Elephant in the room

[PriorityOne]

Re: Elephant in the room

P1 is the expert on this and whilest we may not agree on everything I think that the phrase copy of the executed agreement in its original form can only be interpreted as being a genuine copy , be it a scan or whatever. The problem with that is the only way they can prove it is in the original form is to have the original.

We know a recon is allowed for a S77-79 request as that is for information purposes only and UE only comes into play there if the agreement (recon or not) does not fulfil the regs. However a s77-79 request can be fixed at any time by sending an accurate recon.
I think I have that right

I don't like to class myself as an expert on anything, to be honest..... but do know that I've had a lot of pre-court success with certain arguments raised; that ^^^^ being one of them. Waksman talked about the information purpose and the proof purpose and while a s78 reconstruction can hit the information purpose, it's often way off when it comes to satisfying the proof purpose.

Once in court though, your at the mercy of a Judge's interpretation.....

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

Hi I agree that Paul is the expert on this, however it doesn't stop the rest of acquiring knowledge does it?

I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong in this.

[julian]

Re: Elephant in the room

If you don't see the original with the signature in ink how do you know with certainty that it is a copy, the whole copy and nothing but the copy?

You can decide to purchase a Picasso from a picture in a catalogue, but you would not buy it without looking at it in the flesh. Why would you accept the word of somebody who threatens you with eviction regarding a piece of paper you saw fleetingly 15 years ago?

[jon1965]

Re: Elephant in the room

P1
I tend to agree with you on this one, if someone rings my phone 10 times a day or more that is harrassement even if I do not answer it, especially if they have had a letter saying only contact me in writing. Mind you I did have my mobile phone set to pick up and hang up every time, maybe I should have had it set to say eff off.

Gravytrain
P1 is the expert on this and whilest we may not agree on everything I think that the phrase copy of the executed agreement in its original form can only be interpreted as being a genuine copy , be it a scan or whatever. The problem with that is the only way they can prove it is in the original form is to have the original.

We know a recon is allowed for a S77-79 request as that is for information purposes only and UE only comes into play there if the agreement (recon or not) does not fulfil the regs. However a s77-79 request can be fixed at any time by sending an accurate recon.
I think I have that right

[julian]

Re: Elephant in the room

The judge must have been clueless.

If it is bullying to send people messages on Facebook, constant telephone calls to any number ever used cannot be different.

Following that judge's advice we would never open letters either.

[PriorityOne]

Re: Elephant in the room

T

Possibly the template I have the biggest issue with , and this is a personal opinion is the telephone harrassement one, as Paul commented a judge (and one of my creditors) can comment that if you do not answer the phone how is it harrassement.

That's a bit like saying it's ok for someone to bang on your door up to 8 times a day just as long as you don't answer it.

One example of a Judge making a very bad interpretation of something that amounts to a damn nuisance to everyone else, in my opinion....

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

Yes i think the "copy" referred to is a copy as defined by the regulations rather than the actual copy.

If it didn't it would make nonsense of the rest of the judgment. It would be saying it is alright not to provide an actual copy unless the agreement has been varied in which case you must produce the original.

I wish this were true, all those retrospective claims that could be made.

[jon1965]

Re: Elephant in the room

Para 108
Accordingly, I conclude that Reg. 7 requires a copy of the executed agreement in its original form as well as a statement of the terms as they are at the time of the request.

I take that to mean a copy and not a recon.
That was not for a cca request but for enforcement

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

In another case I have a valid S78 agreement that I believe is a recon and can make suggestions as to why that is, the OC says it is a true copy. However HHJ Waksman says that a copy of the actual agreement is needed (not the actual one itself, or that is how I read it) but if I can put put a good argument that this is a recon then I show the OC to be liars .

I think that Wakesman established that the information could be gained without access to an original agreement, as long as the info is correct.

In other words they can reconstruct the agreement from data concurrent with that available when the agreement was executed.

[jon1965]

Re: Elephant in the room

That's not quite what I was saying, there is a lot of dismissal of minor errors which I do understand, however sometimes surely several of these can lead to discrediting the OC.

As for the template letters it is quite easily done to print of a letter with [insert name here] still in it hence double and triple checking them is so important.

Possibly the template I have the biggest issue with , and this is a personal opinion is the telephone harrassement one, as Paul commented a judge (and one of my creditors) can comment that if you do not answer the phone how is it harrassement.

In another case I have a valid S78 agreement that I believe is a recon and can make suggestions as to why that is, the OC says it is a true copy. However HHJ Waksman says that a copy of the actual agreement is needed (not the actual one itself, or that is how I read it) but if I can put put a good argument that this is a recon then I show the OC to be liars .

Having said all that, they can do what they want to me but it will be no benefit to them as I have nothing to give.

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

Now there is the question of de minimus errors, someone said that no signature by the creditors is such but you seem to say that this is not the case. I have an agreement that shows my signature dated after the creditors which suggests it would have been sent to me signed. Not usual practice.

I don't think that there has been any disagreement on this.
Section 127(3) says that an enforcement order cannot be granted if the prescribed terms and/or the debtors signature is missing, it says nothing about the creditors signature.

The creditors signature would be a technical error only and the court would enforce, as it presents a lack of prejudice to the debtor.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Elephant in the room

This whole post has helped me understand just where Paul and Niddy are coming from.The light bulb finally lit up(Mind you its still on semi-dim!)
Its been a learning curve that must test patience but has very positive results.
This is why this forum is so appreciated.Thanks guys.
GM

We are here to try and help each other, we all need guidance at times, and it is good to know help can be at hand to receive or give if possible.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Elephant in the room

General templates on user sites, that are used for whatever reason, no particular area, like the everyday claim forms people use in daily life.

[greymatter]

Re: Elephant in the room

This whole post has helped me understand just where Paul and Niddy are coming from.The light bulb finally lit up(Mind you its still on semi-dim!)
Its been a learning curve that must test patience but has very positive results.
This is why this forum is so appreciated.Thanks guys.
GM

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Elephant in the room

Exactly

* if you notice any errors please say so on the template page comments or message me a link and ill fix them. They should all say "he" or "his" which is normal when used in the context designed.

Unless you're talking about the bespoke templates which are obviously for guidance only