Nationwide taking me to court.HELP.

[steven4064]

I managed to open it - application form .

 

It says it's an application form

 

It does not say it is a "credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974" as required by Schedule 1 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553)

 

It does not have the terms prescribed under schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553). It does not even have the required heading "Key Information"

 

Therefore it is not in the prescribed form and it is not a properly executed agreement as defined in s61 of the CCA 1974:

61.--(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless--

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

(my emphases) Therefore, as it is not properly executed, according to s65 of the CCA 1974, it can only be enforced by a court:

65.--(1) An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only.

Further, s127 limits the courts ability to enforce an agreement that is not properly executed:

127 (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).

This says that the court can make an order under s65 to enforce an agreement that is not properly executed (as defined ins 61) but only if the agreement contains all the prescribed terms and is signed by you. The agreement you have is signed by you but does not have the prescribed terms.

 

Therefore the court may not enforce it.

 

Additional important points.

 

1) the prescribed terms must be within the agreement and not in a seperate document.

 

See the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements. Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not

Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.

2) where an agreement does not have the prescribed terms as stated in Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) it is not compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore not enforceable by s127 (3).

 

See the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

Refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul):

28......... I should outline the salient provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Subject to exemptions, a regulated agreement is an agreement between an individual debtor and another person by which the latter provides the former with a cash loan or other financial accommodation not exceeding a specified amount. Currently the amount is £25,000. Section 61(1) sets out conditions which must be satisfied if a regulated agreement is to be treated as properly executed. One of these conditions, in paragraph (a), is that the agreement must be in a prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms. The prescribed terms are the amount of the credit or the credit limit, rate of interest (in some cases), how the borrower is to discharge his obligations, and any power the creditor may have to vary what is payable: Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, Schedule 6. The consequence of improper execution is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor save by an order of the court: section 65(1). Section 127(1) provides what is to happen on an application for an enforcement order under section 65. The court 'shall dismiss' the application if, but only if, the court considers it just to do so having regard to the prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it. The court may reduce the amount payable by the debtor so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention, or impose conditions, or suspend the operation of any term of the order or make consequential changes in the agreement or security.

 

29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order.

 

30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be sidestepped.....

And further more:

36. In the present case the essence of the complaint is that section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act has the effect that a Regulated agreement is not enforceable unless a document containing all the prescribed terms is signed by the debtor

 

49. .............The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched.

 

50. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in

Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order. In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the to the statutory provisions. It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398.

Finally, should it come up, s127(3) of the CCA 1974 was repeale by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. However, it is not retrospective so s127(3) still applies to your 'agreement'

 

I hope this helps.

Edited May 17, 2008 by steven4064

[nicklea]

outofcash,

 

Could you post this second page so that people can see it. Originally you said that you had just received the one page - you didn't say anything about receiving anything else.

 

Also, have a look at what I posted on your other thread about s64. Even if all the prescribed terms are there they still have to comply with s64 as well, which they won't have done. What they will have done is sent you a copy of the application form. This isn't good enough, it needs to have the full cancellation notice giving notice of who to contact etc

[steven4064]

Hi nicklea

 

The application form has the right to cancel in the prescibed format provided they sent the details by post within 7 days (s64(1)(b)) - IMO they can say have complied with s64 unless OOC can prove (s)he was not sent such details within 7 days.

[nicklea]

Hi Steven,

 

It wasn't s64(1)(b) I was talking about but (1)(a).

 

THe full cancellation details don't need to be on the executed agreement but when a copy of the agreement is given under s62 it must contain cancellation details in the prescribed form including the name and address of the person to give notice to etc not just the short bit saying that details will be sent to you in due course.

 

Also, since this is a credit card, they could send the details on the card carrier rather than having to do it within 7 days. However not all credit card companies were doing this until recently. For example, I have a Morgan Stanley card carrier from 2005 that didn't have the cancellation details on, but then by 2006 when they got taken over by Goldfish they were putting on the correct details.

 

Also, the burden of proof does lie with the creditor in this case following:-

 

Anglo Leasing Plc v Pascoe & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 895

 

 

Regards nicklea

[out of cash]

hi nicklea ,

 

as soon as i get scanner up and running will post the 2nd doc which judge finds to be part of the agreement.

 

regards

 

out of cash

[out of cash]

hi all,

 

the judge said he would rule in the banks favour using the courts discretion as no prejudice has been caused to the debtor this is mentioned somewhere i think in the cancellable rights section can someone please correct me .

 

regards

 

out of cash

 

 

[out of cash]

terms and conditions prescibed terms judge is going to rule upon at next hearing if i cant come up with a better defence

terms & cons.zip

Edited May 17, 2008 by out of cash

[steven4064]

Hi OOC

 

It obviously has two holes punched in it and they were punched before it was photocopied - see the angle. Therefore the T&Cs are definitely not the same document because the application form has no such holes.

 

(the documents aren't even the same size)

Edited May 17, 2008 by steven4064
Revised because of new doc in previous post

[out of cash]

hi steven4064

 

many thanks for your comments and help witthis.

 

regards

 

out of cash

[out of cash]

hi steven4064,

 

as ludicrous as this sounds all of the case law above was pointed out to the judge who just turned around and said as no prejudice had been suffered by me due to this case the court will use its discretion an apply an order in favour of the bank at the next hearing.barrister convinced the judge that the prescibed terms in the 2nd doc were originally in the 1st sheet due to the cca being 10yrs old they could not be expected to produce a carbon copy which would show that all the text in doc 2 was within the 1st page:mad:

 

regards ooc

[steven4064]

barrister convinced the judge that the prescibed terms in the 2nd doc were originally in the 1st sheet

But they manifestly are not

[macie]

Which Court were you in?

[nicklea]

hi steven4064,

 

as ludicrous as this sounds all of the case law above was pointed out to the judge who just turned around and said as no prejudice had been suffered by me due to this case the court will use its discretion an apply an order in favour of the bank at the next hearing.

 

ooc,

 

It sounds like the judge may be getting confused with the CCA 2006. You need to remind him that the 2006 act isn't retrospective and so he has no discretion in this case. It does not matter if there has been any prejudice or not, you really do need to make that point quite forcefully:-

 

The Relevant Consumer Credit Act

1. In case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, it is drawn to the court’s attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing parts of s127 of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect. Since the agreement commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

2. For the avoidance of any doubt I include the relevant section of the 2006 Consumer Credit Act:-

11 The repeal by this Act of-

(a)the words "(subject to subsections (3) and (4))" in subsection (1) of section 127 of the 1974 Act,

(b)subsections (3) to (5) of that section, and

©the words "or 127(3)" in subsection (3) of section 185 of that Act,

 

has no effect in relation to improperly-executed agreements made before the commencement of section 15 of this Act.

3. Therefore the Consumer Credit Act 2006 is not retrospective in its application and has no effect upon this agreement and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the act by which this agreement is regulated.

 

barrister convinced the judge that the prescibed terms in the 2nd doc were originally in the 1st sheet due to the cca being 10yrs old they could not be expected to produce a carbon copy which would show that all the text in doc 2 was within the 1st page:mad:

 

regards ooc

 

This could be a tough one, but don't forget what I said about the cancellation details. Given what this judge sounds like it would probably be a good idea to actually take a copy of what the full cancellation details notice should look like.

[steven4064]

nicklea is absolutely right - the Judge has no discretion in this case.

 

LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul): 30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be sidestepped.....

[out of cash]

hi macie,

 

county court.

 

regards

ooc

[macie]

Thanks for your reply. I meant which geographical area ie. which particular County Court? If you don't want to mention a town just a general area will do.

[out of cash]

bedfordshire area

[nicklea]

ooc,

 

As requested

 

This is from the 1983 regs. It is reg 5 that says that where a copy is sent under s62 then it has to have a cancellation notice in the prescribed format:-

 

5 Copies of cancellable unexecuted and executed agreements

(1) Every copy of a cancellable unexecuted agreement delivered or sent to a debtor or hirer under section 62 of the Act or of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to him under section 63(1) of the Act shall include a box containing only a notice indicating the right of the debtor or hirer to cancel the agreement, and how and when that right is exercisable, in the Form numbered in Column 1 in Part II of the Schedule to these Regulations and set out in Column 3 appropriate to the type of agreement referred to in Column 2, instead of any statement of the rights of the debtor or hirer referred to in Regulations 2(3) and 3(3) of, and [Forms 4 to 6] of Schedule 2 and [Forms 4 and 5] of Schedule 4 to, the Agreements Regulations.

 

Then the actual notice is in Part 2:-

 

Part II

Forms of Notice of Cancellation Rights to be Included in Copies of Cancellable Unexecuted or Executed Agreements given to the Debtor or Hirer under Section 62 or 63(1) of the Act

FORM NO

(1)

6

TYPE OF AGREEMENT

(2)

A regulated consumer credit

agreement (other than one to which

Form 3, 4 or 5 applies or which is a

multiple agreement of the kind to

which Form 7 or 8 applies or, in the

case of a modifying agreement, one

to which Form 9 applies).

FORM

(3)

YOUR RIGHT TO CANCEL

Once you have signed, you will have for a short time a right

to cancel this agreement. You can do this by sending or

taking WRITTEN [, or giving ORAL,]1 notice of

cancellation to . . . . . . .2.

If you cancel this agreement you, . . . . . . . . .3

[Note: Your notice of cancellation will not affect [your

contract for life assurance] [your contract for insurance]

[your contract of guarantee] [your contract to open a current

account] [your contract to open a deposit account].1 [The

place where your financial obligations consequent upon

cancellation of this agreement are shown is . . . . . . . .4]5]1

Notes:

1 Creditor to omit the words in square brackets where not

applicable.

2 Creditor to insert name and address and, where oral notice

may be given, the telephone number of person to whom

notice may be given, or an indication of the person to whom

notice may be given with a clear reference to the place in

the document where his name and address and, where

applicable, telephone number appear.

3 Creditor to state whether money paid or property given as

security will be returned to the debtor, whether any money

lent must be repaid by the debtor and whether, or the

circumstances in which, any interest or other charges are

payable by the debtor upon cancellation, having regard to

any applicable statutory provision.

4 Creditor to insert a clear reference to the place where

these obligations appear.

5 Creditor may include words in square brackets where

applicable.

 

This is the notice that they must give, as the CCA 1974 says that a notice in the prescribed form including the name and address of the person to whom notice may be given must be included in (not with but in) every copy given under s62

 

[out of cash]

hi niclea,

 

many thanks for your reply forgive my ignorance but i note you say under sec 62 my cca was requested under 77,78,79,does this make a difference

or are you refering to something else i am not that well up on the legal side of things .

 

regards

 

out of cash

[nicklea]

If you see my post #11 on this thread where I said that I had posted about cancellation details on your other thread.

 

If they haven't given you proper cancellation details in the copy of the agreement that was sent to you when you signed and returned one copy and kept the other copy (this is s62) then it is unenforceable by reason of s64(1)(a)

[out of cash]

hi nicklea,

 

many thanks for your advice i notice you say the bank will need the exact document for a trial well the 2 judges i have seen so far have not even hinted at seeing the original atnd at the last hearing barister just said agreement was 10yr old one so this would not be possible judge just sat there in agreement i was amazed any advice on something in law i can fire at them to produce one even the copy of default notice the sols have now sent has no account number amount owing etc lots of stuff missing can you shed any light on this i would be most greatful.

 

regards

 

out of cash

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello OOC!

 

i notice you say the bank will need the exact document for a trial well the 2 judges i have seen so far have not even hinted at seeing the original atnd at the last hearing barister just said agreement was 10yr old one so this would not be possible judge just sat there in agreement

 

This is an important point, and one that I keep asking and have yet to see a valid response. Something that can be used in Court to shoot them down in flames when they pull out a Photocopy or Single Page Microfiche or other Copy of the alleged Agreement where it cannot be proved if they did have a two sided Agreement that contained all the Prescribed Terms and Signatures etc.

 

Perhaps your Defence may have needed to specifically ask that the Original should be produced in Court, i.e. if you did not ask them to produce the Original, then it was assumed you would accept whatever they produced instead? No offence intended by that, I've just read on CAG that it's vital to question everything in their POC.

 

Either way, a great many Threads on CAG would be almost academic if a banker MUST produce the Original Agreement in Court when asked (or else risk having the Agreement made Unenforceable if they can only produce a Copy).

 

For example, I have one Agreement myself that I can see is a Copy of an Application Form on the Front (rough, fold marks from Posting etc), and another Document has been Copied onto the back (Pristine, no Fold Marks etc) that does conveniently have the Prescribed Terms!

 

However, I'm 99.99% sure the bank does not have the Original, so what the back of it actually looked like is anyone's guess. If/when I go to Court over that one, I will be asking that the Original Document must be produced and not a Copy, as the Copy they have made could be Enforceable, whereas the Original would not if no such terms were on the back of it.

 

But although I can ask this, what Legislation can I use to ensure the Original is the only one the Court can use when discussing its validity for Enforcement.

 

So, same question as Out of Cash, is there any Legislation that can be quoted that says only an Original Document can be Enforced.

 

Likewise, is there any Legislation that can be used to make it clear that a Copy cannot be Enforced?

 

To put this into some context...I have the skills to produce a totally convincing looking 1st Generation Document. Indeed, many people that can use Photoshop and a Scanner can knock up a very convincing Copy if given a selction of 1st/2nd Generation Copies, say, a Copy of the Original Front Page (2nd Generation Microfiche Copy) and a Mint Copy of some Terms (1st Generation Laser Print, or 2nd Generation Scan of a Flat Page).

 

If these Copies could be Copied once again, making them at least 3rd or 4th Generation Copies, to further hide the fact that the Document was a lash-up, it's not that hard to produce a fairly convincing 3rd/4th Generation Copy. The resultant "Copy" would then be blurred enough to mask any obvious editing and lashing together details that had been made.

 

But it would be a lash up, as the Front Page and Back Pages were never on the same Document. These would be a Copies of Copies, and dubious Copies at that, no matter how genuine they looked when viewed as rough 3rd/4th Generation Copies.

 

The banks and DCAs are quite capable of that albeit with less skill. Indeed, from the documents I have seen so far, their copies are pretty dire and reveal what they have done all too clearly. Many are just two Documents copied back to back, not one Original 2-Sided Document Copied onto one Sheet of Paper as a straight 2nd Generation Photocopy of the 1st Generation Original.

 

Some are Legitimate for their purpose, i.e. "True Copies" that satisy the s77-79 CCA Requests, but they are not REAL Copies of the Signed Original Agreement, i.e. a 2nd Generation Copy taken from the Real 1st Generation Thing.

 

Clearly, ONLY the Original/Real 1st Generation Thing would suffice to reveal the truth, so I feel only an Original Document should be allowed in Court for Enforcement.

 

But what Law supports that?

 

Hope this helps, and thanks in advance if anyone can advise.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited May 24, 2008 by banker_rhymes_with
Can't Type. Can't Spell either!

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello All!

 

Been giving this some thought.

 

If we look at this from a simple Pedantic and Technical Point of View, perhaps Steven has already presented what is needed:

 

1) the prescribed terms must be within the agreement and not in a seperate document.

 

See the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

 

[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements. Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not

 

Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said:

 

33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.

 

Let's assume OOC did Sign an Agreement at some stage. That Agreement would've then existed at a point in time (and should still exist).

 

Let's also assume OOC Signed it in 1998, and it was Executed by the bankers a few Days later, also in 1998.

 

The bank Files that.

 

Then, in 2002 when they start running out of places to File all of their thousands of Agreements, a Document Management Company Sells them a nice System to Scan to Microfiche, and another nice machine that Shreds the Paper Agreement.

 

On 12th December 2002, at 11:00 they get to OOC's Agreement, and make a Scan of the Front Page. They don't bother with the Back Page, as it has no Signature, and they all look the same to them, just a bunch of Text they can Print Off when needed...not that they will ever need to, as CAG didn't exist at that time!

 

A new Document OOC-SCAN-001 now exists as of 11:00 12/12/2002. It never existed before that point. It certainly never existed in 1998.

 

Then they Shred the original, including any evidence of what was, or was not, on the back page of OOCs Agreement.

 

In 2008, they elect to haul OOC to Court.

 

They present the Judge with a Hard Copy of a Copy Document (OOC-SCAN-001) that only ever existed from 11:00 12/12/2002. They tell him that is Enforceable.

 

They also present the Judge with some other Document showing some Terms and Conditions (god knows where that came from). They tell him those are the Terms and Conditions on the back of OOC's 1998 Agreement. The fact that they have no Hard Copy of a Copy of that, does not seem to matter, and neither does the fact that the Page they have produced does not seem to relate to the other (Holes Punched in one, and not the other, Doh!).

 

How an earth do the above two new Documents satisfy:

 

as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement

 

and...

 

these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated

 

The Hard Copy of the Copy of OOC's Agreement is a New Document, that only Physically existed some time after OOC Signed his Agreement. This Copy is NOT OOC's Agreement.

 

The Terms and Conditions are on another Document. The Prescribed Terms cannot be found in another document. TUCKEY LJ say's another Document just won't cut the mustard.

 

Perhaps the above is a way to amplify that for a bank to Enforce an Agreement, only the Original 1st Generation Document will suffice and, to be able to Enforce that pre CCA-2006, the Signatures and Presecribed Terms have to be within the four corners of that.

 

They cannot pitch up with Copies of Copies, and a bunch of other Documents.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[out of cash]

hi banker rhymes,

 

many thanks for your comments i have given judge and sols 3 lots of case law pointing out the obvious but they seem to be on planet mars where this is concerned i think their taking the pee as i am a litigant in person

barrister just kept saying this is the agreement as with regard to the 4 corner stuff judge said cca can be more than 1 document so my argument wasnt valid with this and the case law i put forward wilson vs others etc just didnt want to know i feel i am going to get really screwed over here in the final hearing "HELP ANYONE":eek:

[out of cash]

Hi all,

 

they have just come up with a blank default notice like no figures or account number comments welcome please as i am going to send a nice little letter off to their sos on tuesday:)

 

regards out of cash