Tweet
Re: Is it safe to contest the CCA?
Hi everyone, I haven't been about for a while now and am trying to read up on recent events after trying to get time to read this thread. I now have RBS after me again. I requested a copy of the executed agreement, they defaulted and after a few threatening letters they left me alone for about a year. Now they are back and driving me mad through their DCA....
Anyway I have some questions to throw into the mix...... after reading the recent case of Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) (23 December 2009).
I am somewhat troubled and concerned that the rights and protection afforded to the Consumer within the UK by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and subsequent revisions, has now been thrown out of the window by this case.
I am concerned that as consumers, we are now completely open to Identity theft from anyone, including unscrupulous lenders due to this ruling. My understanding of a section of this ruling is that a genuine Executed Credit Agreement document does not actually have to be the original document or a photocopy of the original document or even part of that document.
It appears that the lender can now produce a document without signature or proof of it being anything but a fabrication by them?
What if someone steals your identity and applies for loads of credit in your name?
You no longer are afforded a signature as proof that you did not sign this document or even the right to see the original document as evidence or proof of innocence.
My own experience was a major UK bank manufacturing a document and photoshoping in a copy of my signature. This was evident as there was a line in the signature box to sign on, yet where the signature was, the line was missing. Great cutting and pasting!
What if unscrupulous lenders now get hold of anyones details and just start claiming that there is an executed agreement in place?
You try proving that there isn't!
They don't have to prove a thing now, they don't have to produce anything but a manufactured document. Am i right in saying that according to this High Court Decission, the Law will be on their side?
Where is the burden of proof?
If this was the case in contract law, wouldn't everyone be manufacturing fake contracts and documents?
What has happened to our legal system?
It seems to me that this is dangerous, in that anyone can claim you owe them money and persue you for it, as long as they hold a credit licence. Or do they even need that to persue you now?
Who is to say that credit recovery companies aren't now going to purely manaufacture documents to persue anyone they want, let alone debtors when they are not even legally entitled to?
How many other way's can this be used to defraud consumers?
Does the Judge realise exactly what they have just done?
Let me know if I am wrong about this....... I am hoping that I am wrong!
Hi everyone, I haven't been about for a while now and am trying to read up on recent events after trying to get time to read this thread. I now have RBS after me again. I requested a copy of the executed agreement, they defaulted and after a few threatening letters they left me alone for about a year. Now they are back and driving me mad through their DCA....
Anyway I have some questions to throw into the mix...... after reading the recent case of Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) (23 December 2009).
I am somewhat troubled and concerned that the rights and protection afforded to the Consumer within the UK by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and subsequent revisions, has now been thrown out of the window by this case.
I am concerned that as consumers, we are now completely open to Identity theft from anyone, including unscrupulous lenders due to this ruling. My understanding of a section of this ruling is that a genuine Executed Credit Agreement document does not actually have to be the original document or a photocopy of the original document or even part of that document.
It appears that the lender can now produce a document without signature or proof of it being anything but a fabrication by them?
What if someone steals your identity and applies for loads of credit in your name?
You no longer are afforded a signature as proof that you did not sign this document or even the right to see the original document as evidence or proof of innocence.
My own experience was a major UK bank manufacturing a document and photoshoping in a copy of my signature. This was evident as there was a line in the signature box to sign on, yet where the signature was, the line was missing. Great cutting and pasting!
What if unscrupulous lenders now get hold of anyones details and just start claiming that there is an executed agreement in place?
You try proving that there isn't!
They don't have to prove a thing now, they don't have to produce anything but a manufactured document. Am i right in saying that according to this High Court Decission, the Law will be on their side?
Where is the burden of proof?
If this was the case in contract law, wouldn't everyone be manufacturing fake contracts and documents?
What has happened to our legal system?
It seems to me that this is dangerous, in that anyone can claim you owe them money and persue you for it, as long as they hold a credit licence. Or do they even need that to persue you now?
Who is to say that credit recovery companies aren't now going to purely manaufacture documents to persue anyone they want, let alone debtors when they are not even legally entitled to?
How many other way's can this be used to defraud consumers?
Does the Judge realise exactly what they have just done?
Let me know if I am wrong about this....... I am hoping that I am wrong!
Comment