I agree with ian, this is just another of their scaremongering tactics. If the agreement is unenforceable under sections 127 then a Judge cannot overule it. Unenforceable under section 78 is another matter and production ofthe correct document makes it enforceable again. What you need to do is get what they claim is the agreement and see if it fails under section 127.

Red, the whole crux of your claim has always been about removing the default marker. Removal of that marker is included in your court claim as well so any offer of settlement that doesn't include removing it, is not a complete settlement. Write back to him telling him that his offer is appreciated but he has overlooked removing that default marker and your unable to accept his partial offer. Also mention that the cash portion of the claim will have to be repayed by cheque as you no longer have an account with Barclays.

Fantastic news Hughes, it took a while but you got there in the end. Any idea when they are sending the cheque? Whatever you do dont tell the court its settled until that cheque is banked and cleared. I'd then simply write to whoever agreed the settlement with you and advised to claim for the balance with a prelim letter quoting them and saying you fully expect them to settle the balance immediately or will have no hesitation in submitting another court claim.

Have they sent the actual credit agreement and is it in order? The late fees are clearly penalties so a counterclaim for those could be submitted. Have they explained how the collection fee is calculated? More importantly have you done an SAR yet ? If not then do one NOW and make sure you ask for everything not just statements.

Unfortunately they are actually correct in this. If an account is settled and terminated then the agreement is also settled and there is no obligation to supply copies of the agreement under any sections of the act It;s unlikely that an SAR will produce a copy as it's most likely that the actual agreement has been destroyed now.

d1cky, It's not easy to summarise this thread in a few words. Basically though we are slowly working through various aspects of the consumer credit act and working out what if any relevence thay may have and if the various companies have actually complied. Where we find that compliance is suspect some of us are then going on to challenge both the compliance and the enforceability of any alleged agreements. Hope that helps

If they are 1983 regs then it's off to TSO yet again as they wont be online.

Ok Ok enough squabling Firstly Jaranius most of the topics we cover in here are very complex and a lot of the time the argument can hinge around where the comma is placed. It is not easy to explain this to somebody firing off a lot of simultaneaous questions. Its taken 339 pages and a lot of posts for us to get this far. Peter has been here from the beginning, (ok just after I arrived lol) Myself and others know instantly what he is referring to simply because we have all followed the same path to get here. Once again Peter has turned lights on for a lot of people following this thread, which is exactly what the thread is intended for. Namely questioning and applying our understanding of the answers we get back. MOST of the work being carried out in this thread (yes work not discussion) is being tested by people like Peter, AC, myself and others, once the results of that testing are known and fully understood it's possible they will be simplified and published for everyone. IF you understand the principles of the work because you have followed the thread closely for the last 7-8 months then you will understand that its very nature means we cannot risk giving detailed advice until we know the results ourselves. To do that would actually place people at more risk which none of us want to do. OK so people sometimes have to wait a bit longer for dessert, but I prefer that than losing dinner altogether. This is great news to a lot of us and warrants more time and study so we can plan the best line of attack. Well done, yet again Peter.

hmmm thats a new twist to refuse to accept the letters. I hope your friend sent them packing with a big flea in their ear. If she is a woman on her own with 2 young children it may also be worth her having a few words with her local Police officers. Sending 2 guys out is clearly intimidatory, especially so often and it's designed to frighten her. Advance notice to the police may get somebody around quickly if she calls when they arrive.

Only relevance is that with no signature it makes them vitually unenforceable as they have not been properly executed. I would keep the 2 letters totally seperate so no real need to include anything further.

they look good to me angel

Nice to hear another good result Al, I'll get both the litigation and your threads updated to reflect the wins.

Looking good so far Angel but you have tomorrows date as the date of being deemed served, that doesnt leave time for it to reach them, I'd change it to mondays date and make sure its posted tomorrow. Have the insurances been added into the loans? If so then cancelling them may not reduce the costs, much better if you can show they have been missold and were never of any value to the debtor.

The problem is they have got away with the public being blind for so long that it is now a way of life for these companies. Their business is pushing credit at us even when we dont want it, and if the paperwork is easier then their job is easier. Does it matter to them if the agreements dont meet the requirements? Nope because they can just bully us into accepting whatever they say. The tide is now turning and all those old scraps of paper are being shown to be nothing but the scraps they are.

The first thing that strikes me is that thay cannot seize goods without permission or a court order once the minimum ammount has been paid under the agreement. Double check those 'agreements' and let us know what you find. If the 'insurance isnt worth the paper it's written on then I'd be looking to a misselling claim. Also put together a claim for the charges. It's worth sending a letter as advised above telling them no more phone calls quoting the Harrasement act and the administration of justice act along with the telecommunications act.

Not forgetting that your pet sinks its teeth into your leg in desperation The bite then turns septic and you have to have your leg amputated (but not for 6 months because of NHS shortages) during which time you amass a fortune in parking fees at the hospital.

Hi Jenoirs, Al asked me to take a look at your thread. The official CAG advise is not to make a claim for an ERC at this moment in time, due to a couple of cases being lost in court a few weeks ago and the claimants being landed with large costs claims against them. There are however a few cases still proceeding and which will be in court over the next few weeks. Every ERC claim will be individual and depends almost entirely on the contract so without actually seeing the contract I can't really comment or advise on your particular case. My advice is wait a little longer until we have progressed the claims that are in the court system and see the results of those.

Not so much in the doldrums but sidelined slightly (along with a couple of other matters) while I win an ERC claim In the meantime Barclaycard continue to give me evidence of their misdemeanours by passing this to a company called Risk Management Alternatives, who send me nice little postcards every few days informing me thay are going to call at my home on such a day. I'm getting tired of waiting in for them and them not showing up Barclaycard themselves seem to have forgotten me as they havent replied to any letters or emails in the last 3 months I so enjoyed their replies

Jon, I'm as sure they know as night follows day.

Just as a little hint to anyone that may be having thoughts about this information. One of the PRIME things that can result in a company/person being unfit to hold a consumer credit license is having a CCJ recorded against them. I'm wondering what the OFT would think about a major bank having 346 unsatisfied CCJ's totalling £740,000 against them. Very nice work Richard.

They are actually right, and do not have any obligation to supply copy agreements under sec 77/78 of the CCA once an account is closed. However this is usually when there is no longer any outstanding balance. As the poster is still making payments and they are processing data (presumably under the consent given in the agreement) they are still enforcing the agreement, so it must be in place. The choices here are fairly simple as zubo says, If they say they are not enforcing it then push for them to reduce the balance to 0 and stop processing data, otherwise they need to provide the agreement as requested.

I can fully understand the op wanting to get a definitive judgement, BUT, it isnt going to make the slightest bit of difference to how the banks approach claims. Case law already exists which says penalty charges are unlawful and that is unlikely to change in the near future, if at all. As has already been pointed out by several posters the court will look at the claim and know that the monetary settlement has already been offered. Any further action after that will be regarded as purely vexatious. The whole purpose of 'goodwill gestures' is to save face. Now the op in this thread may not worry about that but if he did go into court to fight a battle over 3 words the entire claims process will take a backward step. If the op really wants to take this sort of case on then he needs to start the claim with that intention in mind and understand its going to become a long drawn out battle which will involve the high court, and probably still fail. Seems like a very expensive way of trying to prove a point. Courts are NOT there to give Brownie points and Blue Peter Badges, they are there to adjudicate in disputes and take a very dim view of their time being wasted in attempts at moral victories. As much as I understand and agree with the op's motives,this is not a good idea.

I was going to totally agree with Ian but Zubo jumped in and I also agree with his idea of how to progress this. We have to learn very quickly to put our case forward. CAG is a self help site with the benefit of people with experience offering assistance when needed. Court is no different, if we speak up and make a case for ourselves the Judges will go along with it and apply the law as they see and understand it. If we remain dumb then that's exactly how the Judge and court will regard us. They have no obligation to make our case for us and are there to adjudicate each side of the argument on its lawful merits.

T&C must be those applicable at the time the agreement was made and signed. newer versions are not sufficient owing to the variation clauses. Basically you 'agreed' to T&C on a certain date and only the T&C at that time allow for future variations. Without the original T&C (which form a major part of the contract) they have no right of variation in future T&C.

forget sending any more letters Pers. Once an account is settled and closed they have no obligation to provide copies ot the agreement under sections 77/78 or 85 Your best line is to do an SAR and see what it throws up.