The bailiff system is INIQUITABLE - it's unfair and therefore morally wrong. I hate to say it but Number 6 has this ablolutely right and has put it far more elequently than i could. Peter

You do it for the good of the state. Where have i heard that before. You must know that those who can pay but don't represent a very small percenatage of your work,if they have money they usually have the facilities to stop the action going that far. I thought you said your job was just to enforce a warrent now your deciding who is able to pay and who isn't. I suppose you are right threatiening to sieze property in front of neighbours and children does tend to focus the mind. Don't get me wrong I am sure you are a nice guy but as part of my volluntary work i have been at the sharp end of the summary judgments of balliffs deciding who owes what, and in the end it usually comes out in favour of the one with the loudest voice and against the one who is most easily intimidated.

I am just advising on how the law (in these matters) stands. You can take the advice or leave it, after all, I'm just a pig-ignorant bailiff with no idea of the legislative framework under which I operate. I think you have demonstrated that you are no such thing. Tell me is this extensive knowledge of the law what you use to block your consience to the the missery your industry inflicts on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

Oh by the way i rang ABTA after I got the settlement ,out of mischief . They said that they were still waiting a reply and would have an answer for me next week. There is a moral there somewhere. Peter

Dani Got a cheque this morning for the full amount claimed plus costs from the travel agents. Best £200 quid i ever earned. Peter

Yes thanks missed that Though parts of the legislation come into force in 2006 the bit I want doesn't come into force untill 2008. Out of interest the transitional arrangemeents in Schedule 3 of the act says. Statements to be provided in relation to regulated agreements 2 (1) Section 77A of the 1974 Act applies in relation to agreements whenever made. (2) Section 77A shall have effect in relation to agreements made before the commencement of section 6 of this Act Does this mean that if this were to drag on till 2008 i could then apply the act retrospectively. I sent off an SAR some time ago and got a letter back saying that it had been refered back to Barclays. Apparently the DCA is part of Barclays so the debt hadn't been sold on just transfered to their debt collection department.There had never been a default issued or to my knowledge a notice of account termination,when i became aware of the situation i relieved him of his cheque book and rang the bank to arrange to pay off his overdraft and that was the last i heard except that the monthly direct debits kept being called from my bank. I also sent a section 77 request which is well past it's 12 day limit with no response. I shall be maing no further payments untill I find out what the account situation is. Thanks Peter

I have been paying off a loan for my son to Barclays bank,(through their colection agency) for some three years and have never recieved any statements despite my frequent phone calls requesting them(They said it was not their policy to send statements). My own calculations indicate the debt is near enough paid off but when i rang for a ballance they said there was still £500 due because interest added to the account. I noticed a piece of legislation in the 2006 cca section 6 Which states. 6(a) The Creditor shall not be able to enforce the agreement whilst under the period of non compliance. (b) The debitor shall have no liability of interest duing the period of non compliance. The period of non compliance being the period 1 year and one day after the last statement of account was sent when no further statements were sent. If this is correct then their are no further moneis due. Peter

Lots of information that was new to me on this thread please keep up the good work Peter

Me argue Never Just glad to at last to be able to be of the same mind Peter

. To simplify there was a paper issued by the office of fair trading Draft29/4/05 Section 127(3) precludes the court must dismiss the court from making an enforcement order if section 61(1) a* (Signing of a document) is not complied with unless a document containing all the prescribed terms was signed by the debtor or hirer. (This basically says as long as the prescribed terms and the debtors signature are there the court may consider enforcing the agreement.) *A document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to the regulations under section **60(1) is signed in the prescribed manor by both the debtor and hirer and by or on behalf of the debtor or hirer **This refers to the intention of the secretary of state to create a format for contracts.** I understand the 127 act is a bit difficult to follow perhaps if I try deconstructing it . First remove the brackets 3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer will not be able to issue an enforcement order under sec 127 Clear enough Add last bracket first 3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer **(whether or not in the prescribed manner).will not be able to issue an enforcement order sec127 **Prescribed manor referring to 1983 1557 regulations2 nothing to do with containing the proscribed terms. Last one 3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document ** and***(whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).will not be able to issue an enforcement order sec127 Which takes back to the Trading standards definition. So to put it in a nut shell The creditor can not successfully apply for a enforcement of contract without at least the required terms and a signature from the debtor. His own signature is a bit of a red herring as if he is applying for it he is hardly likely to leave it off. These are the minimum requirements for the court to even consider enforcement of an agreement. Then they still have to convince the court that the document is an appropriately executed and legally binding contract, there are no rules in law that say that the court must find for the plaintiff in a case like this and the court has powers to modify the judgment even if they do so. Very finally If you want to believe that you can present a signed bus ticket to a court of law and have the enforce it as an executed contract you are mistaken. I have had this post checked by a Solicitor who practices in Civil law and am assured that all the relevant points are correct. I shall make no further postings on the subject although i will be happy to answer any PMs Peter

. To simplify there was a paper issued by the office of fair trading Draft29/4/05 Section 127(3) precludes the court must dismiss the court from making an enforcement order if section 61(1) a* (Signing of a document) is not complied with unless a document containing all the prescribed terms was signed by the debtor or hirer. (This basically says as long as the prescribed terms and the debtors signature are there the court may consider enforcing the agreement.) *A document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to the regulations under section **60(1) is signed in the prescribed manor by both the debtor and hirer and by or on behalf of the debtor or hirer **This refers to the intention of the secretary of state to create a format for contracts.** I understand the 127 act is a bit difficult to follow perhaps if I try deconstructing it . First remove the brackets 3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer will not be able to issue an enforcement order under sec 127 Clear enough Add last bracket first 3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer **(whether or not in the prescribed manner).will not be able to issue an enforcement order sec127 **Prescribed manor referring to the coolig off period explained in scton 64 and in The S.I.1983 1557 Regulations 2 nothing to do with containing the proscribed terms. Last one 3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document ** and***(whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).will not be able to issue an enforcement order sec127 Which takes back to the Trading standards definition. So to put it in a nut shell The creditor can not successfully apply for a enforcement of contract without at least the required terms and a signature from the debtor. His own signature is a bit of a red herring as if he is applying for it he is hardly likely to leave it off. These are the minimum requirements for the court to even consider enforcement of an agreement. Then they still have to convince the court that the document is an appropriately executed and legally binding contract, there are no rules in law that say that the court must find for the plaintiff in a case like this and the court has powers to modify the judgment even if they do so. Very finally If you want to believe that you can present a signed bus ticket to a court of law and have the enforce it as an executed contract you are mistaken. I have had this post checked by a Solicitor who practices in Civil law and am assured that all the relevant points are correct. I shall make no further postings on the subject although i will be happy to answer any PMs Peter

Recieved a letter from Harriet Harmell this morning going to see my mp again tonight. Peter

HI Been away for a bit harrassing the local MP. It seems that there is for the moment anyway going to be a problem getting a signed orriginal copy of an agreement from a creditor however, if you look at the request it says may appy therefore they have a choice. I have recently sent off a request with the addition of "I understand that under section 3 (b) of SI 1983 /1557 you may ommit the signature box from the copy , I would point out that not having the orriginal copy with which to compare an unsigned copy it would to be impossible to verify the vlidity of such a document as an exact copy. I therefore would suggest that a true copy including my signature be sent. If I am unable to verify the authentisity of the document the terms of 1974 section 77 act have not been met and the timescale for production of the documentation would still apply" We will see what happens. Glad we seem to got to the bottom of how many signatures are required sec 60 (1) says 2 section 127 part 3 indicates 1 the debtor. Bit of a moot point really because since it would be the creditor that was apply ing for the enforcement order he would hardly forget to sign the agreement.

Shake hands lads! Nothing would please me more. Peter

I was trying to let this go but O.K. Quote NO.6 No, it isn't. A properly executed agreement, apart from containing the correct terms should be signed by the debtor AND the creditor, not just the debtor. Quote No.6 This means that a document, so long as it contains all of the prescribed terms and has been signed by the debtor (not necessarily by the creditor) Make your mind up, in fact as I said. Section 127(3) Precludes the court from making an enforceable order, if section 61(1)a( signing of agreement was not complied with unless the document containing all prescribed agreements was signed by the debtor or hirer Quote Number 6 Agreed, Sections 77 and 78 request a copy of the document executed under the terms of S61 Sorry there you go again mixing you pre contractual and contractual section 61 refers to the signing of an agreement. Nothing to do with Duty to give information Quote NO.6 But you cannot force them to produce any other documentation prior to court. Factual MMMMMM Quote: Peterbard I also don't think any court would accept an application form as a contract. Quote Number 6 That's not what S127 says! Fact Section 127 gives a instruction to the court not to enforce an agreement under certain conditions. There is nothing there that tells it when it must enforce it. As I have said before section 127 is there to prevent frivolous applications for making the agreement unenforceable. It is issued with a set of instructions where it cannot act to enforce agreement (Prescribed terms). After that it is up to the judge to decide. Really it is a safety net and not a get out of jail ticket as you said somewhere. Quote NO.6 With respect, no. I think it's important to present the best interpretation that we can to the members reading this thread and expecting good guidance. (Bit patronising and self righteous don’t you think) Agreed I was merely trying to defuse this time consuming exchange As you can see anyone makes mistakes. I could go on but like I said there are bigger fish to fry. Peter

Pete Just top clarify Yes if the creditor wans to waste his time taking someone to court on the belief that he will convince the judge that a appliction form is a contract,he can. I know some of our judges are a bit past it but i think they would recognise the difference. The point is that the sect 127 gives the judge leeway to discriminate between justifiable claimes of whether the contract is enforceable or ones that are just attempts to misslead, like your attempt to pass off a application form as a contract. The problem with reading all this legal stuff is that sometimes you have can loose track with what goes on in the real world. There is no conspiricy here, the system is ultimalely trying to protect the rights of the individual. Sometimes the decisions that have to be made are to obscure to be handled by legislature alone and have to be put in the hands of a judge. I believe in the end common sense prevails.

Well isnt an ageement with all the terms and conditions on it and a signature by the debtor what we are requesting. If it was an agreement i would think. that one of the clues to the judge would be that it said agreement on the top. I also don't think any court would accept an application form as a contract. Also there would be no cooling off period or cancellation periodand many other things that a contract must contain. NO The reason this section came about is this. In the beigning there was The Contract and the powers that be set out a format which stated things like how big the lettering should be in certain parts of the agreement and lots of other trivia. Some people used these directions to apply to make the contract unenforcable and avoid their liability to abide by it.So the relevant authorities said right thats enough of that then,what we will do is say, if all the relavant information is contained on the contract we will enabble the judge to have the powers to say, "no everything is there that is and needed the contract can be enforced."or "this is garbage" and throw it out. In the life of a contract there is the begining where the contract is signed and executed section 65 refers to this in as much as it queries it's form and structure prior to execution. Section 77 requires the disclosrure of a form already in existance and therefore is within the contract period Any way don't you think we should agree to differ on this and get on with more pressing problems. Hey i may be wrong(but i don't think so) the terminligy doesn't realy matter the important thing is the sec. 77.

enough of the bikkering i think Lets concentrate on thwarting the rip off merchants. Peter

No, S65 refers to what happens in the case of an agreement not being properly executed. the agreement is executed at it's inception so it is pre contract itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer Sounds like another way of saying the agreement certainly not just a bit of paper Any way what has this to do with the section 77 And how is a get out of jail card for creditors not complying with sec 77

You are a diamond geezer Thanks Peter

Hi Can someone tell me where the guidence notes are on here for filling in my AQ i know i have seen them somewhere but now i can't find them. Many thanks

Section 127 covers cases of infringment of sec 65 ect arn't these pre contractual matters. And that particular act referst to the debtor as plainif doesn't it. Peter

Hello Peter! Hi I feel better now Thanks Peter

If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the 1983 regs do apply then the creditor has to do nothing else. You can stop paying them and force them into taking court action but you cannot force them to produce any other documentation prior to court. Do you not have the recousre to demand full prior disclosure of any evidence to be used against you in court? I think you do Peter