Dated mid December.

The letter confirms that the accounts will be marked as satisfied with the CRAs. That's about the best I can hope for I think.

Just a note to cheer and encourage in light of all this. Just had a letter from the latest DCA goons acting for the Cooperative Bank, stating that their client is willing to waive the full amounts (allegedly) owed on my Northern Rock and Smile Credit Cards. This has been going on for over two and a half years, both agreements they sent me were copies of the signed agreement but both lacked prescribed terms. They have tried every trick in the book and used 6 DCAs, but I stuck to my guns and challenged them to take me to Court. They never did and now I have had this letter. The amount they have waived (their word), apparently due to my 'financial hardship' (although this has never been part of our discussions) was just over £24,000 !! I am keeping that letter like gold dust in case they try it on in the future, as it would be an instant defence. Debt..what debt...you waived it!!

The original post states that documents mentioned in a claim should be attached to the claim form. Please remember that this is not the case if the claim is filed using Money Claim Online.

See above in red.

Valhalla, I'm not saying all companies are trying to rip people off. However, if they are claiming they can make the debt disappear, get it off your credit record and also get you money back, then they are lying and are not to be trusted!

Do not pay these companies! They don't do anything that you can't do yourself, and they are misleading you with their claims. You may have unenforceable agreements, and that may mean you do not need to pay these debts. However, the debt is merely unenforceable against you, it does not disappear. If they claim to get it off your credit record and get money back for you, then they are lying. Read around the forums and then decide the best course of action for yourself, don't be ripped off!

Yes, and this was also the approach taken by the Wilson case judges.

Agreed, but I just wanted to clarify that it's no good stating to a judge that the agreement document wasn't attached to the claim form if the claim was started through MCOL.

Please remember that CPR 5.3 means that this is different for claims started using MCOL: 5.3 Paragraph 7.3 of the practice direction supplementing Part 16 (statements of case), which requires documents to be filed with the particulars of claim in contract claims, does not apply to claims started using an online claim form.

The problem with asking for the original document in Court is that the creditor will often cite the Civil Evidence Act as allowing them to prove a documents existence through a copy. The CEA reads: 8 Proof of statements contained in documents (1) Where a statement contained in a document is admissible as evidence in civil proceedings, it may be proved— (a) by the production of that document, or (b) whether or not that document is still in existence, by the production of a copy of that document or of the material part of it, authenticated in such manner as the court may approve. (2) It is immaterial for this purpose how many removes there are between a copy and the original. It is then up to the Judge, and it is by no means certain that the Judge will demand that the original document is produced.

See my post above, it was Francis Bennion who was the draughtsman of the CCA.

Hang on, I think I am wrong above Francis Bennion wrote the CCA 1974, Prof goode wrote the book Peter has. It was Francis Bennion that said this.

Yes

Yes, it's rubbish. From Wilson vs Hurstanger Ltd, COA June 2007 33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. Did you use this to argue against their claim?