It occurrs to me that what we really need is for some good soul who kept his original agreement ( which does not contain the prescribed terms), to now request a copy CCA from MBNA. So, if MBNA send a CCA which has been "doctored" to include the prescribed terms, then we would have indisputable proof of their fraudulent activities! So ask your pals if they have an MBNA card and if they kept the original. Maybe we can nail these suckers once and for all.

You might want to look here at a similar case. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/173383-your-opinions-cca-please.html

Lady K I've seen other documents posted on here with the signature of Johnathen Beck, but I'm not sure of the significance of this. Regarding the name and address question near the top of the first column, only the address is there on mine and it is typed.

PMW Your alleged agreement is very similar to mine. Notice in clause 3b it says "details of other service charges are set out in section 4" and, like on mine, there is no section 4! see here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/186824-mbna-cca-enforceable-authentic.html#post2009848

Missy Did you actually enter a court room to get the charges refunded or did you just threaten them and they backed down?

Natwest is owned by Royal bank Scotland, which is practically bankrupt so I think this has something to do with their aggressive behaviour. Don't forget, Fred Goodwin needs every penny he can get for his pension! Don't talk to Triton on the phone, they're A**H*L*S. Letter only, and remember they're just threat-o-grams!

Congratulations Cornucopia. Underdog, agree with you that other CAGGERS need to be enlightened about a possible "loophole". Hard to believe that the "cut and shuffle" of documents is being treated as permissable by the courts

Thanks for your replies. I think it's a dodgy document but even if it is authentic isn't it true that all the terms and conds should be contained within the "four corners" of the "agreement". The fact that section 4 is reffered to but actually there is no section 4 means that all the t&c's are not present. Am I wrong about this?

Evening all Can I tempt you to take a look at a CCA from MBNA which looks a bit dodgy to me. Appreciate your opinions. Thanks http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/186824-mbna-cca-enforceable-authentic.html

Hello peeps Got a CCA from MBNA which looks dodgy to me for a few reasons 1) Left column font seems to be smaller than middle column 2) In clause 3b it says "details of other service charges are set out in section 4." ......... There is NO section 4 ! Looks to me like the left column was cut and pasted from another document. Can I have some more opinions from the more knowledgeable folks here please. Thanks Letter: http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt125/williamzz/DSC04033.jpg Page one: http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt125/williamzz/DSC04029.jpg page two: http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt125/williamzz/DSC04027.jpg Close up top half : http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt125/williamzz/DSC04031.jpg Close up bot. half: http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt125/williamzz/DSC04034.jpg

I noticed that there is a name written on your document (Johnathen Beck). I've got the same thing written on mine. Just wondering if there is any significance in this.

I would appreciate some more opinions on the enforceability of my CCA from Mint, ta! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/184621-mint-cca-2nd-opinion.html

Ok so lets consider, if I may, another scenario. A smoker smokes fags for 20 years, gets lung cancer, and decides to sue the tobacco company for poisoning him. He bought the fags and enjoyed smoking them, and some might say he knew the risks he was taking. But his arguement is of course that even though he enjoyed the fags he didn't actually know what poisons they contained. And when he took it to court the tobacco company was found guilty. Can't you see the parallel here with the Credit card co's? If they sell us credit which is harmful to our future well being, are they not guilty of unfair practices even though we may have enjoyed the use of their facilities? Requesting our CCA's is us trying to find and expose these unfair practices and if they have been negligent and left out the precribed terms (which should be present in order to offer the consumer some sort of warning/ protection) then we are justified in refusing to pay any further amounts to these bloodsuckers. Technicalities matter! Like the tobacco co's......if they didn't want to be sue'd for millions, they should have made sure their fags were not harmful to our health. End of rant.........for today!!

"Would it also be a fair assumption to make that should a claim like this successfully get to the court stage the bank would more than likely back out." This is the point I was trying to make here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/185242-what-about-new-tactic.html Please take a look and express your thoughts.

From reading these boards one thing is clear is that these Credit card company's are terrified and "cave in" when you threaten to take them to court to get a refund of your charges. So it occurs to me that perhaps we can exploit this weakness, for example when they fail to supply a properly executed CCA, but then threaten to take us to court to worry us into paying up. In other words if they continue to threaten us for a dodgy CCA why don't we then say , fine, take me to court and I'll dispute the outstanding balance on the grounds that it contains unfair/unlawful penalty charges. I wonder if that would stop them dead in their tracks considering their reluctance to have these charges examined in a court room. Let's have your expert opinions please.

Hi It might make you (and me ) feel better to know that they have sent me virtually the same load of guff and I'm pleased to hear that it is "totally unenforceable". (I love that expression)

Ok Steve Many thanks for your input. Next task then is to try and get some charges refunded.:-|

Thanks for your reply. Edited the personal info out. I thought this was unenforceable because the application booklet (first four pages) is obviously an application form and is the only thing I signed. On this app booklet the credit limit is not specified, it just says "we will give you notice of your credit limit". To me that is a prescribed term which is not present. Am I wrong? The "agreement" on the 6th page does not contain a signature box or any other personal info about me so I can't see how this is enforceable either. Of course I could be completely wrong, that's why I need you opinions. Please help.

eerrrrrr.... Steven, could I trouble you to have a quick look at my Mint cca please. I would value your opinion as you seem to be well clued up. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/184621-mint-cca-2nd-opinion.html

Hello Well first I must inform you that I'm no expert, but it would seem sensible to me to keep the two claims completely separate. Just my opinion.

Hello All I'm new to all this cca stuff but have done a fair bit reading of these forums trying to get to grips with everything. I've recently received a CCA response from Mint and need the experts here to take a gander and tell me if the "agreement" is enforceable. I applied for this credit card in Jan 2006. Thanks in advance. This is what they sent me: Hope you can read them ok.