Reconstituted Document significantly different, breach of section 78 of CCA 1974

[Lord_Protector_of_England]

Despite having completely different references, in summary judgement, CC judge ruled "more than likely" they are the same?

 

How can you tell, if no original replied, despite data protection and proceedings requests. I am planning to appeal, as my clerk was mugged part way through hearing; and building society were still refusing to provide discovery.

 

Having now obtained another standard form, it appears 75% different, including interest rate. They failed to reply with "honest and accurate copy" within 14 days; and refused payment in full (within 3 days) as they offered transfer to mortgage, and the givernment did a special liquidity on my bundled mortgage.

 

Where do I go from here? Can we build a database of standard forms, and offer a checking service. Is this difference now fraud by banks and building societies?

Edited July 3, 2012 by citizenB
spacing for easier reading

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Can you please give us some back ground and detail please.

[Lord_Protector_of_England]

Nationwide for £7500 + fees. They supplied a witness statement that it is a "honest and accurate copy". Since it is not, I cannot believe they do not actually have a copy even of the original template. It is re-typed. Not even a word document, or some DTP. All they would have to do is print off one master copy, scan and print that scan. Maybe they even use a third party to print, in which case they may keep. They are just too lazy to look.

I work in control systems, and frankly no industrial site would get away with this lack of health and safety.

I will post letters (redacted) when I get a chance.

Also "More likely than not" is 50.00000% vs 49.999999%, hardly convincingly accurate, so "reasonable prospect of success"?

[citizenB]

Have a read of Harrison v Link - pdf below.

 

Harrison v Link Financial Ltd ALL ER (2011).pdf

[rebel11]

MBNA are notorious regarding account numbers, in fact they issue account numbers like they are going out of fashion.

 

What about if the 'Terms and Conditions' have been varied?

 

There's a summary at the bottom.

 

6) CAREY V HSBC (2009) CLICK HERE

[Guest]

also, see the Kotecha Phoenix CA case re accurate recon.