Not as tricky as you may think, the SI that governs CCA agreements clearly states that to be properly executed the agrrement must be properly signed. Mike

This is an example of an improperly executed agreement, which can only be enforced by the court. However, if you have been sent replacement cards over the life of the agreement and I would think that you've had a least one since 2003 that embodies chip and pin, then they are in breech odf section 85 of the CCA, the duty to supply a copy of the executed parties thereto. If the original agreement wasn't properly executed, they're cannot comply with section 85. Mike

Finacial ombudsman deal with this lot now. Mike

I think other people who have dealt with her would disagree

Mods I'm not sure as to which forum this thread should be in so I'll leave it up to you. Took the afternoon off today to do a little pre xmas decoration. Amongst the usual day time adverts trying to lure people into debt, I was interested to note that Experian under the guise of 'Credit Expert' are advertising their wares on the TV. Take charge of your credit record they say, so that you can find out why you didnt get 'that loan'. Implying that you have control of your credit record. What a load of tosh, I've had four defaults on my record all bogus, one now removed and im having to go to court to get the rest dealt with, and of course your other half is tainted too. So in charge of your own credit record, I dont think so. Letter off to the ASA I'm afraid. Mike

Alot going on now, I wont write any specifics but it seems that Monument has grown testicles and is trying to force the issue, I will post when able, but at the moment too afraid of prying eyes Mike

Hiya just have a look at this thread. Mike http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56001-mike220359-blair-oliver-scott.html

In my opinion its not a good idea to sit back and wait for them to do something. I would write to them and tell them that they have not complied with what you have required, they have committed an offence and that until you you receive what you require under law you will treat any further contact from them as vexacious. In addition I would tell them that until they discharge their obligations under the CCA, every 'phone call received will accrue a £50 charge in aggrevated damages since they are precluded to do so under law. I've just issued the organisms with a demand for £250 in aggrevated damages for contacteing me on behalf of a Monument debt that has been in default since August 2006. And I will take them to court, beleive me! Mike

I dont comment too much on the site these days but statements like these from TS really make my blood boil. We have all seen in the news the panic caused by poor loans and Northern Rock in the country. I would sinically argue that statements such as the above are there to disuade defaulting on loans that were badly administered bay the banks. One may argue that TS are in no mood to pursue financial organisations when they have blatantly broken the law and would rather persue some poor twerp selling dodgy DVDs in a car boot sale. Lloyds and Monument have both broken the CCA in my case but trading standards have stated that it would not be in their interest to pursue them. I throw my hands in the air. Its a sad fact but at the end of the day the only people u can rely upon are yourself and the kind providers on this site. Mike

I'm a little confused has Archer won or is it that Shane has won or am I a bit thick Mike

I'd be grateful of a copy Mike

The thing is it is against the banking code that they are updating dredit files when an account is in dispute. However since they are not a bank they are not signatories to it according to the banking code website. However, in order to get money from 'customers' they have to be authorised by the FSA, gues what they aren't letter going off to the FSA now. Mike

Yep its the Consultation Paper on the Draft Regiulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill 2007, it was published earlier this year with submissions required by september 28th 2007. If you google the above you should go straight to it. Mike

Just looked at the Consultation Paper on the Draft Regiulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill, it seems that TS will be going through a bit of a reorganisation since In 2005, Philip Hampton published his report "Reducing Administrative Burdens", which showed the importance of proportionate enforcement in delivering better outcomes on the ground – in the form of fairer markets, safer communities, a better environment for business, and economic growth. He identified two practical obstacles to delivering a proportionate and effective system of regulatory enforcement there were difficulties in communications amongst national and local regulators, and there was inflexibility in an enforcement regime that restricted regulators to processes of criminal prosecution. The draft Bill will take two important steps towards implementing his vision. Part One will give the Local Better Regulation Office statutory powers to promote better communication amongst local authorities, and between them and central government, providing a better basis for regulators to work together to keep the burdens of regulation to a minimum. The new enforcement powers in Part Two will allow regulators to respond in ways that are transparent, flexible, and proportionate - including responding to those who deliberately seek to gain an advantage over honest businesses by disregarding the law. I believe that the Bill will have important benefits for all of us - for business, for regulators, for local and central government, and, above all, for citizens, who will benefit from the outcomes of a more effective regulatory system. Well ther you have it, there is in essence a vehicle that may allow lenders to get away with more unlawful practices than they do at present. However, on the face of it the Quango that the act will set up will have regulatory powers similar to those enjoyed by the OFT and IC. In some ways the gent at TS is correct there may be a 'decriminilisation' of the some aspects of the CCA 1974 (as amended) indeed the specific sections affected are listed in the annex, and these include sections 77,78 and 85. However, there is nothing that I have gleaned from the text that leads me to think that defaulting on those sections will lose its effcts, it just that the enforcment becomes the remit of the new quango through TS rather than the courts. As I see it although the FSA are one of the consultees of the draft bill, there does seem to be a lack of idea as to how these two bodies will coexist. Mike

I would agree I have not seen anything about any decriminalisation. Mike

Raphael have taken over the account in earnest now according to Experian, who issued me with a default at the end of July 2007!, of course none received stating a sum that has no bearing on the account whatso ever. So about to issue another letter and am going to take them to court for defamation, will update as necessary as and when. Letters flying off this weekend. PS Barclaycard data controller still have not replied to my letter stated in post 13 above. Mike

subscribing

I think that we'll agree to disagree on that one Mike

Section 85 states that a copy of the executed agreement should be provided, not a copy of an improperly executed agreement. If there is no properly executed agreement then the debt cannot be enforced QED Somantics I know but the law is the law, as you know. Mike

But here is the rub, if say you have a credit card agreement that is improperly executed. You borrow on that card paying the necessary repayments on the due dates everything being well. At some point the issuer issues a replacement card, now I know that the Section 85 argument has been used in threads elsewhere, indeed I have used it to great effect, nevertheless this is where it comes a little hairy. It is a requirment of the CCA that with every replacement card the creditor should be issued with a copy of the executed agrrement that governs that account. If the founding agreement is improperly executed then section 85 cannot by extension be fulfilled and cannot be enforced, and the creditor commits a criminal act after a month +12 days. Not withstanding the above, the debtor until, he realises his rights, carries on paying the necessary. Restitution The crux of the matter is, the creditor has committed a criminal act, I agree with TomTerm that it would be unfair to try and get out of paying what you owe and a little difficult (and IMHO immoral) to claim a refund of all the repayments you have made. However, it would also be immoral for the creditor to claim interest from the debtor since it would be from a criminal standpoint, with the former having 'unclean hands'. In essence the creditor has committed a 'mistake in law' believing himself to behaving lawfully. However as such he has enjoyed undue enrichment to which the former has no defence, the debtor having claim to restitution. IMHO this would mean a refund of all interest paid on the debt since the offence took place. Mike

No it isnt, if no agreement then they cannot force you to pay, end of story. In addition the threat to force you to pay under the pretext that they already know that you do not have a binding CCA agreement or contract is contrary to section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 which (if I rember correctly) says that it is illegal to puport to another that they owe a sum of money under contract whaen you now that is not the case. Dont bother ringing Next or Moorcroft they both know what the score is they are just trying to frighten you into paying. I would write to Moorcroft stating that any further action by them is harassment and quoting the law, you will be writing an official complaint to them regarding the matter expecting a result within the statutory time scale ie six weeks after that you will report them to the FSA. Thats what I did with Westcott regarding another matter they sent it back to the original lender I suppose hoping that I would drop the matter, but I still sent the complaint into the FSA. Mike

Data Protection Act. I wrote to them regarding the DPA issues before I got my account cleared. Despite what a couple of responders have said to this thread, with regard to the DPA Blair et al are a body on their own. They were continually updating my crdot report with experian, so I wrote in no uncertain terms that either they were updating my data without my permissions or they were passing on my data to a third party, ie bank of scotland without my permission. soon stopped it Mike

Just a short question has anyone asked this bunch of organsims for a copy of thr original agreement on a closed account, and what successs did you have. Twice I have asked for the agreement and twice the request has been ignored, that said, if there is a policy of destroying or not retaining such documents I would be grateful for any info. Mike

If it was Raphael bank they would have written to you in March/April, so as you suggest Barclays are still running it, so it is they you need to get in contact with. Mike

I'll certainly put muy name to any petition Mike