Quatloos!

Tuco wrote: But a photocopy is ALWAYS kept. Are you saying a photocopy takes up less space than the original? The T&Cs are always kept as well.

How many more times does it have to be said? It's NOT A FUCKING PHOTOCOPY. It's a print-out... Most likely from a scanned image stored on the company's server. There is no hard copy just a tiny little JPG, TIFF, PDF or some such file on a hard-drive... That's all.

For fuck's sake give over with the 'why do they keep a photocopy then?' bollocks... THEY DON'T.

Jesus wept... My greyhound could grasp this and he has trouble walking and barking at the same time.

You have sunk your arguments today Tuco, take some friendly advice



https://www.fujitsu.com/uk/Images/15101 ... ing_EN.pdf

Tuco wrote:I can only tell you that the copy I received from my DCA was not a scanned copy. It looked like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy, printed off some 1970s photocopier. It was largely unintelligible. Had the matter reached court, I would have invited the judge to ignore it as unreadable. It was amateurish and sloppy of the DCA.

Commercial computer printers, microfilm printers and photocopiers are all based on exactly the same technology... Trust me, this is my specialist subject and given a print out from each format even I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which.

Tuco wrote:

Pottapaug1938 wrote:When I handled foreclosures for a previous employer, not once did I ever see the original mortgage note, or indeed any of the documents. If I needed to prove the existence of anything, a certified copy from the Registry of Deeds (or the Land Court, for registered land in Massachusetts) was all that I needed. All that I needed to show was that the mortgage was given, and the conditions breached.

Tuco asks "[w]hy not just keep the original and take a photocopy if it is called for?" Simple. Keeping all of the originals takes up valuable space; and since it is rarely required that an original be produced, originals are frequently discarded. I always kept my originals because it was not my decision to make to keep or discard them; but I'm sure that my old boss purged his files long ago.

My boss never sold any of his mortgage notes to anyone else; but if he had, the buyer would want to "stand in the same shoes" as my boss, and would have a right to all information about the borrower/mortgagor which my boss had.

But a photocopy is ALWAYS kept. Are you saying a photocopy takes up less space than the original? The T&Cs are always kept as well.

No matter how tiny I fold them up, I can never get more than 2 or 3 loan agreements into one of those zip drive things that hold thousands of photocopies of them.

Did you know the world record for folding a piece of paper in half is just 12 times

This issue with whether the original document is required to enforce legality of a contract is out of the same vein as other tax protester and sovrun arguments over abstracts in law. You can find threads here on Quatloos where TPs wasted their lives and monies over trying to convince courts that the notice of the federal tax lien was the actual document that imposed an interest in a taxpayer's assets for the benefit of the government. Their argument that IRS attempts to collect based on the existence of a federal tax lien were void since it was not the "Notice of Tax Lien" that was referenced in IRS actions.

Of course this just demonstrates their lack of comprehension on how the law works and the operation of law for an abstract such as a lien. This leads to such hysterical moments where the chowderhead tries to argue that the wag levy send to his employer is void because the IRS did not have a Notice of Tax Lien recorded. They fail to understand that the purpose of the notice is only to establish the government's priority versus other competing creditors of the taxpayer for the lien that came into effect by operation of law when the taxes went unpaid. Instead your average sovrun turns the notice of tax lien into the Holy Grail of TPs and ignores the fact that the tax lien is tying up his life.

littleFred wrote:Yes, so a judge might (in theory) dismiss a claim on the basis that the original paper of the agreement was no longer available. I don't know if this ever happens.

It can't happen after Carey v HSBC because the case established that a reconstructed agreement is good enough.

ForumWars wrote:

littleFred wrote:Yes, so a judge might (in theory) dismiss a claim on the basis that the original paper of the agreement was no longer available. I don't know if this ever happens.

It can't happen after Carey v HSBC because the case established that a reconstructed agreement is good enough.

Well, as I said, Carey etc established that a reconstruction was good enough for a s78 request.

But AndyPandy's point wasn't about that. It was about the consequences of a creditor not taking the original of a document to a hearing.

littleFred wrote:

ForumWars wrote:

littleFred wrote:Yes, so a judge might (in theory) dismiss a claim on the basis that the original paper of the agreement was no longer available. I don't know if this ever happens.

It can't happen after Carey v HSBC because the case established that a reconstructed agreement is good enough.

Well, as I said, Carey etc established that a reconstruction was good enough for a s78 request.

But AndyPandy's point wasn't about that. It was about the consequences of a creditor not taking the original of a document to a hearing.

There is no requirement as to form of copy agreements under 180 of the CCA, apart from the one that says they must be legible.

Terms can be recovered from other sources and they can be a list on a pjeçe of A,4.

littleFred wrote:

ForumWars wrote:

littleFred wrote:Yes, so a judge might (in theory) dismiss a claim on the basis that the original paper of the agreement was no longer available. I don't know if this ever happens.

It can't happen after Carey v HSBC because the case established that a reconstructed agreement is good enough.

Well, as I said, Carey etc established that a reconstruction was good enough for a s78 request.

But AndyPandy's point wasn't about that. It was about the consequences of a creditor not taking the original of a document to a hearing.

Yes, later on, I noticed you had posted about it, but I started reading from where I'd left off in the morning.

It also has to be said that not all cases involve agreements regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. If you were a party to a contract for services and wanted to claim for breach of that contract, the court may be able to distinguish, and you'd probably be expected to produce the original contract rather than a reconstruction of its terms. In some cases, there's no written contract as such. and you'd have to rely on witness statements, emails, etc.

The CPR refers to any document you have disclosed. Your "original" document may well be a printout off a computer file. There's also the Electronic Comms Order 2004 which refers to a similar situation. For an online application, a tick in the box is as good as a signature, and it can be inferred that a printout of the terms provided at the time of the ticking would be regarded as an "original". I wonder what the fans of wet ink would make of this one...

TheNewSaint wrote:All this malarkey about original documents is really just another "wet ink seal" argument. Tuco's argument is that an agreement is null and void, because the documents don't meet some standard Tuco thinks they should.

Simple as that. Especially since Tuco admitted that the whole point of this is to screw over the creditor.

Since 2013, Tuco had been touting his freeman woo woo theory about his loan around various forums. He first hit upon his 'debt avoidance ' theory when viewing Si Spaniards video link in 2013 on GOODF.

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10297&p=237988#p237988

The Legal Beagles forum was next without any joy.

In December 2013, he touted his freeman woo woo on the Consumer Action Group posting as Ian Olney where this comment of his didn't go down to well:

I don't see why I should repay the balance if someone has made money out of my agreement and still don't see how a third party can claim to have bought the debt without the original agreement.

As is quite usual with Tuco, he became argumentative on the forum and was banned. Sadly his posts were also removed but if you scroll down on the following thread (in particular to post number 14) you will get the general idea of what he was up to.....DEBT AVOIDANCE.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... =Ian+Olney

Post 14:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... ost4422988

Tuco wrote: In the grand scheme of things Gregg, it doesn't matter if the photocopy is hung in a gold plated frame in Buckingham Palace, if the original has been traded.

It doesn't even matter if there is even a photocopy in the first place. Once the documents are recorded with the Registry of Deeds (or, in Registered Land states, registered with the Land Court or the local equivalent), you don't need an original, a photocopy or anything else. You just need to know where to find it if you want it, which I have done more times than I can remember.

Tuco wrote: In the case of bank loans here in the Uk, it is slightly different.

However, it is exactly how mortgages which are in reality nothing more than secured loans are done here in the UK, as has been previously posted in this thread.

Tuco wrote: Another thing for you to consider is that the only agreements ever to surface later on, contained various stamps and endorsements. Why do you think that is, if they were condemned to incineration?

This is a freetard myth and easily disproven

Are you able to provide an example of any such agreement with all these stamps etc on it ?

As I can provide copies with no such stamps via a google search of people that have made s.77/s.78 requests for copies of their agreements and have received them.

There will be date stamps and department stamps of the Lender

Tuco wrote: Another thing for you to consider is that the only agreements ever to surface later on, contained various stamps and endorsements. Why do you think that is, if they were condemned to incineration?

Is that so ?




































If you want more evidence let me know

It is clear that you fail to understand what the actual asset is that is traded and what actually has value. You refuse to listen because you think you know, when you don't

My apologies to everyone else for all the screenshots. I feel or at least hope they will serve as an important lesson to Tuco about why evidence is important.

However, I have no doubt he will ignore the evidence, make some childish post and make further claims that he will be unable to prove. It is clear that people have been trying to educate Tuco for a number of years and sadly he has instead chosen to follow the freetard path, down the rabbit hole with the likes of Brown Rabbit, White Rabbit, Colon and co

I wonder if he has ever bumped into Alice or visited Wonderland

Tuco wrote: What Sheila fails to mention is that I came back as Andy Lochead, right at the end of the thread (Ian Olney & Andy Lochead are both ex-Aston Villa players) I just popped back to tell all the idiots on CAG that I was right all along and they were wrong. Now here we are, all those years later and exactly the same thing is panning out on another forum. Just like old times eh?

Would appear that the above is another false claim.

fletch70
Cagger since : Dec 2012
Posts : 3,693 (2.54 post per day)
Default Re: Original Credit Agreement

Hardly worth a comment. It seems your defence included information that you had not previously mentioned such as a little thing called no agreement.
Delude yourself if you want Ian. It is mot the rubbish you have stated that has saved you it is probably the lack of agreement and commercially not worthwhile.

As they did not have a copy of the agreement and that the debt related to Abbey (which became Santander in 2010), it is more than likely the debt dates back, to before Carey v HSBC and the lack of an agreement is the real reason enforcement didn't take place. -

Not for any of the nonsense claims you have and continue to make all without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

*Edited to add the below

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10297&p=237979&hil ... al#p237979

Tuco wrote: In around 2005 or 2006, I had a dispute with Abbey National over the interest on 500 odd pounds on a credit card. They told me that as I was a new customer (to the credit card side of things), that I would have to wait 12 months until they would discus things with me-They said they didn't discus issues with new customers. It was the straw that broke the camels back. I took out a large loan with them, hiked up the credit card to the maximum and opened a new bank account with Halifax, driving my Abbey account into a 2k overdraft. I then told them to come back in 12 months and I would talk to them then.

So it was pre CCA 2006 and before Carey - so the real reason that enforcement didn't take place was because they did not have your agreement. Nothing to do with what you refer to as trading of agreements or the DPA after all.

Just to clarify a few things in regard to commercial agreements regulated under the consumer credit act.

The request for copies is made under section 77etc. as said.
This is merely a request for information regarding the loan, there is no requirement for a signature on the information provided, and the copy does not have to equate to a document which, if signed would become an executed agreement. If the "True copy"is not produced in12 days the creditor cannot enforce untill it is.

The protection which effects the agreements overall enforceability is contained in sections 61, 65, and 127. These are concerned with ensuring that the debtor is aware of all aspects of the agreement before he enters into it.
Pre 2007 the penalty for violating this, could be that be that a court is completely barred from issuing an enforcement order. This cannot be remedied for obviously reasons.
Two different remedies for two different complaints.

Henti wrote:Did you know the world record for folding a piece of paper in half is just 12 times

YES! I did! I saw it on an episode of Mythbusters in which they got a paper sheet about the gauge of cigarette papers and the size of an airplane hanger and they folded it until it wouldn't fold anymore!

Pretty cool episode!

Gregg wrote:

Henti wrote:Did you know the world record for folding a piece of paper in half is just 12 times

YES! I did! I saw it on an episode of Mythbusters in which they got a paper sheet about the gauge of cigarette papers and the size of an airplane hanger and they folded it until it wouldn't fold anymore!

Pretty cool episode!

Yes we had a simmilar show over here called " Record Breakers" it was on there to.

Bones wrote:My apologies to everyone else for all the screenshots.

Don't apologise Bones because I am sure that Tuco will be along later today to post a similar amount of screenshots showing agreements containing "various stamps and endorsements" as evidence to support his claim.