Haggis 1894 and Site Team, Good job! Well done. And credit also to Simon Read. Now, if we could just get our message out on the Radio 4, Money Box programme and other such, what a difference it would make. With Cartel's failings on the national news agenda, there must be scope for promoting the empowerment of individuals (through this site) to use the law, as is each person's right, to have sight of original loan/credit agreements against which payments are being made. As has been pointed out, if there is no enforceable agreement, no corporate entity answerable to shareholders would make payments amounting to millions of pounds because of a "moral obligation". I never miss an opportunity to direct everyone and anyone to this site and recount what a difference it has made to my life to have taken control of my financial affairs away from the organisations of institutionalised theft. I do not subscribe to theories of conspiracy in these matters. Or other matters, come to that. Everyone is responsible and nobody is to blame. Well done again to Simon Read. Let's hope the new owner of the Independent and the Independent on Sunday will allow and encourage its journalists to investigate and publish articles according to conscience and facts.

I have received a second 'Notice of Discontinuance' from Howard Cohen & Co on behalf of their client C L Finance Limited for the case which didn't leave the Northampton CC Bulk Centre. Marvellous! Let's hope Lewis Debt Recovery don't waste too much paper sending me offers of great repayment discounts (they started at 50%!) on these non-existent credit agreements. I'm just grinning from ear to ear as I write this message. Thanks CAG.

Hi Jet83, My letter to Debt Managers Limited dated 19th February has received no reply. However, I did suggest to them in the letter that since the account was in dispute the matter ought be returned to Barclays for resolution otherwise I would be obliged to report their further correspondence to the various regulatory authorities relevant to their business activities. I received a letter from Barclaycard dated 2nd March with no reference to specific correspondence from me but purporting to be in reply "to the letter whereby you note non receipt of requested documents in relation to a request made under Section 77/78 of the CCA 1974". The letter was generated by Grant Lake at Barclaycard Customer Services, (I assume) when Debt Managers Limited returned the account to Barcalycard on receipt of my letter. The Barclaycard letter contained all the usual blather about having fulfilled their obligations and their interpretations of CPR and other guff. The Barclaycard letter failed to mention that nothing they could bring before a court to enforce their claim was forthcoming from their files in response to my SAR. I will not be replying to their letter. I will not reply to any letters Barclaycard sends regarding any of the three accounts they hold in my name unless to advise them that I am registering a complaint against Barclaycard with one or more of the regulatory bodies concerned with their business. If Barclaycard would like to pursue their claims through the court I will consider the evidence on which they base their claim and proceed accordingly. I am emboldened in my resolution to act as described above for having recently obliged CL Finance Limited to withdraw from two separate claims against me issued through the Bulk Centre at Northampton. The first claim went to my local county court before CL Finance Limited issued a 'Notice of Discontinuance' and the second claim was not pursued even as far as my local county court. Without an original agreement containing all of the prescibed terms no claim stands much chance of getting as far as a court hearing. Good luck, Dun

The claimant has issued a 'Notice of Discontinuance' with regard to the case before my local County Court. In the case still with the Northampton CC Bulk Centre the Claimant has failed to contact the Court within 28 days of my submitting my intention to defend the claim against me so the case is stayed (strictly speaking the Court is a bit behind in its workload so this is not certain). However since both 'alleged' debts have been passed on to another DCA to collect on behalf of CL Finance with an immediate offer of a 50% reduction to settle matters, I think it's fair to assume that CL Finance have given up on these accounts until such time at they get hold of the appropriate paperwork. There is a third account, much smaller in nominal value than these two, also with CL Finance for which the agreement cannot be produced and I assume is therefore not enforceable. So I think is is safe to say the final score with this little lot is: Dun Wi Debtin: Three CL Finance Ltd: Nil Excluding all the court and other costs incurred CL Finance Ltd is down £15,927.67 - but of course, CL Finance Ltd didn't part with that sort of money in the first place. Nonetheless, thanks to CAG, I have learned how to stand up for myself in these matters and seen off these sharks as a result. A donation to the site will be forthcoming by the month end with my heartfelt gratitude.

Thank you, Cerberusalert, for pointing to that excellent and very useful letter by 42man. That'll go in the post tomorrow.

Hi Jet, I received a letter from Debt Managers Ltd. today. It is the first time I have heard anything from them. They say: "We act as agents for Barclays Bank PLC trading as Barclaycard." There is no indication in the letter that the debt has been sold to them. The letter continues: "Monthly statement will no longer be sent to you on this account and interest will be charged on the outstanding balance at a rate of 1% per month." I will ignore the letter for the time being although I am tempted to drop them a line and thank them for helping to save the planet by stopping the monthly waste of paper that is my statement. Barclays holds three accounts in my name (two of their own and one bought from Morgan Stanley). Barclays keeps adding interest to the accounts and writing to me via their in house debt collection agencies (Debt Management may be another one for all I know or care). They can write all they want (they even sent Stan from Power to Contact around to my home - he left his card). I have placed the accounts in 'serious dispute' and won't correspond with them further except, in due course, to send copy correspondence of the letter I will send to the OFT. If Barclaycard had agreements worth the name on any of these accounts they would have taken me to court so I suspect they have no such pieces of paper in their files. If they ever produce an enforceable agreement I will make an arrangement to resume payments on the account concerned, otherwise, I consider that the accounts are closed. I am not going to waste time and money on pointless correspondence. Good luck, Dun Wi

Tisk! Okay then. I'll think for myself. The following has been deliverd to the Court: Dear Sir/Madam Re: Order dated 3rd February The above mentioned Order was attached to a notice sent out on 11th February and was received on 13th February. I do not know what to do. I have asked repeatedly for the documents upon which the Claimant relies in this case. Without sight of said documents I am unable to submit a proper defence, unable to prepare the necessary papers for disclosure and unable to prepare witness statements as directed. I do not understand why I am being penalised in this way. Am I not entitled to see the papers on which this claim is based before being required to submit a full defence? Therefore in accordance with point 8 in the Order I look to the Court to rectify this injustice and submit again a request for directions in line with my needs at this stage in the proceedings and would ask that it be considered by the Court or that the Court amend the current Order is such manner as would put me in a position whereby I might fulfill its timetable. Yours faithfully, In the County Court Claim No. XXXXXXXX Between Debt Collection Company Limited - Claimant and Dun Wi Debtin - Defendant Draft Order for Directions 1. The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order file and serve the following: * Copies of the Credit Agreement and any documents referred to within it which complies with the consumer Credit Act 1974 and all subsequent regulations which the Claimant seeks to rely upon, * Default Notice compliant with s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as amended, * Document, contract or deed of assignment, * Notice of assignment, with proof of service of the same compliant with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925, * Copies of any statement or other document relied upon. If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order. 2. The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve the following: * An amended defence sufficiently particularised in response to the documents supplied by the Claimant. If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.

Bumping for attention ... anyone in a position to advise me? 2. Disclosure of documents shall be dealt with as follows: a) Both parties shall give to each other standard disclosure of documents by serving copies together with a disclosure statement by 4pm on Wednesday, 3rd March 2010. What might I disclose if the Claimant has not submitted documentation in support of the claim that would allow me to submit a defence?

Well, if someone would advise me here, I would be grateful. The Order is dated 11th February so as per point 8 below I must reply by tomorrow (unless it is already too late!). A date has been set in August for the case to go to trial. A month prior to trial each party must file a completed pre-trial check list and the claimant must pay a £100 fee and the claimant must pay an additional £500 hearing fee which is refundable in whole or in part if the court is notified in writing that the trial is no longer needed. So far, so good - although that the case is progressing at all is surprising to me. However, I have yet to receive any documents from the Claimant and the judge appears to have ignored my requests for directions (as detailed in previous posts). I am therefore still at a disadvantage and unable to file a complete defense, something I have stated clearly already. What should I do next? Are there any documents for me to disclose? Or has the Judge aimed this Order squarely at the Claimant? The Order states: 1. The Claim is allocated to the Fast Track. 2. Disclosure of documents shall be dealt with as follows: a) Both parties shall give to each other standard disclosure of documents by serving copies together with a disclosure statement by 4pm on Wednesday, 3rd March 2010. b) Any request to inspect the original of a copy document shall be complied with by 4pm on Wednesday, 17th March 2010. 3. Both parties shall, by 4pm on Wednesday, 31st march 2010, serve on each other the witness statements of themselves and of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) on whom they intend to rely. 4. No party my rely on or adduce the evidence of any witness whose statement has not been served in accordance with this Order without further permission from the court. 5. Not more than seven and not less than three clear working days before the trial, the Claimant shall file at court an indexed and paginated bundle of documents which complies with the requirements of Rule 39.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the practice direction thereto, and shall serve a copy of it on the defendant. The parties shall endeavour to agree the contents of the bundle before it is filed. The bundle shall include a case summary of not more than 250 words and a statement of the issues to be decided by the Court. 6. Complete pre-trial check list .... 7. The Claim shall be listed .... 8. Because the Order has been made by the Court without considering representations from the parties, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this Order. Thanks in advance for your help

Hi skint40, I more than agree with loobyloo85. For your day to day banking needs open a new bank account unconnected to any bank to which you owe money.

A development. In the second claim (just issued) there is a novel development. The claimant's solicitor has acknowledged my CPR 31.14 request. Remarkable! Their letter continues: Please note that as a bulk issuer we are unable to store the necessary documents on site and we are currently in the process of retrieving the documents requested. Therefore, please accept this letter as our agreement to a general extension of time. Once we have provided you with the documents requested we will grant a further 14 days for you to submit your defence. Rich stuff methinks! Your comments are invited on my proposed reply. All criticisms greatly appreciated. Thank you for your letter dated 19th January 2010. The CPR 31.14 request was recorded as delivered to your office on 12th January 2010 and therefore the seven days' allowed for the disclosure and production of documents mentioned in your Particulars of Claim has now expired. The CPR 31.14 request stipulated that your request for an extension of time state a date by when you will comply with the request. No such date is specified in your request, therefore, your request for a general extension of time does not have my agreement. The documents upon which your client would rely in this claim were requested of your client by me in a recorded delivery letter dated 16th May 2009. Your client failed to respond to my legal request for the documents you are now seeking to obtain from them and they defaulted on their statutory obligation to supply me with the same at that time. Your client was reminded of their obligation to supply the documents in a recorded delivery letter dated 11th July 2009 and was advised therein of the consequences of their default. Your client effected a technical compliance with their statutory obligation on 23rd November 2009 but still did not provide the documents you are seeking to obtain from them now. Your client has already had a full eight months to supply these documents. Presumably, a telephone call to your client would have ascertained whether or not your client is in a position to supply the documents first requested of them on 16th May 2009 and mentioned in your Particulars of Claim. If your client is not in a position to supply the documents upon which they base their claim, I suggest to you that it is unwise of your client to have instructed you in this matter. This lack of preparedness on their part is insufficient reason for me to agree to a general extension of time at this stage in the proceedings which they have instigated. I will submit my defence based on the information to hand and within the time limits imposed on me by the court. Yours faithfully, Dun Wi Debtin

Thanks EIE, The description of the mortgage states: We have set a limit on the SVR so that it will not be more than 2% above the BoE base rate. We can change the 2% limit but, before we do, we will give 30 days notice to customers who pay interest at SVR ... Those customers will then have three months to repay their mortgage if they want to, without having to pay the early repayment charge. In the mortgage conditions the description above comes under: I. Interest we charge I. n The following terms apply if, during any early repayment charge period, we are charging you interest at a rate which is equal to, or based on, the base rate I. n (x) We may change the marginal rate at any time by giving you 21 days' notice. The description is clear enough. The precise mortgage condition, too, is unambiguous. The condition I.n(x) was invoked in September 2008 to alter the marginal rate from 2% to 3%. No reason for the change was given and no reason is required to be given. Under the terms and conditions of the mortgage the marginal rate can be changed. The matter is straightforward. However, it strikes me as unfair. There is nothing to prevent the marginal rate being increased by 1% every quarter, for example, or to prevent the marginal rate being increased by 5% every September hereafter. How do I attack this situation? Am I right to assuming the condition is unfair? What validity is there in the argument that I could have refused to sign the agreement and taken my business elsewhere? I would be grateful for any thoughts on this circumstance and/or pointers to elsewhere on the site where the post is appropriate. Thanks.

Folks, Please forgive me hijcking your thread with a general 'mortgage' question. If there is a more appropriate thread for my question please direct me there. My ability to obtain a mortgage is restricted (in so far as the mortgage market is a restricted market for everyone). Obviously I am not 'forced' to sign up to a particular agreement. So what are the ground rules for claiming in retrospect that a particular condition stated clearly in the agreement is unfair? Thanks.

Thanks again 42man. All help is gratefully received. The DCA's first claim is on the way to being struck out but I do not want to count my chickens before they are hatched. They have until 4pm on Friday to submit an AQ to the court an pay the £200 fee. The second claim is in its early days of due process and I am awaiting a response to my CPR 31.14 request. The second claim crossed in the post with copy correspondence from me to the data controller at the DCA. The recorded delivery letter contained a copy of my AQ submission and the details of two complains I had made to the OFT regarding their handling of my data. These are the first complaints I have made to the OFT. The copy letters to the data controller have elicited a swift response from a named individual, the Quality and Compliance Officer, at the DCA. It's a minor triumph to get a meaningful response out of this DCA. (It would be a major triumph if the DCA stops processing my data as the law requires.) Perhaps complaints to the OFT have a cumulative effect? I will submit a third complaint to the OFT if the first claim going through the court is struck out.

Hi Monkquito, It's probably just an idle threat. And if it isn't an idle threat any caller at your door will have no authority to do anything except leave their calling card with you. I met one of these doorknockers at my door one day as I returned home. He was leaving a 'called while you were out' card which advised me to 'call this number without delay' or else ... don't if you want to get and maintain control of your financial affairs. I explained to the poor person whose job it was to shame me (I presume) that I only deal with my financial affairs by letter, not over the telephone and not on the doorstep, and that the DCA/bank which was paying for this door-knocking service was ignoring my letters. My CAG story: Having sent out my CCA requests I sat back and waited, and waited, and waited ... Plenty of letters arrived (and still arrive) threatening one thing and another, a few returned my £1 saying " we know we cannot enforce the debt but please pay us anyway" (these letters were a surprise!), some supplied reconstructed agreements, and some even sent legible and illegible copies of signed application forms from decades back (these were also a surprise). But not one single copy of an agreement landed on the doormat. So, slowly but surely I placed all nineteen accounts in dispute and some eventually in serious dispute for all the difference it made to the (mostly) rubbish I received through the post from the DCAs and banks. It does, I am sure, make a difference if one acts reasonably. The process of reorganising my finances by locating the original agreements can be a protracted affair and end up in front of a judge. If this turns out to be the case, all your reasonableness will be taken into account. If you are reasonable you will not end up in front of a judge because you will arrange to pay any creditor that produces an enforceable agreement. I have been so reasonable with my disputed accounts that I now feel justified in making formal complaints to the OFT about one DCA and more complains about other DCAs will follow in due course. I am also using the knowledge gained here to rebuff claims made against me through the court. To date, CCA requests and later Subject Access Requests produced no documentation i.e. no copy of an enforceable agreement, to support the county court claims. That's my story so far. So my advice to you is to keep on doing what you are doing and then don't worry, be happy. Dun

In the first of the two claims against me by this DCA the Claimant has failed to submit an Allocation Questionnaire (form N150). Thus the court has ordered: "Unless the parties file Allocation Questionnaires, and in the case of the Claimant pays the appropriate fee (£200), by 4pm 22 January 2010, the statement of case of any party in default stands Struck Out without further order." Thanks to the support and encouragement of, and the knowledge gained through, the Consumer Action Group, the tactic used by this DCA of using the Bulk Centre at Northampton to issue a claim without having the documentation necessary to prove the claim (surely a common DCA practice and arguably an abuse of process by DCAs) has been rebuffed. The DCA has ten days to divvy up £200 and complete an AQ if it wants to continue this dance. Thumbs up!

Hello EIE, I share your opinion on the draft paper. I read the paper through carefully and it was very difficult to find a way in from my point of view, that is, as part of the great unwashed. However, I will formulate a response to the paper and submit it before the deadline. What's the alternative? I have had a mortgage complaint running with the FOS for an unusually long time by their standards and I was in touch with the FSA on several occasions this autumn trying to find out what, if anything, the FSA was doing about the mass of complaints they must have received (via the FOS and the FSA's own ridiculously under resourced call centre contact point for the unwashed, 'moneymadeclear') since the BoE base rate dropped so dramatically and some mortgage providers reacted by invoking patently unfair terms and conditions in their agreements which permit an increase in the 'collar' or 'maximum track differential' they may impose on their SVR. Contacting the FSA was a complete waste of time until, through persistence and a lucky break, I found myself on the other side of the call centre trench and talking with the author of the draft paper. I don't know who was more surprised, me or him, and he was as helpful and as engaged as he could have been throughout what turned into a lengthy conversation which included my explaining to him the difficulties I had had dealing with the nonsense from their 'moneymadeclear' contact point for the general public. Not that it got me anywhere. I do not doubt that most persons in the FSA, certainly everyone in the 'moneymadeclear' call centre, including those in who deal specifically with mortgage complaints do not even know of the draft paper's existence. It is a great shame that the existence of the draft paper has not been more widely publicised. If one in ten householders with a mortgage in UK replied "what about me!" to the draft paper I'm sure the volume of replies, strangulated as the voices may be, would register in the final document. Some hope. Both for the volume response and an influence in the final paper. Incidentally, I tend agree with midge61 as far as the FOS is concerned. Satisfaction is hit and miss depending on the who is dealing with the complaint. I am now dealing with an ombudsman. I dare not hope that the ombudsman will go down the line with me - they would in a just world. We'll see. And I'll let the site know either way. Cheers. PS I was once called by an FSA ring-around-person on a Sunday afternoon, two weeks' after my original 'phone call to 'moneymadeclear' and the promise of a return call within three days' from someone who would be able to deal with my enquiry, to be told that my call had not been forgotten and they would get back to me if I still wanted my call returned. You could have knocked me down with a feather! I told the caller to take me off the list and forget about it.

Please do, Midge61. I should have posted the information sooner. This is a good opportunity for everyone with an interest in the mortgage market to have their say. The paper is very straightforward to read and understand (compared with the recent Manchester judgement!). In fact, I think the paper is very well written. My bugbear with the draft document is the limitations imposed by the response form. Oh, and the fact that there's no Guy Fawks type plot being hatched to blow up Halifax BoS.

Thanks again 42man, It would appear that CPR 18 applies once a case has been allocated to a track (correct me if I am wrong). It would be appropriate to make a disclosure request under CPR 18 if a CPR 31.14 request had not been made when the option was available (a CPR 31.14 request is no longer an option once the case has been allocated to a track) or if more documents are cited by the claimant as the case progresses. Again, someone please correct me if I have this wrong. The CPR 31.14 request is the correct approach to the case at this stage i.e. the papers served have been acknowledged and the documents mentioned in the particulars of claim have not been included with the claim form. I imagine this is always the case with the Northampton Bulk Centre. So I have changed the case number on the previous request and sent it off recorded delivery. I guess there is almost no chance that there will be a reply to the request. The solicitors didn't reply to the earlier request and the client has a signed application form for that account. The client doesn't even have an application form for this account. Or at least, it wasn't produced by the DCA in response to the SAR I sent in October 2009. In any event, the £5 charge recently levied on this account is not itemised in the particulars of claim so presumably their figure would not stack up if the matter ever came before a judge - all things remaining unchanged in the interim. What a lot of nonsense. I feel like I'm propping up Royal Mail or whatever they are called these days with all the registered letters I am sending. No matter, it's a small price to pay for being able to take back some control over my finances and anyway, we need a postal service. Incidentally, I have a copy of the Pearl & Goodman book, Small Claims Procedure: A Practical Guide and it is indeed excellent. Also, over the weekend, I made two formal complaints about this DCA to the OFT. I was a necessary chore, but now that I have started down this tack there will be a whole lot more complaints winging their way to the OFT about other DCAs. In writing to the OFT I suddenly remembered my consumer action group email account. What a pleasure it was to put that on correspondence. Thanks to everyone who contributes freely to the site for the benefit of so many who would otherwise be completely lost and at the mercy of these unscrupulous gangsters.

The FSA is reviewing the mortgage market and would welcome your comments on the draft paper. The paper is here: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/discussion/dp09_03.pdf Much of the paper's content was trailed last year. The closing date for comments on the draft document is 30th January 2010. Leave your comments here: DP09/3: Response form

Thanks very much 42man. The links were very helpful. I have now filled out the N150 and will deliver it to the court on monday (the deadline for delivery). Today, I have received a second claim through Northampton from the same solicitors on behalf of the same client for another card and a similar sum. So the process unfolds again. My intention to defend the full claim has been submitted electronically and CPR 31.14 request is ready to go. However, since instigating their earlier claim the DMC has added £5 in charges to each of two other accounts they have bought (including the one now going through the court process) so I think I need to make a request under CPR 18 also. Correct? I have read the relevant CPR Rules on the Ministry of Justice web site and seen refernces to CPR 18 on this site (including x20's reference to non-compliance by the claimant to a CRR 18 request in an N150) but no template for the actual CPR 18 request letter. Any pointers there please? Thanks.

Since the claim in this case exceeds £5000 it falls outside the small claims limit and the allocation questionnaire is form N150 wherein I have the option to choose the track on which I would prefer the case to proceed. Is it to my benefit to ask the judge to allocate the case to the small claims track rather than the fast track? Thanks.

Happy New Year. The claimant has requested that the case proceed. Therefore the case has been passed to my local county court and I have been sent an N150 allocation questionnaire. I have already posted my defence and request for directions in this thread. As far as I am aware, the claimant has submitted no documents to support the claim. I would be grateful for advice as to how I should proceed with the N150? Presumably there are pitfalls to be avoided. Thanks, Dun

Can someone tell me, please, does Clause 5(1) apply to mortgages? UTCCR (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations) Clause 5(1) "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer." I would be interested to know. Thanks.

Humm. Now then, now then. My mortgage is interest only. It strikes me as a good deal. I just couldn't have afforded a repayment mortgage at the time I took out the loan. Still less could I afford a repayment mortgage now. The mortgage has a few years to run and as I get to grips with my finances I am beginning to think about the time when the loan will expire. Frankly, it would be progress if I do not double the size of the loan between now and its expiry - I have doubled the loan once already since I took it on. More fool me! I assume my mortgage terms and conditions are standard; it's a big enough lender for the terms and conditions to be standard. My question is regarding the interest rate 'collar' or as the lender calls it the 'marginal rate'. A condition of the mortgage allowed the lender to increase the interest rate collar: "We may change the marginal rate by giving you 21 days notice." This condition was invoked in September 2008 and the 'marginal rate' at which the Standard Variable Rate would thereafter be charged was raised from 2% to 3%. As a concession, if I was unhappy with their invoking the condition, I would not be charged the usual repayment penalty if I repaid the loan within two or three months. Thanks. I know I signed up to the condition, indeed I spotted it when I read through the literature, but what option do I have but to sign? I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that this is a standard position adopted by the banks because of the unequal circumstances of the parties. It strikes me as an 'unfair condition' that abuses the inequality inherent in the relationship between a mortgage provider and an mortgagee. Does anybody know, is there any challenge in process to this sort of arbitrary clause in favour of one party to a mortgage loan agreement? There is, in theory, nothing to prevent the lender from invoking the clause again and again and again, which would, of course very quickly make all loans with this major lender impossible to repay. This really is just money for nothing as far as the bank is concerned! I would be interested to challenge this sort of 'unfair' clause in mortgage agreements. Does anyone know if a challenge is in process already? The FSO couldn't comment on whether or not they were examining the issue.