When was the debt taken out, originally? What are the date of claim (8th?) and response/reply dates? (14 days after the date of claim being issued) Is there anything attached to the claim form? Did you get a reply to your DPA SAR, eventually?

It's the only place they'll have me

I'm not sure I can make this now. There's so much going on elsewhere, I think giving most of my weekend up to come along (no matter how much alcohol in placcie bottles is promised) that it's a stretch too far. On the flip side, it's encouraging me to arrange a North East meet, which is still on the to-do list. (I just need more North East CAG members, so I'm on a recruitment drive! )

I think the anwswer would be that the Regs apply even where proceedings have started

And get a call recorder, while you're on

There is a site to help those in your situation - CAG is the answer Good on you for being positive in such a dreadful situation. You're choosing your response to it very well, whereas it could easily drag you down. Sadly, too much emphasis is placed on 'creditworthiness' these days, including being seen as lowlife for failing to manage your finances - CAG knows all too well the pitfalls there are in there. Don't worry, you'll always be welcome here! Incidentally, if you feel like you can help others, in the same way that those that have been through this in the same way as you have, we'd very much like you to continue visiting to assist those in need. This is what CAG is all about. It's never so daunting as it would be if you were doing this on your own. Onwards and upwards...

Strange they listen to customers who are in credit, yet totally ignore those that are overdrawn and being seriously impacted by the charges being applied, though, isn't it.I wonder which option the Boards of these Banks prefer? Answers on a post card.

Also 'stuck'. Can't stop laughing

Invalid Default notices can be remedied - instead of posturing, you might consider researching your case against rather than putting it in the public domain My point being, has what you are suggesting being tested, in such a way that you can rely on it

is this round 3, then?

if you can show that they haven't complied with Court orders, you need to apply for an order forcing their compliance - be sure, before you do, though, as costs will be in the case for the application. Sounds like something that needs some thought either way

The CO would, in effect, secure the debt against your property - that would prejudice other unsecured debts, as they would 'lose status' in any sale of the property, them being unsecured and secured debts taking precedence.In effect, the Court should look at this issue when awarding a CO. Not sure on it's success as an argument, TBH, but there are others you can use to 'bolster' it with.

MT, you always have to do what is right for you and yours and not something that an anonymous person on a public forum says you should - I totally respect your decision to take control of the situation and to make this the 'right' outcome for you. We aren't all 'consumer champions' and it's never an easy decision to take, but I think you're doing the right thing for you in your situation. The next steps are to contact them, perferably in writing/by fax, so you can lay your terms of settlement out. Best to get a consent order drawn up (the other side should do that for you) and have the Court seal it as settled on those terms. This way, there can be no confusion as to what has/hasn't been agreed and both sides will know the score.

Is this on the small claims track, BTW? If not, I fear the best you can achieve is a settlement without an amended defence

Sadly, I think you're right, Caro. There's not much going for Defendant's focusing on this issue, solely, I fear. Yes. The act of bringing a claim is not enforcement - see the Harrison v Link case.

What were the directions of the Court? You seem to have posted the amended POC, but were the other side not told to submit further argument? It looks like you've given a defence statement, which is quite detailed. What happened with the CPR request? I think the best thing that could happen here, is that you amend your defence to suit the new amended POC, and cover all the outstanding issues: * Enforceable credit agreement * Accurate Default Notice * Compliance with Courts Orders * Non-compliance with CPR request * Unlawful termination due to charges applied

it would be useful to see POC Defence What are the dates of any hearings? Those already heard, what were they and when is the next deadline/hearing? I know this is on the thread, but I don't have time to look through 9 pages, so if you could give a (brief) summary so far please?

Quite right, Peter. What you actually said was: Are you saying that's now not right? I can see how you'd be confused, if you're thinking about Dunlop, as Dunlop was about penalty charges, whereas bank charges aren't penalty charges, because the agreement includes provision for them. Further confusion is that credit card charges have similar terms in agreements, but we haven't seen proof in caselaw that the same applies.

The SC stated that the OFT didn't have the powers under the UTCCRs that they brought the case on to assess the fairness of the charges - it's a common misconception that the SC declared the charges as fair. In fact, they said that they should be challenged under reg 5, but that isn't easily done 'en masse' as it requires individual unfairness in the case. (and almost requires individual unfairness per charge applied)

Last warning - stop the personal attacks, or this thread will be locked (like all the rest) and offenders will be placed on moderation. This forum is more about issues people are facing, then big egos and the site team won't allow this to continue. Any quoting of this post with further comment will be removed - if you have complaints, direct them to site admin.

Perhaps referring to a publicly available judgment, rather than references to other forums, (where members can neither prove nor deny what happened either way) would be in order. There's a question here of precedent - does the 'case' referred to act as a precedent to others in the same situation. I can't say either way, as there's no caselaw being bandied around about it, only opinions based on evidence which some seem reluctant to post. Makes me wonder why, but it's certainly not in the spirit of CAG, hence it was removed accordingly. My point is, what is a genuine pre-estimate of charges in one case may not be in another, as it would turn on the case presented, the facts of that case, and the Courts interpretation of all of that. If there's a case out there that can be referred to which puts my mind at rest on that issue, please post it.

The key would be it needs to be 'unfair' - so, it's not unfair to say the docs aren't available when they aren't, but it is unfair to say that they are available, but we're not giving them to you

It's worse than a Dallas cliff hanger, this one!

One more go... (call me a tryer...)Anyone with any questions and advice about these regs? (There must be someone, somewhere...)

**sigh** Was just thinking we were getting somewhere.Posts were removed for quoting unapproved posts - too many to inform users of individually, apologies for that. Some times posts that remain don't make sense, so are unapproved along with the originals.My last post was clearly not subtle enough, so here goes again.Stick to forum rules, or posts will be unapproved and repeat offenders will be dealt with appropriately. If you think that posts are in breach of rules, please report them, so site team can review them and action as appropriate.