Wolfhead only you can decide what if any further action you wish to take. Certainly reading the threads of people in a similar position will help. The main thing is time is on your side, you don't have to start it all off now or next week, etc. Why not make a start with a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act for all the information they have on you. Will only cost you £10 and the information they send, you will need later anyway. Plus its nice to know exactly what they do and do not have! Also as they have 40 days to reply you get plenty of time to start research and considering what if anything your going to do.

The CCA is the Consumer Credit Act. What you need to request is the credit agreement in accordance with the CCA. As Belaflat says tomterm is the man.

Wolfhead - unlike bank charges this is very new ground to tread. Several people are looking at the possibility of claiming it all back or in the alternative the interest charges. Myself I have been researching it all for several months and I think its possible but will be another couple of months before I might be ready to give it a go.

As they have cashed your cheque, there is no doubt that they have received your request. So its worth "spending" the £1 just so they can't deny receiving your request.

Did you get anywhere with this Annalh?

Thanks (twice) shane.

Well, have just googled "fast track court" and now have leaflet EX305 to read from the Gov website, lets see what that tells us. Fast track and multi track

I have a claim I wish to make, that involves well in excess of £5,000 and is not a run of the mill bank charges case. It is a money claim and involves restitution for breach of contract. Now I think it will be allocated to the FAST TRACK? Further if I lose the case I could be liable for costs? Now thats as much as I think I know, anyone carried out a FAST TRACK action? Anyone know where I can go to research more on this. I would like a better understanding of what FAST TRACK is all about and what the risks are of getting clobbered with costs before I head blindly off into this.

The Wilson court case was originally in a County Court and after a number of years finished up in the House of Lords, so the fact it was from 1999 is not important. I was trying to find out if anyone else had read through section 173 and understood what it all meant?

Thank you ncf. I will print this off and have a read.

Chichester

I have a court date of the 20th November and it hasn't been stayed.

A huge loss to us all http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/100730-richard-spud-cags-loss.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/100466-thanks-richard.html

I would make that the first item on your POC. Followed by a claim to give it all back please.

Anyone else been puzzling over this clause? Can anyone explain what it all means? I read 173 (3) as an "unenforceable agreement" is enforceable if both parties agree. So in a POC I have included - "the Defendant does not have the Claimant's consent under section 173(3). In the UKHL 40 - Wilson we have the following paragraghs; 31. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement are for the protection of borrowers. They do not deprive a regulated agreement of all legal effect. They do not render a regulated agreement void. A regulated agreement is enforceable by the debtor against the creditor. It seems, for instance, that a borrower may insist on making further drawdowns under a regulated agreement even though the agreement is unenforceable against him. Further, section 173(3) expressly permits consensual enforcement against a borrower. A borrower may consent to the sale of a security or to judgment. Moreover, the creditor is entitled to retain any security lodged until either an application for an enforcement order is dismissed or the court makes a declaration under section 142 that the agreement is not enforceable. That is the effect of sections 113(3) and 106. plus again from Wilson 39. On its face article 1 is engaged in this case, most obviously with regard to the BMW car delivered by Mrs Wilson to First County Trust as security. On delivery First County Trust as pawnee acquired a proprietary interest in the car. That was in January 1999. The company's proprietary interest ceased eight months later, in September 1999, when the court refused to make an enforcement order. In addition, both parties acquired contractual rights under the agreement. 'Possessions' in article 1 is apt to embrace contractual rights as much as personal rights. Contractual rights may be more valuable and enduring than proprietary rights. But, by virtue of the statute, the contractual rights acquired by First County Trust were enforceable only with the consent of the borrower pursuant to section 173(3). And finally from an OFT FAQ on credit agreements that I found a while back; Section 173 provides that a term in a regulated agreement or linked transaction is void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with any provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer (or a relative or any surety) contained in the Act or regulations made under it. Any and all comments appreciated.

Have you sent Next a CCA request? They almost never have a credit agreement making the account unenforceable.

I have to knock together a revised POC between now and end of this weekend - would you mind if I posted them on here for comment, revisions and hopefully refinement!

Good post GaryH #361 exactly the bits I have highlighted in Sempra. But I have only read the first 70 paragraphs out of the 240! While doing research for the original claim using M+R, I found the accounts for Cap1 from 2000 and 2001 and both years they made just over 30% profit. So I am planning on continuing at around 29% but am happy to consider any further debate on this. My biggest issue is that now Cap1 paid the original charges I am going to struggle to get a judgement that they are unlawful! One option am considering is to resubmit POC and when Cap1 defend, if the defence questions charges are unlawful will request a stay until after OFT test case.

No joy am afraid. The court Case Manager has written back, the Judge has commented as follows "I am not prepared to make the order requested by the Claimant on his written request". Please find enclosed an application form N244. The problem is that my claim is only for £30 so with the court fee it is £60. The cost of an Application without notice is £35 and I think this cost is not recoverable. So really not worth doing it. Will wait for the court date.

Felix, I have had a free holiday! No contact from expedia since I returned

Cap1's usual rate 29.8% I think it was. It was that rate when the account was running as well.

I claimed Contractural with Statutory in the alternative. The £125 in charges were from just over 6 years ago and the account was open for only 14 months. So Cap1 have repaid the charges, plus all the interest ever charged on the account (around £30) and the court fee. But my claim for CI came to around £700 on top of the £125.

Any thoughts???

I have a charges plus CI claim against CapOne. Their defence was they had refunded the charges (and they ignored the CI). They paid the charges in my claim the day before court. I faxed the court to advise them and also requested leave to consider Sempra. The court gave me a month to revise my POC. I am half way through reading Sempra. As the charges have been paid, I can not get a judgement. But given that CapOne paid them the day before court can I not argue that this was just a ploy to avoid a judgement and undermine my CI claim?

Maybe this is why Next Directory and Littlewoods both write back to credit agreement requests with "the enclosed is what would have been sent to you and should have been signed by you". They must be viewing this as them complying with the section 77 request? I agree, wide open to abuse and another issue to research and educate the good people of the CAG.