hi ford do you have a link.............

just read the letter again god i wish we could get letters like that. Yes it is SB full stop. ya and it took 6 months to issue a default which is denied. So i am up for when we stop paying..................

thanks to x20 The Claimant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant. So to them to prove it and not that easy so it is from the breach or when you stop paying Also what are all you caggers doing on here it is Easter and i am on watch As always kind regards to you all

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland.html Have a read also you will see a post from glc,,,,,,,,,,,,:)

yes send it to the bank not the dca in regards to where you live to you however if you can hold out another 1 year or 2 the 6 year kicks in to you of course have a read A law centre in Scotland has revived the legal campaign against bank overdraft charges. In November, the Supreme Court ruled that the scale of bank charges could not be challenged as unfair under consumer contract rules. But a client of the Govan Law Centre has won the right to challenge the Bank of Scotland's overdraft charges under the Consumer Credit Act. The bank will now have to demonstrate that its charges are not excessive. "Over the last few weeks, UK banks have been telling one million customers that there were now no grounds to reclaim bank charges, standing November's Supreme Court's decision," said Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre. "The Bank of Scotland now faces a fresh challenge that charges were excessive and unfair under the Consumer Credit Act. "That is a potentially devastating case for them to answer, because under this new law, the onus of proof is on the bank to show that charges were fair," he added. No refunds Last November's Supreme Court ruling was swiftly followed by a decision of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to throw in the towel. The regulator had been pursuing a test case against the banks since July 2007 to establish that it had the power, under the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR), to decide if bank charges were fair or not. After winning the argument at both the High Court and Appeal Court stages, the regulator lost decisively at the Supreme Court. This appeared to bring to an end to the attempts of hundreds of thousands of people to force their banks to refund them their past overdraft charges. However, a Glasgow woman, Jennifer Sharp, whose case has been on hold since 2007, revived her case last Friday at the Glasgow Sheriff Court. New claim Despite opposition from the Bank of Scotland's barrister, Sheriff Baird allowed Ms Sharp to amend her legal claim in the light of the Supreme Court judgment. Her lawyers put forward a new point, arguing that under a 2006 amendment to the Consumer Credit Act, there had been an unfair relationship between her and her bank, which was illegal. The crux of her case was that it was unfair to have been charged £750 for running up an unauthorised overdraft because the charges had been used not only to deal with her, but also to subsidies the cost of the bank's free current account service to those of its customers who stayed in the black. The OFT had not pursued this argument because it is one that is open only to individuals, not a regulator such as the OFT. Ms Sharp's renewed claim also involves an argument that an unfair relationship exists under the UTCCR as well. The case will now go to a full trial on 11 June. "It would be inappropriate to comment on any customer case before the courts as it is still part of an ongoing legal process," said a bank spokesman.

ok i am in for this about time i took the war to them. Lilly white i must away now but i am going in soon.......... Happy easter to you all

yes please look at this creditcare could well be an insurance do you have all the statments or some does it charged for this. Also are you aware that you can claim back all your charges back to 1995 if it was me i would SAR the oc.

in regards to the ppi and the credit card we would need to see the CCA So get your letter of the bank i belive the these people in their bus stop are acting on behalf so just tell them to go................. With the PPI it could well be the case that we have a unfair agreement

Also Can You Check The Last Time You Pay Anything On This Account Is It Over 6 Years Check This

ok have a read thanks to nicklee who work this is so do not contact these people for the reason outline The Assignment of the Debt 19. If the Claimant was not zzzzzzzzzzzz Bank then it is not admitted that there was a lawful assignment. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the assignment was lawful and is put to strict proof that sufficient notice thereof was served upon myself. Without this proof the Claimant has no standing before the court. 20. The Law of Property Act 1925 is the relevant act that deals with the assignment of debts. Section 136(1) requires that for the assignment of a debt to be effective, express notice in writing must have been given to the debtor:- 136. Legal assignments of things in action. — (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice— 21. However, it is Section 196(4) that prescribes the requirements for giving sufficient notice by post:- 196. Regulations respecting notices. (4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered. 22. It is noted that by the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962 a recorded delivery letter is equivalent to a registered letter and that under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery). 23. For the assignment of a debt to be effective and so giving the Claimant a right of action a valid Notice of Assignment must have been sufficiently served on me using a registered postal service pursuant to s196(4) before proceedings were commenced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any notice of assignment was sufficiently served on me before proceedings were commenced. Without this proof, the Claimant has no right of action. 24. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824)

Govan Law Centre: Unfair bank charges: free help to amend existing complaint letters ok get here have a read and get to work get the letters off..... Sar the bank we need all details statments etc please do this.

ok i will be back

Assigning a Debt or Benefit of Contract? It is important to first provide the debtor with a notice of the assignment! Other points and issues that should be borne in mind: · In principle, the benefit of a contract can be legally assigned without consent, provided there is no express prohibition on assignment or, for example, a requirement that consent is obtained. · Where there is no restriction on assignment, the usual way of assigning the benefit of contractual rights is by statutory assignment.(they owned the debt) The assignment must be in writing, signed by the assignor, absolute (not purporting to be by way of charge only) and notice in writing must be given to the other contracting party (section 136, Law of Property Act 1925). · If a contract is not effectively assigned under statute, it may still be assigned under common law by an equitable assignment.(acting on behalf) an equitable assignment may exist where the requirements for a statutory assignment are not satisfied. The main practical consequence of an equitable assignment is that the assignee cannot bring an action in its own name against the third party, (acting on behalf) but must fall back on the rules governing equitable assignments and join the assignor as a party to the action. It is, in any event, desirable for notice of an assignment to be given to the third party because the third party will otherwise be entitled to continue to make payments to the assignor. Notice will give the assignee priority over any other assignee that has failed to give notice, provided there is no knowledge of such prior assignment. OK IF IT IS OWNED BY THESE PEOPLE, xxxxxxxx, YOU SHOULD HAVE a HAD NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT IF NOT THEY ARE ACTING ON BEHALF __________________

what type of account

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/216709-connaught-collections-1st-credit.html have a read re the forms

ok a lot to take in however we will get there and win

Ok this was stolen some time ago from 42man who i am sure will look in due course i belive he hates these people more then i do Read this VERY carefully, EDIT it as required and use this as your affadavit... The defendant totally disputes the debt. The alleged creditor has provided no proof that the debt is barred by the statute of limitations Act 1980 The alleged creditor has provided no consumer credit agreement with the prescribed terms. The alleged creditor has not provided any default notices in the prescribed form. The alleged creditor has provided no statements for the duration of the account. The alleged creditor has not provided any notices of assignment. The alleged creditor has not sent me a letter before action. Under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act a formal written request for any true copies of signed consumer credit agreements was sent to Capquest. via guaranteed/recorded delivery on the (insert the date on the recorded delivery slip here) (see attached document 1 – you need to copy the letter and the recorded delivery slip (take 2 copies) – to date they have not sent any copies of any Consumer Credit Agreements and they are in default of that request under section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act I believe there are no properly executed signed Consumer Credit Agreements (as the account does not exist), SECTION 78 (1) CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (a) the state of the account, and (b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and.. © the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor. The Consumer Credit Act in section 78(6) States that (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; It must also be noted that the agreement must contain the prescribed terms. Consumer Credit Act 8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect? s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order. (N.B - For the avoidance of doubt the 2006 Consumer Credit Act does not change the above legislation…… The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2007 (No. 123 (C. 6)) Citation 1. This Order may be cited as the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No.2 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2007. Interpretation 2. In this Order “the 2006 Act” means the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Commencement 3. — (1) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 1 shall come into force on 31st January 2007. (2) The provisions of the 2006 Act specified in Schedule 2 shall come into force on 6th April 2007. Transitional Provisions 4. Subject to article 5, section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have no effect for the purposes of the 1974 Act, in relation to agreements made before 6th April 2007. (cont) 5. Section 1 of the 2006 Act shall have effect for the purposes of the definitions of “debtor” and “hirer” in section 189(1) of the 1974 Act wherever those expressions are used in— a) sections 77A, 78(4A), 86A, 86B, 86C, 86D, 86E, 86F, 129(1)(ba) 129A, 130A and 187A of the 1974 Act; (b) section 143(b) of the 1974 Act in respect of an application under section 129(1)(ba) of that Act; and © section 185(2) to (2C) of the 1974 Act insofar as it relates to a dispensing notice from a debtor authorising a creditor not to comply in the debtor's case with section 77A of that Act, in relation to agreements made before 6 April 2007) REFERENCE TO CASE LAW As the creditor has not provided the credit agreement Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40 states that: ‘….the effect of the failure to comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 was that the entire agreement ………….. was unenforceable. The statutory bar on its enforcement extended to First County Trusts's right to recover the total sum payable on redemption, which included the principal as well as interest.’ SUMMARY OF WILSON v FIRST COUNTY TRUST LTD (2003) UKHL 40 THE WILSON CASE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE EVENT OF NO ACCEPTABLE CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENT THEN THE CREDITOR COULD NOT RECOVER MONIES OWED UNDER ORDINARY CONTRACT LAW REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY COULD PROVE THE DEBT EXISTED OR NOT – THIS WAS THE DECISION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE BINDING IN THIS COURT The law states that without a prescribed agreement the courts may not enforce under 127(3) and 1.In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said , at page 1131:- “Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.” 2.Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para 26 that in the case of an unenforceable agreement:- “The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;” I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) paragraph 29 ” The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order.” If the agreements are, as I expect, unenforceable by law or if no written agreement exists, then the respondent was in error when it stated that a liquidated and legally enforceable sum was due to the respondent at the time the bankruptcy petition was issued. DEFAULT NOTICE The Need for a Default notice Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the petition. It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant Notwithstanding the above points, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237) Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119 The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim, /at all. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt. The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, which is likely to include penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke [1956]. The defendant requires sight of the notice of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. the reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169 The alleged creditor has not 'served' anything on me, but simply posted a demand by first class - I believe that this is a frivolous attempt at scaring me into paying and therefore an abuse of the process. I refer to: Judge Boggis QC - RE AWAN - [2000] BPIR 241 'In my judgment, bankruptcy is one of the most serious forms of execution that can be brought against a debtor. In any bankruptcy proceedings it is, in my view, absolutely clear that the provisions as to service must be followed exactly. - JUDGE BOGGIS QC - SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT On the above information I request that the demand is set aside and I kindly ask the the judge award my costs in this matter as a LITIGANT IN PERSON. As a lone parent/low income earner/low income family (Chezza - EDIT these as required) with limited finances I approached a solicitor by phone and asked for an estimate on how much it would cost. I was given an estimate of 3 to 6 hours at £170 per hour to prepare the Application (£510-£1020) plus extra for attending the court. I respectfully request that the court give consideration to awarding these costs on the indemnity basis or, in the alternative, on the standard basis as I believe, in any case, that they have been proportionately and reasonably incurred and/or are of a proportionate and reasonable amount. In support of this request, I would also like to refer the court’s attention to the authority of the High Court in the case of:- Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch) In this case, Mr Justice Warren confirmed that it was usual for an indemnity award to be made:- 27 So far as disputed debts are concerned, the practice of the court is not to allow the insolvency regime to be used as a method of debt collection where there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the debt. Save in exceptional cases, the court will dismiss a petition based on such a debt (usually with an indemnity costs order against the petitioner). Please, please, please read and try and understand what is being said here..... Take the forms in yourself to the court (ring them first to make sure they handle bankruptcies) ask the court staff to swear in the affadavit !!! RING the court on a weekly basis to find out IF a hearing has been set (the reason I say ring rather than watch the post is because items from court can and DO go missing)....I don't want you to miss a court hearing date for the Stat demand.... Any questions please ask.... If it gets to a hearing, I will help you with your costs sheet too..... Please try and read as much as you can also on these forums... ______________

ok we need as per hs when was the last payment any insurance do you have all the statments any charges the rates are they same on your statments sar halifax get everthing did you get a NOA

good god 89 Ok the reason i asked was the interest rates for cash is not there it just shows APR.it says condition 6 well where is it also it is application,,,,,,,,,,,,, So unless they come up the back of the agreement they are dead in the water and also they would have to prove it was on the back and if they had it belive me they would have sent it.

Good evening a 1st credit. May i ask what is the interest rate for cash Also what year was this card taken out

well i have try to read the tread some of the docs i cant read however this what i used as a starting point. In order to prove its claim the Claimant must establish a number of matters. Firstly that there was an agreement between myself and xxxxxxxxxxxx Bank, secondly that such an agreement complied with the requirements of The Act (and all consequential regulations made thereunder) both at the date of inception and at all times thereafter. Thirdly it must establish thatxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bank complied with all of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“the Act”) in that it must show that it served a proper default notice upon myself prior to terminating the agreement and prior to commencing proceedings. Fourthly, if the Claimant was not xxxxxxxxxxxx Bank then it must establish that there was an “absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor” (S136 (1) Law of Property Act 1925). Fifthly that proper notice of any such assignment was given to the Defendant (S196 Law of Property Act 1925. Finally it must establish that the sums claimed are lawfully owing both at the date of the alleged assignment and at all other times. DEFAULT NOTICE The Need for a Default notice Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the claim. It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant Notwithstanding the above points, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237) Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

ok may i ask who took you to court. Do you have copy of the poc. Where is the CCA Where is the Default notice When was the account terminated Do you have a NOA, Do you have all the the statements.

has this been to court do you have a ccj

Well the only reason that NATWEST are in court today is because of the British public they in them self are bankrupt. Because of their lending policy and the way they run their business I am here to. It is for you to decided who is the guilty party as I have lay out in my defence I do not believe I am. I HOPE YOU GET THE DRIFT SPIN IT. lilly

yes indeed well done, good work. lilly white