Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

[pt2537]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

Now up there on Bailii

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/105.html

yup i emailed Joe at BAILII this morning

were sending him some more judgments to put up too, to hopefully provide more assistance

[Nibbler]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

yup i emailed Joe at BAILII this morning

were sending him some more judgments to put up too, to hopefully provide more assistance

Good. I saw your comment about some more cases coming, and hoped they would go up as well.

Thanks.

[never-in-doubt]

Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

yup i emailed Joe at BAILII this morning

were sending him some more judgments to put up too, to hopefully provide more assistance

Thanks Paul :heh:

[brass]

I know this is an old thread but I am researching s127 (pre 2007) and wondered about this Kotecha case.
sl27(3) provides, in relation to agreements made before 6 April 2007, as follows:

"The Court shall not make an enforcement order under s 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 s60(l)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor ..(whether or not in the prescribed manner)."

I know the case was decided upon the interest rate discrepancy but Kotecha was a 1998 agreement. so IF the creditor had not been able to find a scan of a SIGNED application (allbeit with reconstituted terms) then the agreement would have been unenforceable anyway under s127, correct?

I have been given a so called reconstituted agreement for an agreement supposedly for a card taken out in Nov 1996 but does not have my signature. Is this therefore unenforceable just because it is before 2007 and does not bear my signature? I believe the reconstituted copy does have all the other criteria though.

Finally, is there a way of telling roughly when an agreement was complied....ie are there any give away signs.?

[brass]

I know this is an old thread but I am researching s127 (pre 2007) and wondered about this Kotecha case.
sl27(3) provides, in relation to agreements made before 6 April 2007, as follows:
"The Court shall not make an enforcement order under s 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 s60(l)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor ..(whether or not in the prescribed manner)."
I know the case was decided upon the interest rate discrepancy but Kotecha was a 1998 agreement. so IF the creditor had not been able to find a scan of a SIGNED application (allbeit with reconstituted terms) then the agreement would have been unenforceable anyway under s127, correct?
I have been given a so called reconstituted agreement for an agreement supposedly for a card taken out in Nov 1996 but does not have my signature. Is this therefore unenforceable just because it is before 2007 and does not bear my signature? I believe the reconstituted copy does have all the other criteria though.
Finally, is there a way of telling roughly when an agreement was complied....ie are there any give away signs.?

ALSO. If the court finds in favour of the defendant and the agreement does not comply with the CCA 1974 , can the defendant counterclaim for all monies already paid to the claimant.

[MIKE770]

very old thread start a new one for response please