So which sections contradict Sections 77, 78 and 127, as those are the ones we are most interested in?

I don't really think the basics of agreements and which are unenforceable is particularly difficult. It's just that the consumer must be well prepared and able to point the judge in the right direction for the relevant sections. As we've said before, the judge will not do the debtor's work for them.

Do you know that for a fact AC?

Prescribed terms: 8.3 What are the prescribed terms? The prescribed terms specified in Sch 6 are as follows: • amount of credit – see Q8.4 • credit limit – see Q8.5 • rate of interest – see Q8.6 • repayments – see Q8.9.

I'm sure I've read something about this before, but can't remember where. Anyway, I have a couple of agreements where the creditor has signed and sent the agreement to me to be signed. Therefore, one would assume that the agreement was executed on my signature. However, these agreements also state: "The agreement will only be binding on us when you have signed and returned this credit agreement to us and we have completed our final checks." Are there any implications to this statement being included? It should work that my signature executed the agreement and therefore made it binding. But the creditor is maintaining an option to still back out of the agreement, so is the agreement actually executed on my signature if it's not actually binding on them? Just seems a bit weird to me. Any thoughts?

I'm saying that it looks suspicious. It could be that the original was a double sided document. However, if they send us a two page agreement, then how can we know that they belong together unless there is some kind of reference number that links them? Otherwise, they could just take the signature page and add any other pages they like on the front. In the case of these Egg agreements (I have one similar) the type font on each page looks different to me. That, in my mind, is highly suspicious and makes me think they were never actually part of the same document. I have asked Egg for an explanation of this, but am still awaiting a reply.

I think it's rubbish to be honest. There are times when there can be a problem with the agreement but a judge can still enforce. However, if there is no signed agreement, or if the signed agreement lacks any of the prescribed terms, then a judge CANNOT enforce as long as these problems are pointed out to him. I would have thought that, if what he was saying had any merit, he'd have been only too happy to tell you what he meant. Why wouldn't he? Presumably you'd find out anyway when they attempted these alternative enforcement methods and this would involve extra work from them. Surely it would make more sense to tell you what he meant and let you decide whether to make a payment in light of this information. I reckon it's just more scare tactics.

Is there anything which links the two documents together? Like the same reference number on each one?

Your advice is wrong because it is leaving the member open to a disaster. Let's imagine that the document sent is simply the actual signed agreement that they have with the signatures blanked out. He just writes back and says not enforceable, no payments. They take him to court, and produce exactly the same document, but this time with the signature there. A CCJ is then a formality for them to obtain. He cannot say they withheld the document because they provided it, and like it or not, they are allowed to blank out the sigs for a response to S77/78. I am not arguing what an executed agreement must contain, that is clear. I am, though, saying that you can not say it's unenforceable just because the document they sent has the sigs blanked out. The 1983 regs allow them to do this on copy docs sent for the sake of S77/78!! The member should now openly state the liability for the debt is in question and they want to see the signed document. That way, should the creditor take them to court, they can say they asked for it and it wasn't provided. My opinion is that they probably would have sent the signed document if they had it. But note that's PROBABLY. We can't assume that, and it's assumptions like this that leave people with a CCJ that could have been avoided.

It doesn't have to be handwritten, what about agreements that are printed and sent out to be signed? More often than not, it's the application forms that are handwritten. The rest of your post, Josie, is exactly what I said, but an executed agreement with the signatures blanked out would look exactly like the agreement provided here. And no matter what anyone says, they do not have to include signatures to comply with S77/78. That's why I say it's time to move to the next level and question liability for the debt. Force them to reveal what signed documents they actually do have.

Their copy for the purpose of S77/78 doesn't have to comply with those sections regarding the signatures, only the original does. Sorry, but I don't believe you are giving good advice in this case.

Look, I'm not disputing that an agreement needs to be signed to be executed, nor that a creditor will need to produce the original agreement in court. I am saying that, for the sake of complying with S77/78 they can omit the signatures as per the 1983 regs. Therefore, if the agreement provided has all of the prescribed terms and the debtor's details on it, it's useless to keep harping onto them about non-compliance. This is now the time to take the bull by the horns and say you don't believe you ever signed an agreement and are disputing liability of the debt unless you are shown the document you signed complete with your signature. In this case, S77/78 are of no more use.

No, S77 - 79 require a copy of the executed agreement, but they are allowed to omit the signatures. If this is indeed his original agreement, and they have merely covered up the signatures, they have complied.

Stop paying then. If they have admitted that no agreement exists then they cannot enforce the debt.

Overdrafts are covered by the CCA but not in the same way, and they are not required to have a credit agreement to cover an overdraft.

Not sure that helps in this situation. It sounds like the agreement has all of the prescribed terms and so it's no use questioning it's form and content. What Wednesday needs to know is, did he sign an agreement like this? The creditor in this case is right in that the regulations DO allow them to omit signatures from copies supplied for Section 77. It would help to see this agreement, Wednesday. Does it have all of your details printed on it? Post it if you can, the way forward may be to openly dispute liability for this debt and ask them to show you the document you signed. Section 77 is unlikely to be of further use as they appear to have complied with your request.

sue, you're right, it's rubbish. They haven't supplied you with your agreement so this certainly is an account in dispute. I'd send them this: [Their address] [Date] [Your address] Account number: xxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear sir or madam Request for true copy of Credit Agreement under Sections 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I wrote to you recently requesting a true, signed copy of any credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. This is my right under Sections 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on payment of the statutory fee of £1.00. This payment was included with my original request. Under the terms of the above Act, a creditor has 12 working days to provide the requested document. Should they fail to do this, they have a further calendar month to rectify this default. Failure to comply within these timescales is a criminal offence. Both of these deadlines have now passed and I have received nothing in relation to my request. This can lead me to only one conclusion, that being that no signed credit agreement exists in relation to this account. As I am sure you are aware, an agreement that does not contain all of the prescribed terms, and/or is not signed by the debtor, is completely unenforceable, even in a court of law. This will be a complete defence to any court action that you may consider taking. On the advice of the Financial Ombudsman, I am now requesting a final decision in this matter from you. Should this decision not meet with my satisfaction, then I will pursue the matter through the Ombudsman. The maximum timescale for you to give a final response to any complaint is 8 weeks. This time runs from the date of my original complaint, in this case that is the request for a true copy of the credit agreement. Therefore, you must provide me with a final response in this matter, including your proposed actions for this account, by [insert date]. Please note, you may also consider this letter a statutory notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with the credit reference agencies. Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’, you must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends. There has never been any regulated agreement in relation to this account, and therefore you have never had my consent to process my data. I also do not see how you can state that you have a legitimate interest in processing my data as we have never had any contract that would enable you to do this. Should you fail to respond within 21 days, I will expect that this means you agree to remove all such data. Furthermore, you should remember that a creditor is not permitted to take any action against an account whilst it remains in dispute. The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and therefore the following applies: You may not demand any payment on this account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. You may not add any further interest or charges to this account. You may not pass this account to any third party. You may not register any information in respect of this account with any of the credit reference agencies. You may not issue a default notice related to this account. Be warned, the CCA 1974 is clear that a default can only be issued for breach of a valid, regulated agreement. If there is no agreement, as in this case, then you cannot issue a default as I have not breached any valid, regulated agreement. I look forward to your final decision on this complaint within 21 days. This should include your proposed actions in relation to the lack of a credit agreement. Yours faithfully [Your name]

They can, though. There's nothing that says they can't apply to court, even if no credit agreement exists. In these cases, they will be relying on the fact that the debtor does not have the knowledge to challenge them. As we've seen in individual cases on here, if they apply in court and no defence is entered, they will be given judgement even in the absence of an agreement. The judge will not do the debtor's work for them. That's why it is important to get the defence right, and make sure the judge knows that the circumstances that exist preclude him from making an enforcement order. You can also PM me a copy if you like.

There is no requirement for bank overdrafts to have a consumer credit agreement, so Section 77/78 requests are useless as fas as overdrafts go.

I wouldn't take them to court, just write to them and say you won't be paying. It's up to them to show the court it is enforceable, not the debtor to instigate the action to show it isn't.

From the OFT guidance on what an agreement must contain: 5 In the case of all running-account agreements, instead of giving details of the total charge for credit as in point 4 above, the details to be shown are the rate of any interest on the credit provided under the agreement and the total amount of other credit charges (for example, a commitment fee).

Hi Peter, as an application form, couldn't this be void then as per discussions further up the page?

Don't think that needs to be there for running account credit. How could they tell you the total charge, it would depend on how much you spent/monthly payments etc. That only needs to be there for fixed sum credit, like loans.

Also, there is a statement that the agreement would only be binding on them when they have completed their final checks. This may be challengeable, then, as a void agreement as it purports to bind you to a future regulated agreement.

Zubo, I'm still going through all this with Egg, who now have Hillesden acting for them. In my opinion, there's nothing they can do until they AT LEAST fully comply with S78, and that means that they must send the terms and conditions applicable at the time the account was opened. The results of my SAR brought some interesting internal messages showing the guy who was dealing with my complaint frantically contacting other departments within Egg looking for those T&Cs. I've never had them, so am pretty sure they can't find them. To me this will be a complete defence to any court claim, as they remain in default of S78. This is in addition to all of the points you've raised above. I would suggest, too, that the pre-trial letter is just one more attempt to scare you. Remember, as well, to keep shoving threats of a counterclaim for S85 at them. They will be terrified of losing a counterclaim on this basis as it could potentially cost them millions. Look carefully, too, at the two pages as on mine it would appear that they type font is different on each one, which would be extremely strange for what is supposed to be a single document.