Cap1 & CCA return

[jayjay11]

can someone give me further advice please see my thread

CCa 1974 and credit cards

Edited October 1, 2008 by jayjay11
new text

[alanalana]

Hello all,,

 

this is the third post of this information. I hope it can be of use.

 

Hello all,

 

I have already posted this on another two threads...

Is My Agreement Enforceable - Useful and....

 

Getting Them To Reveal Their Vitals. Using CPR 31.14 to Your Advantage

 

I believe it could be also useful here....

 

 

Quote:

Hello all,

 

This may be useful if have to proceed to court and a COPY of the CCA is going to be produced.

 

Results within legislation - Statute Law Database

 

There is also information in Draft Order for Directions

 

Draft order for directions - including directions for disclosure

 

The general gist is as follows para e onwards is the legal requirement:

 

For claims or defences based on agreements regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 if no enforceable copy of the agreement has been sent:

 

a) a copy of the executed agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for the account

 

For a loan or hire purchase agreement

 

b) a statement signed by or on behalf of the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever is the loan company) showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,--

(i) the total sum paid under the agreement by the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever you are);

(ii) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever you are) but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due; and

(iii) the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever you are), and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due.

 

For a credit card

 

b) a statement signed by or on behalf of the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever is the loan company) showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,--

(i) the state of the account,

(ii) the amount, if any currently payable under the agreement by the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever you are) to the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever is the loan company), and

(iii) the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever you are) does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever you are) to the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever is the loan company).

 

General

 

c) copies of Default Notices (if any) issued pursuant to s87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever is the loan company) to the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever you are)

 

d) a copy of any Notice of Assignment to the [Claimant] [Defendant] (whichever is the loan company) relating to the [Claimant’s] [Defendant’s] (whichever you are) account

 

e) if copies of any of the above documents are to be relied on in court rather than originals, a copy of the Notice of proposal to adduce hearsay evidence required under s2(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 together with proof of the authenticity of the document(s) as required under s8(1)(b) of the Act, including but not limited to:

 

(i) a copy of the procedure(s) used for copying, storing and retrieving documents

(ii) a copy of the relevant log entry showing the time and date of the scan or copy, the name of the member of staff making the copy, the method used for copying, storage and retrieval and time and date of destruction of the original document(s)

(iii) copies of internal and external audit reports covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedures have been complied with

(iv) copies of Quality Assurance accreditation certificates covering the entire period from the date of the copy to the present to demonstrate that the procedure(s) and audit process(es) comply with the appropriate quality standards

 

hope this is of use:-)

 

aa

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello aa!

 

Perhaps also add...

 

(v) Witness Statements from all members of Staff who either Copied, re-Copied or Destroyed the Original. Plus Dates of Employment to validate and to ascertain if they can still be called for cross-examination.

 

 

Cheers,

BRW

[lexis200]

Hello all

 

Sorry to butt in with a request rather than anything useful!

 

Just wondering if anyone could take a look at my thread please and advise me on a couple of letters? I'd really like to get a reply out in the next few days if possible.

 

Thanks for any help

 

Lexis

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/156429-lexis200-hbos-blair-oliver.html

[alanalana]

Hello BRW,

 

Hello aa!

 

Perhaps also add...

 

(v) Witness Statements from all members of Staff who either Copied, re-Copied or Destroyed (not forgetting the destruction being certified by the Data Protection Officer or other authorised person) the Original. Plus Dates of Employment to validate and to ascertain if they can still be called for cross-examination.

 

:grin:

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

regards

 

aa

[angry cat]

RE LINK FINANCIAL LIMITED!

 

PLEASE READ...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1742622.html

 

AC

[citizenB]

 

The law has changed inasmuch it is no longer a criminal offence if the company doesnt respond to your CCA request. So, yes you can send them a reminder. Whilst they remain in default of your request they are not allowed to enforce it. They will try, but they shouldnt. if the do, then report them to Trading Standards. If you ahve a read around the threads, then you will find lots of answers to any questions you might have. If not.. then just yell.

 

I've read this on a couple of threads and just wanted to ask a question - where has the law changed?

 

Are we talking about the Rankine judgment? If so, the Judge said it wasn't an offence to fail to respond to a CCA request then to seek enforcement via the Court. I can't find the bit where he said it wasn't an offence to fail to reply in the prescribed period?

 

Surely, as the CCA was enacted by Parliament, the offence would stand until it is repealed, (or have I missed the repeal as well) by only Parliament can do that?

 

:?

 

I dont think it has anything to do with the rankine case at all. It is my understanding that whilst an OFFENCE has still been committed by not responding to the CCA request within the statutory timescales, it is no longer a CRIMINAL offence. The companies are still not able to enforce the agreement if they havent provided the documents. I am sure somone will put me right if I am wrong, but I understand the letter template on the forum has been amended to reflect the above.

 

Yeehah.. Car2403, I knew I would find it .. here is a link to the new legislation which removes the "criminal" aspect.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/129040-no-cca-change-law.html#post1356148

[The Phantom]

Yeehah.. Car2403, I knew I would find it .. here is a link to the new legislation which removes the "criminal" aspect.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/129040-no-cca-change-law.html#post1356148

 

Has any company ever been 'done' for a criminal offence before the law changed ?

I couldn't even get my local TS remotely interested in it BEFORE the law changed, so I think not much is lost really.....?

[Having_A_Knightmare]

All T/S are interesed in are sending a15 year old in to a shop to buy a lottery ticket and getting a quick arrest.

 

Have you ever tried getting help on a dodgy trader...again not interested.

 

If you put your car for sale on a road were I live they will ring you up to check you are not trade....again quick hit.

 

My advice about T/S is write to the Councils Chief Executive and make an official complaint. If this does not help write to your MP and see them jump...

HAK

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I think they forget that its Council Tax payers who fund them!!!!

 

Sorry had to get it out of my system they get me so mad!!!!

 

Also I know T/S monitor this thread as they mentioned it when I went to see them. So i you have any comments for them....HEHE

[The Phantom]

I think they forget that its Council Tax payers who fund them!!!!

 

Sorry had to get it out of my system they get me so mad!!!!

 

Also I know T/S monitor this thread as they mentioned it when I went to see them. So i you have any comments for them....HEHE

 

To be honest I never made it to TS, here when you look up the number for your local TS you get the number for Consumer Direct. You can't talk to TS directly anymore here.

When I spoke to Consumer Direct they didn't even understand the default bit about the CCA request. They just heard key words like debt, creditor and CCA and advised me to phone the National Debt Line to get help paying if I had a debt problem. They warned me the creditor could sue me and put a charge on my house and I should seek professional help with my debt problem. They never put the matter through to TS. They didn't have a clue and were simply not interested.

That was in May 2007. Link has been in default of my CCA request ever since.

[The Phantom]

PS: I would like to make the bold statement that a company NEVER has had criminal charges brought against them for failing to comply with a CCA request.

So by changing the law I think they have merely adjusted the law to match reality.

[angry cat]

That is because the so called Regulators, don't Regulate the Banks and...

the so called Enforcement Officers of the Consumer Credit Act, will not enforce the legislation that was laid down to protect the; Average Consumer!

 

The Banks flout the Acts and Regulations, they appear to be allowed to get away with their cavlaier attitude of, riding roughshod over one and all...

 

No wonder we are in a credit crunch!

A Credit Crunch that, has been caused by the reckless and irresponsible actions of GREEDY Fat Cat Bankers/Banks.

 

Shame On Them...ALL

 

Rant Over

 

AC

[macie]

this maybe useful

 

Court of Appeal takes lenient approach to litigant in person

 

In Nelson v Halifax Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1016, a majority in the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Mr Nelson against an order dismissing his claim because there was no cause of action. It was clear that Mr Nelson, a litigant in person, did not understand the basis of the pleading which counsel had settled on his behalf, and he did not understand that his disclaimer of reliance on contract amounted to a disclaimer of part of his case. In these circumstances, the judge should have allowed the trial to proceed on the pleadings as they stood, instead of resorting to the draconian course of depriving a litigant of his right to a trial. To allow the trial to proceed would not have led to any injustice to Halifax.

 

The decision illustrates the lenient approach which may be taken by the courts to litigants in person.

 

Although the judgment is dated 8 May 2008, it has only recently been made available by the courts.

[car2403]

this maybe useful

 

Court of Appeal takes lenient approach to litigant in person

 

In Nelson v Halifax Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1016, a majority in the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Mr Nelson against an order dismissing his claim because there was no cause of action. It was clear that Mr Nelson, a litigant in person, did not understand the basis of the pleading which counsel had settled on his behalf, and he did not understand that his disclaimer of reliance on contract amounted to a disclaimer of part of his case. In these circumstances, the judge should have allowed the trial to proceed on the pleadings as they stood, instead of resorting to the draconian course of depriving a litigant of his right to a trial. To allow the trial to proceed would not have led to any injustice to Halifax.

 

The decision illustrates the lenient approach which may be taken by the courts to litigants in person.

 

Although the judgment is dated 8 May 2008, it has only recently been made available by the courts.

 

The issue here, though, is the approach of the Court of first instance - had this not been applied, yet again we would have seen any injustice pass us by. How many litigants in person in this situation would have even consider appealing? Answers on a postcard...

[foolishgirl]

Answers on a postcard...

 

...or a stamp :grin:

[ncf355]

Hello AC!

 

As I understand it, if the Account was Terminated on the back of an invalid Default Notice, then it's a case of Unlawful Rescission of Contract.

 

In effect, the OC has denied themselves, or any DCA following on thereafter, the Right to take you to Court to Enforce the Debt.

 

The DCA is just making up new Rules as it goes along!

 

If the OC has blown the requirements of s87(1), but still went ahead and Terminated the Account irrespective of this, then that's it. Game over.

 

They have lost the Right to Enforce. They can't go back to fix this error once the Account is ended, as there is no longer a live Account to Default. They have failed to close it in the lawfully prescribed manner, but close it they have. Tough beans.

 

To Enforce, they need a Default Notice. Except they no longer have a valid one to wave at you! The one they did create may as well be a Banana for all the use it will be to them, that's if it is invalid/defective.

 

Once an Account is Terminated, it can't be un-Terminated without your Consent. In theory, to re-activate it, would mean a new Credit Agreement. I doubt you would want to agree to that.

 

They can't just open and close and open and close Accounts willy nilly, as the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is there for a reason to control this. The CCA Regulates the Opening and Closing of Agreements. They have to be set-up/Opened correctly, and they have to be closed/Terminated correctly.

 

The Unlawful Rescission of Contract also then opens up the scope to seek compensation from them...see below:

 

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DEFAULT AND TERMINATE AN AGREEMENT CORRECTLY

Failure of a Default or Termination Notice to be accurate not only invalidates such Notice, (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998 ) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, (Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, Wilson v Robertsons (London) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1088, Wilson v Pawnbrokers [2005] EWCA Civ 147) but would also give the Claimant a claim for damages in the sum of £1,000. (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119)

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

 

 

BRW,

 

can I ask the source of the above quote, this would come in extremely handy for me in a case I'm in

 

Cheers

[citizenB]

BRW,

 

can I ask the source of the above quote, this would come in extremely handy for me in a case I'm in

 

Cheers

 

Here you go ncf

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-library/1015-woodchester-lease-swain-co.html

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Ncf355!

 

Thanks to CitizenB for that Link.

 

The quote is from CAG, I regret I do not now know which Thread I got that from.

 

However, the key is the Case History as that backs up the way that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 covers the issue. Have a good read, and I think they support my understanding of the issue.

 

A Default has to be both accurate in terms of the numbers, in the correct form, and must allow the Statutory time from Date of Service. The latter can be key, so it's important to keep the Envelopes any DNs were sent in to prove when they were Posted.

 

Many bankers will back date a DN, then Post it late, just to give the Consumer little or no time to respond. This is because they want to Terminate to go straight for the Balance.

 

However, that little plan falls apart if it can be shown via the Envelope that the DN was posted days after the issue.

 

The real key is a DN can only be issued during the currency of an Agreement. Once the Agreement is Terminated, it is closed, and there can be no going back to remedy a defective DN. They will try this, but there's no provision for this within the CCA.

 

The battle is to state this clearly when you go to Court, and make sure the opposition are not allowed to steer the Judge away from this fundamental issue.

 

That, as ever, is the hard part. But if the case goes against you, despite the bankers not having a valid DN, then I believe you would have strong grounds for an Appeal on a point of Law...just like Swain & Co did!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[car2403]

A Default has to be both accurate in terms of the numbers, in the correct form, and must allow the Statutory time from Date of Service. The latter can be key, so it's important to keep the Envelopes any DNs were sent in to prove when they were Posted.

 

How can you prove the DN came in that envelope, then?

 

The real key is a DN can only be issued during the currency of an Agreement. Once the Agreement is Terminated, it is closed, and there can be no going back to remedy a defective DN. They will try this, but there's no provision for this within the CCA.

 

Where does this come from?

 

The battle is to state this clearly when you go to Court, and make sure the opposition are not allowed to steer the Judge away from this fundamental issue.

[\quote]

 

Which you can only do by showing your source of precedent, hence my question above.

 

That, as ever, is the hard part. But if the case goes against you, despite the bankers not having a valid DN, then I believe you would have strong grounds for an Appeal on a point of Law...just like Swain & Co did!

 

I think you're a little confused there - the Swaine case outlines the effect a faulty Default Notice has on the enforcement proceedings brought under it.

 

What you've outlined here is an interpretation of the caselaw you've quoted above in light of Swain.

 

I'm not being argumentative, (actually, most of what you've posted above is probably from me on other threads - which I also can't now find - outlining exactly the same thing) but I think we need to be careful when putting ideas like this forward without the caveat that they are interpretations and not definate precedents.

 

For instance, if I was the Judge and I said I disagreed with the view you've expressed above, as I interpret those precedents in a different way, how would you convince me? I may decide that the DN is faulty, but the case should be stayed to allow another that isn't faulty to be issued, for example.

 

[johndeevoy]

What happens when an agreeement is terminated? Why would a creditor do this as surely they lose their rights to add interest and charges under the (now canceled) agreement? Obviously they are free to pursue the balance as they wish but I fail to see how they can continue to add interest.

 

Can someone explain this for me? What benefit is there to a credit to cancel the agreement?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Chris!

 

Thanks for these questions, I'll do my best to answer or explain.

 

How can you prove the DN came in that envelope, then?

 

It would have to be on the balance of probabilities, in that the Envelopes usually have their Postal Licence, so that's the first piece of evidence. What ever the Envelope contained, it did come from them.

 

If you are lucky, the Envelope may also have a dated Franking mark, which is another piece of the jigsaw. I appreciate this still does not prove the issue, but it's getting more convincing. That proves Date of Posting for whatever the Envelope contained.

 

Then there is the issue of the possibility of a Postal Barcode being on the Envelope, which when I can finally read these, should show the Royal Mail Routing, and may also show the Date of Posting. I'm still working on this issue, but the Light Orange Barcodes - if present - should reveal quite a lot about the Envelope, where it came from, when, and where it went. That's proof of Sender and Recipient and the (hopefully dated) Tracking between them...of whatever was in the Envelope.

 

Then there would be other evidence such as having all past and later Letters and Envelopes from the same banker concerned, i.e. to show all other Letters from them to you are accounted for, so none are being used to pretend the Default Notice came in another Envelope. If all other Letters sent before and after are accounted for with their own Envelopes, then what else could've been in that Envelope?

 

That, in my opinion, should be enough to prove the DN came in that Envelope. If submitted as Evidence, the banker would then have to explain how one of their Envelopes, with their Postal Licence, with Barcodes showing Royal Mail Routing from them to you, and possibly with a Postal Date too, could possibly have contained anything else.

 

Where does this come from?

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974, s87 and s88. These make no mention of being applicable to a closed Agreement. The Act sets out how an Agreement can be made, and how it can be closed/Terminated. These sections are there to cover the closure and Termination of an Agreement.

 

There's no section that covers re-opening a closed Agreement.

 

I feel Terminated, as explained, means just that. Likewise, if not Terminated, then I have said they may be able to issue another DN. But not once the Agreement is at an end, as then there is no Agreement...just a Debt, a Debt that may, or may not, be Enforceable depending on the Original Agreement and the lawful or unlawful way the Agreement was ended.

 

An Agreement is still a Contract, just one that is also Regulated by the Act.

 

Otherwise, what is to stop them coming back Years later to issue a new DN, saying the Agreement was not Terminated, and now they'd like some more money please. If they have sold the Debt, then that implies they had to have lawfully Defaulted and Terminated. The Act requires this.

 

For instance, if I was the Judge and I said I disagreed with the view you've expressed above, as I interpret those precedents in a different way, how would you convince me? I may decide that the DN is faulty, but the case should be stayed to allow another that isn't faulty to be issued, for example.

 

I think that would boil down to if I had a Letter saying the Agreement was ended/Terminated. I agree that in the absence of that, there is some scope for them to re-issue a 2nd Default Notice, as that is just a Notice, it does not necessarily follow that they did go ahead and Default and Terminate, although that is the main reason for issuing one.

 

The grey area, as I see it, is the gap between the end of the DN, and the Termination. But, if a DN has been issued, and they then proceeded to Terminate, then the Agreement is at an end by any reasonable understanding of the word Terminate. Likewise, if they sell the Debt, that also implies the Agreement has been Terminated.

 

If all of this has been done lawfully, then they are entitled to seek early repayment of the Balance, i.e. the Balance that was not, until then, due for Payment. Up until that point, all that was due for Payment would be any Arrears that had built up, less any Charges that had been applied unlawfully.

 

I cannot see anything in the Act that allows them to un-Terminate an Agreement so that they can have a 2nd stab at getting the Default Notice correct. Otherwise why do we not have any precedent that shows a bank doing this?

 

As always, Chris, your thoughts are most welcome, and it is important to try and thrash these things out here rather than in Court...by then we need to have everything clear!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[ncf355]

What happens if they terminate the agreement but then fully assign it to another company

 

Are they able to do this by law, or do they have to do this within the currency of the agreement?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello ncf355!

 

Are they able to do this by law, or do they have to do this within the currency of the agreement?

 

As I understand it, what we are talking about at this stage is a straight lump sum Debt as opposed to a Regulated Agreement.

 

If the Agreement is still live, then it can be Sold whilst still live, provided the Buyer holds a Consumer Credit Licence and is able and willing to carry on with the Agreement and offer the same service to the Consumer in line with the Terms that bind the Original Creditor (OC).

 

If not, i.e. if that which is being sold is just a lump sum Debt, then it suggests the Agreement hit the buffers at some point, and must now be at an end. If so, and if there is now a lump sum Debt, then the Debtor had to be lawfully Defaulted and the Agreement lawfully Terminated if anyone now wants to seek Payment of the whole Balance.

 

Once Terminated, then the OC can Sell or Assign that Debt to whoever they like (provided the Buyer has the necessary licences to handle such things). But, the thing they are Selling or Assigning, is no longer an Agreement, as the Debtor has lost all Rights to any of the benefits once the Agreement has been lawfully Defaulted/Terminated. It is no longer a two-sided issue, it is a one-sided issue wholly in favour of the Original Creditor or who ever they sell that Debt to.

 

The only Rights the Debtor has at this stage, is the Right not to be Harassed or intimidated, in line with other Laws and assuming the group chasing this Debt follows OFT Debt Collection Guidelines.

 

I think this suggests there is no point, say, in sending a DCA a s77-79 Request. This is because what they have now is not an Agreement, but a Right to seek Payment of an Enforceable lump sum Debt. That's assuming they have all the Paperwork, i.e. Original properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement to confirm the Debt stemmed from an Enforceable Agreement, provided they also have proof that the Debtor who defaulted on payments in relation to the Agreement was lawfully Defaulted, initially via a compliant Notice and then followed by a lawful Default/Termination.

 

Without at the very least having firm evidence of an Enforceable Agreement having existed and a lawful Default Notice issued in relation to that Agreement, I think the majority of the Debt will not be Enforceable, or at best, only the Arrears can be Enforceable. No lawful Default and Termination means the OC has blown their Right to seek early Payment of the full Balance. They've also blown that Right for anybody else who later Buys that lump sum Debt.

 

The lump sum is just the Arrears plus the Total that was not due for Payment at the time of the Default Notice and Termination. If they want early Payment of any sum otherwise not due before Termination, the Act requires the OC to Default and Terminate lawfully. Fail to do that, and they do not have what the act requires them to have before they can seek early Payment. Once they Terminate, then they immediately place themselves outside of the protection of the Act as well. Their ability to Default via s87/s88 went out of the window at the point of Termination, as that was the exact turning point when the Agreement ended and the lump sum Debt came into being.

 

I feel the most suitable thing to send a DCA is a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) rather than a s77-79 Request. We have seen on CAG examples when a banker refuses to respond to a s77-79 Request once an Agreement has been Terminated, claiming (correctly I think) that they are no longer obliged to respond, as the Agreement is Terminated/Closed so they are no longer bound by the Act. That rather confirms that if they can't do that, then s87 no longer applies either. It cuts both ways.

 

If a DCA wishes to chase Payment for a lump sum Debt, then it is reasonable that the Consumer should be able to ask for proof that they are entitled to seek Payment. A s77-79 Request seems to be accepted by many DCAs that they have to respond, but I wonder if they really do, as I do not think they are really bound by the Act at this point.

 

I am not clear what is the correct approach in such circumstances. A S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) should reveal some of this, but if a s77-79 is not applicable, then it leaves me wondering what is the correct approach to force a DCA to prove they have a Right to seek Payment on a lump sum Debt.

 

The acid test is Court, and if a DCA is quite convinced they have their paperwork in Order (i.e. the Original properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement, clear evidence of lawful Default and lawful Termination), then the only proper thing for them to do is to proceed to Court and obtain Payment or Judgement.

 

But, what ever they have, it is no longer an Agreement regulated by the Act. The Debtor cannot ask for their Credit Cards back, and say they'll Pay the minimum again and nip off to the Shops to buy some bits and bobs. All of that ended when the Agreement ended. Both Debtor and OC/DCA are, by then, outside of the Act. An OC can't just nip back in whenever it takes their fancy to have another crack at being compliant with s87/s88.

 

Well, that's until this Government waters that down as well. You heard it here first folks, I bet s87/s88 will be erased in CCA 2009!

 

Section 87 to be replaced by:

 

s87 (1) bankers are wonderful creatures, so it's only sensible and tidy that they should be allowed to end an Agreement whenever they like, and un-Terminate it at random to have as many goes as they like to get their paperwork right.

 

Section 88 to be replaced by:

 

s88 (1) bankers just need to tread on a Frog, at any time, and an agreement is made enforceable again. The merest whisper from a bankers backside is quite enough.

 

Comments all welcome.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[foolishgirl]

 

s88 (1) bankers just need to tread on a Frog, at any time, and an agreement is made enforceable again....

 

 

Think there could be lots of bankers at the moment who just wish they were frogs & could spend the coming deep financial winter at the bottom of some grubby pond - back where they came from!

 

Seriously BRW, great posts, I'm bookmarking furiously