is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

[teaboy2]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

You can also request a copy of the original i belive under CPUTR 2008 - Militant and Labman have a template letters that am sure they can give you, which basically ask the creditor to confirm if they still have a copy of the original signed agreement. Which means once they receive your letter under the CPUTR 2008, they will have to confirm YES or NO if they have the original true signed copy. If they say YES and fail to produce it in court, should it get to court, then they will have likely lied in breach of the CPUTR 2008 and claim will likely be struck out. Though the judge will probably give them an order to produce it within 14 days etc, which must tend to discontinue proceedings at that point. If they say no then they have no enforcable claim and can not take you to court. Whether they will send a copy of the original to you am not sure, though militant may know.

[basa48]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

You can also request a copy of the original i belive under CPUTR 2008 - Militant and Labman have a template letters that am sure they can give you, which basically ask the creditor to confirm if they still have a copy of the original signed agreement. Which means once they receive your letter under the CPUTR 2008, they will have to confirm YES or NO if they have the original true signed copy. If they say YES and fail to produce it in court, should it get to court, then they will have likely lied in breach of the CPUTR 2008 and claim will likely be struck out. Though the judge will probably give them an order to produce it within 14 days etc, which must tend to discontinue proceedings at that point. If they say no then they have no enforcable claim and can not take you to court. Whether they will send a copy of the original to you am not sure, though militant may know.

Well yes, but the DCA will probably tell you they have already provided a copy of the original, although which one is the 'original' only they or the OC know!!

Also you should ask if this new DCA has bought the debt or are just acting for the OC.

[teaboy2]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

Point is though - They have to provide it in court. They can not claim a reconstructed one under section 77/78 is an original copy. So if you ask under CPUTR and they say that they had already provided you with one, then they have to provided it in court to back up such claim.

[basa48]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

Point is though - They have to provide it in court. They can not claim a reconstructed one under section 77/78 is an original copy. So if you ask under CPUTR and they say that they had already provided you with one, then they have to provided it in court to back up such claim.

With respect Teaboy, but the real point is which one would they produce ??

Creditor: Er this is the credit agreement your honour, and here is the signature.

Debtor: But what about this one, it also has a signature.

Judge: So which is real and which is the fake Mr Creditor ??!! And why have you produced a fake ???!!!

[tigereye]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

Thanks Basa, I would never deny the debt in itself as there are of course statements proving regular repayments on the card for 2 years. What I argue is that the conditions were unfair and the charges unreasonable +possibly the agreement wasn't in line with regulation, that's all. Now with the fact of having been sent two different agreements for the same debt this is clearly forgery, a nice photoshop work with my signature I suppose, probably not that difficult to do but really not sure WHY they have done it.

In any case I will write a letter expressing my shock regarding the two agreements ....

[tigereye]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

Teaboy thanks for your post. I am not sure I understand, I thought that the original agreement was not necessary after the Carey judgement, but I could be mistaken.

Asking whether they have the original agreement, when I do have TWO different agreements, I think it would be beyond the point...but I can include a line asking that anyway. I wuld be curious to see their response.

If anyone ever happened to be in such situation, please post it here, I have researched around the web , I don't seem to find a similar situation so far...

[tigereye]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

Well yes, but the DCA will probably tell you they have already provided a copy of the original, although which one is the 'original' only they or the OC know!!

Also you should ask if this new DCA has bought the debt or are just acting for the OC.

to answer the question, yes they bought the debt. In my credit file the credit card now resulted as Lowell credit card, and the Halifax debt is gone off record.

[teaboy2]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

With respect Teaboy, but the real point is which one would they produce ??

Creditor: Er this is the credit agreement your honour, and here is the signature.

Debtor: But what about this one, it also has a signature.

Judge: So which is real and which is the fake Mr Creditor ??!! And why have you produced a fake ???!!!

No your working on the assumption that the 2 agreements produced are either real or 1 is false, or both are false - Where both are recons produced under section 77/78 how they look is not important, its the perscribed terms that must be accurate to that of the original agreement and later veriations when it comes to recons.

The CPUTR 2008 request asking for them to confirm if they have a true copy of the signed original and to send a copy of it to the debtor if they say they have one, is not the same as producing a recon in court. A recon in court doesn't prove the debt, only what the alleged agreement may have looked like. Another point would be, if the debtors signiture appeared on the recon, then how did they have the debtors signiture (though in this case there was no signiture) if they stated they did not have a true copy of the original? Fraudulent signiture, likely taken form written communications from the debtor? All the defendant has to do is argue that the creditor, has the means to, and can reproduce reconstintuted agreements for different debtors in large quantitys from the period that the alleged agreement was signed, simply because all such agreement between them and other debtors are where the same template used at that year. Its like a mass photocopying converyor belt where the only thing that may change is the signature per agreement and perscribed terms, which can easily be done by computer without manual intervention. Therefore a reconstituted agreement only serves to prove they have the facility to create such a reconstituted agreement irrespective of whether such an agreement ever actually existed or was signed by the debtor. iIt would be like one person drawing up a reconstituted agreement claiming that another signed it when in fact that other person never signed anything (A fanatasy agreement). Hence why defendant must make sure they strict the creditor to proof that the agreement is a true copy of the original signed and executed agreement. Its also why the creditor need a signed true copy of the original in court as per section 61. If an agreement does not comply with section 61 then it is improperly excuted and can not therefore be enforced. In this case the creditor produced a recon with no debtors signiture, meaning it would not comply with section 61 even if it was the true original copy.

I think your confusing the creditors obligations under section 77/78 and what they require in court which falls under section 61 which a defendant can use successfully against the use of a recon in court. Note both the creditors signiture and the debtor/hirers signiture must be on the executed agreement for it to be enforcable. So just having the creditors signiture on 1 recon and no signiture on the other means neither comply with section 61.

So inlight of a CPUTR request for the original, if they say no we do not have it, or fail to respond or claim the reconstituted one suffices without confirming, then case is clear cut for the defendant as the creditor clear either doesn't have the original or is avoiding answering which is a breach of the CPUTR 2008. If they say yes they do have one, then they can be stricted to prove they do in court by producing it in court, which if they lied when they said they did have one, would mean they would not beable to produce it in court.

One thing i have noticed is that most DCA's take the matter to court without even having copies of the agreement or reconstituted agreements, in fact the agreement is not given to them when the account is sold to them, hence why they have to get it from the original creditor, who a lot of the time do not have the original either. Why? Because its either been more than 6 years since it was signed our they don't have the storeage pace and simply dispose of them once they have sold on the accounts.

In this case the recon's had no signiture, so creditor has no evidence that any agreement was ever signed. There appears to be 2 seperate agreements, but when you read what the OP says, its likely that later recon is of the same agreement but with a variation of terms that occured during the lifespan of the agreement, which is common practice for card agreements. Yes one would have to ask which is real or are either agreements real, or just reconstituted make belief agreements as per my point in my 1st paragraph - The only way the creditor can answer that is by producing a true copy of the original agreement in court!

[teaboy2]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

Teaboy thanks for your post. I am not sure I understand, I thought that the original agreement was not necessary after the Carey judgement, but I could be mistaken.

Asking whether they have the original agreement, when I do have TWO different agreements, I think it would be beyond the point...but I can include a line asking that anyway. I wuld be curious to see their response.

If anyone ever happened to be in such situation, please post it here, I have researched around the web , I don't seem to find a similar situation so far...

The point behind making a request under the CPUTR 2008 is to get them to confirm whether or not they have a true copy of the original agreement. Note what i a said about section 61 in above post, as the agreement whether recon or original, most comply with section 61. I.e. it must have all the persribed terms, attacted terms and conditions (as well as varied terms) and be signed by bother creditor and hirer, it must also be legible. That means they must produce an original copy in court and not a recon or microflinch.

So if you sent the CPUTR letter and they come back confirming they do not have one, or avoiding the questions by side tracking back to the recons they sent you, then they don't have a copy of the true original signed agreement. If they say they have, then they will have to produce it in court on the day, as you can then submit a copy of the CPUTR letter and their response to it, stricting to proof that they do have a true copy of the signed original as they claimed. Or submit your letter and their response (claiming they do not have a true copy of the original) to court as proof they do not have a True Copy of the original signed agreement, as doing so will virtually guarantee you win in court as they will have no agreement that complies with section 61 (even if the recons do) as no original means theirs no evidence you ever signed an agreement and the recons can be reproduced with anyones name on them and signitures can easily be lifted from signed correspondence you sent them.

[basa48]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

If anyone ever happened to be in such situation, please post it here, I have researched around the web , I don't seem to find a similar situation so far...

I've had a somewhat similar situation recently when an OC sent me a (invalid) default notice and the DCA who later bought the debt sent me a completely different default notice (provided to them allegedly by the OC) now 'valid' but still with the same date of issue!

I queried the two different DNs, both claiming to be the original and pointed out the attempt at deception (contravening the CPUTR that teaboy mentions) and suggesting that this deception would also cast doubt on the veracity of any other documents produced in court.

Haven't heard a dickie bird for 12 months!!

Just for clarity - recons are useless in court, they are for 'information' only to satisfy s78 requests. To satisfy a court that an agreement was signed they should produce a copy of the original signed agreement in court.

You should check out the Wilson saga, especially the comments by Lord Nicholls in the HoL appeal case [2003] UKHL 40 - para 29] and in Carey where HJ Waksman discusses documents for 'proof purpose'.

[tigereye]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

Thanks TeaBoy and basa

You made a very interesting reading. I 've always thought we were beyond the point of producing a true copy/original agreement I was lead to believe from different articles -of perhaps dubious source- that a bank/DCA simply could produce past statements in Court as proof of the debt! Perhaps these articles and websites are misleading information posted by the same firms Not hard to believe now that I have two agreements,,,

Basa regarding these pieces you mentioned, where would I find them without too much search, perhaps you can post some links, my time is incredibly limited at the moment but I am too intrigued and I can manage a quick flick through them...

[basa48]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

Thanks TeaBoy and basa

You made a very interesting reading. I 've always thought we were beyond the point of producing a true copy/original agreement I was lead to believe from different articles -of perhaps dubious source- that a bank/DCA simply could produce past statements in Court as proof of the debt! Perhaps these articles and websites are misleading information posted by the same firms Not hard to believe now that I have two agreements,,,

Basa regarding these pieces you mentioned, where would I find them without too much search, perhaps you can post some links, my time is incredibly limited at the moment but I am too intrigued and I can manage a quick flick through them...

You are quite correct about it being easy for OC/DCAs to prove the debt. Statements are easily produced.

What you wish to establish is the OC/DCAs rights to enforce collection. Without a copy of the signed agreement this is much more difficult for them to establish.

These are the two court cases to which I referred:

[jax50]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

am following this with interest as many salient points are all together in one thread..

[tigereye]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

Thanks everyone, I have sent the letter to the DCA and will update you with their response. In the letter I state that I have realised I have been sent two agreements in relation with the same debt and that this is evidence of forgery. I also request to specify whether they hold a true copy of the original CCA.

[basa48]

Re: is my Halifax credit agreement signed in 2006 properly executed?

Thanks everyone, I have sent the letter to the DCA and will update you with their response. In the letter I state that I have realised I have been sent two agreements in relation with the same debt and that this is evidence of forgery. I also request to specify whether they hold a true copy of the original CCA.

I wouldn't use the term 'forgery' - this could be regarded as libelous. Simply point out it is misleading and could make any other documentation presented as equivocal.