I read your article on the net ( you wrote in Jan 2010) about recent court judgement, and found it very interesting, but I have a question for you.

In the earlier parts you say that a recent court judgement decided that lenders only have to produce a `reconstituted ` agreement, rather than the original…(presumably which would/should also show the borrowers signature)

But is it not true that if a borrower has not signed the agreement containing all the prescribed terms, the agreement will not be enforceable without an order of the court and section127(3) requires the court to dismiss the application for an enforcement order.”

But how can the judge know and it be proved or not, whether the agreement was signed by the borrower or not, if, as you said at first, the lender only has to produce a reconstituted version.

Regards from

Tom DalyI think this comment should be removed