Re: DCA Reconstituted work of fiction
For reference, see below, how DD pointed out IN COURT what was wrong with their recon. :high5:
Originally posted by FlamingParrot
View Post
If it went to court, you'd then point out where they've gone wrong as DEBDEFENDER did (and he won! :whoo :grin:
Originally posted by DEBTDEFENDER
View Post
just got back from court. Thank you all so much for your assistance.
I only found the DN last night when i was digging through some old docs trying to find something to discredit their case however, I didn't bring up the DN in the end because my argument for the most part relied on the fact that a debt could not exist as i couldn't have signed the agreement that they had supplied as evidence (as suggested by judgemental24)
I went through the case with a fine tooth comb earlier hours of this morning and picked to pieces the witness statement they provided and also the documentation they provided.
I pointed out to the judge all of the contradictions in the witness statement (there were about 6 or 7) and also discredited their documentation that they were relying on. Mainly the DOA and dates that they say it was issued. There were 3 different dates within the documentation (which they tried to justify by saying the different dates related to equity & legal assignment)
I advised that i was questioning the authenticity of the documentation as they were supported by a witness who's statement couldn't be trusted (based on contradictions etc)
Asked for the original documents that must be produced as mentioned in CPR practice directions 16, paragraph 7.3 to which they mention 'Carey v hsbc' and the need only to provide a true copy which can be reconstituted. I made them aware that this is only sufficient for information purpose and not acceptable for proof purposes.
ultimately they couldn't prove that the documents were true copies given the contradictions in the witness statement and based on the fact that i advised that i needed the original to ascertain if the signature was really mine and not lifted from elsewhere.
The judge dismissed the case mentioning that the claimants claim put forward was poor in its entirety from start to finish and given the contradictions, the lack of evidence to show authenticity in the documents etc the balance of probabilities meant that she could not find in their favour
I only found the DN last night when i was digging through some old docs trying to find something to discredit their case however, I didn't bring up the DN in the end because my argument for the most part relied on the fact that a debt could not exist as i couldn't have signed the agreement that they had supplied as evidence (as suggested by judgemental24)
I went through the case with a fine tooth comb earlier hours of this morning and picked to pieces the witness statement they provided and also the documentation they provided.
I pointed out to the judge all of the contradictions in the witness statement (there were about 6 or 7) and also discredited their documentation that they were relying on. Mainly the DOA and dates that they say it was issued. There were 3 different dates within the documentation (which they tried to justify by saying the different dates related to equity & legal assignment)
I advised that i was questioning the authenticity of the documentation as they were supported by a witness who's statement couldn't be trusted (based on contradictions etc)
Asked for the original documents that must be produced as mentioned in CPR practice directions 16, paragraph 7.3 to which they mention 'Carey v hsbc' and the need only to provide a true copy which can be reconstituted. I made them aware that this is only sufficient for information purpose and not acceptable for proof purposes.
ultimately they couldn't prove that the documents were true copies given the contradictions in the witness statement and based on the fact that i advised that i needed the original to ascertain if the signature was really mine and not lifted from elsewhere.
The judge dismissed the case mentioning that the claimants claim put forward was poor in its entirety from start to finish and given the contradictions, the lack of evidence to show authenticity in the documents etc the balance of probabilities meant that she could not find in their favour
Originally posted by DEBTDEFENDER
View Post
also worth noting that i explained to the judge at the beginning who i was and my qualifications in financial services. This gave weight to my argument about understanding how to work out APRs and that i would not sign an agreement that didnt add up
Comment