Here's a thought along the Cagger 'Never say die' approach. 1. Can I have another go, since the judge didn't like the last POC? 2. Since they didn't supply me with all the SAR data until I sued, (and I still don't have automated logic) and that data made me lose (ie the back page of the agreement) the case, I should sue them for court fees as I incurred a loss because their inability to supply me with the data that they then materially relied upon in court? I like 2) It has a certain 'ring' of righteousnous to it! For £65 it's got to be worth it! GP

Ha - very good at least I've still got my sense of humour! Seriously though - I cocked up my POC - I can't see any realistic low-risk recovery from that. An exemplary credit record with over 19 agreements with perfect month after month entries ruined by dealing with one company and their crappy statements and processes. Hey ho. Only 4 years to go.

The way I read things at the moment, there is no way anyone can be sure not to have a 'default' being registered with a Credit Reference Agency if you've missed payments. The CCA 1974 or any associated regulations won't help. This Technical Guideline is the only route to salvation. It may give you three months arrears, but then again, that's subject to what the 'norm' is for the type of debt you have - the creditor sets the 'norm' and it's impossible to find out what this 'norm' is from them because when you ask under the DPA, they won't tell you. On the one hand the guideline says: 34 When a default occurs in line with the criteria in this guidance, and the lender has given the customer 28 days notice of the intention to file a default, then subject to paragraph 37, the lender may supply this information to a credit reference agency despite no advance warning when the account was opened. Which sounds great - I could certainly have a case on that one. But then it's spoilt by the last bullet point in the next paragraph: 35 It may not be necessary to serve a notice on all occasions. We accept there are cases when there should be no doubt over a default, for example, cases: - involving fraud; - where the lender has been notified under the terms of a bankruptcy or IVA; - where there has been successful court action or repossession; or - where a customer has made no attempt to resolve their arrears. 'No attempt' is a bit vague and open to subjectivity.On balance, I think that I would have been much much better off going into court with an argument based around the DPA and these guidelines, but even then, I can't be sure that I'd win as although I have them on guideline 34, they'd argue and get off on clause 35 even though their statements are very vague on extent of arrears. So, my appeal would be on Guideline 34 (no letter with the proof being no default letter charge) and never really notified me of extent of arrears. Their defence would be 35, no attempt to repay.

Chris thanks for the comment. I must admit to feeling up for the challenge. I was kind of hoping that as the Small Claims Track was not big on me paying their charges, so the Court of Appeal would be the same. My experience so far, is its never clear cut - particularly with a deputy District Judge who thinks she's still in chambers with her barrister mates rather than actually trying to be impartial and be fair to the poor consumer buggered by a process they are never meant to understand. The borderline 3-4 missed payments aren't in my favour in the ICO guidelines. No letter, and the fact that there is no default letter charge on my statement is in my favour (I think) as their inability to process the SAR on time shows they've got crap processes. If I won the appeal, it would be a good case to quote!

Here's some interesting extracts This guidance does not relate to lenders’ internal policies regarding collection activities or decisions to write off debts, and so on. It is concerned solely with the filing of information for credit referencing purposes. Such internal policies and practices should not be the determining factor in when and how a default is filed. and this one...... The crucial point is that lenders offering the same product type should operate to the same standards in filing defaults. Those standards can also allow some flexibility in when and how defaults are filed within a product type. and this one is getting interesting.... The term ‘default’, when recorded on a credit reference file should be used to refer to a situation when “the lender in a standard business relationship with the individual decides the relationship has broken down” 2. Where there is an unresolved dispute about whether a default exists, lenders should refer to paragraphs 42 -45. I must check whether I was really 4 month behind, I am taking their word for it - their statements are crap and you can't work out immediately if there are arrears and how long they have been for. This bit looks like the make or break - but as ever, its only guidance.... Time framework Although there will be some flexibility in the definition of a breakdown, we believe there should be general rules for the minimum period of arrears which should exist before a default can be filed. Equally there should be a maximum period after which, if anything is to be recorded with a credit reference agency, a default must be filed. The following are in line with the practices currently adopted by most lenders. • Accounts should not be routinely filed as being in default where full payments or those due under a rescheduled agreement are fewer than three consecutive months in arrears. • Accounts should normally be filed as being in default where those payments due have not been received for six months. and finally, this is the bit, they never sent me the letter, Notices to comply with Sections 13.7 of the Banking Code and 7.5 of the Lending Code should provide adequate warning. A notice of intention to file a default can be sent with a formal default notice served under Section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Where lenders are not required to issue these notices, they can send an intention to file a default through a final demand, letter or relevant account statement, which should make clear not only the intention to file but also the date of the intended default. The date should allow the customer enough time to respond properly. Lenders who have to provide a notice of intention to file a default under a relevant code of practice should be aware that not complying with the code may be taken into account in any assessment of the fairness of their processing. 34 When a default occurs in line with the criteria in this guidance, and the lender has given the customer 28 days notice of the intention to file a default, then subject to paragraph 37, the lender may supply this information to a credit reference agency despite no advance warning when the account was opened. 35 It may not be necessary to serve a notice on all occasions. We accept there are cases when there should be no doubt over a default, for example, cases: .involving fraud; .where the lender has been notified under the terms of a bankruptcy or . where there has been successful court action or repossession; or . where a customer has made no attempt to resolve their arrears. 36 We do not believe that on its own a notice of intention to file a default amounts to harassing the debtor. We accept that lenders need to take care in the wording and use of notices to avoid the possibility of harassment. 37 If a borrower fully meets the terms set out in a notice of intention to file a default, it follows that the lender should not file the default. It looks to me that if I would have had this with the Judge, I may have had a chance, but the mood she was in, probably not. These are still guidelines, and given the defence was 'it's up to us' and the judge agreeing with them, I can't see that I'd stand much chance on appeal in the Courts, but I'm mulling it over. I could challenge the admissibility of the evidence and that the Judgment would overrule the Regulator's Guidance position on the DPA? I may stand a chance with the ICO. I have pretty good evidence that there was no letter - they never charged me in their long list of charges for the default letter, and they never tried to enforce the debt through referal to a DCA or termination. That's not the point though. These toe-rags have responsibility to act fairly with consumers, and as a general rule, they don't, and in my case it wasn't. No arrears letters, no warning, no clear statements. I must get in my claim for the excess charges they have made. Decisions, decisions. Appeal or ICO complaint. Both. Or give up. GP

Thanksf or that Chris and your comment JB. So, worth an appeal on the ICO document? At the time they claim letter was sent I'd missed a 4th payment.

Best of luck!

Yup - blank template. It didn't matter anyway according to the Judge. They can default you as and when you default, they don't need a letter if you've concented to sharing data with CRA. If they want to enforce anything, then they need a default letter, but that won't stop them sharing the default with the CRA, whether or not the default letter was served-up correctly. Take care with crafting your your POC jon boy - my case was cut and dried in the Judges mind before I arrived.

Back from Court. I lost. They had two extra pieces of paper - an alleged copy of the rear of the agreement where I agree to sharing data with CRAs, and a copy of a standard default letter. No witness statement though. View was that they have the right to publish the 'default' data because I was in default because I missed a payment - any failure to meet the terms of the contract is a default. They can publish the default as and when you ever default - its up to them. Since the alleged default letter wasn't a demand for repayment, or a curtailment or enforcement of a right conferred in the contract, CCA 1974 won't help. Nor will not a properly executed agreement. Judge launched into me almost before I had chance to sit, and although I was advised by all not to appear a smart-arse in case I upset the Judge, she clearly had bought the defense args and was showing how smart she was. She spent most of her time looking over her glasses at the defense counsel, a pretty young girl, while addressing me, and appeared to awaiting a round of applause. Defense didn't defend - she must have said ten to twenty sentances in a whole hour! Case dismissed.

No other contributions? Chris - I PM'd the docs - any views on those? I've also submitted their defence - no comments on that anyone? No one anywhere got a copy of the 1983/1553 original. It seems a bit lonely here on the short walk I have to the court steps.....

Sadly, r&b, no. But thanks for the post. It's the same copy I have. The issue becomes clear if you look at the use of the square brackets "[". These denote the insertion of text from SI 2004/1482. The insertion can also be a substitution of text - ie a complete replacement. In that case, you can't see what the original text was. REgulation 2 in this copy of SI 1983/1553 has been completely substituted by the text from SI 2004/1482: UK Parliament SIs 1980-1989/1983/1551-1600/Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553)/[2 Form and content of regulated consumer credit agreements] [2 Form and content of regulated consumer credit agreements] [(1) Subject to paragraphs (2)....... SI 2004/1482 came into force on the 31st May2005. Thus I have no idea what the Regulations were in 2004, and I need to know fast... STILL NEED URGENT HELP Cheers GP

Martin Many thanks for responding. Trouble is the SI 2004/1483 came into force in May 2005 - My agreement was in 2004. Therefore the SI2004/1483 and the amendments it made to SI1983/1553 can't help me. Every copy document that is on this site and every other google search has SI1983/1553 - but the text has the 2004 amendments in it - where a paragraph has been substituted you can't see what the original said. Surely someone somewhere on this site has or has access to the original? I need it sooner rather than later, otherwise it won't matter.. GP

HELP HELP! I also need a copy of the completey unamended The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. SI 1983/1553 As you know, SI2004/1482 amended SI 1983/1553. All teh downloads, including thos on this site (as far as I can see) contain in Section 2 the completely substituted text from SI2004/1482. I need to get the original 1983 version. I need it fast as I'm in court v soon. Any help very much appreciated! HELP HELP! Cheers GP

Chris can you, or any member of the site team help me with this problem? The problem is laid out above, but in a nutshell the more recent SI2004/1482 says that the text in Section 2 substitutes the Section 2 text in the SI 1983/1553. The text in the pdf you sent me has notes where it states what has changed from 1983 onwards - but here's the thing, the Section 2 text looks exactly the same as the text in the later SI 2004/1482. So what has been substituted? Nothing? I'm in court very soon. If there was an hour of need, this is it. Cheers GP

Chris thanks for that. But I'm a bit confused. It looks like the same copy I have. When I look at the section 2 bit: UK Parliament SIs 1980-1989/1983/1551-1600/Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553)/[2 Form and content of regulated consumer credit agreements] [2 Form and content of regulated consumer credit agreements] and at then at the Notes bit: at the end of that Section NOTES Amendment Substituted by SI 2004/1482, regs 2, 4 (as amended by SI 2004/2619, reg 2(1), (2)). Date in force: 31 May 2005: see SI 2004/1482, reg 1; for transitional provisions see reg 18 thereof. But when I look at SI 2004/1482, the Section 2 wording looks exactly the same! If there is a difference, I can't find it. Is the text in the pdf on this site for SI 1983/1553 the real text at the time, or is the text in this version containing the SI2004/1482 text. Help! GP

Its a good point you make. I'm not sure what

I need an original copy of Consumer Credit (agreements) Regulations 1983. I think its SI 1983 1553. The copies I have appear to be modified by SI 2004 1482 . Tried OPSI - no joy.... Need it urgently.

I think I've managed to upload. Thanks for your help.

Chris any thoughts you'd like to give on the POC and defense on this thread or in a PM? Cheers GP.

In my court bundle, do I have to include full copies of all the Acts and SI that are relevant? Anyone know?

Jon Boy that's precisely the situation I am in; 'new' information has been miraculously found in their Court bundle - a generic default notice and a system entry. They will be in court by the end of the month. Cheers GP

hmm.. on reviewing it looks like the whole image hasn't come out. I'll see if I can rescan and repost.

Apart from my inability to upoad pictures of the right size!

So folks - what do you think of that lot?