybody for all your help and advice.

 

Its been worth while I have learnt loads today.

 

HAK

[JonCris]

Those same law lords who have removed that part?

 

A one sided agreement, as you put it, and a pre-printed piece of stationary that is two sided may well prove to be compelling evidence for a judge actually. Again, be sure of the reasons why you don't accept it. Again, simply stating it may be fraudulent will probably not wash - you are going to need a reason.

 

 

The Law Lords have removed nothing - The removal of s127 , which is what I assume your referring to, is all the work of the Secretary of State when the HOL Judgment went against the lenders thereby setting a precedent.

 

Although we know they have, because the debtor hasn't defended, the Court, if defended, CANNOT make an order in the absence of a 'signed' agreement

[paulwlton]

59 Agreement to enter future agreement void

 

(1) An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement.

 

Based upon an argument that the document they call the 'agreement' is in fact a 'pre-contractual application', the acceptance of which is dependant upon various criteria being met, then this can be argued to be an agreement (i,e in the normal basic contractual sense) purporting to bind you to a prospective regulated agreement.

 

The rationale is that they have made you sign your consent to be bound to the terms of a proposed regulated agreement if some future event happens, but this document itself is not the agreement because it is an application. The credit agreement should have followed separately upon acceptance.

 

I think the Credit Card companys may have problems.

[pecky1]

HI

Came on this thread to see anyone can tell me if you are required by law to fill out a DP2 regarding a SAR request, had a form sent to me by Shop Direct whom I requested a SAR & CCA back in July they have just responded to the SAR but I have to fill out this form.

Never had to do this with others that I have sent for before

If anyone could help on that one.

Thanks

[ian1969uk]

They are entitled to ask, just fill it in and send it back.

[surprise]

pecky1

 

DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING for Shop Direct. If you do have to sign anything do so that it cannot be scanned. ie. put a line straight through it.

[surprise]

pecky1

 

DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING for Shop Direct. If you do have to sign anything do so that it cannot be scanned. ie. put a line straight through it, anything to stop it being scanned.

[surprise]

delete posted twice

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

This is however true the agreenent regulations state that all schedule one of regs should be within the agreement. The requirement for defalt charges is contained in sectio 22 of schedule one.

In pre may 2005 agreements there only has to be a mention that default charges may apply however this was amendes in the 1482 regs and any agreement covered by these the default charges have to be itemised and included within the key information section of the document.

Although linking is allowed within the document linking to an outside source is prohibbited .

 

Bete regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi Sorry Ian didn't really refer to your posting

 

The term any other information may be referred to is a referenc to material that does not have to be contained within the agreement like information of the individual operating polocies of the credit company, all agreement information must be within the signature document and cannot be contained within an outside source or document and linked.

Is that clearer

 

Best regards

Peter

[pecky1]

Thanks surprise and ian1969uk and no i wont put my sig thanks for the advice

[Peterbard]

59 Agreement to enter future agreement void

 

(1) An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement.

 

Based upon an argument that the document they call the 'agreement' is in fact a 'pre-contractual application', the acceptance of which is dependant upon various criteria being met, then this can be argued to be an agreement (i,e in the normal basic contractual sense) purporting to bind you to a prospective regulated agreement.

 

The rationale is that they have made you sign your consent to be bound to the terms of a proposed regulated agreement if some future event happens, but this document itself is not the agreement because it is an application. The credit agreement should have followed separately upon acceptance.

 

I think the Credit Card companys may have problems.

 

HI paul wher did you find this

 

I loked into this a little while ago and was not able to find very much information at all.

I discverred the relevant regulations (si1552) i think, but they just list exemptions to the section which are basically just when an agreement is used to by tools or land.But very little else.

 

Best regards

Peter

[JonCris]

I note the discussion about lenders producing reconstructed documents in order to comply with a sec 77-79 CCA request & which they then use to enforce the debt. However if challenged (which a debtor should do) then they must be able to provide a properly executed 'signed' agreement

 

It's my view that the creditor can provide a reconstructed agreement in order to comply with their CCA obligations. However the agreement must not be conjectured (guessed at) but if it is it MUST be a true copy of the original. In other words they better have good memories

 

The problem for some lenders is that they are producing reconstructed agreements which actually are NOT true copies of the original. In a number of cases, known to me, at least 1 major bank are producing documents in which the T's & C's are completely different from the original & they have been caught - more of this in due course

[Peterbard]

HI Jon

 

Yes a little while back one or two of the posters on here recieved advice from the oft which stated that the creditor could reconstruct an agrement if the orriginal was not available.

I sent a letter to the OFT protesting that this could not the be a true copy.

In the frosty reply i reacived some time latter and is posted somewhere on here they back peddled and said that the creditor would have to have the orriginal to enxure the accuracy of the reconstructed copy.

 

Bes regards

Peter

[paulwlton]

HI Jon

 

Yes a little while back one or two of the posters on here recieved advice from the oft which stated that the creditor could reconstruct an agrement if the orriginal was not available.

I sent a letter to the OFT protesting that this could not the be a true copy.

In the frosty reply i reacived some time latter and is posted somewhere on here they back peddled and said that the creditor would have to have the orriginal to enxure the accuracy of the reconstructed copy.

 

Bes regards

Peter

 

 

I have just finished a long phone call with a certain person at the OFT where again he states that a lost copy can be recreated from banking records and that a copy of the original would suffice in respect of a court ordering enforcement.

 

Paul

[Peterbard]

HI

I suppose the proof of the pudding ETC.

We will not find out untill acreditor attemts to enforce a copy agreement.

It does rather fly in the face of previous informationsent by them.

 

I think the letter irecieved by them and the mention of "people using the act to avoid there obligations£ shows prety much where they are coming from.

They are in my view attempting to act as judge jury and executioner. fortunatly the court will have to account for it's actions and justify them in terms of the law.

 

The OFT have given so many conflicting pieces of advice over this issue they seem to change their stance whenever challenged.

 

Best regards

Peter