Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

A victim of fraud etc would be claiming there was no agreement, they did not have the money etc. which most of the claimants in CCA cases like this are not doing. They admit they had the money, because it would be traceable to them, just not that they owe the debt. A few of the judgments specify that the claimant didnt deny having borrowed the money.

I was concerned about that too after Carey but thinking on it it makes more sense now.

[shamen]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

Ah I see. So as long as the money is traced as being had then the CCA can be made up by company X? That does sound on the ground like it could be valid, but what if company X decided to change interest rates or other terms since delivering the loan/money?

[diddydicky]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

i think that the phrase is not

"must produce the original agreement" but

"should produce the original agreement"

the courts have also previously ruled that the loss of the original should not mean that the creditor should lose his right to claim

as has been said - many creditors are trying on the carey trick on unsuspecting debtors and it is important IMO that these applications are fought tooth and nail

[TiredofPaying]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

i think that the phrase is not

"must produce the original agreement" but

"should produce the original agreement"

the courts have also previously ruled that the loss of the original should not mean that the creditor should lose his right to claim

as has been said - many creditors are trying on the carey trick on unsuspecting debtors and it is important IMO that these applications are fought tooth and nail

What if the OC didn't lose the original but didn't have a complete agreement returned by the debtor for execution in the first place? If the debtor signed the agreement but didn't return both pages for execution and the OC signed what was returned then is the agreement enforceable? Is it properly executed? Do the missing pages matter?

ToP

[diddydicky]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

well an application form (if that is what it was) if it contained the prescribed terms of the agreement and signed by the debtor can be held as an agreement therefore if what you returned and contained the prescribed terms of the agreement then the lack of the creditors signature would not be a major problem for them (IMO)

[diddydicky]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

I was just using 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' as a benchmark, and to illustrate that a copy is not infallible evidence in itself.

Even so, the burden of proof falls on to whoever initiates court action, and it's up to a court to decide on whether that evidence can be taken into consideration.

The consistency of County Court judges is hit and miss at best, so I can't say there are any right or wrong answers to the OP's question. My overall point is that it's a real grey area.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------




Good point about the debtor being obliged to retain a copy.

But things happen over the course of time.

Documents get lost, destroyed, shredded, burned, splattered with paint, etc.

Plus, many people may not realise the pertinence/importance of such documents or that they may need them later on. I know it sounds pretty stupid, but it is true.

BUT the debtor's not bound by law to retain documents for six years after an account closes.

I believe creditors are, in line with Money Laundering regulations.

That being the case, then any creditor who cannot provide such documents within an acceptable time frame should be charged with money laundering.

It may encourage creditors - banks especially - to start getting their act together.

i beleive not only for money laundering but just for basic company law/accounting/tax purposes

having said that- i doubt that the loss of a document would automatically lead to a charge of money laundering!

[TiredofPaying]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

well an application form (if that is what it was) if it contained the prescribed terms of the agreement and signed by the debtor can be held as an agreement therefore if what you returned and contained the prescribed terms of the agreement then the lack of the creditors signature would not be a major problem for them (IMO)

The agreement was signed by both parties but by the time the creditor signed it the agreement was missing prescribed terms which were left out by me.

ToP

[diddydicky]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

when you say "left out" i dont understand- in what what way were they "left out"?

[TiredofPaying]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

when you say "left out" i dont understand- in what what way were they "left out"?

One page of the application form contained signature boxes and this was sent back signed but undated and the other page contained prescribed terms, I think it was Ts & Cs and that page was not returned with the application. No executed copy was sent within 7 days or at all for that matter.

ToP

[diddydicky]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

i see, and have they now produced a "complete" agreement? if they have then clearly it would be contrived

[TiredofPaying]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

I'd be interested to see what they archived!

Do they have an agreement if they produce Ts & Cs and say that they were in force at the timeof the alleged agreement (april 2006)?

ToP

[frisp]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

In my case I'm being faced with claims that are clearly based on agreements that are not 'easily legible'.

Did Wakeman not make it clear that the original had to be produced when a case went to court? As only the original can be used to ascertain the '4 corners' of an agreement.

If they produce a reconstituted agreement there has to be a 'golden thread' that proves that they sent the document and all its subsequent changes to you, if they can't do that their case must surely fail.

With documents before 2000 this has got to be surely impossible?

just my tuppence worth

[zentrix9]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

When creditors send you a reconstructed copy and tell you they dont have to send you an original copy, then use scare tactics further on in the letter to worry you. Is it probable that they do this because they cant find it or lost it? Hoping that you take their word as gospel?

[frisp]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

Why then are both Drydens and Wescot taking me to court based on illegible but signed docs

[zentrix9]

Re: Is It ACCURATE that an original signed agreement IS required at court ?

If you are supplied a microfiche copy of your agreement and are taken to court and it is produced in court as a true copy would this be accepted? As I see it, it is a copy of a copy! A true copy is a first hand copy not a second hand copy. Does anyone have any views on this? I recently applied to emigrate and the solicitor had to sign a document as a true copy, they wouldnt accept a photocopy of a photocopy they had to copy the original themselves to make sure it was legal.