Elephant in the room

[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.

[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

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.....

But didn't Wakesman say that the copy is not required to satisfy proof purpsose of a correctly executed agreement, as you say it is for information purposes only.

(3) The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made;

[PriorityOne]

Re: Elephant in the room

But didn't Wakesman say that the copy is not required to satisfy proof purpsose of a correctly executed agreement, as you say it is for information purposes only.

(3) The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made;

Complying with s78 is for information purposes.....

[jon1965]

Re: Elephant in the room

S61(1) is what I think you need . Paul talked about it earlier in the thread

[Paul.]

Re: Elephant in the room

im no expert, they are Roy Goode QC, Francis Bennion and Prof Lloyd and Guest, they are experts, me im just someone who seems to do reasonably well when fighting the opponents in court.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Elephant in the room

61 Signing of agreement.

(1)A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—
(a)a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and
(b)the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and
(c)the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.
(2)In addition, where the agreement is one to which section 58(1) applies, it is not properly executed unless—
(a)the requirements of section 58(1) were complied with, and
(b)the unexecuted agreement was sent, for his signature, to the debtor or hirer [F1by an appropriate method] not less than seven days after a copy of it was given to him under section 58(1), and
(c)during the consideration period, the creditor or owner refrained from approaching the debtor or hirer (whether in person, by telephone or letter, or in any other way) except in response to a specific request made by the debtor or hirer after the beginning of the consideration period, and
(d)no notice of withdrawal by the debtor or hirer was received by the creditor or owner before the sending of the unexecuted agreement.

what the legislation states:- above for you to see?

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

S61(1) is what I think you need . Paul talked about it earlier in the thread

I think this is where the confusion occurs, section 61 has nothing to do with copy agreement requests, or the enforceablity of agreements whilst the request is in default.

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: Elephant in the room

I think this is where the confusion occurs, section 61 has nothing to do with copy agreement requests, or the enforceablity of agreements whilst the request is in default.

This is when one is required within a court room would it be?

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

Unenforceabilty under section 77-79 is due to the creditor not supplying a copy of the agreement, this is temporary in that it only lasts until a copy is provided.

Unenforceability by virtue of section 61 is because the agreement was not properly executed and the route is via 65 and 127.

[jon1965]

Re: Elephant in the room

Isn't that what we have spent more or less seven pages discussing. 77-79 is not necessarily fatal and is for info only

[ken100464]

Re: Elephant in the room

Very informative thread tho

[greymatter]

Re: Elephant in the room

im no expert, they are Roy Goode QC, Francis Bennion and Prof Lloyd and Guest, they are experts, me im just someone who seems to do reasonably well when fighting the opponents in court.

I read somewhere that Roy Goode disagreed with Francis Bennion,the author of the CCA 1974,basically saying Bennion was wrong (and he had written the bloody thing) so if they(the experts) can't agree we got no chance.

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

Isn't that what we have spent more or less seven pages discussing. 77-79 is not necessarily fatal and is for info only

Partly but more so that the enforceabilty requirements under sections 78 and 65 are distinct and separate operations under the act.

[gravytrain]

Re: Elephant in the room

I read somewhere that Roy Goode disagreed with Francis Bennion,the author of the CCA 1974,basically saying Bennion was wrong (and he had written the bloody thing) so if they(the experts) can't agree we got no chance.

Yes it was in regard to section 18 and Multiple agreements, to make it worse the judge agreed with Goode if I remember right.