"You'll find that this has all been discussed in replies, if you look hard enough" I hope not to be taking the reply above the wrong way but it seems unhelpful in addition to the replies I have taken these matters to court to satisfactory conclusion several times so have the benefit of that recent experience

the credit limit definition does not meet the 1983 regulations the paper is not signed by the Halifax and the paper signed by you does not contain any of the prescribed conditions this crowd are 100% useless

I see you have posted the copy documents regulations covering this that is what I was referring to regarding leaving out signature but not address

you are looking at the wrong regulations the signature can be omitted but not the address

correct, but that appears to be the only money she had ever paid, the net result was that she recovered the car recovered the money she paid to redeem it and retained the original loan given in the pawn. The refund to her was at the courts insistence.

Wilson got the money back which she paid to redeem the car according to the transcript

the limit for small claims was £750 in Scotland before 14th January it is now £3000

this is a new increased limit in Scotland under its separate legal system

many people on benefits are exmpt from court fees see the scotcourts website for this

no win no fee - no need

the new £3000 limit comes in as of 14th January replacing the existing £750 limit

ccj will not appear in the meantime, ask for the agreements, Your reaction is what they are trying to get -do not panic

this bank of scotland account is registered in default as a credit/store card and has all of the characteristics thereof the conditions are set to contain all of the prescribed conditions under the agreements regulations so even if it was treated as a credit card rather than a current account it is likely to be valid However there is very large question over why they chose not to be completely straight with it and include the references to the CCA etc

The terms on the agreement contain all of the prescribed term under the 1983 Agreements regulations so might quoting s127 of the act constitute a document " (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). " which can be enforceable under the act with a court order However the lack of references to the act in the agreement while recording it as a credit card with credit reference agencies is questionable- I certainly have questioned it forceably

a distinction might need to be drawn between the situation when there is no documentation provided and when there is documentation provided which does not meet the requirements of the 1983 Agreements Regulations in schedule 6, and there are I suspect many such cases In the latter case the Wilson case in the Lords is very specific and the funds paid to date must be refunded in terms of the Lords inerpretation of the statutory provisions of section 127 of the 1974 Act. As they lords said "we dont like it but that is the way it is"

defaults under this are referred to as "credit card/ store card" not as stated above suggesting that the Bank regards it as such

Blades if you have been sent this under a section 78 request the document is incomplete- it is called a schedule and refers to terms and conditions overleaf Peter, you refer to a main account with main account conditions separate to this so called overdraft agreement However there is no main account with this. There is no current account with it and it is not sold as such This suggests to me that the provisions of section 74 exempting it from part V of the Act could be argued as not being applicable Defaults under it are not referred to as current account defaults but as store card/running account defaults reflecting that this is not a current account However, the account conditions are written in such a way that it is possible for them to be exempt from section 127(3) They contain all of the prescribed terms under the 1983 regulations schedule 6 when combined with a date of agreement. bfb

sensible people reasonable to deal with

reg 7 says include 8 comprise 3 true copy so up to date terms are insuficient for s78/77 as is any generic paperwork

Look at SI 1983/1557 regulations 3 7 and 8 If providers are providing only copies of mailers under section 77/78 requests they are confusing the words "include" and "comprise" they are also ignoring the requirement for a true copy under regulation 3

running account credit per the Act section 10 also see section 14

The regulations add to the bare bones of the act and are very detailed The 1983 Regulations cost £6.10 from the TSO online- worth every penny loads of interesting stuff in them about what needs to be done to avoid improper execution of an agreement. This includes prescribed terms, no interspersion rule and more S85 is it appears to me always breached if the original agreement was improperly executed because there are no up to date terms and conditions to send S59 seems aimed at the application as agreement -forbidding it and there are very few exemptions to it

as said very difficult to prove but I have had payments for these items

Section 85 True Copies - see the exceptions in the regulations right to assign often says that the lender has the right to assign their "rights" they do not have the right to retain illicitly obtained funds and therefore cannot assign that

The bit in blue is I suggest not a contradiction but confirms that when the Act specifically mentions an offence the offence still stands- it means for example that S85 is excluded from the provisions of S170