hello Axiom99 I am just 'auditing' a credit card agreement from HSBC for a friend of mine.his agreement was actually signed on 19th Jan 2005 BUT on a separate piece of paper titled 'Your information'. As a result his agreement will be mostly regulated by Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983/1553 which I have been reading night and day for the past two days.I am minded of the Consumer Credit Agreements Amended Regulations 2004/1482 as well so I shall update his bear my mind on any updates required.The 1983 regulation in relation to your thread 'a new argument for unenforceability' is beginning to unravel. I shall explain; In Scedule 1 section 8 (a),(b),© and (d) in the left hand column under 'Credit Limits The prescribed terms required by that regulation are as follows Agreements for 'Running Account Credit':The Credit Limit expressed as (a) a sum of money (b) a statement that the credit limit will be determined by the creditor from time to time under the agreement and that notice of it will be given by him to the debtor; or © a sum of money together with a statement that the creditor may vary the credit limit to such sum as he may from time to time determine under the agreement and that notice of it will be given by him to the debtor; or (d) in a case not falling within head (a),(b) or © above , either a statement indicating the manner in which the credit limit will be determined and that notice of it will be given by the creditor to the debtor or a statement indicating there is no credit limit The actual thing on the HSBC says 'Your Credit Limit Will Be The Amount We Advice You From Time to Time.You Must Not Exceed It. No Notice and Deffo not near enough to the Prescribed Particulars. By Jove (My Fair Lady) I Think We'Ve Got It Axiom99 and this agreement and all those generically for that that year are Potentially unenforceable!!! Rgds Keep you posted Means2anend

Kel123 i gonna hit the sack..been here for approx 6 hours..BUT I will be reading the Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendments) Regulations 2004 SI 1482 over the next couple of days and shall most certainly come back to your thread with any help if i can..in relation to prescribed terms on different agreements. Goodnight All Means2anend

Joncris i am wrong small claims IS £5000 it then goes up into fast track and multitrack cases in The County Coourt..my apologies.. means2anend

Joncris I think that that upper limit in the small claims court has been raised from £5000 to either £15000 or £25000 in view of the removal of the financial limit in CCA 2006 to be defined a Consumer Credit Regulated Agreement. Means2anend

pat its post 59 NOT thread... means2anend

kel123 I had 2 use my magnifying glasses to have as much a detailed look at that T&C supposedly dressed up as an Agreement. Does not even state the nature of the agreement e.g 'fixed-sum loan agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974' Take a look at what must and should be included in different types of agreements in Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendments) Regulations 2004 no 1482 if you really want to put pressure on then also check out The Consumer Credit (Total Charge For Credit, Agreements And Advertisements) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 Rgds Means2anend

Kel 123 Check out Consumer Credit (Agreements) and (Amendments) Regulations 2004 SI 1482. It may be of help. Rgds Means2anend..i'll b watching with interest

Hi Axiom99 Two issues have just arisen this evening for me..well for my friend as i am currently 'AUDITING' his agreement. I am currently looking at a credit card agreement for a friend of mine in the CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT TERMS sent to him by HSBC after a request under section 78(1) CCA 1974.I received this today and am looking under the section Interest Rates and APRs.The next section says Introductory Rates, BUT the next section says Credit Limits. You started this thread about a new argument for unenforceability so I now wish to bring to your attention what this states under the title Credit Limits.It states 'Your Credit Limit Will Be The Amount We Advise You From TIME TO TIME.You Must Not Exceed It.' Axiom99 do you have any comments on this as I can now see the relevance in what you were saying. Is this term too vague to be of any certainty for the debtor(us/me/you) Does it not say somewhere in Common Law that when terms are vague they should be construed in favour of defendant/claimant? Any Input on this...also there is no signature in this agreement.IT IS DEFFO AN AGREEMENT and NOT an APPLICATION for A CREDIT CARD as that has already been signed for under another separate form. Does it matter that there is no signature on this even though he downloaded the agreement electronically.In other words can the creditor dispense with signatures on distance selling. i know this is a separate issue from credit limit issues but can you or any one help on both these points??? Thanks-Means2anend

cheers patrickq1 i have just read the case you posted involving bank of Scotland v Mitchell.No doubt this case turned on the issue of whether all of the prescribed terms were in the one document it itself to be signed by both the creditor and debtor.On October 28th last week in THE HIGH COURT the court found for RBS against Maguffick in relation to the issue that copies of the original executed copies of the agreement were unavailable (s 77).But he brought in my opinion that case under section 63 improperley signed execution of agreement a wrong tactic...even though the Bank was unable to produce these I think he should have brought that under s77 But thanks for this peice of info...Means2anend

Hi rebel 11 Whether you have a fixed sum agreement or a running account facility.either way it doesnt matter at the early stage. First logical step is request a copy of the original agreement for either, under section 77 subsection 1 and check out subsection 4 paras (a) and (b)...keep in mind section 168 and then at the proper time bang in a section 142 CCA 1974 Rgds Means2anend

Hi all..Means2anend here The HIGH COURT on Oct 28th 2009 has just found in favour of THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND.Phillip Maguffick brought a case under section 61 and 127 to have £17,000 written off.Mr Justice Flauxton found for RBS EVEN THOUGH RBS COULD NOT FIND THE ORIGINAL COPY OF CCA. In my opinion he brought this case under the WRONG PROVISIONS.He ought to have brought them under section 77 subsection 1 and subsection 4 paras (a) and (b).This is the accurate section that deals with the DUTY of supplying a copy of the original agreement.It is obvious that this was not the law in issue. BIG MISTAKE IT PAYS TO READ AND KNOW YOUR STUFF BUT TO APPLY THE RIGHT PROVISION AT THE RIGHT TIME PARTICULAR TO YOUR SCENARIO. Rgds Means2anend:o

Hi Tony7 I am Means2anend yes it is true that SOME but not all can be written off.The Consumer Credit Act 1974 has various sections where if the agreement is weak it must comply with those sections.But for now i will not be able to write them all down for you.It is sufficient for you to know that AFTER 2007 new laws CCA 2006 which CAME INTO FORCE in APRIL 2007 do not regulate those agreemenbts between '74 and april 2006.Therefore any agreements that caME INTO EXISTENCE AFTER THIS DATE ARE MOSTLY IF NOT ALL ENFORCEABLE AS THE LENDERS WILL NOW HAVE STRENGTHENED THEIR AGREEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW ACT 2006. Rgds Means2anend

hello Danielthesaint76 I am Means2anend. it appears asthough the area of the Consumer Credit Act that deals with your 'token'(credit card) is section 14 of The Consumer Credit Act,and because you allegedly appear to have applied ON-LINE,Section 176A inserted(31/12/2004) by(Electronic Communications) Order 2004.Read this area and it speaks about what should or should not be in the signature boxes.i think this may answer your question.Also check to see whether the terms and conditions have a term that assigns the agreement over from your Original Lender(Vanquis I assume) to Cabot.This is covered by The Rights(Third Parties Contracts) Act 1999. Rgds Means2anend:)

Hi Boss-man..Pinky69 and AngryCat are totally write.DO NOT BOTHER with Financial OMbudsmenService..OFT have much more teeth..I was being called twice a day on the phone by Lowells..and Link Financial Services...THEe OFT have seen to them and Link Financial Services have been WaRNED to not hassle or use questionable practices that may be percieved real or actual as malpractice.I however rely on the LAW itself...read THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

Boss-man...it is very important that Halifax have an assigned term in that original agreement (if any) that empowers Cabot to enforce the debt from you.The Contract(Rights of Third Parties) 1999 governs this.So even if they did have that agreement and sent you it you should then 'audit it' to see if there exists a term that entitles Cabot in their own right 'assigned to them' to enforce any term of that agreement which has been 'written off' by Halifax but 'bought at a reduced discount by Cabot' that is why they're. in business it is simple buying low and recouping the WHOLE OF WHAT YOU OWEI'll get back to you with much more as for the past 9 months I have been studying CCA 1974,2006 and the above Statue and show you how to apply them to your 'particular' circumstances and AT THE RIGHT TIMING which is SO IMPORTANT...RGDS:)

hi Boss-man...Means2anend here...just subscribed..most of the replies to your question are on the ball.However I have just for the past 4 months on behalf of a friend who owed £708.00 requested a copy of the original agreement.They have continued to and still continue to default.They are committing an offence.I have just sent a section 142 .Please read more specifically Section 77 subsection 1 and subsection 4 paras (a) and (b) Consumer Credit Act 1974.Then read Section 142 and then read Section 168 which points out the offence they are committing in Schedule one of that Act.Put PRessure on them to write debt off or take you to court to legally enforce.Of course they cannot 'cos they are still committing an offence.I'll get back to you with much more in that Act..Rgds:)

DTB ...B Nekket is quite right..however go to the OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING website and sign up for their updates newsletters...that way you keep abreast of offical guidelines that debt coll agengies MUST OBEY and WHAT THEY CANT DO..The OFT will automatically keep you updated with all consumer issues ,Court cases,,unenforceable agreements etc...into your email box.. Good luck you wont regret it I have learned and applied alot to my advantage...

DTB...means2qnend...to be more specific read section 77 subsections 1 and subsections 4 paras (a) and (b)...there is more in the 1974 Act and i'll get back to you...rgds

hi Down to Business I am Means2anend....for your CCA's start by asking your Original Lender or Debt Collection Agency for a copy of the Original Agreements...Sections 77,142 and 168 Consumer Credit acts is where you should start...Good luck ..keep me posted...Means2anend:)