Unenforceability & Template Letters III

swanfan02

Lloyds tsb forging siggys & lying. Well who can believe it they have been so nice to me,not!!:mad::mad:

jen_br

If I was Carl I would feel hurt. and If I was Gavin I would be wondering why my signature isn't worthy...

swanfan02

jen_br wrote: »

If I was Carl I would feel hurt. and If I was Gavin I would be wondering why my signature isn't worthy...

Perhaps he changed his name & forgot to sign his correct(new) name!!:rotfl:

never-in-doubt

in_to_deep wrote: »

hi nid & gang
i also had same response from cap 1 as andylgr post 3931 after sending debtors final response & refusal by lender to accept unenforceablity. they also mention Teasdale v HSBC 2010 EWHC612 do they need a responce or just sit it out?

This is in relation to the follow up judgment regards to costs claimed by court cases, in particular in relation the the recent carey case.

See here for a snapshot of the judgment: Teasdale v HSBC Bank Plc [2010] EWHC 612 (QB) (23 March 2010)

Its specific to the costs claimed by the defendants (the banks) who won.

never-in-doubt

AndyLGR wrote: »

I received a response yesterday to the above letter from Cap One in a 3 page letter, they also included again the original signed application form and again the re-constituted terms and conditions.

in_to_deep wrote: »

hi nid & gang
i also had same response from cap 1 as andylgr post 3931 after sending debtors final response & refusal by lender to accept unenforceablity. they also mention Teasdale v HSBC 2010 EWHC612 do they need a responce or just sit it out?

Hiya

Ok send the following back to Crappy1:

Dear Capital One Bank,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

I write with reference to your letter dated xx/xx/xxxx, the content of which has been noted and my response is set out below, for your perusal.

You start by saying that because you'd sent a copy of the "reconstituted agreement", a copy of the current terms and a signed statement of account that you have satisfied your obligations under s.78 (CCA1974) - unfortunately you are incorrect in your assessment of what does conform compliance to s.78. It is not my position to relate the actual criteria to you but suffice to say your statement in this letter will benefit me, more than you, in a court of law. For instance, you state that a copy of the current terms will suffice; however if I refer you to the recent case of Carey v HSBC (and others) you'll clearly see that this is incorrect as Judge Waksman made direct reference to this in his judgment by stating that "If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still supply a copy of the original terms, as well as the varied terms".

Whilst, as a result of the Carey v HSBC "Test Case", I am inclined to accept your theory that you do not need to send a copy of the original agreement, I would argue that failure to provide such form would suggest you do not have it ergo you may not be able to add all the elements as originally suggested, encompassing the prescribed terms and other preliminary issues. Which would therefore make the account unenforceable. I refer you to the following statement made by Judge Waksman at the same hearing:

"it is necessary to assume that the agreement has not been varied under s.82(1) - as it may not have been if the s.78 request was made not long after the agreement was made"

This, in simple terms, means that the Test Case was not a traditional Test Case as he refused to deal with the wider implications of unenforceability, whilst sticking to the specific cases at hand, at court that particular day. In essence, the Carey v HSBC case all boiled down to 6 Preliminary Issues which included provision for the specified case in that there were 5 Assumed Facts, and that the agreement had not been varied. None of these assumed facts are relevant in my case and therefore the judgment should be disregarded in its entirety. I will revert back to standard layman in following the usual provision which is, to clarify:

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).

You mention that failure to make payments to the account will result in collection activities, that is fine, in line with the recent McGuffick v RBS case - however please ensure you do not breach OFT Guidelines or CCA guidelines as this may result in action being taken against you for your harassment, as you know there is a fine line between collection activities and harassment and I trust you will stick to the former?

I really do not feel there is anything left to add, so please be my guest and report the account conduct to the CRA's, maintain collection activities and request that I repay you but bear in mind the recent Carey v HSBC case has no direct effect on my case and any attempt to utilise the findings of this case will be averred as unlawful and vexatious with a counter-claim forthcoming.

Yours faithfully




Sign digitally

never-in-doubt

*Pollypocket* wrote: »

I received a response yesterday from Lloyds TSB - as below.

dibs69 wrote: »

I received a response yesterday from Lloyds TSB - as below.

The 2 page letter they are sending, as a final response, looks like the following example (that both the above people received, along with several others):

Hiya

If Lloyds send the following letter to you, respond with the following:

Dear Lloyds TSB,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

I write with reference to your letter dated xx/xx/xxxx, the content of which has been noted and my response is set out below, for your perusal.

You start by saying that because you'd sent a copy of the "reconstituted agreement", a copy of the current terms and a signed statement of account that you have satisfied your obligations under s.78 (CCA1974) - unfortunately you are incorrect in your assessment of what does conform compliance to s.78. It is not my position to relate the actual criteria to you but suffice to say your statement in this letter will benefit me, more than you, in a court of law. For instance, you state that a copy of the current terms will suffice; however if I refer you to the recent case of Carey v HSBC (and others) you'll clearly see that this is incorrect as Judge Waksman made direct reference to this in his judgment by stating that "If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still supply a copy of the original terms, as well as the varied terms".

Whilst, as a result of the Carey v HSBC "Test Case", I am inclined to accept your theory that you do not need to send a copy of the original agreement, I would argue that failure to provide such form would suggest you do not have it ergo you may not be able to accurately add all the elements as originally suggested, encompassing the prescribed terms and other preliminary issues. Which would therefore make the account unenforceable. I refer you to the following statement made by Judge Waksman at the same hearing:

"it is necessary to assume that the agreement has not been varied under s.82(1) - as it may not have been if the s.78 request was made not long after the agreement was made"

This, in simple terms, means that the Test Case was not a traditional Test Case as he refused to deal with the wider implications of unenforceability, whilst sticking to the specific cases at hand, at court that particular day. In essence, the Carey v HSBC case all boiled down to 6 Preliminary Issues which included provision for the specified case in that there were 5 Assumed Facts, and that the agreement had not been varied. None of these assumed facts are relevant in my case and therefore the judgment should be disregarded in its entirety. I will revert back to standard layman in following the usual provision which is, to clarify:

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).

You then go on to state that because the account has been in existence for some time, and drawn down and repaid on numerous occasion that, that in some way acknowledges the account as being enforceable and compliant. Please do not insult my intelligence, it means nothing of the sort! Any unenforceability claim is quite simple in theory in that it is to establish wether the form was executed correctly at account inception, I do not need to acknowledge or deny anything because that is totally irrelevant in any s.78 claim. Your theory regards to this is hereby disregarded in its entirety as the nonsense it is.

You then mention that the bank has always complied with the requirements of all legislation and you're confident in your ability to prove this - if that is the case then please be my guest and send me an original copy, otherwise you know as well as I do that you have not complied so please stop acting as though that "statement" means anything (legally) - we both know it means nothing and is an opinion stressed by you, designed to initimidate.

Regards to where I obtain my advice, this has no bearing on you or my beliefs. I have full confidence in my source of advice, its a shame the same cannot be said for your source, which for the record is totally inaccurate. Need I refer you to the beginning of my letter whereby i've already quoted your errors and evident lack of knowledge? You then go on to mention that i'm using a claims management company and provide links - who told you I was using such a firm? I certainly never, it is false as well, so please ensure you get your facts right before presuming material facts that are in their entirety incorrect.

I really do not feel there is anything left to add, so please be my guest and report the account conduct to the CRA's, maintain collection activities and request that I repay you but bear in mind the recent Carey v HSBC case has no direct effect on my case and any attempt to utilise the findings of this case will be averred as unlawful and vexatious with a counter-claim forthcoming.

Yours faithfully




Sign digitally

never-in-doubt

Moobags wrote: »

1) Barclaycard - I followed your advise in post 3493 and sent CCA Query letter . I have now had a reply which looks very standard and impersonal , do I now send the Final Response (CCA rec) letter ?

You evidently missed this (page 1)? Template to Barclays - Upon their claim they have satisfied s.78

Never-in-Doubt wrote:

Template to Barclays - Upon their claim they have satisfied s.78
Usually Barclays send these letters Click Here - if you receive it, use this template....

Moobags wrote: »

2) Shop Direct - I requested CCA and have rec a letter back stating they are unable to supply an executed copy . This sounds too good to be true , do I now send Final Response (no CCA) letter ?

Nope, its finished - well done :T

Moobags wrote: »

3) Egg - I followed your advice in post 2722 and ignored Eggs Final Notice letter but have now rec a letter asking why I consider the agreement to be unenforcable . I am claiming unenforcability on the grounds of 'approved limits' .Do you by any chance have a template which covers this ?

Yea, just ignore them - have you been here: Egg Card - CCA Flawed?

Should be sorted now then!

never-in-doubt

There have been major amendments to the templates, which will be ongoing over the next couple of nights. Please therefore familiarise yourself with them, prior to clogging the thread with questions, because most the responses from the main lenders will be found within this thread already.

A quote from page 1 (post 7) is shown below to refresh your memory :

Frequently Asked Questions - Unenforceability Related
A range of questions designed to assist with your CCA progress....

What does "Digitally Signed" mean - In Detail
Explanation as to the true meaning of Sign Digitally & the consequences of signing for things....

Telephone Threat - Initial Verbal Demand
If the lender/DCA hassles you by phone recite the content of this message to them....

Template to Barclays - Upon their claim they have satisfied s.78
Usually Barclays send these letters Click Here - if you receive it, use this template....

Template to Lloyds TSB - Upon their claim they have satisfied s.78
Usually Lloyds send these letters Click Here - if you receive it, use this template....

Template to Lloyds TSB - Upon their final response
This is an additional version of the above, dependant upon what Lloyds have sent you....

- Note the following information: Do Lloyds TSB Make Forgeries?
- Note the following information: Lloyds TSB Claims

Understanding Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) - 31.14 & 31.16
This is general information explaining what we mean when we quote "CPR31.14 / 31.16"

Is my Agreement Enforceable - No Credit Limit Showing
This is some guidance as to what to expect if your credit limit is omitted from the CCA that the lender sends you.

Obtaining your Credit File(s) - From the Credit Reference Agencies
On occasion you'll need to see your credit files. Read here for details of what to do to in order to obtain them.

Why would someone utilise Unenforceability - Question & Answer!
A common question that is asked by people who either want to stir trouble or genuinely want to know why people attempy unenforceability. As the question has been asked, i'll do the decent thing and answer it, diplomatically and honestly!

Clarity - Pre/Post April 2007 Agreements
This explains the difference between agreements taken before April 2007, against those taken after.

Clarity - What do the recent High Court Judgements mean?
This explains the difference, and indeed the outome, of the two recent judgements involving Carey & McGuffick, also see the two breakdown as set out below.

- McGuffick v RBS - Case & Judgment Breakdown

- Carey v HSBC - Case & Judgment Breakdown

never-in-doubt

Niddy's been here all night doing templates and legal bollix, he's head mashed and going to bed! I'll be back tonight, round 7pm.

Have a nice day

swanfan02

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Niddy's been here all night doing templates and legal bollix, he's head mashed and going to bed! I'll be back tonight, round 7pm.

Have a nice day

Well done Niddy, great work.:beer::T:T:T