bluesmartie, That would again appear to back us up. We accept that it is not a gift. But the judge is saying that the creditor has rights but they are unenforcable. If they are unenforcable then enforcment is not possible. therefore a default cannot be a pre-cursor to enforcement. IT CANNOT EXIST as NO ENFORCEMENT IS POSSIBLE. The fundamentals of this is that a default is a method of enforcement or a precluder to enforcement. None of that is realsitically possible if the agreement is unenforcable. therefore it should not be registered. It would be avery twisted act that would forfiet all rights of enforcement but allow a default which is almost as destructive.

Me thinks Milsy (good ole milsy) was flying a kite. Ok well next letter will include the copy of the judgement above describing a unenforcable agrrement as gift. A copy of the Pre-trial protocols and asking Milsy if he intends to abide by them or not. I will also ask milsy for a copy of my credit agreement and all the documents he will rely on as evidence. It will also combine some of the stuff sparkie has supplied and will basically say put up or shut up. If he puts up it is an N1 to the high court next.

you know milsy said that the pre-trial protocol for defamation didn't exist? funny that but......... PRACTICE DIRECTION - DEFAMATION CLAIMS - This practice direction supplements Part 53 the government seems to think it does????????? does that mean Milsy didn't know this or that he wasn't being entirely honest with lil ole me......

Sparkie... Its all usefull and will be collated... as you can imagine what with Guests watching I am not prepared to lay all cards on the table. Needless to say Milsy will be getting a response soon but he will probably readit on here before it arrives in the post. Wonder how the court will view spying on here when it says that you have to decalre who you are to a moderator. Hope they arnt doing it from an experian computer. Thats tracable you know............

guset gone...surprise......

interesting one guest watching again.........

interesting...one

sparkie, He was being obtuse. Trying to say that I think that the case was the same when in fact it was the judges remarks concerning the importance of someones credit report that was the point. For the head of intelectual property he seems to be showing a marked lack of it. Never mind we shall educate him. I forgot to mention. One thing he didn't enswer in his letter was 'WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A DEFAULT' but his company bumf he sent through does. It says that it is issued under the CCA and means that I have failed to keep to the terms of my agreement. Interesting ... what agreement...?

Ok.. Lets give you an outline of what Milsy had to say. Be aware though that it is becoming increasingly apparent that Experian are reading this thread. So do not say anything that they can use as defamation against them. From now on we are about to enter the court stage of this so the postings will get more vague. That is to avoid giving away tactics to the spy’s on here. Ok well milsy’s response was divided into sections to address each point, They basically consisted of this. Ø What Experian's responsibilities were? Printout of their terms and conditions Ø A confirmation that the notices of correction were put on. Ø A rebuke for to me saying that the case of a wrongly filed report incurring £1000 damages didn’t apply to me as the case was about a wrongly bounced check. Ø A paragraph about how defamation can’t be heard in the county court, the pre-trial protocol don’t exist and that even though they don’t exist they deny all claims as there reply letter. Ø A copy of a judgement concerning a couple called Rankin who tried to have their agreements ruled unenforceable but failed with a veiled ‘beware’ undercurrent. Ø A denial that saying that ‘ it is not defamation to say you haven’t paid a debt when you haven’t’ Ø A denial of any breach of the DPA and copy of the ICO’s standard letter Ø And lastly a statement saying we will defend all action please mark all papers for Milsy. Ok as you can imagine Milsy, with his ‘Head of Intellectual property etc’ tag, has p*#sed me off a bit. His letter seems quite well written at first until you read it properly. Then it turns into the usual week, transparent claptrap. What really annoys me is the misleading statements about not being allowed to take defamation to the county court, the pre-trial rules not applying and quoting a judgement that has about as much bearing on my case as the case of WINNE THE POOH v FIVE ACRE WOOD!!! Well let battle commence. Sparkie any help with case law etc greatly appreciated. Milsy (good old Milsy)…. YOU WANT A FIGHT…YOU’VE GOT ONE! And by the way all letters will be marked for your attn and a copy sent to each member of your board. So when you lose they know whom to blame! Mr Finlander , Head of the Sky remote control, Keeper of the Kitty Litter and Trustee of the Lawn mower.

Ok a brief summary......... Millsy was being vey obtuse........ basically a bit insulting and said 'go on sue us then' oh by the way sparkie millsy says you can't sue for defamation in the county court!... well must be true millsy said it:rolleyes: I will give a much more detailed breakdown later......... but I think I will be taking him up on the sueing bit. will post more soon.

Just to let everyone know..Millsy has replied..his letter is long, complicated and as far as I can see completelt deviod of any arguement that will stand up in a court. I will draft a reply and send it on to him in the next few days. watch this space;)

Ok i seem to be the only one contributing at the mo which is a shame. here are some examples oh the 'Natural Justice' avenue. House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TREASURY COMMITTEE RESTORING CONFIDENCE IN LONG-TERM SAVINGS Tuesday 8 June 2004 MR WALTER MERRICKS USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. Oral Evidence Members present Mr John McFall, in the Chair Mr Nigel Beard Angela Eagle Mr Michael Fallon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory Norman Lamb John Mann Mr James Plaskitt Mr Robert Walter Examination of Witness Witness: Mr Walter Merricks, Chief Ombudsman, The Financial Ombudsman Service, examined. Q1867 Norman Lamb : a House of Lords Committee has recently looked at accountability of ombudsmen and other similar services and they have recommended a requirement for an accessible and efficient appeals mechanism based on merits of case rather than by judicial review. I have a real concern as a lawyer myself about natural justice. Q1868 Norman Lamb: Do you have a concern about natural justice where perhaps new evidence comes to light and the fact that a small company or individuals who have had their livelihoods destroyed have no recourse at all? Mr Merricks: We do have a concern for natural justice and due process and we comply with the rules of natural justice and due process. Q1869 Norman Lamb: Apart from the lack of an appeal. Q1870 Norman Lamb: But inevitably there is a difference between an ombudsmen process, not just yours, and a court process. In the court process there is an appeal. Mr Merricks: We are not a court. Norman Lamb: No, you make quasi judicial decisions that can affect people's livelihoods --- Natural Justice A. Definition Natural Justice is an umbrella term for the legal standards of basic fairness. It is a fundamental doctrine within the common law, rested in centuries of legal tradition. R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin PLC (1987). Sir John Donaldson, Master of the Rolls “... a failure to observe the basic rules of natural justice, which is probably better described as fundamental unfairness since justice in nature is conspicuous by its absence.” B. Importance John v Rees (1970) . Justice Megarry “It may be that there are some who would decry the importance of the rules of natural justice. ......those who take this view do not, I think, do themselves justice. As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not: of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered ; with inexplainable conduct which was fully explained; ........ nor are those with any knowledge of human nature who pause to think for a moment likely to underestimate the feelings of resentment of those who find there is a decison against them as being made without their being afforded any opportunity to influence the course of events.” C. Parliament’s Intent Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1976) Lord Russell “I am satisfied that if the true conclusion is that the course which events followed resulted in that degree of unfairness ... that it is commonly referred to as a departure from the principles of natural justice and it may equally be said that the order is not within the powers of the Act and that a requirement of the Act has not been complied with. For it is to be implied, unless the contrary appears, that Parliament does not authorise by the Act the exercise of powers in breach of the principles of natural justice, and that Parliament does by the Act require, in paraticular procedures, compliance with those principles .” R v Commission for Racial Equality ex parte Hillingdon London Borough Council (1982) - Lord Diplock “I do not think that in administrative law as it has developed over the last 20 years attaching a label ‘quasi-judicial’ to it is of any significance. Where an Act of Parliament confers upon an administrative body functions which involves making decisions which affect to their detriment the rights of other persons ... there is a presumption that Parliament intended that the administrative body should act fairly towards those persons who will be affected by their decision.” R v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ex parte Chetnik Developments Ltd (1988) Lord Bridge “Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as if it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way in which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended.” R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd (1995) Lord Justice Rose “statutory powers however permissive, must be used with scrupulous attention to their true purposes and for reasons which are relevant and proper” Lord Steyn (1997) “We live in a democracy in the narrow sense that majority rule prevails but, more importantly, we live in a liberal European democracy based on values of justice, liberty, equality and humanity. Judges are therefore entitled to assume, unless the Statute makes crystal clear provision to the contrary, that Parliament would not wish to make unjust laws.” R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Pierson (1998) Lord Steyn “... unless there is the clearest provision to the contrary, Parliament must be presumed not to legislate contrary to the rule of law. And the rule of law enforces minimum standards of fairness, both substantive and procedural.” R v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport & the Regions ex p Spath Holme (2001) Lord Nicholls “No statutory power is of unlimited scope” D. Rights and Duties 1) Duty to promote the legislative purpose R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Brind (1991) Lord Ackner “The discretion .......... must be used only to advance the purposes for which it was conferred. It has accordingly to be used to promote the policy and objects of the Act." 2) Duty not to act ‘ultra vires’ HTV Ltd v Price Commission (1976) Lord Denning - Master of the Rolls “A public body which is entrusted by Parliament with the exercise of powers for the public good cannot fetter itself in the exercise of them. It cannot be estopped from doing its public duty. But that is subject to the qualification that it must not misue its powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private citizen when there is no overriding public interest to warrant it”. Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council (1983) Lord Scarman “The unreasonableness of the decision i.e that which would enable the Court to conclude that it is one which no reasonable authority could have reached, is that it proceeded upon a misconception of the duties imposed upon the appellants by the statute.” R v Hendon Justices, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (1994) “It is implicit in the enactment that a conferred power is not to be exercised unreasonably .......... If it is ... the conferred power can be characterised as illegal, void or a nullity” 3) Duty to act in good faith Board of Education v Rice 1911 Lord Loreburn “They must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything”. 4) Duty to act reasonable Roberts v Hopwood 1925 Lord Wrenbury “A person in whom is vested a discretion must exercise his discretion upon Reasonable grounds. A discretion does not empower a man to do what he likes merely because he is minded to do so - he must generally exercise the discretion to do not what he likes but what he ought. In other words, he must, by use of his reason, ascertain and follow the course which reason directs. He must act reasonably” R v Department for Education & Employement ex parte Begbie( 2000) Lord Justice Laws “Fairness and reasonableness and their contraries are objective concepts: otherwise there would be no public law, or if there were it would be palm tree justice.” 5) Right to fairness Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) Lord Diplock “in exercising their discretion, as in exercising any other administrative function they owe a constitutional duty to perform it fairly and honestly and to the best of their ability” Board of Education of the Indian Head School Division of 19 of Saskatchewan v Knight (1990) “ The existence of a general duty to act fairly will depend on the consideration of three factors: i) The nature of the decision to be made by the administrative body ii) The relationship existing between that body and the individual iii) The effect of that decision on the individual’s right” R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Unilever PLC (1996) Lord Justice Simon Brown “Unfairness amounting to an abuse of power .......... it is unlawful ....... because it is illogical or immoral or both for a public authority to act with conspicuous unfairness and in that sense abuse its power”. R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Pierson (1998) Lord Hope Referring to the Secretary of State as “ bound by considerations of substantive unfairness ...... as there are no statutory rules, the presumption must be that he will exercise his powers in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances.” 6) Right to procedural fairness Greater London Council (1985) Lord Justice Muskill Went on to identify four ways in which a decision might be procedurally improper, namely, “1. Unfair behaviour towards persons affected by the decision. 2. Failure to follow a procedure laid down by legislation. 3. Failure properly to marshall the evidence on which the decision should be based. For example taking into account an immaterial factor or failing to take into account a material factor or failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information. 4. Failure to approach the decision in the right spirit for example where the decision maker is actuated by bias or where he is content to let the decision be made by chance” 7) Duty of enquiry The Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside M B C (1977) Lord Diplock. “the question for the Court is did the Secretary of State ask himself the right question and take reasonable steps to acquaint himself with the relevant information to enable him to answer it correctly?” R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Venables (1998) Lord Justice Hobhouse “Essential that (the Secretary of State) should be fully informed of all material facts and circumstances”, “it is not clear what account the Secretary of State took of this consideration nor that he took any steps to inform himself of the relevant facts”, 8) Duty to ask the right question Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside M B C (1977) Lord Wilberforce “The ultimate question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the Secretary of State has given sufficient, or any, weight to this particular factor in the exercise of his judgement.” Lord Diplock “The Secretary of State did not direct his mind to the right question; and so, since his good faith is not in question, he cannot have directed himself properly in law” 9) Duty to consider all relevant material R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nelson (1994) “Not satisfied that the material before the Secretary of State was properly considered before the decision was taken” R v Legal Aid Area Number 1 (London) Appeal Committee ex parte McCormick (2000) “The Committee cannot simply leave those issues in the air since their resolution ... could be beneficial ...”, “serious doubts about whether they did take into consideration all potentially relevant factors” 10) Duty to consider relevant evidence Dakar v Minister of Transport “There may be situations when the Ministerial body has not taken any extraneous factors into account and has confined itself solely to relevant factors, yet there has been such a distortion and lack of proportion given to the weight given to these that the final result cannot possibly hold up and is therefore, completely unreasonable.” Secretary of State for Education & Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1977) Lord Wilberforce “The ultimate question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the Secretary of State has given sufficient, or any, weight to this particular factor in the exercise of his judgement” Recommendation Number R (80)2 of the Committee of Ministers (adopted 11 March (1980) In describing this basic principle “an administrative authority when exercising a discretionary power .......... observes objectivity and impartiality, taking into account any of the factors relevant to the particular case”. R v Parliamentary Commisioner for Administration, ex parte Balchin (1998) “The relevant test .......... as well as a consideration has been omitted which, had account been taken of it, might have caused the decision maker to reach a different conclusion” R v Director General of Telecommunications, ex parte Cellcom Ltd (1999) Justice Lightman “The Court may interfere if the Director has taken into account an irrelevant consideration or has failed to take into account a relevant consideration.” R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Regions (2001) Lord Slynn “It has long been established that if the Secretary of State ............. takes into account matters irrelevant to his decision or refuses or fails to take into account matters relevant to his decision .......... The Court may set his decision aside”. 11) Duty to consider evidence of probative value Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd (1984) Lord Diplock In referring to a principle of natural justice that an investigative decision maker “must base his decision upon evidence that has some probative value.” R v Wakefield Magistrates Court ex parte Wakefield M B C (2000) The Magistrates decision “fatally flawed by its error of law in purporting to make a critical finding of fact, without having heard any evidence called in the proceedings upon which that finding of fact could properly be founded” 12) A right to see documents relied on T A Miller v Ministry of Housing Local Government (1968) “The person at risk should have an opportunity to comment on materials being considered by the decision maker and to contradict them”. Wiseman v Borneman (1971) Lord Morris “I feel bound to express my prima facie dislike of a situation in which the tribunal has before it a document (which might contain both facts and arguments) which was calculated to influence the tribunal but which has not been seen by a party who will be affected by the tribunal’s decision” Lord Wilberforce “The natural aversion against allowing a decision to be made on the basis of material he has not seen” R v London Borough of Camden ex parte Paddock (1995) Justice Sedley “The principle that a decision making body should not see relevant to giving those affected the chance to comment on it and if they wish, to contravert it is fundamental to the principle of law (which governs public administration as much as it does adjudication) that to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything.” 13) Right to sufficient information Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) Lord Diplock “Fairness requires that the objector ......... be given sufficient information about the reasons relied on by the Department as justifing the draft scheme to enable them to challenge the accuracy of any facts and the validity of any arguments upon which the departmental reasons are based” 14 ) Right to cross-examine Osgood v Nelson (1872) Baron Martin There can be no doubt my Lords that the Courts of Law in this country, would take care that any proceeding in this country were conducted in a proper manner; that the person proposed who was to be removed should have every opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses brought forward against him, or otherwise opposing the case up against him; that he should have the power of calling witnesses to prove his own case; and he should have every possible opportunity which a person can have, according to the law and constitution of this country, of defending himself and of establishing that he is not liable to amotion” Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) Lord Edmond-Davies “There is a massive body of accepted decisions establishing that natural justice requires that a party be given an opportunity of challenging by cross-examination witnesses called by another party on relevant issues.” 15) Right to legitimate expectation Council of Civil Service Unions v Ministry of the Civil Service (1985) Lord Roskill “The principle (of legitimate expectation) may (include) .......... an expectation of being allowed to undertake representations especially where the aggrieved party is seeking to persuade an authority to depart from a lawfully established policy adopted in connection with the exercise of a particular power because of some suggested exceptional reasons justifying such a departure.” R v Secretary of State for The Home Department ex parte Ahmed (1999) Lord Justice Hobhouse “The principle of legitimate expectation and English law is a principle of fairness in the decision making process.................” 16) Duty not to adopt an unduly rigid policy R v Secretary of State for the Enviroment ex p.Brent London Borough Council (1982) “(The Minister is) entitled to have well in mind his policy. To this extent the reference to keep an open mind does not mean an empty mind. This mind must be kept ajar” R v Hampshire County Council ex parte W (1994) Justice Sedley “What is required by the law is that, without falling into arbitrariness, decision makers must remember that policies are means of securing a consistent approach to individual cases, each of which is likely to differ from others. Each case must be considered, therefore, in the light of the policy, but not so that the policy automatically determines the outcome”. R v Ministry for Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex p Hamble Fisheries(Off shore) Ltd (1995) Justice Sedley “In describing the two conflicting imperatives of public law “the first is that while a policy may be adopted for the exercise of a discretion it must not be applied with rigidity which excludes consideration of possible departure on individual cases.............., the second is that a discretionary public law power must not be exercised arbitrarily or with partiality as between individuals or classes potentially affected by it............. the line between individual consideration and inconsistency, slender enough in theory, can be imperceptible in practice” 17) Duty to reconsider where an important error of fact is made known R v Newham London Borough Council ex parte Begum (1996) “the decision cried out for review when the error, on so important a matter, was drawn to the council’s attention by the claimant’s solicitors ............ A failure to reconsider the decision in these circumstances would in my judgement have been unlawful.” 18) Duty not to be irrational Bromley and London Borough Council v Greater London Council (1983) Lord Diplock “Decisions that, looked at objectively, are so devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable body of persons could have reached”. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) Lord Diplock “By irrationality I mean what can now be succinctly referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness ............. it applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.” 19) Right for the procedural process not to effect an unfair conclusion Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd (1984) - referring to the rule of natural justice, Lord Diplock “that the decision to make the finding must be based on some material which tends logically to show the existence of facts consistent with the finding and that the reasoning supportive of the finding, if it be disclosed, is not logically self-contradictory”. Conclusion CRA's should ask themselves whether the above principles of natural justice are complied with whether they are The Court of Star Chamber… The Court of Star Chamber was established in 1487 by Henry VII and was developed by Cardinal Wolsey as an instrument of royal power. It evolved new and simple methods of effecting justice taken from Roman Law by which the Common Law rules of evidence were dispensed with. It was hated as a symbol of royal despotism and abolished in 1641 by the Long Parliament.

I did say I was bored waiting for Millsy (good ole Millsy) and annoying Mr Hancock sounds like much more fun than chasing AA for 35 quid

Ok mate if you need any help pm me...

yourbank, Kind of contradict yourself there. staff can be disciplined for tell the truth about their employers but none of them want payback so thats a good result for the banks? Perhaps they are just scared. Doesn't sound very good for the banks that. Frightening their own employees and restricting their freedom of speech. Still what ever turns you on.....

TheCteam, Very interesting letter from Mr Hancock. I like the way he constantly goes on about the Cca and all it’s nice little ways of filing defaults and keeping people like him in stripey braces by registering them. There is only one problem with his argument and his constant references to the CCA just seem to draw attention to it. The problem is that the CCA was designed outline your rights as a debtor and the lenders. It gives you all the prescribed terms etc to allow you to choose the best deal etc and then make your mind up. For the lender it gives them a framework to enforce the debt if you stop paying. Naughty you. What a great piece of law. However… If the lender breaks his bit and doesn’t give you what he should he forfeits the protection of the act. That is why it is not possible for the agreement to be enforced. Therefore all the lovely default notices described in the act don’t apply to someone who has already breached its basic principle. That is why the judge ruled in Wilson v First Counties Trust that it ceased to be a debt and became a gift. The CCA has as much relevance to your alleged debt as chalk does to cheese. And as the default can only be registered under the CCA it can’t therefore be lawfully registered. I would write back to Mr Hancock and say that however interesting he find it listening to his own twittering on the CCA his musings have no relevance to this alleged debt as the OC has forfeited this right to the protection of this act. It is not his job to mediate in disputes over agreements but it is his job to ensure he prints the truth and he should damn well pray he is doing so now. He is certainly already in breach of the DPA and is further defaming your name on a daily basis. After not having a proper agreement they have as much right to put a ‘registered sex offender’ mark against your name as a default. In other words NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!! As to the arguments about conduct of account, 6 years etc. Wonderful..They admit it again..We have no intention of going to court. Of course they haven’t when they are going to lose. Prime example of judge, jury and executioner. They go to court quick enough when they have an agreement hence the amount of ccj's issued. Keep that letter we will need it soon in the campaign we started. We need as many of these self obsessed puffed up little napoleons incriminating themselves as we can get. As I have said from the start. Write one more letter but this time bung in the Reply to defamation bit from my last letter. Get the ball rolling. Once you have started you can always wait in the wings until me and sparkie have finished before progressing.

ok... well my 2p worth is this... send a letter to your MP, the OFT and the Kitty woman..What harm can it do? MPs will do nothing . That is unless they start getting thousands and thousands of letters. So lets give them that.I also think that it's better to have a template letter/poster as it means they get the idea that someone is behind it and they won't go away with a standard fob off letter. It does work. Remember the road pricing petition? That killed that off. I have sent in a e petition request to 10 downing st's website and am awaiting confirmation it has been posted . when it has I will give you the link. The last petition on there against CRA's got 19 signatures!!! For heavens sake we can do better than that. The reason why we go after the CRA's is to cut off the problem at the head. Banks can default you as much as they want and it's no good if the CRA won't register it. They offered this service so should be made responsible enough to run it. Going after every bank is again allowing things to get confused and bogged down. IF the CRA's are made to check defaults the banks will soon fall into line............ We need alot of people behind this . No one can force this on their own.

while i'm bored... this is quite interesting. 'the history of plastic cards' As you can see it gets quite frenzied from 1990 on...you can see why so many CCA agreements were wrongly written... APACS WEBSITE: PLASTIC CARDS – HISTORY OF PLASTIC CARDS In the last half the twentieth century plastic cards have changed the way that we pay for goods and services. Today, most consumers pay for at least half their purchases with a plastic card, most large retailers, supermarkets and online shops take plastic as do an increasing number of professional service providers. The forerunners of plastic cards are a long way from the sophisticated and widelyaccepted cards that we are now accustomed to but, none-the-less, laid the foundations for the convenience and ease-of-use that we now enjoy. Timeline and milestones 1880 First credit voucher product introduced in the UK by Provident Clothing Group, a pre-curser to credit cards. Customers were issued with vouchers that they could use in shops on an approved list and payment was made to the Provident Clothing rep who called at the customer’s home. This was the forerunner to credit cards in that (i) payment was made by voucher and (ii) the customer enjoyed revolving credit. 1914 In the US Western Union provide metal cards giving free deferred payment privileges to preferred customers, which became known as ‘metal money’. 1924 In the US General Petroleum Corporation issue the first ‘metal money’ for gasoline and automotive services. 1930s In the US AT&T introduced the “Bell System Credit Card”, closely followed by railroads and airlines. 1946 A New York banker develops a credit system called Charge-It. When customers charged local retail purchases, the merchant deposited the charges at Flatbush National Bank/Biggins Bank and the bank reimbursed the merchant for the sale. The Bank later collected payment from the customer. 1950 In the US Diners Club issues plastic payments cards aimed at diners; they operate as charge cards. The key figure was Frank McNamara, who launched with assistance of two retailers, Bloomingdales and Sneider. Initial membership was 200 with the card being accepted in 27 restaurants. By the end of the year 20,000 people were using Diners Club. 1951 When customers of New York’s Franklin National Bank submitted an application for a loan they were screened for credit. Approved customers were given a card they could use to make retail purchases. The merchant copied the customer information from the sales slip and called the bank for approval of transactions over a certain amount (the first authorisations!) 1951 First UK credit card available when Donald McCullough launches Finders Services after a trip to the US (possibly being regarded as the launch of Diners – see 1962). 1958 American Express introduces its own charge card, and Bank of America introduces a credit card called BankAmericard. 1962 Diners Club becomes the first major credit card company in Britain following the merger of Finders Services and Credit Card facilities. 10 Sep 1963 American Express launches the first charge card in the UK with an annual fee of £3 12s (=£49 in 2005) and a required income of £2,000 (=£27,250 in 2005). Additional cards can be obtained for half price. The card is usable in 3,000 UK outlets and 83,000 overseas outlets. The only Bank of England constraint is a £75 limit on a single item for overseas transactions. 1964 Swedish banker Wallenberg founds Eurocard as an alternative to American Express. 1965 Bank of America develops licensing agreements with other banks enabling them to issue BankAmericards, becoming the first ‘scheme’. 1966 Fourteen US banks form Interlink for credit card transactions as a rival to BankAmericard. 29 June 1966 UK’s first credit card issued by Barclays. ‘Barclaycard’ was based on the BankAmericard that had been issued a few years earlier in the USA. Very limited international operability: Barclaycard could be used in Malta/Gibraltar 1967, South Africa 1969 & France 1973, however, these merchants were recruited directly by Barclaycard (still a 3 party model). 1966 Interbank Card Association (ICA) formed, forerunner to MCI (MasterCard International) 1967 Four California banks formed the Western States Bankcard Association, introducing MasterCharge to compete with BankAmericard. 1967 First cash machine (De La Rue) in the world installed by Barclays Bank in Enfield, Middlesex. Launched in a press call with Reg Varney (On The Buses; Love Thy Neighbour, etc.) on 27 June. Early dispensers were designed to receive hole-punched vouchers of £10.00 each purchased by the customer from the bank and used in the dispenser when needed. 1969 UK domestic cheque guarantee scheme is established. 1969 MCI expands internationally, entering into an alliance in Europe with Eurocard. Eurocard becomes the sole company authorised to issue MasterCards in Europe.1969 First ATM in the US in Long island, New York installed by Chemical Bank. 1971 Bank America surrender control of its card by forming National BankAmericard Incorporated (NBI) to manage the card in the US. 1972 NatWest, Midland, Lloyds & RBS join together to issue the Access credit card under the Joint Credit Card Company (JCCC). 1972 Lloyds Bank ‘Cashpoint’ is the first on-line ATM using plastic cards with a magnetic stripe. 1974 Consumer Credit Act (Section 75) provides protection to consumers buying goods costing between £30 and £10,000 (£100 and £30,000 in 2005) on their credit card: if the product turns out to be sub-standard, or fails to be delivered, the cardholder can claim compensation from the card-issuing bank. The Act (Section 84) also limits customer liability to no more than £50 if cards are stolen, and used by someone else. This liability is often waived entirely. If the fraud occurs while the card stays in the person's possession, for example where card details have been stolen, they are not liable at all. April 1975 Access and Carte Bleu affiliate to the Interbank Card Association (which becomes MasterCard in 1983), expanding acceptance internationally. 1977 BankAmericard becomes Visa, Barclays is a founder member. IBANCO becomes Visa International. NBI becomes Visa US. 1977 Barclaycard issues the first UK company card – hitherto cards had been issued only to individuals. 1 July 1977 Consumer Credit Act comes into force. 1979 MasterCharge becomes MasterCard. 1980s The UK moves to ‘duality’, i.e. banks begin to issue both Visa and Access cards. Subsequently, the Access consortium begins to break-up, and disappears as a brand as MasterCard gains recognition in the UK. Affiliating to the international brands brings world-wide acceptance to the UK-issued cards. Early/mid 80s saw the introduction of electronic terminals. 1985/86 LINK cash machine network established (33 members including Abbey National, Nationwide, Co-Operative Bank, Girobank etc), essentially enabled by the 1986 Building Societies Act. 1986 Matrix cash machine network established (A&L, Anglia, Bradford & Bingley, Britsol & West, Leeds, National & Provincial, Woolwich etc) 1987 Debit cards introduced: again, Barclays were the first UK bank on the scene issuing the Visa Delta card under the Connect brand in June. 1987 Four bank cash machine network established (Barclays, Lloyds, RBS, BoS) 1988 Switch debit card launched by Midland, NatWest and RBS, who later incorporated Switch into a separate company and extended ownership to other banks to issue the card. First Switch transaction October 1988. 1988 Visa test the world’s first multi-function chip card, the SuperSmart card, in Japan. 1989 £100 and £250 cheque guarantee limits introduced. 1989 MINT cash machine network established (Midland, NatWest, TSB, Clydesdale, Northern Bank). 1989 LINK and Matrix cash machine networks merge. 1990s The early 1990s see increased competition, notably with an influx of card issuers from the USA. Cards begin to be increasingly sophisticated, tailored more to individual customer needs, and exploit the so-called niche markets. Emergence of affinity cards and cards issued by non-financial institutions. 1990 France introduces chip and PIN based upon France-only B0’ standard. 1990 Cashback emerges as a means of acquiring cash (7m transactions in 1990). 1992 MasterCard launch the Maestro brand for its international debit card. 1993 Half of UK adults are regular users of cash machines. 1994 Half of UK adults hold a debit card. 1995 UK debit card volumes exceed credit card volumes for the first time. 3 Jul 1995 Mondex public trials start in Swindon. 1995 Product innovation leads to the issuing of gold cards and, eventually, other ‘status symbol’ cards with additional features overtly marketed only to highincome customers. Mar 96 One-billionth cash machine transaction processed by LINK. 1996 The average UK cash machine withdrawal exceeds £50 for the first time. 1996 Visa Electron launched and… 1997 …the Switch Solo card is introduced to offer a closer level of financial management. As every transaction is pre-authorised, banks are able to market the card to a wider range of customers, especially to younger card holders such as students, and to link cards to savings/investment products.1998 UK debit card payments exceed personal cheques, and account for more than half of all non-cash spending in supermarkets. 1997 UK chip trials in Northampton and Dunfermline ran between October 1997 and April 1998, with over 117,000 cards issued, 535 terminals installed in 463 outlets, and 14 ATMs. Over 90,000 POS transactions and 100,000 ATM transactions took place. 1997 VisaCash public trials start in Leeds. 1998 UK’s first cash machine not owned by a financial institution installed by Bank Machine. 1999 Half of all UK adults hold a credit card. The average value of a credit card purchases exceeds £50 for the first time. 1999 Internet card issuers (eg, Egg, Smile, Marbles) join the market place. 1999 Annual fees disappear, extras such as travel insurance, loyalty schemes, begin to be offered to attract customers, who are beginning to hold more than one card each. 1999 Euro comes into being, allowing euro-denominated transactions for the first time. 2000s Aggressive pricing (eg, zero/low interest rate offers) position credit cards as a cheaper form of personal short-term borrowing than loans. 2000 Cash machine networks consolidate at LINK. 2000 General withdrawal of charges for using cash machines across the bankowned cash machine estate. First cash machines deployed by the Independent ATM Deployers (IADs). 2001 More than half of UK retail spending is on plastic. More than 100 million card payments are made on-line. 2001 First year that cash machine withdrawals exceeded one billion during the year. 2001 Debit card expenditure exceeds credit card expenditure for the first time. 2001 Europay and MasterCard announce merger plans to become MasterCard International. 2002 Chip and PIN announced in the UK – biggest consumer change programme since, or including, decimalisation. 2002 More than half of all cash acquired by UK adults is acquired through cash machines. Mobile-phone top ups become available at cash machines for the first time. 2003 More than half of all UK adults regularly use debit cards. The average number of credit cards per adult exceeds two for the first time. 2003 UK chip and PIN trials in Northampton. 29 Sep 03 The mainland UK’s first cash machine dispensing Euro notes installed at Old Broad Street in the City by NatWest. 2004 Switch is re-branded to Maestro. 2004 UK card expenditure exceeds cash expenditure for the first time. The average debit card user spends over £100 per week. 2004 HBoS launch the first cashback reward debit card. Doesn't say '2008 all went tits up' tho so not that accurate;)

yourbank, It doesn't look like there are any other bank workers who will post unfortunately. Perhaps everyone is leaving because the game is up for the banks now. People tolerated the greed and excess when the banks threw money at them but those days seem to have gone. Now I think you will start to see everyone wanting their pound of flesh back. I think that the world is about to become a lot more competative and harder for those in the industry. When the bank of england says 'the good times are over ' I think they mean for both sides not just those hungry for credit.

Well.... Im feeling quite unloved now...Millsy (good ole Millsy) hasn't written back yet........... bored... waiting is dull.....who can I annoy as I wait..... I know...... AA Car loans... we are about to pay ours off and I'm sure they charged us a late payment fee once....... will take it out on them

join us at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/credit-reference-agencies/148780-experian-final-battle-commences.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html The more the merrier...... tell everyone else you can as we are trying to get a mass complaint in and an OFT investigation;)

ok so the original idea was for us to post up the arguement and get some peole to play devils advocate and see what the holes are... well the arguements been posted any one want to start the ball rolling........

thanks for that.... I didn't realise that this forum was a court or of course I would have brought my law book........I simply used it in response to the question 'what is natural justice?' in a previous post. Are we saying that it doesn't exist then? If so I think that would surprise the majority of law commentators who recommended that Dwayne Chambers should have used it as the basis of his arguement against his olympics ban and would certainly have had more chance of winning.

In that case employ more staff or go and do something else for a living...i can't see the 'Its alright to ruin people lives because we are just to busy to check' defence working very well either to the OFT or in the defamation action I propose to take on the linked thread....