Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

[MrsD]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

Bigger picture - a third party cannot issue a claim unless they're authorised by assignment or they own what they're claiming for. If for example ABC mortgages repossessed your house, based on arrears, but this company wasn't actually LENDING you anything, instead say it was Lloyds (that underwrites ABC's mortgages) then ONLY Lloyds could repossess unless they assigned it in contract. Any previous action taken by ABC would be set-aside with obvious claims for damages....

Thats how I perceive it anyway. I think

Surely this is just common sense? What other business could you chase debts and repossess anything if you didn't own it in the first place. I think Carey did a great deal of damage not just UE but to the legal community as well, it appeared to give them carte blanche to just make up stuff to suit their particular situation, strange that it has never been challenged and beaten as any normal sensible person would see how wrong it was. This barclays stuff is just another side effect, we're a bank, Carey says we can do what we like and our lawyers can prove it.

[Paul.]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

I think you will see a shift in the views of the Courts, its already happening, the Bank of Scotland cases recently show that. About 2 years ago, someone who was dying from cancer challenged their lender in the same circumstances, and lost.

Two years on, the Court of Appeal took a change of view, and found for the debtor.

There is a realisation that the banks arent as white and clean as they make us think.

[MrsD]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

it has taken a while Paul

as I said it wouldn't happen in any other business

it all needs cleaned up as a matter of priority, they whole thing is allowed to happen because people in debt have too much to lose to go public, not enough people can speak up and shout without putting their livelihoods and families in the equation. I've said it before, it's all a bit like the matrix, whole world of shyte that while everything is jogging along nicely, no one knows about, then when the shyte hits the fan, most peeps go into shock and still try to defend the status quo (credit records), it takes a while for guys to realise that you can function without credit. if you think about it, the banks are the biggest debtors of them all, they did the stupidest stuff and then the stuck their heads in the sand and hoped it would all go away, took consolidation loans from the government and tried to carry on with the same shenanigans (libor etc). It's debt just the same pattern as most of us on here.

[Enforcer]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

HSBC v Carey. Paragraph 227. For the record I am told that Barclays have worked out which these cases are and say that the prescribed terms are on the reverse (consistent with what Ms Clarke says was standard practice) So there is nothing in this point.

Very strange! Barclaycard have consistently used this argument with me, the prescribed terms "would" have been on the reverse. Yet when asked by FOS to supply them, WHAT! they do not exist.
Funny how the law works.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

Law of averages mate plus it boils down to their sheer size, ie why would a huge firm get things so wrong.

Well clearly Waksman, they do!!! The Carey judgment, whilst good for clarity, basically legalises fraud & deception. I'm sorry but recreation of a legal document is wrong however you read into it.

[MrsD]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

absolutely agree and it wouldn't wash in any other area of business or country for that matter

[Paul.]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

Law of averages mate plus it boils down to their sheer size, ie why would a huge firm get things do wrong.

Well clearly Waksman, they do!!! The Carey judgment, whilst good for clarity, basically legalises fraud & deception. I'm sorry but recreation of a legal document is wrong however you read into it.

no, in the days of the ink well and the quill, when there were no photocopiers, how do you think the lawyers got copies? they were recreated.

nothing new there.The problem is the regulations prescribe what can be omitted from a copy thats the real difficulty, but you have to distinguish between s78 and 61, they are two different provisions and have two totally different requirements.

S61(1)(a) requires (before 6th April 2007 especially) that there is a document in the prescribed form containing the prescribed terms, signed by the debtor

s78 requires a true copy taking into account the prescribed omissions, of the terms of the agreement.

The more powerful provision is s61 by far, but that requires, as Waksman pointed out along with HHJ Platts in HFO v Patel, and Recorder Campbell in Wegmuller, that the debtor must make a positive assertion as to what he or she did or did not sign.

[MrsD]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

so far for us, no one has produced a photocopy of the signed agreement that was around in the beginning, absolutely no one.

the only en debts were ticky boxes, and I'm starting to wonder about them

[Paul.]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

so far for us, no one has produced a photocopy of the signed agreement that was around in the beginning, absolutely no one.

the only en debts were ticky boxes, and I'm starting to wonder about them

But the question will arise at somepoint, did you sign an agreement, and to quote from Carey .............Para 53(11)

Second, it assumes that there is no obligation on the debtor to make out at least some sort of positive case as to improper (or non-) execution of the original agreement. If he does and for example asserts positively that although he has been using a credit card agreement for years he never actually signed an agreement, or one that complied with s61, the creditor may well have to try and find the original in order to deal with that allegation.

[5corpio]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

Niddy

are you still wanting any agreements in relation to Barclay Loans? Ref this thread - Let me know still if it's worth a pursue

[Paul.]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

Its not the agreements you want, its the notices they serve under s77A

[5corpio]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

Its not the agreements you want, its the notices they serve under s77A

Morning

Have you taken out a loan with Barclays since 2008?

If a Barclays customer has ever had a loan agreement with Barclays since 1st October 2008 then we understand either some or all of the s.77A, s.86B, s.86D or s.86E statutory notices have defective templates . The net effect is that Barclays has to refund any interest paid/charged and /or default sums charged depending on which notices are defective.

We think they changed the templates around January this year.

So, do you have one? If so can you please email a copy (unedited) to me at webmaster@all-about-debt.co.uk with your forum username and then I'll come back to you and let you know if it is defective or not.

This is one of our AAD Solicitor's brainchild (Josie888), so if you have any additional queries please direct your question here and Josie will be pleased to assist.

As part of this process please note that your documents will need to be sent to Josie to check over. DPA and all other legislative guidelines will be applied throughout. And as always, it is a free service we are offering.

Niddy

which one? Confusing what is to be asked for - anyway of posting what is to be submitted or asked for - what would be 'idiot guide' for everyone is a 'sample' - notice served under s77A what does that look like? is a demand for payment? more guidance and info much appreciated

thanks in advance

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

The thread title spells it out

But it's the Notice's they issue under s.77 (ie we want the notices not the agreement itself)...

[Streetwise]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

Law of averages mate plus it boils down to their sheer size, ie why would a huge firm get things so wrong.

Well clearly Waksman, they do!!! The Carey judgment, whilst good for clarity, basically legalises fraud & deception. I'm sorry but recreation of a legal document is wrong however you read into it.

I've got one of these with signatures ( A reconstituted legal document ).

[5corpio]

Re: Barclays s.77A, 86 & 86 /E notices

Thank you for clarification of the title suggests the name part lol

what is the notice am I looking out for? As Mrs 5corpio had a loan from them in 2008 which is now paid back in full in 2011. Are you referring to people who had a loan and are being chased for payments still or had I misread the thread?

She has note received a notice as she paid her loan back - as the norm thank you in advance for info