UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[Tuco]

Can I just point out that my issue is not that they cannot produce the original per se. My issue is that the original contains my private data and there was a duty to protect this data. A failure to keep hold of the original is a failure to adhere to a term of a contact entered into. I have every right to enquire as to the whereabouts of that data, it is after all mine. I also have every right to enquire as to whom exactly has had access to this data.

Simply losing an agreement behind a filing cabinet is no excuse, neither is claiming that it is in a box somewhere gathering dust. It is noteworthy that they can put their hands on the photocopies quickly enough.

If the original has been destroyed, as many of the previous posts indicate is increasingly the case in the 21st century, then the whereabouts of that data are probably in a box somewhere, well blended with other recycled paper and now used as packing material. It is completely illegible.

As for your assertion that "[a] failure to keep hold of the original is a failure to adhere to a term of a contact entered into", that is only correct if the original contract provides that the originals must be preserved; and even then the remedy for destruction of the originals is rarely going to result in the contract being void or voidable.

Then why, in the 21st centuary is there need to keep a photocopy of the agrrement as if your life depends on it? Why not just keep the original and take a photocopy if it is called for? In nearly all cases, nobody ever requests sight of the agreement. It is also noteworthy that many previous posts accept that the originals are sold on.

My assertion is that the term breached is that of failing to protect my data, NOT that an original copy must be preserved. If they (for some bizarre reason) chose to destroy the original then I would have no argument. However, the fact that the agreement is traded is enough for me to ask questions.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tuco wrote:

A failure to keep hold of the original is a failure to adhere to a term of a contact entered into.

Don't be silly. Did your contract state that the lender would keep hold of the original documentation?

[longdog]

Then why, in the 21st centuary is there need to keep a photocopy of the agrrement as if your life depends on it? Why not just keep the original and take a photocopy if it is called for?

AS has been repeated explained to you what you have is almost certainly a printout either from microfilm or, much more likely these day, a printout from a computer of a scanned image of the original document. That's how things work.

In nearly all cases, nobody ever requests sight of the agreement. It is also noteworthy that many previous posts accept that the originals are sold on.

No.

My assertion is that the term breached is that of failing to protect my data, NOT that an original copy must be preserved.

This too has been repeatedly explained to you. The passing of your data for legitimate business purposes will have been either implied or, more likely, explicitly stated as being allowed in the agreement. Your incessant whining about your data 'not being protected' is irrational and incorrect. The data HAS been protected because it has been used for the purpose for which it was collected.

If they (for some bizarre reason) chose to destroy the original then I would have no argument.

So you're not bothered about your data if it comes from a copy?

However, the fact that the agreement is traded is enough for me to ask questions.

And now you have answers.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tuco if you are so sure you are right and your lender contravened the DPA why have you not taken action against them?
What is stopping you?

[Tuco]

Tuco wrote:

A failure to keep hold of the original is a failure to adhere to a term of a contact entered into.

Don't be silly. Did your contract state that the lender would keep hold of the original documentation?

I think you will find that it is your good self who is being silly.

What you need to do is calm down, untwist your knickers and then go back and read the posts again.

I have never claimed what you quoted.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Destroying the original would not be a breach of contract.

[Tuco]

Tuco if you are so sure you are right and your lender contravened the DPA why have you not taken action against them?
What is stopping you?

Oh please. Talk about selective reading. I did take action. I settled out of court by way of both parties filing notices of discontinuance.

Show us some proof of this, or stop posting what look otherwise like lies.
~G

[Tuco]

Destroying the original would not be a breach of contract.

No shit Sherlock?

[Pottapaug1938]

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.

[Bones]

Tuco wrote:

A failure to keep hold of the original is a failure to adhere to a term of a contact entered into.

Don't be silly. Did your contract state that the lender would keep hold of the original documentation?

I think you will find that it is your good self who is being silly.

What you need to do is calm down, untwist your knickers and then go back and read the posts again.

I have never claimed what you quoted.

Infact you did claim exactly that - he quoted you word for word from this post

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10297&start=340#p238223

Can I just point out that my issue is not that they cannot produce the original per se. My issue is that the original contains my private data and there was a duty to protect this data. A failure to keep hold of the original is a failure to adhere to a term of a contact entered into. I have every right to enquire as to the whereabouts of that data, it is after all mine. I also have every right to enquire as to whom exactly has had access to this data.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Destroying the original would not be a breach of contract.

No shit Sherlock?

Which is why your previous comment is wrong.

[Pottapaug1938]

Destroying the original would not be a breach of contract.

No shit Sherlock?

If that's how you feel, then why did you say:

"A failure to keep hold of the original is a failure to adhere to a term of a contact entered into'?

[Tuco]

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.

[Tuco]

Destroying the original would not be a breach of contract.

No shit Sherlock?

If that's how you feel, then why did you say:

"A failure to keep hold of the original is a failure to adhere to a term of a contact entered into'?

Because there is one hell of a difference between destroying a contract (as Sherlock stated) and selling it on to some random 3rd party, who in turn will most likely sell it on again.

[Bones]

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.

Yes of course it does, it is saved electronically and printed off when required.

It takes up no physical space at all



You really thought that they kept a physical photocopy in a draw somewhere

[Pottapaug1938]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

No. What I am saying is that I always kept some record of the transaction, be it original or copy; but then, that was the early 90s. Now, I would probably scan the original, store backups in a secure location, and discard the originals into a shredder.

[Pottapaug1938]

No shit Sherlock?

If that's how you feel, then why did you say:

"A failure to keep hold of the original is a failure to adhere to a term of a contact entered into'?[/quote]
Because there is one hell of a difference between destroying a contract (as Sherlock stated) and selling it on to some random 3rd party, who in turn will most likely sell it on again.[/quote]

Wrong again. Destroying an original DOES NOT destroy the contract. It only destroys EVIDENCE of the contract.

Likewise, selling a contract to a "random 3rd party" does not destroy the contract, unless the original contract prohibits sale or assignment. Even then, if the "random 3rd party" sells the contract to a "random 4th party", that random 4th party would want to "stand in the shoes" of the original seller; and thus all of the borrower/mortgagor's information which is pertinent to the contract is likely to be desired by the random 4th (5th, 6th, 7th, etc.) party. Of course, the random 4th (5th, 6th, 7th, etc.) party then assumes all of the original seller's obligations concerning the safeguarding of the borrower/mortgagor's nonpublic information.

[noblepa]

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.

Photocopies are almost certainly NOT kept. The original is scanned and destroyed. In the unlikely event that the document is ever needed in paper form, a fresh copy is printed from the scanned image stored on a computer.

[noblepa]

No shit Sherlock?

If that's how you feel, then why did you say:

"A failure to keep hold of the original is a failure to adhere to a term of a contact entered into'?

Because there is one hell of a difference between destroying a contract (as Sherlock stated) and selling it on to some random 3rd party, who in turn will most likely sell it on again.[/quote]

Wrong again. Destroying an original DOES NOT destroy the contract. It only destroys EVIDENCE of the contract.

Likewise, selling a contract to a "random 3rd party" does not destroy the contract, unless the original contract prohibits sale or assignment. Even then, if the "random 3rd party" sells the contract to a "random 4th party", that random 4th party would want to "stand in the shoes" of the original seller; and thus all of the borrower/mortgagor's information which is pertinent to the contract is likely to be desired by the random 4th (5th, 6th, 7th, etc.) party. Of course, the random 4th (5th, 6th, 7th, etc.) party then assumes all of the original seller's obligations concerning the safeguarding of the borrower/mortgagor's nonpublic information.[/quote]

IANAL, but I strongly suspect that even if the contract did contain a "no assignment" clause and the original lender did so anyway, it would still not void the contract. It would simply mean that the buyer could not enforce the contract against the borrower, but that the original lender still could.

In other words, the assignment, not the original contract would be a nullity.

[TheNewSaint]

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. Even though that standard is not required by law; (and non-original documents are explicitly permitted). Simple as that. Especially since Tuco admitted that the whole point of this is to screw over the creditor.