Greymatter's ue Diary

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Thanks PlanB

If NatWest bank hasn't produced a CCA or even a recon of an agreement, what evidence are they relying on when they claim the account was opened in 1980

It does come across as a bit devious I must say.I hope that Paul can pull the rabbit out of the bag here.
1st Access then to Mastercard ,obvious upgrade,card expires every 5 years,are these changes pushing me into the so called May 19th 1985 bracket.
Strange that they must of replaced my expired card 5 years from April 1980=April 1985,but the exact day dates are missing.It could push the replacement into 19th May 1985.
GM

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

If NatWest bank hasn't produced a CCA or even a recon of an agreement, what evidence are they relying on when they claim the account was opened in 1980

Terms - as mentioned above, terms is all they need produce.... No need for a recon.

[Paul.]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Thanks PlanB


I hope that Paul can pull the rabbit out of the bag here.

Unlikely, it is you that needs to give me the rabbit so to speak before i can pull it out of a bag.

The devil is always in the detail and the best case i can refer you to on evidence is HFO v Wegmuller as that showed what evidence you need to really challenge the enforceability of the agreement.

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Hi Niddy, all I have is statements from April 2003 to date and the original DN dated Jul 2003 and TN dated Aug 2003 and various letters from 2004 regarding reduced payments etc.There is one however ,stating that they will accept a Payment reduction and that' this concession does not alter the terms and conditions of your card agreement'.
Would you like a copy?
Thanks
GM

[PlanB]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Thanks PlanB

1st Access then to Mastercard ,obvious upgrade,card expires every 5 years,are these changes pushing me into the so called May 19th 1985 bracket.
Strange that they must of replaced my expired card 5 years from April 1980=April 1985,but the exact day dates are missing.It could push the replacement into 19th May 1985.
GM

Dare I say 'the devil is in the detail' . . .

I had an Access card with NatWest during the last recession in 1990/91. I have an astonishing memory for facts and I recall my card blocked by the bank leaving me stranded in Hampshire without petrol unable to get to work in London. I keep paperwork so I'll see what's in my file in case it helps. I now have a NatWest Visa with the same bank account and I have a new application form signed for it in 2001.

Time for some research

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Thanks PlanB
GM

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Hi Paul

Unlikely, it is you that needs to give me the rabbit so to speak before i can pull it out of a bag.

The devil is always in the detail and the best case i can refer you to on evidence is HFO v Wegmuller as that showed what evidence you need to really challenge the enforceability of the agreement.

Please would you point me to the case HFO v Wegmuller .
Thanks
GM

[PlanB]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Terms - as mentioned above, terms is all they need produce.... No need for a recon.

I know that's true if the account was opened before 1985. But how do they know it was opened in 1980 when they've not even given any specific month or date to back up their claim I know Paul's right that the onus is on GM to provide the evidence of when it was opened. Can he have access to his account history through a SAR or won't it go back that far? It seems awfully unfair that a bank can just pick a year out of thin air and not have to prove it

[Deepie]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Hi Paul


Please would you point me to the case HFO v Wegmuller .
Thanks
GM

http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...25&postcount=1

[PlanB]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Hi Paul


Please would you point me to the case HFO v Wegmuller .
Thanks
GM

You'll need to wait until the Link Fairy is back on duty. She must have gone for her dinner break

EDIT: In2Deep beat me to it - he's the Link Fairy's understudy

[Deepie]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

You'll need to wait until the Link Fairy is back on duty. She must have gone for her dinner break

He's not a fairy done ^^^^

[PlanB]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

He's not a fairy

So I hear

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Hi PlanB

I know that's true if the account was opened before 1985. But how do they know it was opened in 1980 when they've not even given any specific month or date to back up their claim I know Paul's right that the onus is on GM to provide the evidence of when it was opened. Can he have access to his account history through a SAR or won't it go back that far? It seems awfully unfair that a bank can just pick a year out of thin air and not have to prove it

They have cobbled a letter together stating that the account was opened in April 1980.This is correct.I have not kept records that far back ,however this leter contains fairly recent tel numbers(see previous post #147)which is strange.
GM

[PlanB]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Hi PlanB


They have cobbled a letter together stating that the account was opened in April 1980.This is correct.I have not kept records that far back ,however this leter contains fairly recent tel numbers(see previous post #147)which is strange.
GM

Oh dear. If you agree that this was correct then how can you go into a witness box in court and swear on a Bible that NatWest have got the date/year wrong

I think you're being told that the bank don't need to comply with s.78 but they will have other legal hoops to jump through in order to enforce this debt so those need to be investigated too. My Santander case had four legal arguments and we won on three of them. Ironically the only one we didn't win was non-compliance with s.78 (we should have won that one too ) but we still got the claim dismissed and won the case

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Hi PlanB

Oh dear. If you agree that this was correct then how can you go into a witness box in court and swear on a Bible that NatWest have got the date/year wrong

I think you're being told that the bank don't need to comply with s.78 but they will have other legal hoops to jump through in order to enforce this debt so those need to be investigated too. My Santander case had four legal arguments and we won on three of them. Ironically the only one we didn't win was non-compliance with s.78 (we should have won that one too ) but we still got the claim dismissed and won the case

Ok so the date is correct,what I find ridiculous is that CCA 1974 sec 61
'(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 by both the Debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner,'
and I thoght sec 127 would kick in.
So why is this taken in cases and quoted yet my 'not supplied' agreement dated 1980 is blown away.WTF.
GM