I don't think the answers given to the Original Poster are correct. See this extract from Cahoot's terms and conditions:- ---------------------- ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’ means cahoot, a division of Santander UK plc, its successors, its employees and agents, and any business or other person to whom we transfer (by absolute assignment, by way of novation or by way of security) any or all of our rights or our rights and responsibilities (whether legal or equitable) under the agreement. working day means any day (before 4pm) other than a Saturday, a Sunday or any day which is a public holiday in England or Wales. ‘you’, ‘your’ means the person (or persons) who signed the agreement and in whose name(s) a cahoot account is opened, except under the cahoot credit card account, when ‘you’, ‘your’ means the person who signed the agreement as first named customer. ----------------------------------- . 25. Using money between accounts (set-off) 25.1 If any money is overdue for payment on any other account you have with us (such as a loan, mortgage, credit card or overdraft) we may take the money you owe us out of your account by way of set-off or otherwise. We can use our right of set-off where you have accounts which are held in your sole name as well as joint accounts you hold with another person. Where possible we will give you at least seven days notice, unless we reasonably think that you may move your money to stop us. ------------------------ So "we" is expressly defined as referring to Cahoot - it would not include Bradford & Bingley. Agreed it would be a fight but if they did set-off using B&B accounts then the OP could sue under contract law. R

Thanks Andy, but what does that mean? Are you saying there Is no way to influence the clearing up of a credit file? R

Hi I've seen a number of Tomlin Orders drafted out on here.....where the Claimant Bank agrees to settle with the Debtor.but none say anything about how the "full & final settlement" usually referred to is reflected on one's Credit File . Do we have any scope here to add a clause in the Agreement saying something like... "....and providing that the Defendant shall meet the payment(s) as set out above by the due date(s) then the Claimant shall within [three? six?] months of such date take such steps as are necessary to record a full and final settlement with the relevant Credit Reference Agencies ...." Is this naive thinking....or has anyone managed it? Cheers R

Hi Fingers wondered if the scary costs was approx £1800 including vat? and possibly a standard letter? If so I'll pm you my exact figure. I'm told their costs should be £500 to £700 tops. Also , look at this question of "necessity" which is a key part of the critical judgment in kneale. Would Mr Justice Flaux Have been so critical in your case ? R

I'm not referring to the 'reconstitiuted agreements' test cases - Before Xmas, Barclaycard's lawyers were obtaining stays in many CPR 31.16 proceedings where applicant card-holder had started CC action seeking an order that BC disclose signed application forms. Barcalycard, as many will know, generally decline point blank to provide a copy of anything we signed when we opend the Credit Card Account. Does anyone know of any outcome - or of the Case(s) at all? thanks, R

Hi I have received the following newspaper or online news report; I got it from a lawyer but I am not sure of the originial source of the report. Does anyone know more? It mentions a 59 page judgment. Anyone have a view on what it means for the typical case on here? ---------------------------------------------- Major blow for claims management companies in landmark court case 06/01/2010 The embittered claims management sector has been dealt another blow after a judge at the Manchester Mercantile Court ruled that lenders can still enforce debts even if the original loan agreement has been lost or destroyed. The decision to hear a number of test cases at the court came as a result of the number of claims management companies bringing county court cases regarding the enforceability of pre-April 2007 Consumer Credit Act (CCA) agreements. The purpose of the judgment was to give general guidance about these cases, in the hope of narrowing down or eliminating the issues that have arisen in hundreds of similar claims brought to county courts across the UK. Eight cases were selected involving five banks and four firms of solicitors acting for the plaintiffs, with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) also being represented. The hearing was held between 30 November and 4 December 2009, with the significant judgment issued on 23 December 2009. The judgment was a complex one running to 59 pages, however essentially the judge threw out both the legal basis on which the cases were brought and the cases themselves, in a decision that could affect thousands of potential claims management cases. According to reports, the judge wanted some proof, rather than just assertion, that there was either no signed agreement or an improperly executed one. The judgment says a S78 (Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act) copy need not be a copy of the signed agreement showing the customer’s and the bank’s signatures and that in the absence of evidence to the contrary the court would accept that if standard practice complied with the Act then the disputed agreements also did. It was also noted that many of the cases were “speculative” in nature and an abuse of process and that, in those circumstances, the court could award costs against the plaintiff in future. It is to be hoped that Ministry of Justice and the Office of Fair Trading will now take an even more critical look at claims management companies and their controversial advertising. The judgment has been welcomed by debt solutions provider, EuroDebt, with director Kevin Still commenting: “We believe this is an important result that is beneficial to consumers, debt solution providers and creditors, as it should focus indebted consumers on dealing with their debts and trying to take control of their finances. Debt solution providers want to negotiate with creditors to deliver a fair return, whilst representing the best interests of their client.” ----------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Barclaycard may have come up with a new strategy when dealing with requests for agreements. I used the approach in this thread and I did make the Court Application, for Disclosure under 31.16. The hearing was set, with a 15 minute time est. At the relative last minute B'Card's solicitors asked me to agree to an adjournment, as they wanted it re-listing for a 2 hour (!) hearing. They say they will NOT disclose and they repeat their mantra that per s.78 etc etc they do not have to. Presumably they want to rely on some clever argument .....or is it just another stab at covering up what I beleive is the truth ie they simply do not have the original signed "agreement". Any views? R

Thanks, I think I've got it...I've summed it up in my head as follows:- 1 - In the case of the Cahoot Agreement above the Prescribed terms ARE there, BUT.... because of the non-adherance to 1983 regulations I could defend. :-| AND 2 - Because the prescribed terms ARE there I do not have the protection afforded by s.127. SO 3 - If proceedings were initiated against me I ought to try to settle before court to avoid the possible rogue judge. Of course if just one of the prescribed terms were missing then I could relax R

Thanks, but that brings me back to my question as to what effect the 1983 regs have. For example - Para 2 of the 1983 Regs ("Form and content of regulated consumer credit agreements") sets out in sub-para (4) just what must appear under the respective headings "Key Financial Information", "Other financial Information", and "Key Information". Under these heads have to appear the various particulars set out in Schedule 1. None of these headings appear in my agreement, and that's what is behind my question, i.e. to what extent - if any - do the absence of these headings and other omissions provide a Defence in any legal proceedings? Ps sorry, I now see the right to settle the agreement (I had mistakenly got it in my mind that there was a number of days that had to be quoted). cheers ,R

Thanks again Steven, so looking at pages one & two of the Cahoot agreement (see post #2 above), you are saying that the document DOES have the prescribed terms BUT it is NOT properly executed. Hence Cahoot or the DCA would have to seek an Enforcement order and in any proceedings my Defence would be to recite the numerous breaches of the Regulations etc etc. Not least the "right to cancel", which is missing. Page Two above does mention "terms & conditions enclosed" but nothing other than the 2 pages have been produced to me yet. Would it be wise to go into court relying on such a Defence? R PS - I'm not sure what is going on in the copy of page 2...see the bottom of the page left & right most - it seems to me that the 2000 agreement signature page has been copied onto a April 07 piece of stationary?

Thanks Steven, I thought the same, but if you have a mo to look at this short thread, where there's a view by experienced cagger that the agreement/application form looks ok because it covers (a) Credit Limit, (b) interest, and © repayments :- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/219739-mbna-90s-agreement-enforceable.html I've also seen elsewhere on here (soz can't find the thead) that these Cahoot Agreements are OK - but see the one on here, it doesn't conform at all to the 1983 regulations? What's yr view? R

Thanks for all the help. cheers. The "offeror" has not called me again, and I won't be chasing them, so I think I shall just sit tight for now, will post on next event. R

Here is an example Cahoot application form which typifies my Query... any thoughts welcomed (please cld someone confirm the image is readable ok?) http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/7875/cahootpageone.jpg http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/8641/cahootpagetwo.jpg cheers R PS - a bit puzzled at the "APR 07" mark on the left bottom- the application form is signed in summer 2000 ??

This is an issue which confuses me. In Credit Card agreements, I'm aware of the requirement for the Presrcibed Terms to be present. Lots of guidance on here tells us there are actually only Three (3) such terms - i.e. Credit Limit, method etc of Repayment, and interest. All very well, and we know the consequences are cut & dried if any or all these terms are not present in the document that we signed. My query is, lets say all of the above ARE present .....BUT other than that the (unexecuted) agreement - ie the application form - contains none of the very many requirements set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regs 1983. THe regs cover the "form & content" etc and lay down all kinds of headings, example interest figures, etc and of course the all important form of the Signature Box and the "right to cancel" etc etc. Does the absence of these elements (in the UNEXECUTED agreement) allow us to argue that the purported agreement is unenforceable? Or does it simply allow the Creditor to produce the super dooper aplle pie perfect EXECUTED agreement and say all is well? R

Hi, thanks, No the cards were not running at the same time. I really don't recall how the Amex card came about, but vaguely recall that they offered it in a telephone call, when they were offering me yet another 0% balance transfer (direct to my bank account). I have written pointing out that the application form does not relate to the amex, and await a reply. I suppose it is possible that I did agree to an upgrade to the Amex, eg an upgrade from the dormant 90's account. r

Hi, SFU, I note that you have the case of the multiple card and conflicting or unrecognised account numbers. Please see my thread, where a mid 90's application form somehow became a 2006/7 MBNN AMEX Card! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/219739-mbna-90s-agreement-enforceable.html With help from others on here, I have reached the view that , if and when proceedings are issued against me , I should IMMEDiately make a formal request under CPR 31.14 (covered thoroughly on this site). This will produce "all of the docs upon which you intend to rely in court" etc. Of course, later on, in proceedings, full disclosure would require the production of the same BUT 31.14 gets is all earlier on and poss saves the Allocation Questioinnaire / Directions etc as it allows the parties to measure the odds. Evidentially, MBNA (or in your case "arrow") will -surely - have to show a clear, unbroken documentary audit trail all the way from that first, ancient application form right through to the current account number on which they have started proceedings. This would be hard enough for MBNA...but for a Numpty DCA .........? R. thread here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/219739-mbna-90s-agreement-enforceable.html

Ida is right about the see-through, which might kill off any denial that the T&Cs were on the back. A little worrying . But on the positive side, the T&C's certainly ain't a modern AMEX! :-| R

thanks very much, all. Plenty to think about, I guess the key is "one step at a time". My conclusions from your help tells me that this is NOT a case in which I should be thinking about seeking a s.142 declarartion as to enforceabilty ; instead, and if MBNA or the invevitable DCA issue against me, then there are good prospects for the Defence and a mountainous evidential burden upon the claimant bank? R

Yes, Ida, I asked for CCA for an MBNA amex card that I know for sure I have had for only three yrs or so.....but the CCA/Application that turned was signed in the mid 90's and relates to a card I held back then. I guess it's feasible that it changed into some other mbna variant over the years but, from an evidence point of view, MBNA have a lot to do. particularly as I have had quite a number of mbna cards over the years - after all they could just produce any old agreement and say "this is it" !! R

Thanks CB, no, there are no links although page one does say "...as set out on the reverse.. etc". I forgot to mention that the account I asked for CCA is actually a modern MBNA American Express Card - god knows how the 1995 application form morphed into that!! I guess if this went to procededing they will need to show pretty good evidence of the link(s) from old card(s) to new? I still have three or four MBNA cards. R

Cheers , But I'm very surprised Vint1954 that you think it looks ok? It has virtually none of the correct headings per the Regulations, and does not , amongst other things have the requisite interest information such as the total payable examples etc? Or are you saying it is an example of where the Bank may ask for and get an Order that it IS enforceable? R

page one now added to post #1, R

I can't seem to get on with photobucket - is the image sizer ok ? When i click on it , it's tiny! R

ahoy there. Have managed to get a copy agreement from MBNA. Will caggers please let me have views on enforceabilty? It seems to go some way towards the precribed terms but is that enough? It's from the 90's, and the link that follows shows you the Terms & Conditions. page 1 is just personal details etc - including right to cancel and a heading "CREDIT AGREEMENT REGULATED...." etc. http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4484/agreement.jpg http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/5589/agreementpageone.jpg or http://i569.photobucket.com/albums/ss133/roger_ahoy/agreement.jpg[/img] Cheers , R

Underdog & CB above point out the potential problem re the Credit Limit. I have one card where the credit limit was £7000 (I have the signed application on which this was stated) but on the Terms & conditions printed on the reverse (the examples are indeed £1000, £3000, £5000. How strong a stick is this - -it's not a "prescibed terms" defect , is it? R