dont ring them, wait for letter threatening legal action.if the one you have already does state that they may take legal action, then write to them at their registered adress,to the directors, requesting under pre action protocols of the civil procedures rules, for a copy of the original properly executed agreement relating to the ALLEGED account, all statements issued throughout the ALLEGED agreement, AND ALL NOTICES OF VARIATION ISSUED, AND MODIFIED AGREEMENTS.

who is the letter from ?

its up to you, i wouldnt bother, they will probably sell it on

hi, they cant send a bailiff until they have a court order, they cant have a court order without an enforceable agreement, which they dont have, if i were you i would suggest writing to the dca, nicely, and ask them to confirm under cputr 2008 if they have an enforceable document, then sit back and wait.most of all dont worry.

please read the barclaycard application again, and you will notice that the signature box states " this is a credit agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974, sign it only if you wish to be legally bound by its terms, exactly as the lloyds application that also puports to be an agreement. void sec 59, therefore of no legal value and absolutely unenforceable under sec 78, 85 where varied/modified.

thats the whole point, its an application which binds you into an agreement, but allows them not to be, hence void by sec 59, how can it be an agreement if antecedent negotiations have not taken place and they have not informed you of the amount rate and charge for credit ?

here is the proof of the pudding, last post is exactly what you have got, an application, have a good day ! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/166878-my-mrs-barclaycard-2.html

its void under sec 59

what you have is a precontractual application, which puports to bind you into an agreement, but gives the creditor the option of not becoming part of the agreement, as they have the option of rejecting your application following credit checks, this document is therefore void under section 59.a signed application for a card is required by sec 51 where there is no agreement already in place, and is signed in respect of part 4 of the act, seeking business and quotations. entry into an agreement takes place in part 5 of the act. here is section 51, part 4, sec59, and sec 60 which relates to signing of an agreement, not an application. Part IV Seeking Business Advertising 51 Prohibition of unsolicited credit-tokens (1) It is an offence to give a person a credit-token if he has not asked for it. (2) To comply with subsection (1) a request must be contained in a document signed by the person making the request, unless the credit-token agreement is a small debtor-creditor-supplier agreement. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the giving of a credit-token to a person— (a) for use under a credit-token agreement already made, or (b) in renewal or replacement of a credit-token previously accepted by him under a credit-token agreement which continues in force, whether or not varied. Part V Entry into Credit or Hire Agreements Preliminary matters 59 Agreement to enter future agreement void (1) An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement. (2) Regulations may exclude from the operation of subsection (1) agreements such as are described in the regulations Making the agreement 60 Form and content of agreements (1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of— (a) the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement, (b) the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement), © the protection and remedies available to him under this Act, and (d) any other matters which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is desirable for him to know about in connection with the agreement. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular— (a) require specified information to be included in the prescribed manner in documents, and other specified material to be excluded; (b) contain requirements to ensure that specified information is clearly brought to the attention of the debtor or hirer, and that one part of a document is not given insufficient or excessive prominence compared with another. (3) If, on an application made to the Director by a person carrying on a consumer credit business or a consumer hire business, it appears to the Director impracticable for the applicant to comply with any requirement of regulations under subsection (1) in a particular case, he may, by notice to the applicant, direct that the requirement be waived or varied in relation to such agreements, and subject to such conditions (if any), as he may specify, and this Act and the regulations shall have effect accordingly. (4) The Director shall give a notice under subsection (3) only if he is satisfied that to do so would not prejudice the interests of debtors or hirers. 61 Signing of agreement (1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless— (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and (b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and © the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible. (2) In addition, where the agreement is one to which section 58(1) applies, it is not properly executed unless— (a) the requirements of section 58(1) were complied with, and (b) the unexecuted agreement was sent, for his signature, to the debtor or hirer by post not less than seven days after a copy of it was given to him under section 58(1), and © during the consideration period, the creditor or owner refrained from approaching the debtor or hirer (whether in person, by telephone or letter, or in any other way) except in response to a specific request made by the debtor or hirer after the beginning of the consideration period, and (d) no notice of withdrawal by the debtor or hirer was received by the creditor or owner before the sending of the unexecuted agreement. (3) In subsection (2)©, "the consideration period" means the period beginning with the giving of the copy under section 58(1) and ending— (a) at the expiry of seven days after the day on which the unexecuted agreement is sent, for his signature, to the debtor or hirer, or (b) on its return by the debtor or hirer after signature by him, whichever first occurs. (4) Where the debtor or hirer is a partnership or an unincorporated body of persons hope this helps

hi, sorry to hear about your troubles, the document they have supplied is pre contractual and is a credit card application compliant with sec 51 of the act, which reads; 51 Prohibition of unsolicited credit-tokens (1) It is an offence to give a person a credit-token if he has not asked for it. (2) To comply with subsection (1) a request must be contained in a document signed by the person making the request, unless the credit-token agreement is a small debtor-creditor-supplier agreement. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the giving of a credit-token to a person— (a) for use under a credit-token agreement already made, or (b) in renewal or replacement of a credit-token previously accepted by him under a credit-token agreement which continues in force, whether or not varied. as you can see, a creditor needs a signed application if there is no agreement already in place, which there isnt, as that application appears to tie you into the agreement, but clearly gives them the option of not, therefore it is immediately void under sec 59, which states the following; 59 Agreement to enter future agreement void (1) An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports to bind a person to enter as debtor or hirer into a prospective regulated agreement. (2) Regulations may exclude from the operation of subsection (1) agreements such as are described in the regulations following your application, you should have been advised of the cost of the credit(sec55) and antecedent negotiations(sec 56), this document was signed as an application under part 4 of the act where the creditor is seeking business. following that process an agreement compliant with sec 60 should have been sent, then signed in accordance with sec 61, under part 5 of the act "entry into an agreement, hope this helps

sorry, m+s not littlewoods

hi, send them a letter stating that they are comitting fraud by misrepresentation under the fraud act 2006, by implying they are acting on behalf of littlewoods, as you have had no notice of assignment from them. also tell them you are going to report them to the information commissioner as you believe they have obtained your data unlawfully under the data protection act 1998(criminal offence)

a creditor has to have the original signed agreement compliant with si 1983/1553 if they are persuing you. if you are persuing them then the onus is on you to prove no such agreement was signed. 1983/1557 sec 11g stipulates that copy doc regs do not apply to an agreement that has been modified, it also states that where an agreement has been modified, the earlier agreement must be supplied under sec 78 and 85, they cannot enforce until they do.the oft introduced default charges of £12 in 2006, so if your agreement is pre 2006 then your original default charges are different to this, therefore by charging £12 they are in breach of contract and any default registered that includes these is unlawful under the data protection act 1998.this also applies to interest hikes and changes to credit limits. hope this helps

1. sec 78 request submitted, if after 12 working days you do not receive a true copy of the executed agreement, the account is unenforceable untill you receive your executed agreement. 2. sec 189 describes an executed agreement as a document embodying the terms of a regulated agreement signed by both parties. 3. the part of the act that is very interesting is sec 82, where an agreement is varied with relation to credit limits/ amount frequency of repayments/charges/apr, the creditor is required to issue a modifying agreement, so at that point the executed agreement becomes a modified agreement , and the creditor has a duty to issue a modifying agreement in compliance with part 5 of the act. and copies of such.(sec 62 and 63) 4. the consequnce of this is that copy doc regulations do not apply to sec 78 or sec 85 where an agreement has been modified, the proof of this lies in sec 180(3) and si 1983/1557 sec 11(g).the proof that modifying agreements are required and when, is stipulated in 1983/1553. 5. because the creditors are failing in their duties to modify they try to pull the wool over our eyes, where in fact they are in breach of contract. 6 sec 85 stipulates that on the issue of new credit tokens(other than the first) the creditor has a duty to supply a copy of the executed agreement, so if they have varied your agreement and should have modified, they have to supply you with a copy of the earlier agreement, none do , all they send is terms and conditions. 7. people that receive applications as a response to sec 78 have clearly never signed an agreement, as these applications satisfy sec 51 which states a creditor has to receive a signed document requesting a card before they can send one.these applications are the creditor looking for business and are signed with respect to part 4 of the act which is "advertising and quotations", these applications are subject to credit checks but also appear to bind the applicant into an agreement, this makes them void under sec 59 and therefore have no legal value. 8. once credit checks have been passed then an agreement compliant with sec 60 and 61(si 1983/1553) should have been sent for signature, this is part 5 of the act "entry into an agreement" 9. so as you can see, creditors failure to obtain an agreement in the first place, and then failure to modify correctly means unenforceabilty under sec 78 and 85. so as you can see as sec 78 requests a copy of THE executed agreement, not a MODIFIED agreement. there is only ever 1 executed agreement, and that is the first one you sign, all the rest are varied(modified) agreements. hope this helps.

most people have over looked this very important part of the act. 1. sec 78 requests a copy of the executed agreement. 2. sec 189 describes an executed agreement as a document signed on behalf of both parties embodying the terms of a regulated agreement. 3. once an agreement has been varied it becomes a modified agreement. 4. copy document regs si 1983/1557 do not apply to sec 78 or 85 where an agreement has been varied 5. therefore where an agreement has been varied(modified) they have to supply the original signed agreement under sec 78 and 85, the proof of this lies in 1983/1557 sec 11(g), and the proof modifying agreements are required lies in 1983/1553. hence sec 78 stipulating THE executed agreement, NOT varied agreement, there is only ever 1 executed agreement, and that is the first one you sign, all the rest are modified, the creditors failure to modify makes their agreements unenforceable under sec 85 and also in breach of contract. people who receive applications under sec 78 have clearly never signed an agreement as applications are signed with respect to part 4 of the act, where the creditor is seeking business and is stipulated by sec 51, ie the creditor has to receive a signed application before a credit token can be issued. these applications should be followed by antecedent negotiations(credit checks) and upon passing these an agreement then sent compliant with sec 60 and signed in respect to part 5 of the act "entry into agreement"

most people have over looked this very important part of the act. 1. sec 78 requests a copy of the executed agreement. 2. sec 189 describes an executed agreement as a document signed on behalf of both parties embodying the terms of a regulated agreement. 3. once an agreement has been varied it becomes a modified agreement. 4. copy document regs si 1983/1557 do not apply to sec 78 or 85 where an agreement has been varied 5. therefore where an agreement has been varied(modified) they have to supply the original signed agreement under sec 78 and 85, the proof of this lies in 1983/1557 sec 11(g), and the proof modifying agreements are required lies in 1983/1553. hence sec 78 stipulating THE executed agreement, NOT varied agreement, there is only ever 1 executed agreement, and that is the first one you sign, all the rest are modified, the creditors failure to modify makes their agreements unenforceable under sec 85 and also in breach of contract. people who receive applications under sec 78 have clearly never signed an agreement as applications are signed with respect to part 4 of the act, where the creditor is seeking business and is stipulated by sec 51, ie the creditor has to receive a signed application before a credit token can be issued. these applications should be followed by antecedent negotiations(credit checks) and upon passing these an agreement then sent compliant with sec 60 and signed in respect to part 5 of the act "entry into agreement"

hi mothsinmywallet, im in a similar position re coop/moorcroft. how did you persuade your dca to remove the credit reference entries.

an application is compliant with sec 51 and therefore as an agreement void under section 59 as it puports to bind you into an agreement but gives them the option of not becoming part of it subject to credit checks.and no doubt also there are no prescribed terms, so it cant be an agreement, also if they have changed your credit limit, interest, charges or amounts/ frequency of repayments, then they should have issued modifying agreements under sec 82, write to the debt collector and ask for a copy of your agreement, all notices of variation, all modifying agreements, copies of notices of sums in arrears, default notices and termination notices, they will back off

was it val mccarren, did you recieve notice of sums in arrears priors to the default notice, if you didnt they are unable to enforce as they have failed to comply with sec86 as amended, further more you had to have missed at least 2 payments before they can do this. i have enclosed sec 86 that refers to this. coop are useless 11 Failure to give notice of sums in arrears After section 86C of the 1974 Act (inserted by section 10 of this Act) insert— “86D Failure to give notice of sums in arrears (1) This section applies where the creditor or owner under an agreement is under a duty to give the debtor or hirer notices under section 86B but fails to give him such a notice— (a) within the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of that section; or (b) within the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which such a notice was last given to him. (2) This section also applies where the creditor under an agreement is under a duty to give the debtor a notice under section 86C but fails to do so before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2) of that section. (3) The creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of non-compliance.

this certainly is not a copy of an executed agreement, where is your name and adress, your account no etc, if your agreement has been varied requiring a modifying agreement, then under a sec78 request, they have to supply the original agreement, and this certainly isnt it

relax, bide your time, wait for next letter, bye the way may i suggest some of your documents you have uploaded on other threads be removed as your personal details are easily read, be careful, you never know whos looking

did you ask for and have you received all notices of variation and modifying agreements

tell them they have failed in their duties under sec 55,60,61,62,63,64,78,82,85,87 and 88, non compliance sec 78, unenforceable, non compliance sec 85, unenforceable, non compliance sec 82, breach of contract (had they got one), rendering all default sums/changed interest/limits unlawful, non compliance sec 87, unenforceable, as far as moorcroft is concerned, report them to the oft as their licence is currently under review and are being investigated

where an agreement has been varied requiring a modifying agreement to be issued, i.e. when they increase limits or change apr or vary payment amounts, or default charges then the copy document regulations do not apply to a section 78 request, unfortunately for barclays it also means they have committed an offence under sec 85, as they have to supply the original agreement, unaltered, the proof is in si 1983/1557 sec 11(g). report them to the oft for this breach.i have, and also report them for this breach to the fos, send them a letter quoting 1983/1557 sec 11(g) and tell them they are in breach of contract for failing to issue modifying agreements which is their duty under sec 82, and check the two sets of terms they sent, if default charges on the earlier set are different to the £12 they are currently charging, then they are unlawful and must be removed from the account

But he confirmed that if a lender could not supply a copy of the loan agreement, then this automatically prevented them from using the courts to chase a debt until such time as they could come up with a copy. that is what the judge says, his judgement means that people using claims companies can no longer go to court after 12 days following a sec 78 request claiming unenforceabilty, however if a creditor is to persue you to court,he has to supply an signed original compliant agreement