questioning reconstituted documents and on-line credit applications.

I thought these questions might prove useful for attacking the integrity of reconstituted documents and the whole process of on line credit applications.

I'm sure others on here can offer ideas on how to build on this approach to the task of defeating debt buyers.

Mr debt collector; Are these documents you have sent me genuine documents? He will say 'no, as they are not required to be under xyz Act or Regulation, Code of Practice or whatever rule or law it is.

Mr debt collector; Can you prove to this court, with substantiating evidence, the details on this/these reconstituted documents have NOT been digitally altered during the compilation process?

If he says 'yes' then MR debt collector I now require you to prove your claim.

If he says 'no' then you say 'so then you concede the contents of this document could be fraudulent? If he answers 'no' to this question you ask him why is he saying no. This will likely cause him to attempt to describe the process for ensuring document integrity and so you attack that process.

How does he assure an unbroken chain of data custody?. Has the reconstitution process deleted some calculations? How does the reconstitution of the documents guarantee that no part of the reconstituted document containing all the important data has not been digitally altered? Can he prove it with substantiating documentation? Remember he said that reconstituting the data did not impair the integrity of the document - make him prove it.

Alternatively he can say little other than 'yes' unless he explains how the documents are 'reconstituted' but still maintain document integrity in which case, again, you attack the integrity of that process.

IF the application was done on line the questioning would go along the line " Mr debt collector; Can you prove to this court with documentary evidence it was me who completed the application for credit forms on line?

If he says yes then you say: I require you to prove it then!! In all likelihood the DC will admit he cannot prove it so at the end of this you say to the mag. Your honor; I move for this proceeding be struck out for want of proof of claim. Have this motion typed out and a copy of it with you to hand up to the magistrate.

Unless the DC has the original documents from the OC then he cant prove it and he is highly unlikely to have them because when banks sell debts they are sold as a tranch, meaning they consist of a spreadsheet which does not contain much details and is unlikely to be supported by documentation.

If the application was done on line and you have NOT previously admitted to the debt then your line might be - "Your Honour. I know nothing of this alleged debt. I have no memory of ever making any application for credit and I submit someone hacked my computer and completed the application on line, in my name, without my knowledge or consent and so I deny any and all responsibility for this alleged debt. Again; I move for this charge to discharged for want of evidence.

Hi Ausk,

Your thinking is very similar to mine, and I believe most of it comes down to 'presumption at law' which stands unless
evidence is provided to the contrary. The presumption is "this is what your agreement was" its doubtful we can disprove it unless we have a true copy of the original.
WE then make presumptions that the alleged debt has been sold or traded, insurance claimed against it etc.as in the 3 letters.There is plenty of evidence which can be produced that these are standard practices ,the ball is then in their court (excuse the pun) to provide evidence to the contrary,which of course they cannot.

This is a defense I would try if need be. unfortunately although its in the letters it seems no one bothers to push
for answers on these points.

may be send a further letter to them requesting that they provide a signed deposition that what they are claiming/providing is true and accurate ?

I did this with capital one once directly, the debt buyer lowell who had already issued a claim bailed out before the final hearing no idea why they did this ? but that letter to capital one produced no reply and ended the claim ? after i sent the letter i heard no more from either OC or DCA claim ended, its at least 3 years ago now so i dont recall exactly.

Thats good to hear waylander but I thought I'd chuck it out there for whom ever it might be useful. One of the good things about the Australian civial law is that it requires the parties to undergo a compulsory pre-trial conference to try and get the parties to agree to a solution so the case does not go to trial.

This conference might be a good place to fly these sorts of kites to see how they go and therefore may go in the trial.

daveiron wrote:Hi Ausk,

Your thinking is very similar to mine, and I believe most of it comes down to 'presumption at law' which stands unless
evidence is provided to the contrary. The presumption is "this is what your agreement was" its doubtful we can disprove it unless we have a true copy of the original.
WE then make presumptions that the alleged debt has been sold or traded, insurance claimed against it etc.as in the 3 letters.There is plenty of evidence which can be produced that these are standard practices ,the ball is then in their court (excuse the pun) to provide evidence to the contrary,which of course they cannot.

This is a defense I would try if need be. unfortunately although its in the letters it seems no one bothers to push
for answers on these points.  

Good daverion. i've been away because i lost the fire in my tummy. i've been retired for a while now and I had a bad set back with parking fine court appearance so it has knocked me a bit. Hopefully the fire will return soon.