Meagain I know sundays are specifically excluded in one of the regulatory body guidlelines so just need to know which one Sabbath and day of rest sort of thing

ok folks I need some urgent info Where is the bit about phone calls and not being allowed on sundays please ? seems that LTSB dont like me anymore and the calls have started again despite them saying they wouldnt, its included 2 calls TODAY. Writing back to them now and need an exact reference without trolling through 200 pages for it lol I also need the exact prescribed terms for the signed part of the agreement as their latest reply definitely shows they are clutching at straws so I want to hit them hard this week

wooohooo Rosie, I do love a nice story like yours, hope it has a true fairy tale ending spread the word about the petition please

I already have stopped payments from a CCCS plan to one CCP that has failed to send anything other than an application form. The total into the plan will not change but that little bit will be spread over the remaining creditors.

Hi folks, Just a flying visit as I'll be back in later to catch up. Thought you would all like to go visit the Number 10 petition site and sign this petition We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Instruct the Office of Fair Trading to use their powers to compel banks and credit companies to automatically refund penalty charges. I'll be back

It may not say 'true' but it does say the EXECUTED agreement. There can only be one copy of an executed agreement and that is a true copy. As with sec 77/78 even the terms and conditions must be the same (although later ammendments could also be sent) Any changes (other than in T&C which can be ammended as long as the original T&C are supplied) to the original executed agreement must make it a new agreement.

Great news Knackered :D

Are you suggesting they have learned joined up writing ??? :grin:

the direct debit gaurantee has been discussed in another thread but I dont know what the end result was, Yes it's ceretainly worth our attention.

Isiris, None of us are judges so we don't have a clue what a judge will decide on the day. All we can do is draw attention to the points of law as stipulated in the CCA and statutory instruments and hope the Judge accepts oiur line of reasoning. All we have is opinions until such time as a Judge makes a ruling and it becomes fact. Every case is different and has to be looked at differently. I wish I could give you a definitive answer but only a Judge can do that after looking at the law as it applies to the facts in your case.

aww thanks BA, this one has taken a long time, but the longer it takes the higher sec69 gets

Woooohoooo well done BA That tells me either the judge is going off to read up on sec 85 or he already knows about it and has been waiting for it to come up in court

A copy of only the T&C would not be sufficient Seahorse, it must be a copy of the agreement plus any document mentioned in it (which will be the original T&C) and dont forget the signed statement of the account

Under statutory instrument 1983/1557 they can supply a true copy of the agreement and remove the signature boxes. That will satisfy ANY section of the act that requires a true copy. However it's a little pointless as they will need the full copy including signatures to enforce it in court. We are generally responding by telling them that without our signatures we cannot be certain that we even signed it, so we need a copy of the fully executed agreement with signatures.

I think you have ahit the nail very firmly M55, in many respects we all post little snippets and hope and expect an answer that will fit with our way of thinking. This is never going to happen unless we know the FULL facts of each case. I would also like to apologise to everyone for not taking a much more active role in the thread over the last few days, I have been keeping up with the discussions but have needed to spend a lot of time prepairing for my court hearing against Abbey. Some of you will already know this is an ERC claim and recent ERC's have not had very good results, so it has been worrying. I'm not going to say anything more just yet but I am now a lot more confident of winning after reading exactly what is written in the contract instead of partly reading it. In fact I am so confident that I'll be speaking to their legal rep today and fully expect an offer by the end of the day:D

Hi Milly I actually agree with what your suggesting and the overriding factor of being restored to the same position has to come into effect. Unfortunately I don't have any knowledge that may be helpfull in this scenario. As I see it several credit companies would have to be simultaneously taken to court in the same action, This would almost certainly take you out of small claims court and into the much risky fast and multi tracks. Personally I think you would need EXPERT advise before starting down this path. Just My humble opinion for what it's worth.

Great news Les and about time :D

GE have recently been fined by the FSA over PPI selling and it was in the details for that, I forget the link but I am sure Term or somebody has it handy:D

Thanks Humbleman, just PM me when you find it and I'll give you my fax number

Any chance of scanning one of these and emailing it to me please ?

Ok the SI 1983/1557 allows that signatures can be ommitted from a copy agreement under ANY section of the CCA inc sec 77/78/79 and 85. However sec 85 clearly states that a copy of the executed agreement should be sent with any new credit token (minus the signature boxes due to SI 1983/1557). Clearly a bulk mailer card, even if it contains all the terms required cannot be a copy of the executed agreement, T&C will be different according to when the card/agreement first started and a copy of the executed agreement should include the T&C applicable when fir4st signed. The 'bulk mailer card' argument simply doesnt IMHO fulfil the requirements of sec 85. It's just a bulk mailer card not an executed agreement.

The store/assistant actually operates as an agent for GE which has been shown in the recent case against GE over PPI insurance.

throw rotten apples at them until they come around to your way of thinking Lizzy

sounds like you can't really identify it as an agreement you signed so therefore cannot satisfy your sec 77/78 request

Ok EVERYONE please pay attention. We are aware the MIB are monitoring this site and for some reason that escapes me this thread seems very popular with them. I just want to make you all aware that they can and are working out our true identities from details we are posting, ie: fredblogs in kent creditor somewhere bank amount 2000 spoke to joesoap DCA yesterday who said ........ now its very easy for them to pinpoint EXACTLY who spoke to them yesterday, has a £2000 'debt' and before you know it they will be sending you copies of your posts. I KNOW for a fact this is already starting to happen, so please think before you post to many identifiable facts in a public forum. I realise we all like the support but if your at all concerned about them knowing your real identity , THINK first. Public Announcement is over, normal service will resume shortly