First, I have been claiming JSA for a long while, and the BCOBS route seems to be the right path for me to reclaim recent penalty charges on my bank account. Thanks for your advice. However, I am also asking a broader question, not related to JSA and ESA. In 2008/9 I also filed a claim at the County Court for older bank charges under the UTCCR. The bank asked for it to be stayed until the OFT / High Court ruling was made... and the High Court ruled in the bank's favour, saying that the bank charges were 'core terms' and therefore not subject to the UTCCR. I thought that was the end of it and I had no case. The case is still stayed and I could revive it. I have been out of the loop for a while (depression, unemployment) so I am not up to date with recent developments. I have heard people say that the charges are unlawful penalties many times before, but it seemed to be pot luck whether a court agreed without citing UTCCR. Have there been any developments relating to pre-BCOBS? Are courts still ruling that these old charges are unlawful, irrespective of them not coming under UTCCR? Importantly, have there been any High Court rulings relating to bank charges being unlawful charges in the past 3 years?

Yes, I meant the OFT. I shouldn't post when I have a hangover :/ I've corrected the OP. Thanks.

I meant this new code, the BCOBS. Are bounced DD charges always, or generally, unfair, or deemed unfair when the customer is on JSA or ESA, or always fair? I can't find specific references in the BCOBS or the FSA or Banking guidelines to DDs and ESA/JSA. Is there any case law yet?

"Always the OC" - you mean the original creditor? I am wondering about this though. I have had a letter saying that my alleged debt has been transferred to a new creditor. I will be challenging the alleged debt partly on the basis that the original Agreemeant was not properly executed. No mention is made of transferring duties to the new would-be creditor. Look at how the Consumer Credit Act defines a creditor: Definitions.189.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires— .... “creditor ” means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor; ... I would regard any liabilty to refund excess charges as a 'duty'. I am not a lawyer though. As I understand it, the new creditor would ask a court to to force a creditor to pay up by enforcing the Credit (Card) Agreement, i.e. act as a creditor under the Consumer Credit Act. If they dont assume or perform the duties as required above, could it be argued that they do not meet the criteria of a creditor under the act? If the transfer of the debt from a credit card company to another company does not explicitly say that duties are also transferred, is it assumed that the new creditor is obliged to perform all the duties?

Credit Card Charges: I think this could be VERY important. When the OFT investigated Credit Card charges it backed off from making an explicit demand that charges reflect the true costs to consumers. The OFT, after consulting with banking bodies, set an upper limit of £12 for credit card charges (on what basis? The banks refused to co-operate and disclose their costs). It did not say the charges should be £12, or that a charge of £12 or less would necessarily be fair, but it would take no action over charges up to £12. (Why not?) The consensus from industry insiders seemed to indicate that the true cost to banks was £1-£2, which suggests that the banks are still inflating charges. The result of the OFT's action was that all banks fixed their charges at £12. Pretty ironic when you consider that one of the OFTs roles is to encourage competition and prevent price fixing. The result? I have looked at the charges of about 90 different credit cards in Banks and on the Internet. EVERY SINGLE ONE CHARGES £12 for late payment and for going over limit. I THINK THE DTI SHOULD INVESTIGATE CREDIT CARD ISSUERS FOR PRICE FIXING. (Which is embarrassing for the OFT as they effectively set the price). Perhaps the Competition Commission should look at this, but members of the public cannot refer things to the commission. I THINK THERE COULD BE A CASE AGAINST THE BANKS HERE.

Thanks for that. I am currently on JSA (paid into the bank, so they know) I may go down the Notice of Appropriatoon path. In the meantime am I able to reclaim such charges (when I was receiving JSA) back to 1 Nov 2009 (When I beleive the BCOBR came into force)? I note that the page on the BCOBR examples of unfair treatment http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?827-Examples-of-unfair-treament suggests that 'Charges on bounced DDs or cheques' are a 'probable breach of the rules'. This seems very broad. Does it mean excessive charges, or all such bounced DD charges 'may' be unfair? (I'll also delve into the forums and see what other people have said.) I am aware that the OFT took the banks to the high court about 3 years ago, and the Courts decided that the UTCCR did not apply because bank charges are 'core terms'. Does this Banking Code rectify that?

And what does that mean? no explanation? No link??

Some posters refer to the possibility of a copy of a CCA being produced in Court, where the original is unavailable/destroyed. Surely this is not permissible? I refer to Practice direction supplementing CPR Part 16: So surely the original must be produced in Court?

Thabks B3rty. Please note - the Scan is of the photocopy I retained before posting it years ago (with personal details removed). It is NOT a document received in response to an s78 request - I still await their response, the prescribed period is not yet over. My copy refers to terms and conditions on the other side of the document. I did not retain a copy of those. The card company may yet furnish a copy which shows that they are present and correct. We shall see. The only think I can see wrong at the moment is the title which is not a 'Credit Card Agreement Regulated By the Consumer Credit Act 1974' . The word 'Card' is missing.

Thanks again pt2537. I am looking at Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983 SI1983/1553 again now. The posted scan is a 100dpi jpg, which is less legible than the photocopy I possess of the original. That is why it may difficult to read. I am not sure what may be on the reverse of the document - I don't have a copy of that (lets see what my s78 request throws up) so perhaps missing parts of the agreement were on the reverse. It will be interesting if the true copy they provide is different to a part copy I possess - if it is different they will have failed to comply and the agreement will go to dispute. If they then start harassing me or demanding payment or report defaults to Credit Reference Agencies I will bring out the big guns - but let's hope it doesn't come to that. As far as I can see, the title of the document is deficient, as I stated above, but it sems that the term 'credit card' does not need to appear in the signature box, only 'credit' On problem I have is that the copy on the CAG statutes database sems to embody changes brought into force by subsequent SIs, so it is hard to determine the wording that would have been applicable when I signed in 1994. Does anyone know what statute requires document copies (such as those supplied under s77/78 ) to be legible? I think that would be useful for everyone seeking copies under CCA s77/78.

Copying part of a post by 'banker rhymes with': link He makes a point that is equally relevant to your agreement: I don't know if this would invalidate the agreement though. I havent looked at it to see if anything is else is wrong - I'm pretty new here too. BTW, the two scans look to me like they are the same document. Note the lower folded corner. Dark. I am not a Lawyer. CORRECTION: The agreement includes the option for Payment Protection Insurance. Therefore the agreement is not, in it's entirety, purely a Credit Card Agremeent. Therefore the title "Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974" IS CORRECT.

Hello everyone I am waiting or MBNA to come back with the copy of the CCA - I requested it under Consumer Credit Act 1974 and CPR 31.16 to see if they will produce a signed, executed agreement with all the terms and conditions. Now, I KEPT A COPY OF MY ORIGINAL APPLICATION FORM IN 1994! well, at least the side I signed. (see below) It is titled 'England Scenic Series Visa Card Application Form' and subtitled 'Credit Agreement Regulated By the Consumer Credit Act 1974' (note: not Credit Card Agreement - is this significant? Similarly, the signature box says 'This is a Credit Agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Sign if you only want to be legally bound by it's terms'. Again, not Credit Card. No Terms and Conditions are printed on the side I signed. They may be on the other side. I do not recall signing the other side, I am sure I would have copied that too for my records. I am suspecting that this document is completely deficient for the CCA1974. Remind me - after one applies, they don't then send Ts & Cs for signature do they? I am wondering if the Application and Agreement might be different documents, but again, I'm sure I would have retained a copy of any other signed document too. Here it is, with my identifying details removed. Comments and advice please?

Apologies, posts removed & seperate thread stated.

I make the observation that any sensible filing system would surely be based on debtor's name and/or account number. What else could it be based on? It should threfore be a simple matter to locate and retrieve such a document if it exists, even more so if they are on a computer database. Another comment: If a creditor is repeatedly in the habit, case after case, of producing a signed agreement in court at the last minute, having ignored earlier requests for disclosure during discovery, would this not constitute vexatious behaviour and abuse of process? The creditor surely has an obligation to attempt to settle out of court, and wilfully witholding documents that help their case would surely count against them when costs are being considered. This would not help debtors in a particular case, but would indicate a pattern over multiple cases. Can legal professionals here give any rough indication of costs typically awarded against a debtor for a document search by a creditor? Is it £tens, £hundreds or £thousands - just a ball park figure will do.

If this is response to my post above, I am still not sure if it gets them off the hook, if they sent a copy under 63(1) unless they at least included the date of signature in the copy. If the copy supplied under 63(1) does not explicitly include the date of the agreement (and the agreement has a cooling off period s68 ( b)), the copy is not lawful. From my experience all they supply is a pro-forma printed copy agreement without the date. Edit: Update. It appears from s67 of Consumer Credit Act 1974 that a Credit Card Agreement is unlikely to have a cooling off period, so s68 would not apply, and thus the date of the agreement does not have to be included in the copy, due to the provisions of Consumer Credit Regulations 1983