Default Notices

[QCKate]

Re: Default Notices

Ah I see. Yes i see that, so you are saying that the agreement would not comply with a section 78 request because it would fail to be a true copy ?

Yes..........that's what I'm saying but you've said it better!!!!. Mystery 1 has a different point.

QCK

[gravytrain]

Re: Default Notices

Yes..........that's what I'm saying but you've said it better!!!!. Mystery 1 has a different point.

QCK

I think PT had a case where they disproved a copy because it contained terms that could not have been there on the original.

I think that Carey said that the essential purpose of a copy was to provide the terms of an agreement( meaning the financial terms) however there could be an argument that the document reproduced cannot be relied on, as it obviously was not the one supplied at execution(IMO)

[mystery1]

Re: Default Notices

Yes..........that's what I'm saying but you've said it better!!!!. Mystery 1 has a different point.

QCK

Ok i see where that line comes from now.

Not sure you could say it shows a s78 copy as not "honest and accurate" although it obviously casts doubt. This may be a case where the advocacy skills would be to the fore and the better your side is the better your chances are.

Common sense would indicate both cannot be correct. However to say the s78 copy is flawed may be a tad optimistic.

M1

[gravytrain]

Re: Default Notices

Ok i see where that line comes from now.

Not sure you could say it shows a s78 copy as not "honest and accurate" although it obviously casts doubt. This may be a case where the advocacy skills would be to the fore and the better your side is the better your chances are.

Common sense would indicate both cannot be correct. However to say the s78 copy is flawed may be a tad optimistic.

M1

I have seen one or two copies challenged on the default charges (being shown as £12 when they used to be £25) with varying results, it depends who is in the chair on the day I suppose and as you say advocacy skills.

[mystery1]

Re: Default Notices

Different charges should be an easy win because their is no ambiguity. If the recon says x and you cast doubt with something that says y then you have cast grave doubt on the integrity of the copy.

In the example above it could be argued that the default notice contains a typo and the recon agreement would still be "honest and acurate".

M1

[gravytrain]

Re: Default Notices

Section 78 defenses are never easy.

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Default Notices

Section 78 defenses are never easy.

It depends on what has been submitted as a "true copy"
Carey was for s.78 copy of agreement requests, not enforcement in court
we then have s.61 to fall back on
Carey provided what constitutes an agreement

It is harder post 2007 with s.127(3) no more

Just in my opinion the above

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Default Notices

It depends on what has been submitted as a "true copy"
Carey was for s.78 copy of agreement requests, not enforcement in court
we then have s.61 to fall back on
Carey provided what constitutes an agreement

It is harder post 2007 with s.127(3) no more

Just in my opinion the above

One point that's often forgotten is, Carey was the claimant, not the defendant.