Thanks FttE for the post But that's my point, they haven't even complied according to Carey. They have sent no agreement whatsoever - not even a cut and paste job but they then talk about 'your agreement' in their letters. They will not/ cannot admit that they dont have one and are obviously attempting to mislead me - which is against OFT rules. I am still trying to figure out the best way to alert any authority that might listen

but is it not a "legal" issue as opposed to a particular bank issue?

ok thanks

"Running away from debt"? All I did was ask for a copy of my agreement and they haven't provided one. As I understand it, under the law, until they provide a copy then the agreement is unenforceable - is that not still the case? What's important (and the reason for my post) is their response to my request and the OFT guidelines with respect to unfair dealings and misleading a consumer. I realise that they might still be able to wreck my file - but they have written to me stating that they have complied with my request and the 'copy agreement supplied is sufficient' when no agreement (recon or otherwise) has been provided by them. They are being underhanded and misleading and I want to report it - that's why I posted

barking up the wrong tree - is there another one I should be looking for or can they just plough on through regardless now? I am correct in believing its unenforceable at the moment aren't I?

Thanks silverfox, I realise that but I am now more concerned about their blatant attempts to conceal the fact that they don't have an agreement and the claims in their letters that they have satisfied the requirements of CCA 1974 which clearly they have not. they haven't even sent a recon Additionally, DPA requires that information is accurate. How do they know that if they don't have an agreement to refer to? I want to complain about their conduct - but who to what's the best course?

Can anyone help please. I made a s78 requested to Barclaycard for a copy agreement when my account was in order. They replied with the usual stuff re copy agreements, Carey v HSBC, reconstituted agreements etc etc. they sent T& C's but DID NOT provide any copy agreement at all. I wrote again pointing this out and their response was that the "documents provided satisfied their obligations under s78" but still no copy agreement was provided (reconstituted or otherwise) I wrote for a third time referring to CPUTR 2008 and OFT guidelines on misleading consumers as to the existence of an agreement when non exists. I confirmed my understanding that as no copy agreement had been provided, the account was now in dispute and stopped paying They replied stating that I they had provided a final response and would not enter into further correspondence. I have now received a "notice of default" from MERCERS DCA as three payments have now been missed I want to make an official complaint but how and who to? I understand the FOS is somewhat unreliable for consumers so am assuming its the OFT? Can anyone advise a way forward please? Thanks

And I would LOVE to counterclaim

Assignee went for summary judgement which I defended successfully based on improperly executed agreement and dodgy DN (the original was invalid so they made one up and submitted it!) Judge has ordered them to submit copies of all s87 notices served on the defendant Now set for trial in June

The Mould If the date of assignment stated on the Deed is different to the actual date of assignment, then, the assignment is invalid and the title of the contract and all rights and benefits thereof remain as vested interest of the original party, the first party - the creditor. The NoA states a date of assignment but I haven't seen actual evidence of any "DEED" yet just an agreement between the parties stating an intention to assign but no evidence that an assignment has actually taken place. The date stated on the NoA is different to TWO other dates noted in the OC's SAR response The OC can Terminate and assign the contract absolute to the assignee (the new creditor), this would be a legal assignment LOP 1925 sec 136(1). Yes but my question was, does Termination need to the place BEFORE an assignment can happen and I've been advised that it is not necessary (seems strange that termination plays no part in all this) The assignee (new creditor) would then carry on with the performance obligations under the contract in the same consistent manner as the assignor (the original creditor) would have done. The assignee has taken legal action on the basis of a DN having already been issued by OC but that DN was not valid and they know it. Has the new creditor commenced with proceedings against you? Yes - see above Which of the two creditors delivered the Notice of Assignment to you? The assignee Thanks for your input, I hope I haven't confused things?

Ok, thanks again Andy The story is; 1.OC sent invalid DN 2.OC assigned debt 3. New owner takes legal action stating that DN had been served and acc had been terminated So if I've got this right; 1. The account cannot have been terminated and OC could not enforce as OC's DN was not valid 2. As the new C has not issued a valid DN of their own, they cannot enforce either? and 3. At the end of all this, any (alleged) termination is irrelevant. Is that about it?

But a valid DN needs to be served before enforcement - yes? And if the OC has not served a valid DN then the new owner must serve one before they enforce - yes? The point is, the OC sent a duff DN then assigned the debt. New owner has issued proceedings stating that a valid DN was served and then account terminated - so; 1. OC no valid DN served, they can assign but cannot terminate - yes? 2. New owner cannot enforce as no valid DN has been served by the old or new owner - yes? 3. So what is the point of termination? What purpose does it serve if it is not needed to assign or enforce a debt? Mould - yes a NoA was received with a dodgy date (SAR info says two different dates) Claimant (new owner) has still not provided proof of lawful assignment (the DEED itself)

Hi andyorch Thanks for responding. I had missed payments. I did not send a s78 request but had already sent several letters and a SAR asking for a copy of the agreement and all to no avail. Is that in dispute?

OK thanks, So does that mean that an OC can assign an account without first serving a Default Notice and if so, would the new creditor then have to serve a DN before being able to enforce?

Can anyone tell me please, must a Credit Card account be terminated by the OC before they can assign it to a 3rd party? In other words, when buying the account, does the new creditor buy all the terms and conditions as set out and are they obliged to continue administering the account as it was originally agreed or does the OC terminate the account so the new creditor can bring in it's own terms? Thanks

Thanks Scott I've had a read but there's no mention of Default Charges in that thread but I've managed to suss out that they are actually covered by UTCCRs 1999 Cheers

Anyone? PLEASE??

Did I read somewhere that Default charges MUST be stated in the terms and conditions for an agreement to be properly executed? If so, can anyone point me to the relevant legislation/schedule for me to quote please? Cheers

Can a creditor supply a "reconstituted agreement" in response to a SAR? I thought recons were only permitted for requests under S77/78 CCA1974? Thanks anyone

..

Thanks silverfox for your input. I've looked through the info on the link and its a little heavy for me but I'll have another (slower) look tomorrow As regards cancellation rights - I'm still not entirely sure when an agreement is and when one isn't cancellable. Is there anywhere I can get a definitive answer regarding CCA1974? but there lies another problem in that non compliance with CCA1974 means it is only enforceable by an order of the court. If on the other hand it does not comply with distance regs, then there is no apparent/obvious penalty? Very confusing

A little light bedtime reading there for me then? Thanks again for your help

Thanks Rebel but those are the pages I got my information from in the first place and while they state what is required, they dont state what happens in the case of non compliance. Ideally there would be case law to quote when cancellation rights are omitted but I cant find anything. With the "prescibed terms" for instance in an agreement, any omissions immediately render the agreement unenforceable but the Distance Marketing regs dont seem to state the consequences of an omission such as cancellation rights Any other ideas?

I have a loan agreement dated October 2005 which was completed by post and not face-to-face and therefore non cancellable according to CCA1974 The Financial Services (Distance Marketing) Regulations 2004 however state that a cancellation notice must be present in any agreement but I cant find anything about penalties for non compliance Does anyone know what the implications are for a loan agreement that has no cancellation notice? Thanks

Perfect! Thanks for your help - much appreciated