I understand what you mean Gemspan but the Act is retrospective for the "unfair relationship" test between creditor and debtor - we really could do with some clarity from a moderator on the effect of this?? Also, anyone got any ideas on my other questions below?? Can anyone tell me if, when I do a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter, I can also get a copy of the original personal loan agreement from 2003 (ie not the managed loan) and copies of my credit card statements that were rolled up into the ML? I can't view the statements on line anymore. Also, another technical one - apols, I am currently out of the UK and my only address for service at the moment would be in Scotland. What does this mean for the choice of court of HSBC? Would it just go to their nearest court to head office? Does this affect me going back 6 years? Will I be limited to the Scots law 5 year limit? P.

HSBC Fiddled See the following extract from the guidance notes to the 2006 Act found on opsi.gov.uk. I'm not sure if this means that your currently unenforceable agreement may become potentially enforceable in April albeit upon an order of the court. Any moderators out there to help on this issue?? Section 15: Enforceability of regulated agreements 37. The 1974 Act provides that in certain circumstances where the requirements of the Act are not complied with in relation to regulated agreements or to security provided in relation to such agreements, the agreement or security is enforceable against the debtor or hirer only on an order of the court. Sections 127(1) and (2) of the 1974 Act give the court discretion whether to grant an enforcement order in those circumstances subject to subsections (3) and (4). Section 127(3) and (4) provides that a court shall not make an enforcement order (i.e. a consumer credit or hire agreement will be automatically unenforceable) where: prescribed requirements in relation to the execution of regulated agreements (set out in section 61(1)(a) of the 1974 Act) were not complied with or a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was not signed by the debtor or hirer; the specific requirements imposed by sections 62, 63 and 64 of the 1974 Act in relation to cancellable agreements as regards supplying copies of the agreement before and after its execution and giving notice of the cancellation rights are not complied with. A cancellable agreement is an agreement which, by virtue of section 67 of the 1974 Act, may be cancelled by the debtor or hirer, essentially where oral representations about the agreement have been made to the debtor or hirer face-to-face before the agreement is made other than on the business premises of the creditor or owner or connected persons and where the agreement is not secured on land. 38. Section 15 repeals sections 127(3) to (5) of the 1974 Act (subsection (5) is consequential on subsection (3)), which means that a court will have the power to determine in its discretion whether agreements are enforceable in accordance with section 127(1) and (2) regardless of the breach in question.

HSBC Fiddled - have you already had the non-executed ML judged non-enforceable? I think (again, any moderator who can confirm??) that this new law coming in on 6 April will not allow agreements to be automatically unenforceable... Can anyone tell me if, when I do a SAR letter, I can also get a copy of the original personal loan agreement from 2003 (ie not the managed loan) and copies of my credit card statements that were rolled up into the ML? I can't view the statements on line anymore. Also, another technical one - apols, I am currently out of the UK and my only address for service at the moment would be in Scotland. What does this mean for the choice of court of HSBC? Would it just go to their nearest court to head office? Does this affect me going back 6 years? Will I be limited to the Scots law 5 year limit? Any help appreciated. P.

Have posted a separate thread under HSBC Bank (apols, not good enough with computers to add in a link). Has anyone here thought of using the new provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 which deal with Unfair Relationships? Provisions come into force for pre-existing contracts on 6 April this year so there's a bit of time to get organised. From the reading of this thread I'm thinking that it may be a way out of these agreements... P.

Castlebest Thanks for your reply on the other thread - think this is a better place for my query. Do you know if there is any statute/case law in relation to what you say about the bank "profiteering" from my situation. Is there something specifically that prevents them doing this? Or is it just the fiduciary position/duty of care? P.

Thanks Elsinore - going through a wee learning curve with this posting business

Hi there Had originally posted this elswhere on consumer forums but think it should really be here - apols. First posting to this site following recommendation from moneysavingexpert.com. In early 2005, HSBC offered me a managed loan to replace my interest free overdraft, personal loan and credit card balances. They said that if I took out this loan, I could change back to a normal personal loan after 6 months. They also said that if I didn't enter into this loan they would issue legal proceedings on me to repay all that I owed them immediately. I had missed two payments of a personal loan (long story but had been out of the country) but had secured good employment upon my return and bank refused to wait one month for me to put all payments back in order. The amount I owed doubled immediately (to 16,000) and, three years later, having already paid them 9,000 the amount that I have paid to the "debt" is only 1,500 because of the huge interest rate. Needless to say, they refused to change to a normal personal loan after 6 months nor after a year. I have written to them on two separate occasions asking them to reconsider but they have only suggested that I write to the ombudsman which I have not yet done. From my reading of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, I understand that the previously impossible section 140 of the CCA 1974 has been amended in relation to the provisions for Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors in that a court may make an order under section 140B if it determines that the relationship "is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of .....(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement; or © any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement." and that (2) in decideing whether to make a determination under this section the court shall have regard to all matters it thinks relevant (including matters relating to the creditor and matters relating to the debtor)". I understand that, under the transitional arrangements, the above will come into force on 6 April 2008 for agreements which were already in existence on 6 April 2007 (when the Act came into force). Does anyone have any experience of and/or information on this section of the 2006 Act? Does anyone know if it would be worth a try in claiming back the unreasonable amounts payable? What would be thought unreasonable? Would the terms of the previous Loan Agreement, overdraft facility and credit card be taken into account as "related agreements"? Hope this makes sense. Any info greatly appreciated. :-| P.

Hi there First posting to this site following recommendation from moneysavingexpert.com. In early 2005, HSBC offered me a managed loan to replace my interest free overdraft, personal loan and credit card balances. They said that if I took out this loan, I could change back to a normal personal loan after 6 months. They also said that if I didn't enter into this loan they would issue legal proceedings on me to repay all that I owed them immediately. I had missed two payments of a personal loan (long story but had been out of the country) but had secured good employment upon my return and bank refused to wait one month for me to put all payments back in order. The amount I owed doubled immediately (to 16,000) and, three years later, having already paid them 9,000 the amount that I have paid to the "debt" is only 1,500 because of the huge interest rate. Needless to say, they refused to change to a normal personal loan after 6 months nor after a year. I have written to them on two separate occasions asking them to reconsider but they have only suggested that I write to the ombudsman which I have not yet done. From my reading of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, I understand that the previously impossible section 140 of the CCA 1974 has been amended in relation to the provisions for Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors in that a court may make an order under section 140B if it determines that the relationship "is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of .....(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement; or © any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement." and that (2) in decideing whether to make a determination under this section the court shall have regard to all matters it thinks relevant (including matters relating to the creditor and matters relating to the debtor)". I understand that, under the transitional arrangements, the above will come into force on 6 April 2008 for agreements which were already in existence on 6 April 2007 (when the Act came into force). Does anyone have any experience of and/or information on this section of the 2006 Act? Does anyone know if it would be worth a try in claiming back the unreasonable amounts payable? What would be thought unreasonable? Would the terms of the previous Loan Agreement, overdraft facility and credit card be taken into account as "related agreements"? Hope this makes sense. Any info greatly appreciated. P.