Correct!!! The main regulating Act for Agreements made before 2006 and and subject to those agreements still 'having a sum that is or will or may become payable' before,during and still continuing to be the case after 2006, will be positively affected by s.19 CCA 2006 OR S140A as incorporated into the !(1974 ACT). S.140 CCA 1974 dealt with 'extortionate bargains' and was used to interpreted s.137-139 which have been repealed. It was thought that this test was too high a threshold for the consumer to overcome and is now replaced by the unfair relationship test which has a lower threshold and in addition REVERSES THE BURDEN OF PROOF New agreements made after 2006 will rarely fall foul of this test as Creditors Draftsmen shall have taken into account the newer provisions and made sure that the agreements are fairer. It is the older agreements that will be more contentious.But this is more within the context of Consumer Credit Agreements and apart from the use of s140A which may be of relevance to Bank Charges and The New Argument

Here here Dougal!!! M2ae

Here are some of the arguments that may be used under Reg5 UTCCR 1999 by courtesy of Martin Lewis...Moneysavingexpert Bank Charges Reclaiming: Fight unfair charges, updated after OFT dropped case... .....and then scroll down and click the link give a more detailed explanation in the new legal arguments section.

Caggers I have found some recent European case law that deals with ...'not having individually negotiated....' as per ART 3(1) and (2) 93/13/EEC or as implemented as Reg 5(1)(2) UTCCR 1999 SI/2083 The Case is Pannon v Gyorfi [2009] C-243/08 It appears to be good news on interpretation-I shall try to find some specifically within the context of Banking/Credit but the principles should be the same. Here are the links: http://lawstudentforum.co.uk/eu-law/4593-unfair-contract-terms-pannon-v-gyorfi-2009-c-243-09-a.html for a fuller information use link below http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008J0243:EN:HTML I'm off goodnight M2ae

No problem... I shall post the annex tomorrow Rgds m2ae

Hence the contract should be 'in a plain and intelligible language' interest and charges are definitely terms that are core they MUST be drafted in a manner that is INTELLIGIBLE as per Reg 5

Are there any caggers out there who know or a familiar with any case law authorities in the Commonwealth that have decided on similar provisions and or circumstance (individually negotiated...) within their own Country's respective jurisdiction. We may be able to use those Judges ratios as obiter in connection with our situation and start the 'firing gun'so to speak.Provided of course the decision was favourable to the consumer. Also banks were settling long before the OFT actually took it to THE court and lost. Maybe the 'threat' of S5(1)(2) without going to court may once again be tactically correct in getting refunds BEFORE any PRECEDENT one way or the other. If so we better act quickly Comments please Rgds M2ae

Council Directive of 5th April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (93/13/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES......... HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE- ARTICLE- 1 1 The Purpose of this Directive is to approximate the laws,regulations and administrative provisions of THE MEMBER STATES, relating to unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer. 2 The contractual terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions and the provisions or principles of international conventions to which the Member States of the Community are party,particularly in the transport area,shall not be subject to the provisions of this Directive. ARTICLE-2 For the purposes of this Directive- (a) ''unfair terms'' means the contractual terms defined in Article 3; (b) ''consumer'' means any natural or legal person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession; © ''seller'' or ''supplier'' means any natural person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes relating to his trade, business or profession,whether publicly owned or privately owned. ARTICLE- 3 1 A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract,to the detriment of the consumer. 2 A term shall always be regarded as not individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term,particularly in in the context of a pre-formulated standard contract. The fact that certain aspects of a term or one specific term have been individually negotiated shall not exclude the application of this Article to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of the contract indicates that it is nevertheless a pre-formulated contract. Where any seller or supplier claims that a standard term has been individually negotiated, the burden of proof in this respect shall be incumbent on him. 3 The Annex shall contain an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair. ARTICLE-4 1 Without prejudice to Article 7, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent. 2 Assessment of the unfair nature of the terms shall relate neither to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand ,as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain intelligible language. ARTICLE-5 I In the case of contracts where all or certain terms offered to the consumer are in writing, these terms must always be drafted in plain, intelligible language.Where there is doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.This rule on interpretation shall not apply in the context of the procedures laid down in Article 7(2). ARTICLE-6 1 Member States shall lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer and that the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms. 2 Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the consumer does not lose the protection granted by this Directive by virtue of the choice of the law of a non-Member country as the law applicable to the contract if the latter has a close connection with the territory of the Member States. ARTICLE-7 1 Member States shall ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers. 2 The means referred to in paragraph 1 shall include provisions whereby persons or organisations, having a legitimate interest under national law in protecting consumers, may take action according to the national law concerned before the courts or before or before competent administrative bodies for a decision as to whether contractual terms drawn up for general use are unfair, so that they can apply appropriate and effective means to prevent the continued use of such terms. 3 With due regard for national laws, the legal remedies referred to in paragraph 2 may be directed separately or jointly against a number of sellers or suppliers from the same economic sector or their associations which use or recommend the use of the same general contractual terms or similar terms. ARTICLE-8 Member States may adopt or retain the most stringent provisions compatible with the Treaty in the area covered by this Directive, to ensure a maximum degree of protection for the consumer. ARTICLE-9 The Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council concerning the application of this Directive five years at the latest after the date in Article 10(1) ARTICLE-10 1 Member States shall bring into force the laws,regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive no later than 31st Dec 1994.They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. These provisions shall be applicable to all contracts concluded after 31st Dec 1994 2 When Member States adopt these measures,they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication.The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by the Member States. 3 Member States shall communicate the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive to the Commission. ARTICLE-11 This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Luxembourg, 5th April 1993 This Directive 93/13/EEC was initially implemented by UTCCR 1994 SI 3159 but then was revoked by; UTCCR 1999 SI 2083 which is now the current regulation. Rgds M2ae

Remember what s5(2) is saying.... ....to be able to individually negotiate AND influence the substance of the term otherwise that term will ALWAYS be regarded as not having been individually negotiated. This suggests an informal 2 way communicative street. The scenario Bookworm is talking about would fall outside the 2 mutually inclusive required elements above that the banks would have to prove. Terms to which these Regulations apply 4-(1) These Regulations apply in relation to unfair terms in contracts concluded between a seller or a supplier and a consumer. Bookworm's scenario is ex-hypothesi and falls short of a concluded contract...the above provisions would therefore not be triggered off. The use of the past tense 'concluded' is ex-post facto.Once a contract is concluded then the issues in these Regulations fall to be decided. Also just out of interest please look at...... Schedule 2 Indicative And Non-Exhaustive List Of Terms Which May Be Regarded Unfair Reg 5(5) .....(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in 'compensation' .....(I) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract. I should welcome comments Rgds M2ae:)

Exactly...and if we have not had the opportunity of influencing the substance of a term through individual negotiation we then have not had the opportunity of arriving at a bilateral agreement or individually negotiating at setting the 'price or charge' for the goods or services provided as mentioned in s6(2)... This is quite a separate issue from assessing whether the term itself is fair. Most terms and conditions in the current account agreements have a pre-formulated amount of £35 fixed already for late payments, missed payments etc....or whatever the amount is ...even the £12 now classified as reasonable has been pre-set albeit due to pressure from OFT. Lord Phillips described the price or charge for the goods and services provided by banks as an 'essential core term'. Yet in reality this essential core term was never individually negotiated,in practice can never be individually negotiated nor can the consumer have the opportunity to influence the substance or 'agree' to a level that the charge should be set at. It truly is another legal fiction. The maxim 'CONSENSUS AD IDEM' springs to mind and is used in contract law to mean'A MEETING OF MINDS' so as to a truly arrived agreement. How can this be accomplished with pre-formulated contracts. I think that Lord Phillips was indicating that this was the way to go.It is a quite separate issue from assessing a term for its fairness and is more concerned with a bilateral agreement. After all if the level was not £35 but £100 but individually negotiated by both parties...then who's complaining. If this is truly the way Martin Lewis and Ray Cox QC et al intend to go......THE BANKS HAD BETTER BEWARE!!! And Remember The Burden Is On Them To Prove That It Was Individually Negotiated... How on earth are they going to discharge that burden...it's almost impossible..LOL Get the gist!!! Rgds M2ae

UNFAIR TERMS 5-(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirements of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of them, (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated,these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract. (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was. (5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair. ASSESSMENT OF UNFAIR TERMS. 6-(1) Without prejudice to Regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent. (2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate- (a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange. It appears that the way is still open not to challenge the unfairness of the LEVEL of the charges BUT for the mere fact that it was NOT INDIVIDUALLY NEGOTIATED And THE BURDEN IS ON THEM TO PROVE THAT IT WAS INDIVIDUALLY NEGOTIATED...a much less tiresome route for us all Also the last decision on levels of charges not being fair may on individual basis be open to appeal for NOT BEING EXPLAINED IN A PLAIN INTELLIGIBLE MANNER.That avenue would depend on consumers' personal agreements and on individual circumstances. However most standard pre-formulated agreements are 'generic' in nature so that.to use an example from the request for a 'copy for original agreements' situation ,the courts have said that the banks can reconstitute a copy from 'other agreements that existed at the time' so long it was 'an honest and accurate copy'. Well then the converse can be applied in our situation within the context of bank charges whereby if one consumer's pre-formulated standard contract was not individually negotiated then by virtue of it's 'generic' nature there must be thousands the same 'out there' that were not individually negotiated.THIS IS THE MASSIVE PROBLEM THE BANKS WOULD HAVE IN PAYOUTS.Its elementary my dear WATSON!!! Rgds M2ae

Section 175 CCA 1974 and WILSON & ANOTHER v HURSTANGER LTD (Court Of Appea)l:) I believe that LJ Jacob was sitting in on this case which is the Judge Pat was referring to Also and very crucial... if you can show that any cost to you as a result of purchasing that ppi was NOT included in the TOTAL CHARGE FOR CREDIT as this is a PRESCRIBED TERM and the amount MUST be included in the cost of the loan subject to whether that ppi was a pre-requisite to you taking out the loan then it may be improperly executed according to S60 and s61...but first see s20 and lastly s65. If your agreement was made BEFORE 2006 and is 'a sum that is or may or will become payable' at this moment, then you can rely on s127(1) and ultimately (now repealed for agreements that are made after 2006).... THE ALMIGHTY S127(3) Non disclosure of ppi may only go as far as merely repaying you back what was taken and NOT make the agreement Unenforceable there has to be more than just non-disclosure. There were 2 issues in the above case...non disclosure of a commission paid to the broker and allegations of a breach of a prescribed term..to be more precise the credit amount or 'how it was to be determined'. The judges found there HAD been a breach of non-disclosure but that there also was a method in the agreement that 'determined how payment was to be made' and therefore the credit amount could be ascertained. Therefore the commission was refunded but the agreement was still enforceable. If (on the other hand) they had found that there was no method for determining the amount to repay and hence 'the credit amount' (A PRESCRIBED TERM)this would of itself given rise to an allegation of breach of s60,61,65 and then the effect would be to use the courts in s127(1) and s127(3). The Court has NO DISCRETION to make an agreement enforceable under s127(3) for agreements before 2006. But Parliament decided after a case, Dimond v Lovell which involved 'unjust enrichment' on the part of the debtor Dimond, and incompatibility with ECHR when Judges interpreted CCA 1974 in conflict with Human Rights, repealed s127(3) and (4) and (5) but left s(1) and (2).... which now merely allows the court to do a balancing exercise that the agreement if breached is still enforceable provided there is no 'prejudice' to the debtor. This repeal has taken away the debtor's ACE CARD for agreements made after 2006 but NOT for agreements made and still 'live' before 2006.In other words even if there had been NO PREJUDICE to the DEBTOR the Court's had no power to enforce the agreement under s127(3) because when read properly 127(1) and (2), 'the use of discretion' when exercising that balancing act of no prejudice to the debtor, WAS SUBJECT TO THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF THE COURT TO NOT ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT in s127(3) .This section would be used whenever a PRESCRIBED TERM was alleged to be missing or if there was an improperly executed agreement as per s65 see s62,63 and 64 in the case of cancellable agreements. These are the combined effects of the cases and interpretation of the provisions in those cases. The older the agreement and provided that'there is a sum that is ,will or may become payable are fortunately able to call on s127(3),(4),(5). Those that have 'no sum that is or no sum that will or no sum that may become payable', in other words concluded, (to be distinguished from the word 'concluded' in the sense of making an agreement) and made before 2006 also unfortunately will not be able to 're-negotiate' to call upon s127(3) Rgds M2ae

Kel123 With reference to what Pat was saying in post 162 the Court Of Appeal case law authority decided on the issue of commission being paid to a broker without disclosure to the lender/creditor and found in favour of the debtor; Google- Wilson & Another v Hurstanger Ltd Hearing date was 04/04/07 IN PDF FORMAT Also Consumer Credit Act 1974 s175 which incorporates the Law of Agency into that provision a contract between the creditor and agent(credit broker etc..insurance broker ppi.etc) Rgds M2ae:)

Hee! Hee! thnks m2ae P.s SRFRENCH....I shall be making time this coming weekend in order to read all 3 of your above links with ABBEY I try to read as many threads as possible in order to learn and contribute.I look forward to reading about your tactics deployed.

can anybody tell me what lol stands for thnks

Re Post 1008 Banker_Rhymes_With (ahem!) Good Point... About not showing one's hand too soon.The number of banks ACTUALLY taking the debtor to Court is statistically pretty small one point being 'setting the precedent against them' the other as you have quite rightly mentioned is that the Burden of Proof would now be upon them in that it would be just one of a number of hurdles to overcome including the risk of having it dismissed and/or struck out due to a number of reasons. Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27 ...is where (I believe) Lord Hoffman used the phrase 'irredeemably unenforceable' which apparently meant that it ALSO extinguished any contractual rights at common law which was much of the subject matter in RBS v McGuffick.This suggests that it would be Void AND Unenforceable Ab Initio. ...where one of the issues was whether whilst the creditor is in default and the agreement is unenforceable.as per s.77/78..does the fact that the creditor refer to the CRA any default payments made by the debtor and the continuation of interest payments 'amount' to enforceability because of it's coercive nature...whereby the Judge at the High Court reasoned NO... The creditor is entitled to continue to refer the debtor to the CRA and in the recent High Court test cases at Manchester this was affirmed during the passages by Judge Waksman concerning the cases before him although the issues in dispute were not the identically same. The interest is frozen but then when enforceability (in that all relevant paperwork had been found by Creditor) resumed any interest accruing at that point was payable that WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYABLE during non-compliance by the creditor. Much is due to the fact that at Common Law there still subsists contractual rights and liabilities and so there is in effect a moratorium. An Act of Parliament although Supreme cannot wipe out a whole Doctrine Law such as The Law of Contract which as it's basis incorporates the cornerstone of democratic principles in the freedom to choose to enter into contracts. Courts are very weary to undermine this Fundamental Liberal Democratic Principle of choice and freedom of will and do not risk breaking up contracts that were entered into by those who have the capacity,that the objective of the contract not be illegal that it also be entered into voluntarily..... AS PER POST 999 Hsbcfiddled...Good point.I do not Remember the Judge Joker addressing that CRUCIAL point as I read the 59 page Report.However I read that a few days ago.I shall read it again and concentrate specifically on that point and if anything is mentioned as to it. Rgds Means2anend

Additional Pre-Court news to be read in context with the above decision. 1 'Court lets woman off £8.000 loan'-this should be read with point 5 above in SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL FINDINGS http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8282264.stm 2 'Lenders Warned Not To Mislead Customers Over Debt' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8393768.stm 3 'Showdown Over Credit Cards Card Debts 23rd Nov 2009' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8365018.stm 4 'Banks Win Partial High Court Victory On Credit Cards' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8435867.stm Rgds Means2anend

ukaviator, What this judgement/opinion in the context of EU Law and therefore National Laws of the Member States (irrespective of whether they be implemented or not in relation to the time that it OUGHT to have been implemented within that Member States own domestic laws according to EU Regulations for Implementation) is saying; ..Is that, taking 26 and 28 together; ...That sometimes in contracts where there exists an unfair term whatever that term may be...the fact that the weaker party/consumer contracts to it ...he is in an EVEN FURTHER impossible position to NOT ONLY dispute that unfair term per se...but when that same contract subjects him/her to the Courts' of ANOTHER 'GEOSPATIAL' JURISDICTION in this instance the seller/commercial businesses' place of business which could be miles away or NOW that we are of one SINGLE MARKET possibly even in another Member State that this very cost of travelling to seek justice in itself could be a heavier and more expensive financial burden than the adverse cost or prejudice the term itself would impose thereby discouraging consumers from taking up the protection that 93/EEC/13 was supposed to provide in the first place and hence resulting in a significant impairment in the rights and obligations of the consumer/weaker contracting party. In other words put another way ACCESS TO JUSTICE would be denied by the inclusion of an unfair ' Geospatial jurisdiction clause'. The answers given at the bottom seem to suggest that National Court's 'of their own motion' would strike out this clause BEFORE the consumer would contest the 'other unfair term'. It appears that National Court's are well aware that this 'Geospatial jurisdiction' clause is just another ruse to deter the weaker party in the weaker bargaining position to bring the case in the first place. And so as long as the National Courts interpret the Directive as far as possible regarding the 'non-jurisdictional' unfair term (the unfair term at the substance of the contract) in accordance with the Treaty's purpose and objectives then THEY should 'have JURISDICTION to 'oust the(Geospatial) jurisdiction clause' without the pleading nor presence of the weaker party which could be more costly for the above reasons. That is the sense in which I understood from reading above link.....I may be wrong but EU Law is broad and is subject to differing interpretation.However when I studied at University how to interpret this type of law it was to be interpreted in its entire context context and with the application of common sense. How this applies to this thread and what you meant by bringing this up I leave open for further interpretation and contribution from other much well informed cagger Lord Woolf when streamlining the Civil Justice System back in 1996 with regards to Access,Cost,Complexity of the Justice system no doubt was aware of the new directives that were already in existence and against this framework our National Courts already 'OF THEIR OWN MOTION' by way of practice directions and CPR can transfer a case instituted by a claimant from that claimants home town court to a court in the home town of the defendant automatically where that defendant is an individual and the claimant is a financial institution thus overcoming any barrier that distance may cause to defendant in terms of costs especially in claims involving modest sums thereby discouraging the defendant from implementing his rights which was not the purpose for Reform of the Civil Justice Systerm in the first place..ACCESS to Justice for all was one of the fundamental principles. Rgds Means2anend:)

For those of you who hate reading reams and reams of material before getting to the gristle:Here are salient points. ''The purpose of The Judgement is to give General Guidance in the context of the cases before me and those hundreds stayed in County Court Claims'' ''The following issues have thus been framed as the following questions'' (1) When providing a copy of an executed agreement in response to a request under s78 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974: (a) Must a creditor (i) provide a photocopy (or other form of complete copy) of the original agreement that was signed by the debtor or at least provide a copy which is derived directly from the original agreement or complete copy thereof, or (ii) can a creditor provide a document which is a reconstitution of the original agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself? (b) Must a creditor provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit(Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made in order to comply with s78? © Must the copy provided under s78 include the debtor's name and address as to the date when the agreement was made,and if so in what form? (2) If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, is a copy of the executed agreement as varied, a sufficient copy for the purposes of s78 or must the creditor provide a copy of the original agreement as well? (3) Does a creditors breach of s78 of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of section 140A? (4) if there is a breach of s78(1), is that sufficient, without more to make a declaration to that effect (pursuant to CPR 40.20) appropriate in particular: (a) Where the creditor admits the breach but did not admit it before the issue of proceedings? (b) Where the creditor denies or does not admit the breach? (5) Does the document signed by the debtor contain the prescribed terms for the purposes of s61 and/or s127(3) if: (a) they are signed on a sheet which is referred to on the piece of paper that was signed by the debtor; or (b) where that sheet is attached to the piece of paper signed by the debtor; or © where that sheet is separate from but was supplied with the piece of paper signed by the debtor? (6) If it were not established at trial, that there was a document signed by the debtor containing the Prescribed Terms, would that of itself entail an unfair relationship? ]SUMMARY OF FINDINGS on p59 last page at para:234 '' The following is a brief summary of the principal findings and conclusions set out above:'' (1) '' A creditor can satisfy it's duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself;'' (2) ''The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement.But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details.It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself;'' (3) ''The creditor need not, in complying with s78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 as to form, as at the date the agreement was made;'' (4) ''If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms;'' (5)''If a creditor is in breach of s78 this does not of itself give rise to an unfair relationship within the meaning of Section 140A;'' (6) ''The Court has jurisdiction to declare whether in a particular case, there has been a breach of s78.Whether it will be appropriate to grant such a declaration depends on the circumstances of that case;'' (7) ''In assessing whether Prescribed Terms are ''contained'' in an executed agreements the principles set out at para 173 above are relevant.On the assumed facts set out at para 177 the Prescribed Terms were so contained;'' Agreed Principles set out at para 173; ''The parties in Carey have helpfully agreed the following principles.The fourth one was added by Mr Uff, with their agreement.No other party takes issue with them.The OFT has formulated the matter in a slightly different way but accepts these principles are close to it's position.'' 1: ''It is not sufficient for the piece of paper signed by the debtor merely to cross-refer to the Prescribed Terms without a copy of those terms being supplied to the debtor at the point of signature.'' 2: ''A document need not be a single piece of paper.'' 3: ''Whether several pieces of paper constitute one document is a question of substance not form.In particular a physical connection between several pieces of paper is not necessary in order for them to constitute one document:'' 4: ''Additionally, a physical connection (or one or more physical connections) between several pieces of paper does not necessarily constitute them as one document;'' 5: ''Accordingly,where the debtor's signature and the Prescribed Terms appear on separate pieces of paper, the questions of whether those pieces of paper together constitute one document is a question of substance not form.'' Para 174; ''As a matter of law, those principles appear to me to be correct, in the context of s61.'' ''The claims that there was an unfair relationship and an IEA (Improperly executed agreement) in Adris should be struck out or dismissed.The claim that there was an IEA in Yunis should be struck out or dismissed.The absence of any positive pleaded case or evidence as to the circumstances of the making of the agreement by the debtor concerned was fatal to the IEA claims.The absence of any positive plea or evidence as to particular facts relied upon in support of the unfair relationship claim other than failure to provide a s78 copy, was fatal to that claim.'' Para 235:''Following the handing down of this judgement, I will hear Counsel on the form of the various orders that will need to be made, any further directions in relation to the case with which I have dealt and all other consequential matters.'' Any opinions below are strictly means2anend's Later I shall try to give a respectful explanation as to the implications of this judgement on the creditors ABILITY to provide ''AN HONEST AND ACCURATE COPY'' as I have EVIDENCE that they did not do this in my case (I may go to a NATIONAL NEWSPAPER as this is FRAUD and DECEPTION) and that their procedures and customs that they have instigated and put into practice and the culture that has grown in relation to their procedures over the last number of years almost prevents them from doing this hence the quote from Andrew Settle Lawyer for one of the largest Claims management companies on the BBC website that this was only a 'partial victory for the banks and that this could open the ''floodgates for litigation and or settlements. Below are some excerpts from the media...... Means2anend

For those who hate reading reams and reams of material BEFORE getting to the gristle The Purpose of this Judgement is to give General Guidance The Preliminary Issues have been framed as thus (1) When providing a copy of an executed agreement in response

London Born One of the PRESCRIBED TERMS is that a copy of the original however reconstituted provided it is drawn from records and sources held on their record on you is LEGIBLE.Aklso that any copy of the original must have your NAME and ADDRESS and theirs also...but not necessarily your signature... If it is a POOR COPY they be offending the AGREEMENTS REGULATIONS 1983 as to Legibility Read the facts and the reasoning behind The Judgement and interpretation of the 'ACT' and associated Regulations you may find that afterwards it may save you time as well as unecessary costs. im off 2 c W.ham beat Arsenal Back Later Rgds means2anend

Lodon Born I have corrected the link you can try now Means2anend

London Born The Agreement that you are talking about falls within s.78 CCA 1974 'a running account agreement' that deals with 'credit tokens' (credit cards) as defined in that section. The copy is a 'poor' copy as you have stated Things have been on hold since the decision by his Honour Judge David Waksman at the High Court in Manchester hearing those cases in November and decision made in Dec 2009. regarding 6 cases involving issues surrounding s.78.The announcement is recent and so not many will have probably had time to read it yet and digest the implications. It is a 59 page judgement that I read in full yesterday that clarifies up the issues on interest, default, CRA's and whether or not the failure of the creditor to supply a 'true' copy of the original signed agreement can automatically write off the debt or whether the creditor does not have to send you a 'true copy' but a reconstituted copy drawn from 'other sources' provided it is an 'HONEST and ACCURATE' copy. Other issues as to whether an unfair relationship may exist by not giving the debtor a copy of the agreement or if a copy was given if it is in a state of legibility has any effect on the enforceability of the agreement by the creditor or any interested party that has purchased the debt from them. I STRONGLY URGE you to read the Judgement as this is FIRST HAND AUTHORITATIVE over any layperson's opinion and over any County Court claims that are stayed at present. For the forseeable future and subject to any consumer appealing to the Court of Appeal Civil Decision it appears as though this is SETTLED LAW It is ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT to THIS THREAD. Your concerns WILL be addressed in this judgement. here is the link.I hope it goes some way to clarify your position. Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) (23 December 2009) Rgds Means2anend

kennyh Here is your link 'to the idiot's guide' http://www.justice.gov.uk/procedure.htm in the left hand pane click CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES...then RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS and ALL NEEDED COURT FORMS if you look further down Scroll down to your relevant issue POC and Practice Directions it's All Here!!! in Plain English. it has the whole Civil Process Procedure...Good Luck means2anend

just subbing means2anend