SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement

[Peterbard]

yes I know Peter, but Tom said

 

 

oh.... I get it... pre-case dismissed.... however the statement does read odd since THAT document is most definitely required. If I were defending this I would certainly seek a strike out before court since my defence relies entirely on this... which means there would be a strong case for the judge to do just that...

 

Z

Hi Z

You can of course apply to the court to to have the agreement made unenforceable.This would the prohibit any further action by the creditor,I know some have done this but to my mind it is a bit of a waste of time as the unsigned agreement is going to get thrown out anyway.

 

Peter

[Movingon]

Yes - just to clarify - as per the regulations quoted earlier, it is not required to produce the signed agreement in Pre-Action Protocol (i.e. before an action is raised).

 

HOWEVER

 

In any Court Action attempting to enforce a debt, it is on the day of the hearing likely the very first thing that a Judge will request from the claimant; and lack of it will have the claim dismissed.

 

What Peter Bard's letter is saying is, "why drag it all the way to court and trample all over the overriding objective to agree outside court, when you could simply produce the signed document now?". If they then fail to produce, you can tell the Judge (on the day of the hearing or even in your Defence) that they failed to comply with Practice Direction 4.6 (Civil Procedure Rules) in that they unreasonably denied access to this document prior to the Action being raised. This will not be sufficient on its own to have the case dismissed but it will certainly give the Judge some very pointed questions to ask!

[noomill060]

If you already have your statements, start you samll claim. You will be suprised how quickly the phone calls stop.

 

Contact Consumer Direct (Trading Standards) as soon as you can about the calls.

[noomill060]

Dunno what happened there, I was answer a question on another thread and it popped up on this one!

[ShootMePlz]

? I need answering please

 

After receiving a COPY of an agreement with no date or signature on there part, well over the 12WD+30, I have now recieved another copy of the agreement which has been signed 1 month ago, this is like 2 years after they say I signed it. No terms and conditions have been supplied with either BTW, Plus both copies look like they have been put through a scanner, cut and pasted as there is a big black line chopping part of my address off which goes through the paper.

 

So what is the time period for them to sign if any at all?

[InKogneeToh]

? I need answering please

 

After receiving a COPY of an agreement with no date or signature on there part, well over the 12WD+30, I have now recieved another copy of the agreement which has been signed 1 month ago, this is like 2 years after they say I signed it. No terms and conditions have been supplied with either BTW, Plus both copies look like they have been put through a scanner, cut and pasted as there is a big black line chopping part of my address off which goes through the paper.

 

So what is the time period for them to sign if any at all?

 

Hi

 

Which signature now appears on the 2nd copy, yours or theirs?

 

Signatures CANNOT be added to any agreement at a later date, but for a CCA request, the creditor is permitted to omit any signatures and your name/address from the copy. In all other respects it must be a 'true' copy of the document you signed.

 

Are you able to scan or photograph the documents and post them up here?

 

Regards, Pam

[The Phantom]

HOWEVER

 

In any Court Action attempting to enforce a debt, it is on the day of the hearing likely the very first thing that a Judge will request from the claimant; and lack of it will have the claim dismissed.

 

Not always

Check this out - judge didn't mind here that claimant did not have an original agreement during the hearing despite it having been requested by defendant

The judge ruled the debt had previously been acknowledged through payments, so there was no need to see it

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/80716-link-financial-help-wanted-3.html

[Peterbard]

Hi

The ruling of the judge is wrong...

 

There should have been an appeal on a point of law raised immediatley and the attention of the judge should have been drawn to the cca secton 127.

This is of course provicing the matter was regulated under the cca.

No One is above the law not even judjes sometimes they need reminding.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

Which signature now appears on the 2nd copy, yours or theirs?

 

Signatures CANNOT be added to any agreement at a later date, but for a CCA request, the creditor is permitted to omit any signatures and your name/address from the copy. In all other respects it must be a 'true' copy of the document you signed.

 

Are you able to scan or photograph the documents and post them up here?

 

Regards, Pam

Hi Pam

 

I also thought i had read that the creditors name need not be on a copy because of section 180(copy of docs regs3) but i cannot find it just where it says the creditors details dont need to be provided.

 

Can you enlighten me

 

Cheers

Peter

[The Phantom]

Hi

The ruling of the judge is wrong...

 

There should have been an appeal on a point of law raised immediatley and the attention of the judge should have been drawn to the cca secton 127.

This is of course provicing the matter was regulated under the cca.

No One is above the law not even judjes sometimes they need reminding.

 

Peter

 

If that was me I probably would have made an appeal against this, but I think the original poster wasn't too sure about it all (if you read his thread)

The hearing / judgement was only last week, so maybe he can still appeal, not sure

[Peterbard]

Hi Pam

 

I also thought i had read that the creditors name need not be on a copy because of section 180(copy of docs regs3) but i cannot find it just where it says the creditors details dont need to be provided.

 

Can you enlighten me

 

Cheers

Peter

 

Her i go quoting myself again

 

In the case of somone signing a copy then sending it for the creditors signature in order to be properly executed , under 62(2)(3) they must send one back within seven days presumably to prove that the creditor had completed the contract would this not have to have the creditors signature on it to fuilfill that purpose?

 

Regards

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hello again

So it would seem that a coppy requested under section 77-78 of the act and also copies issued under section62(2)(3) MUST HAVE A CREDITORS SIGNATURE.

In the 77-78 case to be a true copy, and in the second case to conform to section 64 and therefore section 127(4).

 

Petr

[zubo]

withdrawn, I missed the link....

[ShootMePlz]

K thanks Pam and Peter, I though there was a time scale for them to sign and return to me, and just so you know peter that was the agreement I PM'ed you over several weeks ago lol.

 

Looks like they Fooked up on that also lol

[ncf355]

Not always

Check this out - judge didn't mind here that claimant did not have an original agreement during the hearing despite it having been requested by defendant

The judge ruled the debt had previously been acknowledged through payments, so there was no need to see it

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/80716-link-financial-help-wanted-3.html

 

Doesnt seem to have been much response to this - I just cant believe this should be allowed, section 127 should cause the judge th throw it out, shouldnt it?

[ian1969uk]

Doesnt seem to have been much response to this - I just cant believe this should be allowed, section 127 should cause the judge th throw it out, shouldnt it?

 

I think the problem here was that the poster didn't speak up in the hearing and actually point out S127 to the judge. Therefore, the judge just accepted that the debt was owed.

 

If S127 is actually pointed out to the judge during the hearing, I fail to see how he/she could make any enforcement order as this would be in direct contrast to the law:

 

3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

We must speak up for ourselves and make sure the judges are aware of the law in this matter, as they are not going to fight the battle for us.

[zubo]

I think the problem here was that the poster didn't speak up in the hearing and actually point out S127 to the judge. Therefore, the judge just accepted that the debt was owed.

 

If S127 is actually pointed out to the judge during the hearing, I fail to see how he/she could make any enforcement order as this would be in direct contrast to the law:

 

3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

We must speak up for ourselves and make sure the judges are aware of the law in this matter, as they are not going to fight the battle for us.

 

I just posted on the thread.

 

There are two ways to go - one is to appeal the other is the one I suggested - chase for the CCA document then when not produced request a set aside on a point of law. The latter seems more reasonable and less of an issue for the judge.

 

Z

[tamadus]

I was going to totally agree with Ian but Zubo jumped in and I also agree with his idea of how to progress this.

 

We have to learn very quickly to put our case forward. CAG is a self help site with the benefit of people with experience offering assistance when needed. Court is no different, if we speak up and make a case for ourselves the Judges will go along with it and apply the law as they see and understand it.

 

If we remain dumb then that's exactly how the Judge and court will regard us. They have no obligation to make our case for us and are there to adjudicate each side of the argument on its lawful merits.

[pford]

thought i posts this on here on what the Halifax are trying now. Got this of them on Saturday over my s78 request.

 

Whilst I appreciate your situation we can enforce repayment of this debt under Crimanal Justification as spending on the account you have automatically agreed to the terms and conditions of the account and therefore remain liable for the above balance and can be continually pursued as such by our recovery Agents Blair Oliver Scott.

[zubo]

thought i posts this on here on what the Halifax are trying now. Got this of them on Saturday over my s78 request.

 

Whilst I appreciate your difficulty with the interpretation of an Act of Parliament which requires your compliance with Section 78 thereof, I regret to advise you that the said Act makes it an offence to even attempt to enforce the alleged agreement whilst you are in Default.

 

Regretably, I wish to formally advise you that you have failed to comply within the prescribed timescales of the Act and are now in Default.

 

I strongly suggest that should you wish to remove this default, you comply with the terms of the Act and satisfy my lawful requests. I would also point out that if you do not supply me with a true copy of the executed agreement within 30 days you have committed a criminal offence and I will report you to the authorities.

 

Z

[Stornoway]

thought i posts this on here on what the Halifax are trying now. Got this of them on Saturday over my s78 request.

You need to do your own research but that comment from BOS doesnt reflect my understanding. Do a google search on Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade (Wilson & Ors v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40 (10 July 2003)) and Dimond V Lovell (House of Lords - Dimond (Original Appellant and Cross-Respondent) v. Lovell (Original Respondent and Cross-Appellant)). In the Wilson Case the following quote was from one of the judges

Quote: Lord Justice Sedley – "the moral for a pawnbroker such as Mr Howard is that if he wants the rewards of his trade he must operate strictly by the book, and that the failure to do so may be not merely to unravel agreements, but to reverse the indebtedness that they have purportedly caused."

 

I would do your research on these two cases so that you understand what it is all about then revert to BOS to say that the absence of a credit agreement makes a debt completely unenforceable as per the above two cases (quote the cases). Ask them to confirm that they will discharge the debt otherwise you will make a formal complaint to the OFT and Trading Standards for harrassment.

 

Let us know how you get on !! (I have three credit cards without agreements and I am in a similar position).

[daipp]

OK

 

Call me an idiot if you want (I'd prefer if you didn't though !)

 

I've looked through this forum and this thread (well, several pages at least), and I can't find an actual template of the letter that I should be sending to my bank. Could anyone please point me in the right direction.

 

As usual, any help would be appreciated.

 

Many thanks

 

David

[pford]

Whilst I appreciate your difficulty with the interpretation of an Act of Parliament which requires your compliance with Section 78 thereof, I regret to advise you that the said Act makes it an offence to even attempt to enforce the alleged agreement whilst you are in Default.

 

Regretably, I wish to formally advise you that you have failed to comply within the prescribed timescales of the Act and are now in Default.

 

I strongly suggest that should you wish to remove this default, you comply with the terms of the Act and satisfy my lawful requests. I would also point out that if you do not supply me with a true copy of the executed agreement within 30 days you have committed a criminal offence and I will report you to the authorities.

 

Z

thanks for your coments drafted this letter already any thoughts on it

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/21097-help-no-response-copy-7.html#post778967

[noomill060]

Too friendly and conciliatory at this stage.

 

You want to let them know, that you know, that you have their nads in a vice and if they dont stop ***king you about, you're going to start turning the handle.

[noomill060]

IMHO, of course.