Whether the OC says it's legitimate or not is irrelevant. I've done this, taken Barclaycard to court and the court ordered the disclosure of the original document. At this point, they sent me the wrong agreement and since I have not paid them a penny. I could seek an injunction, but as I know they haven't got the original signed copy, then the court is [unlikely] to enforce the debt if they try to seek an enforcement order. I'm taking my chances that they won't bother seeking enforcement. If they do, the judge is going to take a very dim view if the disclosure docs include the original, which is still missing prescribed terms anyway. What most people appear to be doing is sending the OC/DCA the CPR disclosure request and not following up with court action. This isn't going to get you anywhere. It's like an OC/DCA saying that if you don't pay, it might take you to court. After a while, you see so many threats, they are ignored. Of course the OC/DCA is going to say it's not the right procedure. My judge disagreed!

I was waiting until now. Right now, I'm writing letters to the legitimate creditors to offer full and final settlements (they have been very fair to me). The rest I'm stopping payment and asking them to seek enforcement of the debt through the courts as I would prefer the courts to decide if the agreements are enforceable and if they decide that they are, I will be happy to settle the 'alleged' debt. I'll start new threads for the others and will update all with Barclaycards response in due course.

Hi BH, Any update on this?

If I change the methodology, then of course the ones that were not complaining will start to complain because they will get less. They were getting too much... The CCCS did this, not me. I questioned it a few times, but they fobbed me off saying that their computers calculated it in a way to pay the debt off quicker.... Something to do with contractual interest and non-revolving credit via loans compared to credit cards. Their view was that if a credit card company was prepared to lend cash and accept a 3% minimum payment amount so that it would take 25 years to pay off a large balance, then they were taking a longer credit risk than a loan provider who was sure to get it all back within 5 years, so the loan provider should be paid quicker than the credit card provider. None of my debts are enforceable in court, but I'm still paying them off anyway... for now.

I disagree. Did you work through my example above? The CCCS do not consider the total amount of debt at all. They only consider what was originally meant to be paid. Let's say I was paying £100 to two creditors and one was getting £10 a month for a debt of £2,000 and the other was getting £90 a month for a debt worth £180. If I lost my job and could only afford to pay £10 a month, according to the CCCS, the one that was getting £10 a month would only get £1 a month and the one that was getting £90 a month would only get £9 a month - regardless of the amount outstanding. So assuming no further interest or charges, the one with £180 outstanding would be paid in full by 20 months @ £9 a month and the other one would, by this point, still have £1,980 outstanding, which would then be paid the full £10 a month for the remaining 198 months. Does this help?

Thanks, but it seems I wasn't clear enough. What I am saying is that the CCCS do not calculate the pro-rated payments like the rest of the world... They calculate the payments as an equal portion of the original contractual amount payable each month. Now I've taken over from them, I've used the same methodology as they did, otherwise it wouldn't be equitable. Now some are complaining, although it was good enough for them for 3 years, so why isn't it now?

I wonder if anyone can help: I've been on a DMP for nearly 3 years with the CCCS and about 5 months ago took over the plan myself because the CCCS refused to stop paying a couple of creditors when they started being difficult and didn't have any paperwork and eventually sold the disputed debts on (in the middle of an FOS investigation). That's another story, but anyway... my circumstances changed a little bit - basically, my outgoings increased (council tax, utilities etc.) leaving me about £30 a month less than I had before, so I wrote to all the creditors and explained that my income was the same as before, but my outgoings had increased, so I had less to go around. I worked out that the CCCS had pro-rated my payment to the creditors based on the original monthly contractual payment rather than the usual pro-rated calculation where you weight each payment according to the outstanding amount. I followed what the CCCS had done and each creditor was offered an amount approximately £2-3 less a month than they were getting before. [Just in case this isn't clear, as an example, I originally thought that if I owed the following amounts: MBNA Credit Card: £1,000 Natwest Loan: £2,000 and I had £30 a month to give them, MBNA would get £10; and Natwest would get £20 But this is not how the CCCS did it. They looked at the contractual payments so although the balances were the same, at the time of the DMP being set-up, originally the payments were, let's say... MBNA Credit Card: £30 a month (would take 18 years to pay off with this minimum payment) Natwest Loan: £100 a month (payable over 2 years) The CCCS would work it out by saying that £30 available of £130 contractual payment is 23%, so... MBNA would get £30 x 23% (£7) Natwest would get £100 x 23% (£23).....] In a way, this seems fair because if MBNA were willing to extend credit to me for 18 years, but Natwest only for 5 years, it should be only fair that Natwest should be paid back quicker in the event of a problem. I've got less available, so I wrote to all the creditors and offered exactly the same information that the CCCS gave them (I copied what information they sent to one of the creditors from a SAR request) and some have agreed the new amounts and others have rejected it, saying that according to their figures, I can pay them more, These ones have clearly used the method which I always believed was used. So for nearly 3 years, I've had little trouble, but now, the phone calls and letters are coming in thick and fast. I've tried explaining to a couple of them that I've got less available, so I'm offering them less and am following exactly the same methodology that the CCCS followed but they just won't accept that their computer is wrong... I can't change the methodology now otherwise the other creditors will start complaining then. Anyone know how to tackle this one? I'm almost tempted to cook the books and tell the complainers that I made a mistake and the total amount of debt is bigger, so their pro-rated payment is right according to the method they are using, but I'd rather be fair about it. Has anyone else experienced this after leaving the CCCS? :-?

My point is... I'm a will pay. I borrowed the money and they lent it to me with proper legal documentation which they kept and promptly sent me copies of originals (signed) when I asked for them. Fair enough. I spent it, got into trouble, couldn't pay, and they were accommodating. The least I can do from a moral standpoint is pay back everything I borrowed - especially as they also froze the interest charges and have effectively given me an interest free loan for the last 3 years. If the account has been passed to a DCA, or I have been treated unfairly, then that's a different story!

The XXXX is your local court which handles bankruptcy hearings. Check at www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk. Click on 'Court Information and Addresses' and look up your nearest County Court. In the 'work type' box, you are looking for Bankruptcy.

I've not done anything with this. At the moment, if I lose a case and cannot pay, then I'll get a CCJ and lose my job - not something I can afford to do!!! However, next year, I am coming into some money. Those creditors who have a properly executed agreement with all the prescribed terms on will be paid in full immediately. Those that have been messing me about will get nothing and will be invited to take me to court to enforce payment. I can't be bothered at the moment in seeking an injunction. I would rather let them waste their time for a while and stringing them along. I'm confident on the phone with them now, so am happy to have some fun in the meantime and whilst they mess about trying to get me to pay a debt with no legal basis for doing so. I'll be sitting on the cash in an account somewhere earning me interest (albeit little interest right now).

I'm not sure why you're on an IVA with just £3k of debt - or £5k as it is now. Sounds like you have been ill advised. My advice is to call CCCS or another free service and ask them for advice. It may be that you should come off the IVA and go onto a DMP and the CCCS would be able to stop or reduce most interest charges.

OMG - I'm loving this. It's about time someone exposed them for what they are. Shame on the OFT too. I hope they are embarrassed. For those who are visiting for the first time, then help is at hand. EVERYONE on here wants people to know their legal rights and challange the DCAs. If you have a problem with Marlin or any other DCA, start a new thread. People are here, online now, waiting to help.

Hi PT! Welcome back. See post 240 above. It explains where I am now. Basically, they have not got the agreement for the debt in dispute, but can only find an old one, which was settled in 2003/4.

Hi Slick, Yes. It was very useful, but I've no idea how to fill in the N1 or how much it costs when there is no claim for cash... Where can I find this out?

In this case, if I decided to stop paying those creditors that have no CCA, then I should be prepared to settle in full within 30 days if a judge ruled against me for whatever reason. I had better get the cash together then. Roll on next March. This is when I'll be in a position to do this after 3 years of a DMP!!!

Bump - any ideas how I go about getting the injunction? I'm keen to finish this off once and for all.

I'm registered with 'a certain' regulator, and a CCJ would probably mean that I would lose it - and could not continue in my current employment. If I start the injunction, then the worst case is that the judge could order me to pay costs. If I stopped paying and BC got an enforcement order with an agreement which is illegible and the wrong one anyway (not unheard of), then I would get a CCJ. It's a huge risk for me to take, so the injunction seems the way to go!

I want an injunction against them ever trying to enforce the debt, then I don't have to wait six years for it to disappear. This is what the judge asked me if I was trying to do and I agreed - then she granted the order. I can't risk getting a CCJ - I will lose my job.

FBA, you need to start from the beginning of the thread. I've already taken BC to court and they were ordered by the judge to produce a true copy of the original. They sent me an agreement which related to an old account which was settled and closed two years before I opened the one in dispute. Advice on here was to tell the court that they have not complied with the Court Order, suggesting contempt, which I did. The court replied by saying that they will not advise of my next steps. Seems they don't care that BC produced another incorrect agreement. They clearly don't have it, so I think I can easily just stop paying and wait for them to react or I can seek an injunction. I would rather seek an injunction as this is what the judge hinted at during the hearing. PT/anyone else familiar with the injunction route - please can you help?

Quick update on this: I sent a letter to the court explaining that Barclaycard had not complied with the Order and the Court replied to me this week saying: "Your letter dated 6 June 2009 has been placed before the District Judge who directs that:- It is not for the court to advise the claimant as to what steps he should take"... I guess my only option is to stop paying and invite Barclaycard to try and enforce it using the wrong agreement...?

Hi, The point is, you asked for a copy of the agreement under CCA s.78 and they sent you, legitimately, a copy which was unsigned. They are allowed to do this. Unfortunately, it doesn't help you because they might have a signed copy hidden away somewhere that they could produce in court if they wanted to get a court order for enforcement. So the next step is to ask them which documents they would use in court and ask them to send you a copy under the pre-disclosure rules - hence the CPR 31.16 request. They have confused the two and not sent you what they would use in court, so you should remind them that they have not complied with you CPR 31.16 request and give them another 21 days and then if they still have not complied, then you can seek a court order for them to disclose. There's no need for a letter of action unless you want to give them a third chance. I didn't with barclaycard and it worked for me. A CPR 31.16 request is actually a pre-action disclosure request, so it should already be considered by their legal department as a letter before action (unless they comply).

Mine was exactly as Fingers. Fingers - when is your hearing? Do you have a thread?

I sent the DSAR today (guessed it would come up today, so prepared it last night). I guess Barclays may say that they took the accounts from Morgan Stanley/Goldfish in good faith, but could blame them for the state of the paperwork prior to the acquisition in 2007. In any case, the credit report states that the account started in 2005, so there's definitely a gap there because the agreement they sent me following the CO was dated by me in the signature block and then by them by an inked date stamp and both were in September 1999! The funny thing is that they said in their letter "Barclaycard has conducted searches for the documents listed in the Order dated xx April 2009 in relation to your credit agreement under account number xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx and has provided you with all the documents required under the Order that have been stored by Morgan Stanley under that account number"... So why did they send me a card carrier followed by two other people's agreements before sending this one, which was settled in 2003 anyway? Their argument is weak. Should I call the court and ask them what to do now that they have not complied? What's the process for not complying with the Court Order? Surely they know that the account was opened in 2005, so they have deliberately tried to mislead me (and the court) by trying it on?

Thanks Slick. This is what I thought. So how do I go about seeking an injunction against them. I want to take this to the next stage now. PT - can you help please?

Okay, so to recap: I CCA'd Barclaycard and they sent me a card carrier. I CCA'd them again and they sent me someone else's agreement I CCA'd them again and they sent me someone else's agreement (I've got two application forms, neither of which are mine and a card carrier) I CPR'd them and they didn't reply I CPR'd them again and they said that the second application form they already sent was mine. I N244'd the court and at the hearing, they were ordered to produce the original agreement. They send me an agreement, but it was for another account which was opened in 1999 and closed in 2003. Now they are saying that this agreement was filed under the account number relating to the disputed account which was opened in 2005. I cannot prove the orignal account was settled and closed in 2003 as the records have all gone. I have no receipts and no statements. All I have is a 'date started' entry on my credit file (printed out now) which corresponds to the right date of the second account. The question is, if I seek a judgement for non-enforceability, will it be up to Barclaycard to prove the application form relates to this account or will it be up to me to disprove it in court? Even if Barclaycard have every single document sent to them from Morgan Stanley, there will be a two year gap between 2003 and 2005, but what if they say that pre-2005 records were destroyed apart from the agreements?