Court action from Howard Cohen/CL Finance - no CCA available

fermi

As this is now subject to court action, I've put this into it's own thread.

Gemmzie

Thanks Fermi

Gemmzie

CAG have worked out we want to submit defence by the 10th/11th

Hate this waiting game but very confused on next moves

fermi

Gemmzie wrote: »

CAG have worked out we want to submit defence by the 10th/11th

Hate this waiting game but very confused on next moves

Just had a look at the thread over there.

Someone has posted some links to previous cases against Cohens/CL that have been won (or at least discontinued).

I think you need to have a good read through those so you have a better idea of what to expect and how to proceed.

Billy_two_speakers

fermi wrote: »

Gemmzie: If a claim for has been issued, then you really need to switch over to legal procedures that will compel the claiments to provide the documentation to support the claim. CCA etc........

Is that correct that HSBC have confirmed that they do not have an agreement?

they dont need it see yesterdays ruling
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8435867.stm

fermi

Billy_two_speakers wrote: »

they dont need it see yesterdays ruling
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8435867.stm

Yes they do.

Read the MSE thread.

MSE News: High Court 'closes debt write-off loophole'

If you are defending a claim against you, then the creditor must still follow the Civil Procedure Rules and cough up a copy of the original.

Gemmzie

Thanks for clearing that up Fermi, I was a bit perplexed by the ruling.

fermi

Gemmzie wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up Fermi, I was a bit perplexed by the ruling.

If you 'cherry pick' the wrong paragraphs from it, and then quote them out of context, then it can look pretty worrying.

However, the vast majority of opinion from people who have read and discussed the judgement seems to be that it:

- Only effects what must be supplied under a s78 request.
- It was mainly "one in the eye" for the claims companies who try to take the creditors court. They would be required to prove any agreement didn't exist or was defective.
- If a creditor takes you to court, then that is reversed. It is still for the creditor to prove their case, and supply the original documents.

That is how opinion stands at the moment anyway.

A lively debate is still going on. :cool:

bankkiller

fermi wrote: »

If you 'cherry pick' the wrong paragraphs from it, and then quote them out of context, then it can look pretty worrying.

However, the vast majority of opinion from people who have read and discussed the judgement seems to be that it:

- Only effects what must be supplied under a s78 request.
- It was mainly "one in the eye" for the claims companies who try to take the creditors court. They would be required to prove any agreement didn't exist or was defective.
- If a creditor takes you to court, then that is reversed. It is still for the creditor to prove their case, and supply the original documents.

That is how opinion stands at the moment anyway.

A lively debate is still going on. :cool:

hi Fermi,
so i can understand better, can you help explain for me.

So you know if the bank or dca or whoever has issued a court claim against you, its up to them to provide the absolute original CCA?
They cannot get away by only showing a reconstructed version or remade version?

Also, how does the judge come to their decisions in these cases?
thanks

never-in-doubt

Gemmzie wrote: »

Have posted there now, thanks so much for your help.

Hi Gemmzie

Can you post your CAG link please....