Unenforceability & Template Letters II

AndyLGR

I asked for my CCA from a debt collection agency and they sent me this (a copy of my application form):


Do I press on with this - 3. CCA Query ?

But after reading this,

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/216538-claim-stayed-due-unenforceable-35.html

........... if I am reading this right, does it mean that the banks can produce whatever evdience they like in court anyway as long as it links the creditor to the debtor?

fermi

AndyLGR wrote: »

........... if I am reading this right, does it mean that the banks can produce whatever evdience they like in court anyway as long as it links the creditor to the debtor?

Not really. The judge in those cases has only made a ruling on what is sufficient to comply with a request under s78.

While he has made some comments pertaining to enforcement via the courts and s127(3), they are no more than that. Certainly not binding.

For example, your agreement above certainly does not contain the prescribed terms.

Nor does it state that they are to be found on another page/T&Cs.

Wakesman's (dubious at best) comments would not apply here, even if they were true, as there is no link from this document to one that would contain the prescribed terms.

That is the way I read it at the moment anyway.......

smifff_2

Go_on_martin_lewis wrote: »

im not sure bout doing that. as it will elongate the process. they will finally find your account, then back to step 2.

im very dissapointed about the results of them hearings!! worried about barclay wanting to go court.

But they haven't lost my account, the previous letter I got from them said they had complied with the CCA request and that I was liable and must continue to make payments. Its when I sent the 2nd CCA request they said they needed my account No to continue with my request despite it being on the letter I sent them and the letter they sent requesting it.

I think they are playing games or they don't have the original signed contract and are stalling for time.

Read the link I posted earlier, some on there think the results of the hearing don't change much and that if it goes to court they are still oblidged to produce the original. Read from page 35 onwards.

fermi

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Still not had time to look at it properly myself, but have briefly watched that thread on CAG and wondered why it was going in the direction it was, i was under the impresion this judgement was just to clarify what is a true copy under the CCA, not CPR, so nothing to do with what they must (should:rolleyes:) produce in court

It was.

If you read it through, then you will see a couple of comments made by the judge in response to submissions from the CMCs on enforcement under s127(3).

As said, not a principle part of the judgement. Plus it seems that he may be quoting someone else, rather than actually making a statement of his own in that.

never-in-doubt

smifff wrote: »

Have had a chance to get to grips with the results of last weeks hearing?

Hiya

Yes I already posted mate lol. Basically the judgement changes nothing except maybe clarifying that the judges are old school with the banks, that much is clear!

In a nutshell the judgment means that a creditor can stand up in court and come out with "on the balance of probabilities" an agreement was signed and the judge may take this as gospel. i.e. No need to produce an original agreement. So in the past we would demand an original, now the creditor can reconstitute one and take that to court and the judge may decline our s.127(3) Unenforceability request on the basis the creditor wouldn't have given credit without a signature - this is utter bollox and will be challenged as it defeats the recent ruling in the McGuffick case (vs RBS).

We are still waiting on additional comments regards to the correct (and exact) interpretation of this 'little' matter!

smifff_2

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Hiya

Yes I already posted mate lol. Basically the judgement changes nothing except maybe clarifying that the judges are old school with the banks, that much is clear!

In a nutshell the judgment means that a creditor can stand up in court and come out with "on the balance of probabilities" an agreement was signed and the judge may take this as gospel. i.e. No need to produce an original agreement. So in the past we would demand an original, now the creditor can reconstitute one and take that to court and the judge may decline our s.127(3) Unenforceability request on the basis the creditor wouldn't have given credit without a signature - this is utter bollox and will be challenged as it defeats the recent ruling in the McGuffick case (vs RBS).

We are still waiting on additional comments regards to the correct (and exact) interpretation of this 'little' matter!

Thanks NID, didn't see where you posted before.

never-in-doubt

Received a PM - as follows: Have posted so others can advise as I am just popping in right now

zondervan wrote:

Unfortunately, as I am new to the site I am not currently allowed to post attachments.

I would welcome thoughts on the Lloyds TSB loan CCA below. Do you consider it to be fully enforceable?

It dates from 2004, and states that the agreement is non-cancellable (normally there is a brief cancellation period). However, this may be because it was signed for by me at my local bank branch.

http://s873.photobucket.com/albums/ab294/zondervan1/?action=view&current=CCAs001.jpg

http://s873.photobucket.com/albums/ab294/zondervan1/?action=view&current=CCAs003-1.jpg

http://s873.photobucket.com/albums/ab294/zondervan1/?action=view&current=CCAs002.jpg


Many thanks,


Zondervan

AndyLGR

Has anyone got to this stage before - I asked for my CCA, and the bank instead sent me a copy of my application form that I now proceed with this stage, 3. CCA Query or just jump to stage four and send a dispute letter?

never-in-doubt

AndyLGR wrote: »

Has anyone got to this stage before - I asked for my CCA, and the bank instead sent me a copy of my application form that I now proceed with this stage, 3. CCA Query or just jump to stage four and send a dispute letter?

Hiya, yes you send the CCA Query letter if they sent an application form to you - does the application form have the prescribed terms on it though?

never-in-doubt

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Depends if the judge thinks that is fair or not

Going on recent events surrounding this and the bank recharges, I think we can assume that the judge will side with the lender! :rotfl::rotfl: