Howen & Cohen v Mr G 147 - defence response stage assistanceent

[charitynjw]

Re: Howen & Cohen v Mr G 147 - defence response stage assistanceent

Hi [MENTION=82273]MrG147[/MENTION]

To tag nem, you can put [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION]

[MrG147]

Re: Howen & Cohen v Mr G 147 - defence response stage assistanceent

also , on the reconstituted agreement issue. There has been a few responses on this . But to try and rationalise and summarise. For a recon agreement to be valid ,

i should have either - the original set of terms along with all material changes from them terms OR in absence of all the material changes then
the original set of terms PLUS the final set of terms at the time of agreement termination ?

As all i have ever seen is one set of terms that they advise were the terms at the time of termination and by the way are illegible in parts , so either way as it stands in view of the above i am still missing parts of the required documentation ?

As always look forward to replies

[charitynjw]

Re: Howen & Cohen v Mr G 147 - defence response stage assistanceent

also , on the reconstituted agreement issue. There has been a few responses on this . But to try and rationalise and summarise. For a recon agreement to be valid ,

i should have either - the original set of terms along with all material changes from them terms OR in absence of all the material changes then
the original set of terms PLUS the final set of terms at the time of agreement termination ?
Were there any variations to the original (other than interest rates)?

As all i have ever seen is one set of terms that they advise were the terms at the time of termination and by the way are illegible in parts , so either way as it stands in view of the above i am still missing parts of the required documentation ?
You should receive the T&Cs as at inception of the agreement/contract.
Are you implying that you didn't receive T&Cs at that time as well?

As always look forward to replies

####

[MrG147]

Re: Howen & Cohen v Mr G 147 - defence response stage assistanceent

The agreement was taken out in 1991 .There has definately been changes. i know The agreement sent is not the original as it makes reference in one of the terms "to agreements pre 2007 or 2008 " cant remember of the top of my head exactly what year. but what this proves is that the document was written after that year reffered which is over 10 years after the original inception and signing of the agreement .

I have recieved what i am assuming to be the booklet terms and conditions with the agreement . The print is that small and illegible in parts. These were probably the T & C`s at the time of the inception as they have sent a seperate piece of paper with nothing but my original address in 1991 on it. so i dare say they are saying these are the T&C`s supplied at the time at inception (all be it illegible in sections) and the agreement at the time of closure (because it had the correct address on the agreement at the time of closure) ?

But shouldn`t i have the CCA at the time of inception as well ?
or if only different to the current ?
or can the creditor say they are not different to the original and therefore they do not need to provide and as such the recon provided is valid ?
at which point i dare say the onus is then back on me to prove that the CCA provided is INVALID because the terms in the original and the one provided differ ? .
Which in absence of the original would be difficult to prove ?
but in my case, The agreement sent makes reference in one of the terms to a date some 15 years after the original. This term could not have been in the original. Therefore surely this can be used to show that the terms supplied differ from the original because no way would have the original refer to a date 15 years in the future ?

look forward to input ?

[MrG147]

Re: Howen & Cohen v Mr G 147 - defence response stage assistanceent

:bump:@nemesis45

sorry to pester nem. But it would appear that this is how to tag you.

:tinysmile_grin_t:

[charitynjw]

Re: Howen & Cohen v Mr G 147 - defence response stage assistanceent

[MENTION=82273]MrG147[/MENTION] [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION]

IMHO

They are allowed to send a reconstituted copy, but if they are implying that what you have received is an exact copy of the original, clearly this is not the case.

[nemesis45]

Re: Howen & Cohen v Mr G 147 - defence response stage assistanceent

The agreement was taken out in 1991 .There has definately been changes. i know The agreement sent is not the original as it makes reference in one of the terms "to agreements pre 2007 or 2008 " cant remember of the top of my head exactly what year. but what this proves is that the document was written after that year reffered which is over 10 years after the original inception and signing of the agreement .

I have recieved what i am assuming to be the booklet terms and conditions with the agreement . The print is that small and illegible in parts. These were probably the T & C`s at the time of the inception as they have sent a seperate piece of paper with nothing but my original address in 1991 on it. so i dare say they are saying these are the T&C`s supplied at the time at inception (all be it illegible in sections) and the agreement at the time of closure (because it had the correct address on the agreement at the time of closure) ?

But shouldn`t i have the CCA at the time of inception as well ?
or if only different to the current ?
or can the creditor say they are not different to the original and therefore they do not need to provide and as such the recon provided is valid ?
at which point i dare say the onus is then back on me to prove that the CCA provided is INVALID because the terms in the original and the one provided differ ? .
Which in absence of the original would be difficult to prove ?
but in my case, The agreement sent makes reference in one of the terms to a date some 15 years after the original. This term could not have been in the original. Therefore surely this can be used to show that the terms supplied differ from the original because no way would have the original refer to a date 15 years in the future ?

look forward to input ?

If you are referring to a reconstituted agreement it must have your name and address as it was at inception, the T's & C's at inception
and the T's & C's at closure.

The recon May satisfy a CCA request but a judge will decide on the balance of probabilities IF the recon is sufficient to enforce the debt.

You will have to go over the docs received with a fine toothed comb looking for discrepancies e.g. a clause mentioned but not actually present.

nem

[nemesis45]

Re: Howen & Cohen v Mr G 147 - defence response stage assistanceent

A "true" copy can be a recon a copy of the original signed and executed regulated credit agreement is a different matter.

nem