*** PLEASE NOTE ** There has been some major changes to Court Procedure Rules - Please either speak to a site team member or look through our library to obtain the most up to date letters ** LINK TO LIBRARY In the time I have been a member of the site I have seeen a number of examples where a member is being forced along with a legal case in a situation where the creditor is unwilling from the outset to provide a legible copy of the agreement sued upon. Sometimes they produce fuzzy copies. Sometimes they produce only part of the agreement, not all of it. Sometimes they don't produce it all and claim that owing to the decision in Rankine, they can proceed with the case regardless of whether they can bring the agreement into court. The ability of the Defendant to know how best to deal with the claim they are required to meet is impaired where a legible copy of the entire agreement is unavailable from the outset. For example, they will not know whether to plead that the agreement is unenforceable. Pleading that it is unenforceable without actually having an opinion on whether it is or is not enforcerable could be dangerous. Pleading that it is unenforceable will place the onus of proving that fact upon the debtor. That may place an insurmountable obstacle in circumstances where later on in the case, something less than full disclosure of the agreement occurs, or where the creditor serves witness statements which are designed to present to the court a re-construction or version interpretation of the agreement. I have seen a number of situations where the Defendant has been encouraged to deliver what is termed a CPR Request or CPR Part 18 request. Versions of the request I have seen often demand disclosure of documentary material akin to the kind of information sought in a Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). Rarely do they genuinely seek Further Information by way of clarification of an issue raised in the case and which could not be dealt with during standard disclosure. As such, these requests have the habit of being refused as not being reasonable and proportionate. In cases where the sum involved is not more than £10,000, the Claimant answers by reference to CPR 27.2(f), saying that Part 18 does not apply. Besides wishing to take an opinion on the agreeent, the Defendant will want to know whether to plead the default notice was ineffective, whether the Claimant's claim to have a right to sue as assignee of the debt is valid. If the agreement is unenforceable, the default notice is defective or the assigment is invalid, any one of these features will operate as a complete defence to the alleged liability. In my view the proper thing for the debtor to do in those circumstances is to strike as quickly as possible; to go on the offensive and wrestle control of the case away from the Claimant by asserting rights which the Claimant must comply with before the Defendant becomes obliged to elect how to plead the Defence. Such a right is found in CPR 31.14 and is concerned with the disclosure of documents mentioned in pleadings, the very place where the Claimant will refer to the agreement relied upon in even the most sparingly particularised claim. I have therefore drawn up a draft of such a letter which I would recommend delivering to Claimants in a proper case so soon as possible after receipt of the Claim Form. It looks like this: I hope this draft will prove useful to site members experiencing uncertainty as to how best to deal with the claim where they do not have what are highly relevant documents. x20

Thanks Zaffie for giving me more insight into your daughters hardship. I only want to help and not to hinder and was only trying to understand exactly where your daughter was at, which I think you can fully understand. Sometimes another angle to reach the end result can be a bonus. Whilst I have been sucessful with Abbey we still have a couple of claims that we awaiting decisions on including HSBC on the hardship. Whether you take my advice or others is for you and your daughter to decide. HSBC are extremely dificult to get the hardship through but with a little persevence you may get lucky. Regards Tuttsi xx

Most car speedos (I'm tempted to say all) read 2 or 3 miles under the actual speed anyway to ensure you're within the limit. Plus the ACPO guidelines give you 10% + 1 before they are supposed to procecute. This would mean on a 40mph road you wouldn't get procecuted until you were doing 45mph whilst you are probably driving at 33mph to avoid it. (5mph under the 40 on your speedo is more likely to be 33mph). A more likely result is other people around you are getting caught speeding as they inadvertantly go over the limit for a short time while trying to get past you crawling along so far under the limit!

Ah, right zaffie , I've jumped the gun a wee bit then - sorry , then it's ammo for the future - HSBC are notoriously difficult to convince 'Hardship ' to. However, one or two people have managed it and I hope your daughter does too...............

42man is right about the default. If they do have an agreement, reducing payments would mean you are not following the original agreement. Even without agreements they can have a nasty habit of issuing defaults anyway, leaving people with a big battle to remove them. Whatever you try to negotiate, keep it in writing. Perhaps write re the interest rate and say they are making it impossible for you to repay the balance. Ask them to reduce or stop it. See what they come back with. If it's negative and they still haven't sent you an agreement, then perhaps in your next letter you could use this. It's always worth asking and then continually badgering people, 'cause you just never know! I usually start of politely and then getting very formal and clear with my requirements without being rude.

Worth a look are these sites for maternity rights: Pregnancy and maternity rights : Directgov - Parents http://www.workingfamilies.org.uk/asp/family_zone/fs_pr1_matrights.aspv Acas - Maternity rights HTH.

Hi HS I've had a look at the posts above. From post #56 they seem to have sent an application form with none of the prescribed terms - that is unenforceable (even though it may comply with your CCA request - but that's a different issue IMO). THey also have sent a default notice which seems to be OK. Therefore you might want to remove the bit about them not having sent a default notice from your defence. The rest seems OK to me. Concerning the N9A - how much of the claim did you admit? What is the total claim? You mat be able to argue that you filled that in before you realised the basis (or lack of) of Reston's claim and now you want to defend all of it. I don't know what the protocol for that is - I will ask.

Yes it is correct....if they can't provide the agreement in 12+2 working days then they are in default of your request, while they can't produce the agreement then the debt is unenforceable....however some DCA's will try and take it to the next stage...i.e. legal...keep us posted as to the responses...

hi! jayjay11 as 'questioning' has stated there is good knowledgeable advice for free on this site but you will have to do a bit of digging to find the posts that provide the answers you seek. but it is well worth the effort.You will also find reference to a number of companies that offer to clear your debts and some claim to be able to get some of your payments back. be carefull as reported in the press these companies are newly founded and have little or few successfull cases to provide as evidence of there success. remember here on site you have a wealth of experience and in many instances, time allowing,excellent free advice. may we suggest that you take into account that todate you have enjoyed a small sum that you have been paying towards your debt.this debt has been outstanding now for 4/5 years. what will happen if you engage one of these companies to clear your debt only to find that they were to be unsuccessfull. who will have the monies necessary to fight your corner if tsb decide enough is enough and come after you, i certainly would, wouldn't you. we sincerely hope that we are being constructive in sharing our view of the opposite side to your current thoughts. keep your chin/pecker up djc

Original thread here:- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/154822-cca-request-mbna-my.html Onwards and Upwards Chalkitup

actually its far less scary looking.... _uacct = "UA-435439-2"; urchinTracker(); Think we can all relax now.

I didn't click any links to get that line to appear in the cookie from Frederickson's site. Nothing DCA's try these days would surprise me. Especially if the information can be used at a later date to the disadvantage to CAG members. I think we should all be very wary of visiting DCA websites. If you do, then delete cookies before visiting, and right after, before you visit any other site.

Hi Slippers, I thought I would clear something up for you that you seem to keep asking about CCAs. You seem confused as to admitting the debt, yet sending in a CCA request. It really doesn't matter if you have made regular payments onto your account, if you have requested a CCA and they cannot come up with it, then this means that they have NO legal rights to chase you for the money, regardless to you admitting the debt or not. You may find that even though they can't supply you with your CCA or a properly executed one, they may still chase you for payment, don't worry, they are desperate and will try anything, however these will be MEANINGLESS and desperate tactics. This is where you need to visit this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/131409-cheekiness-towards-dca.html because you can now have fun with them if you want. No CCA, no payment from you. Good luck.

Quite righttoo! Well done, Everton. It shows how patient you need to be.

It is unfortunately. What the OP has experienced is entirely legal unfortunately.

Perhaps we should knock up a CAG Deed of Assignment so that we can assign our debts to the CEOs of the financial institutions that we owe the money to. Failing that we should leave our debts to them in our wills.

Just wanted to say hi, well done and good luck. I have just read through your thread and I think your well on your way to recovery. I also had a breakdown started to get better but then fell ill with another illness which in turn put me right back down there again and I was unable to work. I lost my job (terminated on medical grounds they called it!) and was maxed out to the limits on credit cards. It all takes it toll but I know too well that battling a mental illness and trying to sort out financial affairs with companies that make things as stressful and awkward for you as possible does take it toll even more. I am paying my debts back through a debt management programme and it has all been going well once it was all sorted, until now 1 company is trying to turn it sour. I was at my wits end but the lovely people of CAG have helped me no end and instead of pulling the covers over my head, I have been on here read lots and got loads of advice. It does make you feel more upbeat and less alone. Good luck with all aspects

Hi, Special. Good to hear you've taken the Bull by the Horns, stick with it we're all with you Regards. Scott.

Hi all! seville,I am very sorry to read about the death of your ex. Anyway,I have another idea because the property market is slow for selling perhaps you would like to see to let out both properties. The combined rents should cover the mortgage on the property with SPML.Put the idea forward to SPML - They should agree and probably will either ask or charge the mortgage account a fee probably around 150 pounds - as a good guess. If you decide to do this and need any tips/guidance,just ask as I am an experienced private landlord. I hope you find this information useful. Keep us posted. All the best!

Most banks have a specialist executor banker who will help you. I think I'd be inclined to make an appointment with one of them ratehr than chat to a call centre or generic customer advisor. I beleive that after secured debts executor expenses are priority before other unsecured debts, but you must check with a qualified professional. You could place an advert in the London Gazette for other creditors, to give you an idea of what other debts there may be. Don't forget your father is now a creditor to the estate as well. It seems that with the 2 houses there may be around £70K net from the estate, but with stories of houses dropping huge amounts of up to £30k per property to sell, this amount may only just cover expenses. Definetly get the estate agent in, and see what is likely for a quick sale. Take Care

You should keep the £1 on file as proof you sent the payment when requesting the CCA. You do not need to make another CCA request to Barclays - you only need to make one request and you did that to their agents, who must by law pass it on to Barclays. So you are now in dispute with Barclays and if they pass it to another agent there is an "account in dispute" letter you can use. You do not need to do anymore - just sit back and let them contact you and you can take it from there. Round 1 to you!

Like GuidoT & raydetinu say, you can only claim for the service that was not provided. I am sure that you are really distressed that your special night didn't go the way you want and I sympathize with that, but you will have to assess that the court may side with Lula's view, in which case you may lose. A Solicitor would not take on such a case as it's small claims and therefore they are extremely unlikely to get costs against the Claimant even if you win. It would therefore not be cost effective for you to retain a Solicitor in such a case, most likely it would end up costing you more than the value of the claim. A few questions, so that I can try and better help: 1. I assume you received an invoice. How much was the billed amount? 2. How much did you pay? Did they cash the cheque? 3. How much are they claiming? How do they claim it is broken down? 4. Please break down the invoice by amounts for us, marking next to each figure whether or not that service was provided, if it was replaced with another service then describe that service [for example chicken instead of meat]. What I will then attempt to do is make a recommendation on what I feel is a correct amount and attempt to assist you to formulate a defence. To assist me and others, please try and write clearly. It is difficult to understand a long paragraph of text all in lowercase with no punctuation other than the occasional sets of dots. When did you receive the claim form? When was it issued? I ask these two questions to know how long we have. You can fill in an Acknowledgement of Service - if you haven't done so already - which will give you an added 14 days, i.e. a total of 28 days within which to file a defence. You can download the form at http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n9_0406.pdf I recommend not filling in the printed forms that the court sends you but filling them in on your computer with the forms downloaded from HM Court Service website, as this makes things a lot clearer and - I know for me - easier. My handwriting is horrendous, so any other party and the court probably appreciate when I type things The advantage with them is that they can be filled in within the Adobe Acrobat Reader file - though they can't be saved - in every space, literally. You can tick the boxes and even at the bottom of most forms where it says "The court office at", you can click right after that and fill in the court's address. It is recommended to fill in the whole form. Others may disagree with me here, and I am open to that, but in the interests of cooperation, I always recommend that one serves a copy of every document they file with the court with the other party. For example with the defence, you can depend on the court to send a copy, but if you send a copy who knows, the claim may be settled sooner, rather than later. When you have filed the defence, the claim will be transferred to your local County Court, as you are an individual, for the rest of the proceedings. Both you and the Claimant will be sent one of two Allocation Questionnaires. There is one that is for claims of - I think - below £500 [yes, I know small claims limit is £5,000, but the courts seem to send the full AQ even for claims of £900 in my experience] which is a short version or another full version. You will have to fill this in and file it at the court office. If the Claimant is claiming between £1,500 and £5,000, they will have to pay £35 when filing their AQ which will be added to the total amount they recover if they win. If you have a defence I'm sure you'll win. Please keep us posted whatever you do, even if you don't utilize my and others help. I and I'm sure others will do their utmost to help you and with your cooperation we will succeed. If you feel that my or anybody else's post has been useful, please click the scales that are in the middle of the 3 icons in the bottom right of the box to the right of our posts with our usernames in. Please write in the box any comment and also your username, so that we know it's you that is posting the feedback. Hopefully you will grow into being part of the CAG community and assist others with your knowledge and get lots of feedback as well. Good Luck!

My first batch of CCA 12 days are up on the 3rd September. And I also sent telephone harassment letters at the same time. I'm just logging all calls though phone calls have been reduced by employing Cheekiness tactics- but you only do that if you are comfortable with doing it. Now I've got all of my CCA requests off, I'm looking for charges to claim for, so potential SARs to send out. Just CCA everyone and then see what does and doesn't come back, Slippers. Then work out/prioritise what you can/want to pay and when.

Can I come to your party, Emma ?

Typical Marlin...I expect their paralegal has a very limited knowledge and is using this because its doing the rounds... Great thread here and davefirewalker has pointed out errors in the judgements where the judge quoted the wrong parts of the Act..which should unpick their argument and get you back on track for a 127(3) legal argument using Wilson and Hurstanger http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/147432-high-court-judgement-rankines.html [quoteHi everyone... just had some posts on my thread which I thought would be more appropriate here so with the posters permission I have cut and pasted Credit to Macie for what looks like a well thought out comment on this case I think there may be some purposeful misinterpretation of the Rankine judgment. ( text version here - News and Events : Articles : Judgment: Basil Rankine vs American Express Services Europe Limited ). At para 28 it states in relation to "Issue 5 True Copies A credit card issuer is required to provide three copies of agreement to a borrower. The first copy (which is set out as an application form) is signed by the borrower and sent to the lender. The borrower is given, with this application copy, a copy to keep (in accordance with the requirements of section 62 of the Act. This is the requirement to provide a copy of the unexecuted agreement (unexecuted because at that stage it has not been accepted or signed by the lender). When the agreement is executed a credit card is sent out, and usually this is attached to the “card carrier” copy of the agreement. This copy has to be sent to the borrower by virtue of section 63(4) of the Act and this is the executed copy. The requirement for such documents to be “true copies” is set out in regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983. Regulation 3(2) provides that the lender can omit from this document any signature and/or signature box, so although the card carrier is the executed copy, it does not have to (and invariably will not) bear the parties signatures." I think the application copy, the unexecuted copy and the executed copy must all contain the "prescribed terms" and the same text, but, that the layout of the three types of copy can be different Nothing in the Rankine judgment says that the text can be substantially different between the three types of copies. This is the only way that Judge Brown's judgment can be reconciled with Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299. The word "copies" suggests that the three copy documents have to be, at least textually, the same. So if the prescribed terms are not in the "application copy" they cannot be, by definition, be in the subsequent "unexecuted copy" or "executed copy" if the three are indeed to be considered "copies". If the text contained in the "executed", "card carrier", which is unsigned, doesn't textually match the "application copy" then the one is not a copy of the other. This is not the way the banks have interpreted these paragraphs and I think the banks are purposefully misleading their opponents in this regard. At para 28 of the Rankine judgment the judge states "When the agreement is executed a credit card is sent out, and usually this is attached to the “card carrier” copy of the agreement. This copy has to be sent to the borrower by virtue of section 63(4) of the Act and this is the executed copy. The requirement for such documents to be “true copies” is set out in regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983. Regulation 3(2) provides that the lender can omit from this document any signature and/or signature box, so although the card carrier is the executed copy, it does not have to (and invariably will not) bear the parties signatures." Well it appears that this paragraph of the judgment is just plain wrong! It seems that Judge Brown may have been a bit confused. "The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983" doesn't have a section 3(1) or 3(2). The judge may have meant "the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983" which does have a regulation 3(1) and 3(2). I would guess, precision is everything if para 28 is to be used as any kind of precedent in other cases. This also goes to show how complex the legislation is, even for a professional. If your lender sites the Rankine judgment in relation to "true copies" I am fairly sure that it is easy to show the judgment is wrong simply based upon the legislation. Moving on in the Rankine judgment Issue 9 Declaration of Un enforceability.......In the Tesco case, the Court has the residual discretionary power under Section 127 of the CCA to order enforcement notwithstanding any technical breaches of the Act or Regulations. For the reasons above, the Court does not consider it necessary to invoke these powers but for the avoidance of any doubt it would have no hesitation in doing so if required in this case. The benefits have all been to the advantage of the Rankines, their personal lives and even their business interests and there is no prejudice to them apart from those entirely brought upon themselves by their deliberate actions. This may not mean what some people think it means. A "technical breach" is a minor breach on a technicality not a fundamental breach like missing prescribed terms. TECHNICAL BREACH = An immaterial breach of contract is a trivial breach of contract and does not invalidate the contract. For example, assume a service contract for pest control provides that the service is to be performed on the first Thursday of each month. Contrary to the contract, the service person arrives on a Wednesday. This act is a technical breach of the contract but it is immaterial, unless for some reason the service needed to be done on Thursday as opposed to any other day. The use of "technical breach" is used in this House of Lords judgment Alfred McAlpine Construction Limited v. Panatown Limited [2000] UKHL 43; [2000] 4 All ER 97; [2000] 3 WLR 946 (27th July, 2000) ]

They dont know what they are talking about, there is no charge for going on emergency and I suggest you write to them saying you will not pay untill you have had a full breakdown of why this has happened. they are just trying to fob you off with an excuse and whoever you spoke too has no knowledge at all on how prepayment meters work or their own billing system.