Greymatter's ue Diary

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Niddy,can't wait for your 'phone solution.When will it be available?

In around 2-5 weeks hopefully. Licencing is a bugger sadly

[Paul.]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

Now then, Chambers QC accepted the call log in Harrison which showed over 700 calls and many of which were answered in the early days, with full explanations given as to the financial state of affairs at that time and the reasons why payment had been missed.

The reason i do not think you should be so confident is that case i posted above, if you are pursuing under the PFHA then you will fail i think as i do not see you can achieve the bar set by Conn and also this sort of issue is better founded in CCA unfairness as the remedy is wider than PFHA and damages under PFHA would probably be only 1500 at the max

[Paul.]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

This is the noter report on the case

A judge had erred in holding that two incidents of threatening behaviour by one employee of a local authority against another constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, since one of the incidents was not serious enough to amount to harassment.

The appellant local authority appealed against a decision that it was liable for damages for the harassment of the respondent employee (C) by his foreman (F). C had worked for the local authority as a paviour. He claimed he had been harassed and threatened by F on several occasions. He left work and issued proceedings claiming damages for a breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The judge found that on two occasions F had lost his temper, acted in an aggressive manner and threatened violence. On the first occasion F had demanded to know who had left work early and when C refused to tell him he shouted and threatened to smash a window. On the second occasion he had approached C to ask why he was not talking to him and had then threatened to hit him. The judge held there had been a course of conduct that F knew, or ought to have known, amounted to harassment. The local authority argued that neither of the two incidents was of sufficient gravity to constitute harassment.

HELD: For an offence of harassment to be made out there had to be a course of conduct, which, under s.7(3) of the Act, was made up of at least two incidents. A civil claim for harassment was only available for conduct that amounted to a breach of s.1, and, by virtue of s.2, constituted a criminal offence. The basis for deciding whether the conduct complained of fell within s.1 and s.3 was whether it was of such gravity as to justify the sanctions of the criminal law, Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust (2006) UKHL 34, (2007) 1 AC 224 applied. In the instant case the judge had been wrong to hold that the two incidents amounted to a course of conduct. Although the second incident crossed the line into oppressive and unacceptable conduct, the first did not: it was not conduct that was unlawful; there was no physical threat, merely a threat to property. While the incident was unpleasant it fell below the line of conduct that justified a criminal sanction and could not amount to harassment.

Appeal allowed

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Its time to go for this one as I have not had a statement since early 2005.
Barclay Resolve
Type of account (Loan Account)
Date commenced ( 2002)
Approx Balance (£13600)
Last made a FULL payment (July 2003)
Paying by arrangement with DCA(CDCS)
Default Notice issued by Barclays(Feb 2004)
Account run by CDCS
Key:sent
received
other information

I am paying a small token payment and have not had contact since early 2005.However this will go for ever and the SB date will just keep moving out.I am concerned however that the CCA request could stir up interest charges and the like.However this site has given me confidence and if I don't act now I will have this bloody millstone around my neck till I die--and then some!
As a matter of interest CDCS have got the amount outstanding and references wrong.They have mixed them with a different debt!
Greymatter

15/05/2012 Special delivery CCA requested

Hi Niddy

31/05/2012 Letter received from Barclays and they have in the first place stated:'Sec 77 and 78 of the CCA1974(as amended) do not require Barclays Bank to provide you with a signed original form of the agreement and .......not the policy of Barclays Bank to provide this'
They are however pleased to provide me with a copy of the agreement and financial statement as the Act does not require them to supply me with a signed original'

However what they sent me was a set of TC's with figures filled in and various other hand filled details.This Agreement is not the one that I wrote for and the amount shown as outstanding and their explanation is also completely wrong.They have got the loans mixed up but have cobbled together a letter showing£13000+in arrears with an agreement of some £2000+ That would be some interest!!
What letter should I send as basically they cannot supply the original and have t'cs hand written and no date.
Thanks
GM

[Deepie]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Hi Niddy

31/05/2012 Letter received from Barclays and they have in the first place stated:'Sec 77 and 78 of the CCA1974(as amended) do not require Barclays Bank to provide you with a signed original form of the agreement and .......not the policy of Barclays Bank to provide this'
They are however pleased to provide me with a copy of the agreement and financial statement as the Act does not require them to supply me with a signed original'

However what they sent me was a set of TC's with figures filled in and various other hand filled details.This Agreement is not the one that I wrote for and the amount shown as outstanding and their explanation is also completely wrong.They have got the loans mixed up but have cobbled together a letter showing£13000+in arrears with an agreement of some £2000+ That would be some interest!!
What letter should I send as basically they cannot supply the original and have t'cs hand written and no date.
Thanks
GM

Might be worth letting Niddy have a quick look-----> agreements@all-about-debt.co.uk

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Ok will do.

Niddy stuff sent now.
GM

[Paul.]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Hi Niddy

31/05/2012 Letter received from Barclays and they have in the first place stated:'Sec 77 and 78 of the CCA1974(as amended) do not require Barclays Bank to provide you with a signed original form of the agreement and .......not the policy of Barclays Bank to provide this'
They are however pleased to provide me with a copy of the agreement and financial statement as the Act does not require them to supply me with a signed original'

However what they sent me was a set of TC's with figures filled in and various other hand filled details.This Agreement is not the one that I wrote for and the amount shown as outstanding and their explanation is also completely wrong.They have got the loans mixed up but have cobbled together a letter showing£13000+in arrears with an agreement of some £2000+ That would be some interest!!
What letter should I send as basically they cannot supply the original and have t'cs hand written and no date.
Thanks
GM

They are right about having to provide the signed agreement under s78(1) or s77(1) if its a loan.

However, Carey v HSBC said the copy must be an honest and accurate copy not just something that they decided to spit out.

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Thanks Paul
So here we have a situation where we are only covered by UE if its a cc .So they can produce something which will have the right financial info and this gets the thumbs up without a signature! So CCA looks like it really only covers sec 78.
This is now worrying me as in my case they have blanked out an old agreement written in my name etc and filled in the loan details.(They have put in the wrong agreement and its not dated) but what I see here is they will alter and adjust it accordingly and no signature!
Soin Court this will pass muster!!
Bloody Hell
GM

[vint1954]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Thanks Paul
So here we have a situation where we are only covered by UE if its a cc .So they can produce something which will have the right financial info and this gets the thumbs up without a signature! So CCA looks like it really only covers sec 78.
This is now worrying me as in my case they have blanked out an old agreement written in my name etc and filled in the loan details.(They have put in the wrong agreement and its not dated) but what I see here is they will alter and adjust it accordingly and no signature!
Soin Court this will pass muster!!
Bloody Hell
GM

As Paul has said greymatter, they donn't have to provide a signed agreement for s77 or s88, but it does have to be accurate.

Have Niddy seen what they have sent.

Vint

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Hi Fine Vintage
I sent info about ten mins ago
GM

[vint1954]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Hi Fine Vintage
I sent info about ten mins ago
GM

Excelent

[Paul.]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Thanks Paul
So here we have a situation where we are only covered by UE if its a cc .So they can produce something which will have the right financial info and this gets the thumbs up without a signature! So CCA looks like it really only covers sec 78.
This is now worrying me as in my case they have blanked out an old agreement written in my name etc and filled in the loan details.(They have put in the wrong agreement and its not dated) but what I see here is they will alter and adjust it accordingly and no signature!
Soin Court this will pass muster!!
Bloody Hell
GM

no it covers 77 for loans , 78 running account credit not just credit cards and 79 for Hire agreements

so i am not so sure what your point is,

if the loan agreement provided is incorrect ie the credit is wrong then its not compliant end of story, but like all of the above sections if the send the correct agreement then it would be enforceable

What you are calling UE isnt UE

its a suspensory unenforceability that can be remedied. Irredeemable unenforceabilty is the one where the agreement can never be enforced.

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Paul
If I have a cc sec 78 and the signature cannot be supplied is not that UE and if sec 77 a sig cannot be supplied is this not UE? If they produce it later then in both cases it can enforced.So if they took me to court with a set of tc's pre 2007 for CC se 78 and a sec 77 loan with no sig doesn't sec127 come in as I understood things at court a sig pre 2007 must be provided.
GM

[Paul.]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

Paul
If I have a cc sec 78 and the signature cannot be supplied is not that UE and if sec 77 a sig cannot be supplied is this not UE? If they produce it later then in both cases it can enforced.So if they took me to court with a set of tc's pre 2007 for CC se 78 and a sec 77 loan with no sig doesn't sec127 come in as I understood things at court a sig pre 2007 must be provided.
GM

no, the requirement on signing is that "there WAS a document signed by the debtor containing the prescribed terms"

The evidential burdens shifts from the creditor who firstly must establish prima facie that there was an agreement which can be done by proving money changed hands in effect.

Then the burden shifts for the Defendant to make a positive allegation as to what happened on entry into credit. Did he sign an agreement? was the agreement he signed compliant? that is for the debtor to make the statement.

Then it is for the creditor to prove the agreement is properly executed.

That is approved by An appeal court judge and also in the case of Carey v HSBC, Judge Waksman made it clear that the position is that the debtor must make a positive assertion as outlined above

[greymatter]

Re: Greymatter's ue Diary

I think I am getting it Paul
So if the Debtor says I cannot ever remembering to sign any document then the Creditor must prove that the agreement is properly executed(signed)
GM