ooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh poor tilly. My god that was fast, only just saw it fly over your head. Gonna have to go now, I'm starting to fall asleep now, my tablets have started to kick in. Nite, nite tilly & SSL, catch you both tomorrow all being well. xxxx

The CCA has been amended by the 2006 Act, but an application form will always be an application form and the areas of the Act that make an agreement unenforceable even in a court of law (s127(3)) still stand. The 2006 Act is not retrospective, so if your agreement was made under the 1974 Act then it is the sections of the 1974 Act that apply to your agreement.

Moi....winding people up??? Nooooo:eek:

I dont mean the new dca's, I will chew them and spit them out when they turn up, I meant the money I had already paid moorcroft

hey, I'm a regular on a debt forum... who said I had any money? I'd be putting barclaycards money where my mouth is:) (Luckily, I know that Barclaycards credit agreement is unenforceable... because I still have a copy, LOL:)

groovychickmum - that's proof of postage and that's free!

ah but even that didnt stop me yakking had my phone lol a chair and music lmao

I have a nasty feeling that as the debt is so old, Next will simply say that all information has been destroyed. I'd be more inclined to go with P1's idea here in regards Next. Certainly send them a SAR non-compliance letter and demand their complaints procedure and go from there. (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/6986-data-protection-act-non.html) Hey if they ignore you again take it straight to the ICO and FOS for action. Now with GPB, I'd SAR them and consider a serious complaint to the Law Society for their "lies" and total misinformation. Of course if you do want to take Next to court there is a SAR non-compliance POC available here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/6971-data-protection-act-non.html Of course you'll have to file this on an N1 as it's quite involved. As to compensation, I'm not sure you can claim any from Next for this, but you should have a good case against GPB. Deception for starters looks good.

Send First Beacon Legal Service LTD a CCA request, this places the account in dispute and they can not lawfully pursue the account until your dispute is resolved. Send it recorded delivery with a £1 crossed postal order. Do not sign the letter. Template is here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/20758-creditors-dcas-letter-templates.html template N. Quite simply no. Have they sent you a Notice of Assignment?

As I see it.... you have a choice with the SAR, Nanna. Either go through the ICO for non-compliance... or obtain a Court Order to force Next to comply. If you get a Court Order and they still don't comply, they would then be in contempt of court. All of this is unlikely to address the subject of compensation though.... it will merely force them to cough up all info. that they hold on you. Have you made an official Complaint to Next ?... asking for their Complaints Procedure ? If not, it may be worth writing one now... giving them the necessary time to deal with it and if/when they fail to do so.... send the while lot over to the FOS.

Yes I agree carry on with your claim. At least then you will be at the top of the pile when the banks LOOSE their test case

Just want to publicly thank you for your very kind pm jade - it brought me to tears :o You are doing a grand job on here - keep it up!

i was wondering how long it would take you

Server seems to have had quite a few problems today. I think they might do some maintenance as its always quiet on a Sunday.

Yup - it is! - it started working about 2.45 and went ballistic:D Ta mum x

Sorry - I've had a nightmare week. Didn't forget you though! Its very unlikely that they will get a stay before the hearing, in fact the letter probably won't even go before the judge before the 7th. Expect them to turn up and argue for one there. Having said that, just in case you can send a fairly short letter to the court stating that you object to the defendants proposal of a stay and therefore they should be made to apply properly or otherwise the issue should be dealt with at the hearing, so as the issue and your objections can be heard properly. At the hearing the issues as I see it will be these; Your application The first thing is to object to the reallocation of the claim and also their breaching of the order. Everything you need is pretty much in the statement which I prepared for you before. Make sure you understand the main points contained in it and also where possible you should try to expand on some of the points yourself and make some notes. Ask for the defence to be struck out for non-compliance with a court order and/or abuse of process. There are some materials you can take in support of this - the list of settled claims from the litigation section, plus abuse of process orders and Mullen v Hackney. PM me your e-mail address and I'll send you the last 2. Stay Take a stay removal/objections template and object on the usual grounds. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-stayed-pending-oft/108430-stays-info-guidance.html Also add your own stuff regarding your particular situation, for instance if you believe that yours would qualify as a 'hardship case' you should argue that and take as much evidence as possible to back it up. Another important point is that the test case will, in the first instance at least, only test the application of the UTCCR and not the penalty at common law principles. Therefore IMHO you can make the distinction between the charges levied for overdraft excess and the charges levied for unpaid items. Charges for overdraft excess (and bounced cheques) arise from clear breaches of contract, so are subject to the common law on penalties (I.e the charge must be proportionate to costs) - whereas its more difficult to establish a breach for unpaid DD/SO so they rely on the UTCCR. The OD excess and unpaid cheque charges therefore concern a simple issue of fact - whether the charge is proportionate to the cost - so you could argue that a stay is unnecesary. If it looks like they are going to get a stay I would suggest that you propose that the part of the claim relating to charges with clear breaches (OD excess/cheque bounce) is allowed to proceed, and only the UTCCR relient part (DD/SO charges) is stayed. Establish charges arise from breach of contract You need to take the T&C's with you so as you can demonstrate that the OD excess and cheque bounce charges arise from breaches of contract. This is important for both of the points above. Take a schedule of the relevant terms with an explaination of how the terms provide for a breach, such as this one (the terms will be the same) - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/109122-general-form-judgement-order.html#post1075301 Also take the actual T&C documents. PM me your e-mail address and I'll send the relevant ones to you. If the claim is stayed If the judge stays the claim anyway then ask for conditional orders as per the stay template, such as; 1) The defendant is not permitted to levy further charges until the stay is lifted, 2) The defendant is not permitted to take any default, enforcement or collection action on the account until the stay is lifted. If the claim proceeds If the judge allows the claim to proceed, or part of it, then the issue will be directions. Hopefully your application will be successful and the claim will proceed on the small claims track. Even if not, either way you should really push for the defendant to be ordered to comply with the original order. It all seems daunting but as long as you follow and prepare for the above then I think you'll have covered all bases and will be prepared for every eventuality. Remember that its not a final hearing, nothing can be won or lost so there isn't any real pressure. Just be prepared and do your best, and you'll be fine. 99% of people who have to go are nervous to start with but once its over wonder what all the fuss was about. Its very informal and your certainly not expected to be a lawyer or to know as much as one. Any questions give me a shout.

seems reasonable enough to me Bilgeman, I hope that it works for you.

what text do i need to add to the letter, to show this has been reported to the i.c.o.

Hello all, In respect of the IC's position regarding what constitutes fair and lawful processing and a creditor's right to continue processing even, in the absence of a credit agreement, the following info might be useful: A data controller under the 1st principle must ensure that certain information is made "readily available" to a data subject, when the data controller first obtains data. The commonest method used by creditors to comply with this requirement is the "fair collection notice" which invariably appears in an agreement which a debtor signs. The information that is required to appear in this notice is: 1.The identity of the data controller 2.The purpose or purposes for which the data are intended to be processed 3.Any other information that is necessary to enable the particular processing to be fair. If a data subject hasn't been provided with the above, which as I say, will almost certainly appear in an agreement (otherwise how could a creditor prove you've received such a notice?) the creditor will be in direct breach of the 1st principle. So, if an agreement has not been furnished, you cannot be said to have been in receipt of the notice, and it would be for the creditor to prove otherwise! I am absolutely incredulous at the IC's stance, particularly in light of this very important requirement of the Act (often referred to as an Article 10 Notice-under the Directive). Given that the fundamental premise of the DPA 1998, is an individual's right to privacy, the obligations placed on a creditor in terms of compliance with the various provisions of the Act are strict. It would not be sufficient for a creditor to say for example, that the fair collection notice was sent by 1st class post to the debtor, which is undoubtedly why it's incorporated into the credit agreement, so that they have a signed acknowledgment from the debtor to prove that they have brought the fair collection notice to a person's attention and to cover the issue of consent. The IC cannot maintain their current position in view of this, as without an agreement, a creditor simply cannot prove that they have firstly, the right to process the data and secondly, it has certainly not been done fairly and lawfully without the FCN! As a further argument which is actionable, such unlawful processing is in breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. An action could also be brought against creditors for breach of confidence under the common law, particularly in view of their fondness of passing confidential information (unlawfully) to 3rd parties, namely DCA's and the CRA's! I hope this has proved useful! Regards, Laiste.

Not quite right Wilson v sec of state for DTI stated that the Creditor is precluded from enforcing the cca but stated that the DEBTOR can enforce the CCA (or lack of it). If the claimant has repaid all capital advanced under the original agreement then on the question of interest I do not see a court saying in equity that she must pay say 30% interest where there is no enforceable agreement. In equity the creditor has had its original money back. In the absence of an enforceable CCa agreement the creditor is not allowed to sidestep the CCA and use ordinary contract law therefore the argument over what they normally charged for interest etc is irrelevant to the deliberations of the court. The court is not allowed to consider the creditors position outside the CCA which because its unenforceable it is unable to use to obtain rights to interest. It would therefore be unequitable to not order a refund of the interest unlawfully charged by the Creditor. In this case the claimant has a copy of the original application form so clearly there has never been any question of a properly executed agreement that has been "mislaid". The creditor has never been in aposition to lawfully charge interest or add any other charges (i.e.cash withdrawals ) etc on this claimants account.

Pint of Macallan 25yr old then Stone. or a pint of 18 year old in the Jerez cask. That would stone the croze.

well hope oyu are lucky Stone.. I was granted a hearing it it in October.....and I was not asked for a fee either it was vaived..............am really impressed with your letters they are great..............

I asked for same as Blackpool court was one of first two courts to impose blanket stays. Court manager did not accept this, but took N244 directly to judge as timed my filing to last possible moment. (Trick I learnt from banks), He said that maybe judge would agree to hearing or maybe private meeting in chambers. waiting now with bated breath!

Now now Stone I'll buy the lot of you a pint if I get my windfall !!.

The courts in taking a case in equity would take the position of a reasonable person, who would ask: "Did you know you would be charged interest as a result of taking out the loan" "yes... but" "And you didn't dispute the interest rate when you paid it?" "no... but..." "And you haven't got a copy of the credit agreement, which states the interest rate was lower than they charged?" "No... but..." "Sorry, the court is precluded from issuing an enforcement order by virtue of s 127(3) of the CCA 1974, which excludes the court from issuing an enforcement order for either party in the absence of a signed credit agreement. Here is an order for £7,500 costs, and this is a civil restraint order for your pleasure."

Hi We seem to have had a spate of creditors sending T and C,s back from section 77 requests this is unacceptable despite what the TS have been saying recently. The following letter may be of use. Dear Creditor (who is trying to hide the fact that you don’t have an enforceable agreement.) Re: Your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of your companies Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act. To clarify: On the 29th of December 2006 in response query Ian McCartney MP replied to a letter in his then role as minister for the department of Trade and Industry he stated this, “Mr Bardsley describes a situation in which he was sent a copy of a company’s standard Terms and Conditions when requesting a copy of a signed agreement form. Just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement” This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows; As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.” This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this case in particular to SI 1983/1557. Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are: Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements; And more importantly Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations. You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations. Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557. The regulations state: (2) There may be omitted from any such copy- (a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy; (b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies); It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, what is being overlooked is the part highlighted, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should be presented in the form and containing all sections required by the regulations. The requirements of the agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso. Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions. It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented. I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues. Best Regards Peter

Now now ODC That's insulting Gypsies and Tramps

Thank you all for your kind offers of office space etc. I think our legal dept (Gt Aunt Ruth and her knitting) might be better placed in a temperature controlled greenhouse, as things are likely to get a little warm on the legal side. I think this would be the perfect opportunity for a retired Vicar looking to continue 'the good fight', or someone wanting to get their name in the Social History books as a modern day version of Robin Hood, leading the fight against oppressive and aggressive collection techniques. It might just be worth a try

Hiya stone, a man after my own heart will add a lot of your posts into my claim have a look at post 197 on mine think you will find it interesting http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/85633-castelbest-ii-return-claims.html keep in touch pete

eek what have i done now:eek:

HiYa all, oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh tilly, I don't know you always seem to get yourself in bother.

Finally received something from the court today. My GENERAL FORM OF JUDGEMENT OR ORDER READS AS FOLLOWS: In the BOURNEMOUTH CC Upon reading the file and upon it appearing that the issues in this case are to be considered in litigation commenced by the OFT against certain banks in the High Court of Justice....And Upon the Court of it's own initiative pursuant to CPR Part 3.3. IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. The claim be stayed forthwith pending the final determination of the OFT test case. Such final determination shall include any appeal. 2. Permission to apply to lift the stay or to set aside or vary this order within 28 days of the service of the same. Any application shall be on notice to all other parties and shall be supported by a statement setting out why this claim should proceed before the final determination of the OFT test case. Any such appliaction shall be listed before the Designated Civil Judge (in my case DISTRICT JUDGE HURLEY) sitting at Winchester unless specifically released by him. BIG FAT BUMMER!!!! Is it enough to ask the judge to lift the stay due to the fact that this is not yet a universal decision, and not all courts are following suit?

This sounds like the best plan to me!! Cabot's have been quite comfortable in attampts to throw us all off scent with their irrelevant excuses about LoP and other excuses they cooked up. Seems no matter how reasonable we are in our communications with them - they simply won't give answers. The only way to deal with them is with an N1 claim and make them answer in court. Let them waste their money on solicitors bills for their defence. Personally - I have no intentions of trying to negotiate further with this company - life is too short to put up with this Cr*p. Let the courts deal with them I say - they have had every opportunity to put things right after all.

:D

Hello again pulu Details for Thames Credit are: Wells House 15-17 Elmfield Road Bromley Kent BR1 1LT Telephone: 0208 313-0033 If this is helpful to you click my scales at the bottom left (the grey blob between the green dot and the red triangle) Maybe I shouldn't really ask you to as good old Google deserves the credit rather than me. Go to Aktiv Kapital and you'll see Thames Credit occupy three floors at Wells House. I gather Aktiv Kapital has a somewhat malodorous stench about it to CAGgers.

Not quite what was expected, (thought it was a trifle quick) Dear Mr. CROZE Your request for Judgment in the above case os returned because: the claim has been stayed. I already knew that!!

Great excitement. letter from just popped through letter box

LOL:D

Thank you Moneyhelp Lol .. yes recommendations from the places you least expect! Well, i have an update. I received my standard reply letter from the halifax today.....so, will prepare my LBA letter ready to send on the 6th September. Will update on what happens next !!! Thank you all for your support !!!

After thinking it all through I accepted the partial payment from Halifax...... in my case I feel that this was the best decision for me to make. Now on to Capital One!!!

You are all doing brilliant!!!!! What a team!!

offer them 10% "as a gesture of goodwill only, and in full and final settlement of the account"

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Nigel- yes- proceed as usual. Please read sticky on OFT if you have not yet done so, and best of luck!!!! :lol:

Hey Chetz:) I have just started the reclaim process with Creation ! I intend to claim for missold PPI and CI on top of the charges, and reading your thread ,it looks like you also claimed for the interest. How did you work out the interest amount on just the penalty ? I am using a spready that Bill emailed me for my Nat West claim as I cant manage to dowload Mindzai's spready:confused: ,would another spready be more suitable for this purpose ? I would like to get all my money back cos Creation are the pits ! On quite a few of my statements it shows a late payment fee,an unpaid direct debit fee and a returned payment fee,so thats £42 in charges for 1 statement ! I would appreciate any help you can throw in my direction ! Thanks hun Hope xx

This may be helpful to you! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/68852-ltsb-no-agreement-cca.html Good Luck, Dave.

Fab thanks, thats the reassurance I needed. Ive enclosed a copy of LBA that they didnt have with my rejection letter. Fingers crossed they pay up...although the interest is about 3 times the amount of the charges!