Where does this leave someone who wants to know if their lender has a signed copy of their agreement? I have made a s.78 request and received a reconstituted copy I then made an S.A.R and received the same. Do I have to wait for them to issue against me?

My understanding is that an IVA is essentially a new agreement to repay a lesser amount to a creditor i.e a fresh or new loan agreement that subsumes the original debt so a declaration of unenforceability is of no use. An IVA does not preclude a refund of PPI or excessive charges though

Its where the lender has lost the agreements and admitted the loans are unenforceable but are threatening to report the borrowers to credit reference agencies if they miss any payments. The Borrower is seeking an injunction to prevent the lender from doing this. The issue would appear to be whether or not reporting to credit reference agencies amounts to enforcement action. Given adverse credit scores are the only thing that lenders have left to threaten borrowers with when the agreement is unenforceable, they are throwing everything at it which is why it is likely to be appealed

the commercial court in London is set to hear two of the Chester referrals mid - September. I suspect the courts will find in the creditor's favour but it is in the bank's interest to appeal and delay these decisions as much as possible

But the agreement itself says clearly on it that they will be charging interest on the acceptance fee.

they will have signed their copy i'm sure

Have seen a few like your Northern Rock one before. Not sure at the moment. They have failed to mention the amount of monthly repayment which on the face of it is a prescribed term breach, but its variable rate interest so I think they may be allowed to omit this, not sure i'm afraid

am a solicitor with a few cases against welcome. Their solicitors have advised that any cases they lose on this issue prior to the outcome of the walker appeal will also be appealed. They may be bluffing but as I see it they have no real defence to the issue and can only potentially seek a stay pending the outcome of walker or, as I indicated, appeal any cases they lose

the walker case is due to be heard in the court of appeal in October, I suspect it will fail, it may then go to the House of Lords. Welcome have advised that they will appeal any case they lose before the appeal is heard. They face catastrophe if the appeal fails, effectively having to write off years of loans. Boo hoo!

there are only two "things" which can go on a CCA Agreement; a) Credit items and b) Charges there are only 3 things which can be a part of the "Charges" under Reg 4 TCC 1980 a) interest on the loan b) charges and c) certain Insurance premiums (essentially compulsory PPIs) "interest on a charge" is not a part of the "Charge" under Reg 4 the amount of the Charge cannot be added to the amount of the credit so as to take the amount over the £25k limit (ie say a loan of £24,500 and a Charge of £1000 ; ; one cannot add the £1000 to the £24,500 to go over £25000) If the interest on the Charge cannot be a part of the Reg 4 Charges it MUST be part of the "credit". Therefore imagine a loan of £24,500, a Charge of £1000 and interest on that charge of £1200 . Now IF interest on the charge is credit one cannot add the £1000 to the loan to take it over the £25k limit but one MUST add the interest (if it is a credit item) of £1200 to the Loan and this does take it over the £25k limit. This is re-enforced by the following 3 arguments:- If interest can be added to a charge what is the difference between Reg 4 and Reg 5 items S9(4) states that Charges must not be treated as credit (except by being paid by instalments). If you add interest to them then you are treating them EXACTLY as credit and there is then no difference between Reg 4 and 5 If one can add interest to a charge and interest to a premium then one must be able to add interest to the third item in Reg 4 namely the "interest on the credit". ie one tells the borrower that the interest on his loan is say £5000 and then you add interest to that figure ! (and as in Walker you don't actually tell him you just calculate the figures having added that interest).

I need to know the date of the agreement. If its pre April 2007, it is unenforceable because they have charged interest on the acceptance fee.

Not sure when you took the loan out but note that all Welcome Finance Agreements have an acceptance fee on them ( usually £75.00 ) and the smallprint below it indicates that they charge interest on it. This potentially has the effect of making the agreement unenforceable. Welcome are waiting until the outcome of the appeal in the case of Southern Pacific Personal Loans v Walker but potentially Welcome may have to write off thousands of loans where interest has been charged on the acceptance fee.

If a loan is in excess of £25000.00 but purports to be regulated by the CCA, is it enforceable. I have a claim against the HSBC. I borrowed £41000.00. The loan agreement says its a regulated agreement. When I advised them that the limit under the CCA was £25k, they worte to tell me that it is not in fact regulated and that I dont have the protection of the prescribed terms that they have clearly breached. Anyone know of any case law on this?

If a loan is in excess of £25000.00 but purports to be regulated by the CCA, is it enforceable. I have a claim against the HSBC. I borrowed £41000.00. The loan agreement says its a regulated agreement. When I advised them that the limit under the CCA was £25k, they worte to tell me that it is not in fact regulated and that I dont have the protection of the prescribed terms that they have clearly breached. Anyone know of any case law on this?

Thanks for your post credit card mug, I have a fixed sum loan with HSBC from 2005 that I am still paying off. I have a copy of the agreement and it doesn't state the interest on the loan, only the APR which I understood to be a breach of a prescribed term, but when I looked at the legislation more closely, the loan only has to state the interest if it falls within one of the exceptions in schedule 1 ( (a) - © which is very confusing because the exceptions seem very narrow and would not apply to my agreement as i am paying it monthly. Does this mean lenders can get away with loan agreements that don't state the interest? would be grateful for yours or anyones comments.