Unfortunately, this seems to back up what I have thought to be the case all along, i.e. that a 'true' copy can be a template, provided that it has identical content
to the original (with permitted omissions), at least in respect of compliance with s77/78.
However, where a copy is being used to seek enforcement, I think the borrower should challenge it's validity as proof of the existence of a contract and emphasise that the document (being electronically stored and generated in most instances), could just as easily have been electronically 'constructed', using the borrower's signature and other personal details from other documents the creditor holds, e.g. letters (you
wouldn't believe that could happen, would you?
The problem with civil claims is that they are won or lost on the balance of probabilities and it takes as little as a 51/49% tip of the scales in favour of one party's evidence being more plausible for the case to be decided. You have to fight your corner like a wild dog and question and challenge every detail
, because it is clear that even though WE think that only an original document will suffice as proof, in the absence of sufficient challenge, any old 'copy' will do!