Dear All, I am in desperate need of your advice. I have discussed this case in a different post, but now I have the full picture having spoken again to solicitor. I paid Ratio Money to Audit a CC agreement. They passed it on to Emmetts who found (the usual) problems in APR. Passed on to solicitor and barrister. They sued based on Emmetts report. Then could not get expert statements to support emmetts calculations. Solicitor contemplated changing the case from miscalculated APR to illegible credit agreement, but it turns out that they did not in the end. Case put on hold pending the High Court case in December. Now Ratio Money went into administration and Solicitor wants to drop the case following further barrister advice that claim stands no chance. Alternatively they advice to find another solicitor My questions are: 1) Would any solicitor take such a case on a CFA? 2) I paid ratio money fee by credit card. Can i claim the fee back since i am now told by solicitor that the case stands no chance? Many thanks

I have had some developments in the case: 1) Legal firm sued the bank on the basis of illegible original credit card agreement with no win no fee agreement and legal insurance 2) Case was put on hold until the Carey case concluded in the Manchester High Court 3) Now legal firm advises me to drop the case because the case stands little chance to win after the Carey case and the legal insurance will not cover it 4) The account has still charges for exceeding credit limit, the APR in the original credit agreement is misscalculated and the bank kept increasing my limit without me asking for it and led me to accumulating more debt. What should I do? My gut feeling is that I should withdraw the case since the legal insurance will not exist but reserve my position with regards to all the points in 4. Any advise please?

I was wondering if anyone could advise on this. A friend of mine is working though an agency. He got a brief contract with a clause saying that "the notice period in the first month of the contract is 7 days by both parties". It also has a term saying that if they are not happy with the quality of the work, they can terminate the assignment immediately regardless of notice periods, but there is no specific reference to payments in the case of immediate termination. On the second week he was asked to leave immediately saying the were not happy with the quality of the work. But they are refusing to pay him in lieu of notice. They say they can terminate the assignment immediately if they are not happy and as such they do not have to make any payments. Our understaning is that, yes they can terminate the assignment immediately if they are not happy with the quality of work, but they still need to make a payment in liey of notice. They say they do not have to make any payment because teh assignment is terminated. Any opinions? Many thanks

A friend of mine filed a claim for his bank account charges. He had a CCJ for the outstanding overdraft issued against him in default many years ago. He paid for the whole amount. Now the bank is asking the court to struck out the claim for repayment of default charges because 1) the charges are more than 6 years old and 2)they claim that the issue was already decided by the CCJ in default several years ago because the amount of the outstanding balance then included these charges. They asked the court to do so without a hearing too! My understanding is that this is nonsense because 1) the 6 year limitation will start running after the House of Lords issues their final decision (and they havent yet) and 2) a CCJ issued in default for an amount that includes unfair default charges is not a court decision on the legality of the charges. Any advice on this please? Thanks

The article on that link is completely MISLEADING! The test case was NOT about enforceability. It was about whether the bank can register defaults with credit reference agencies while they have not provided a copy of the credit agreement upon request. The credit agreement itself was eventually produced by the bank and was in fact enforceable. Its enforceability was not challenged by the borrower. The Judge himself said that this was not a good test case because the credit agreement was indeed enforceable. For enforceability, there is a ruling by the House of Lords from several years ago that cannot be challenged. If the credit agreement has serious flaws = unenforceable. End of!

So basically the court takes the narrow view that enforcement = acquiring a court order to compel repayment. Everything else the banks and DCA do to you (harassment, blackmail, threatening, damaging your credit record etc) are perfectly fine even under a non legally binding contract?

I heard from a solicitor that a case of an unenforceable credit agreement is being heard at the High Court on 23 September 2009. This case is about whether a lender has the right to record adverse data with CRA's and pursue the repayment through debt collection agencies when it has been established that the agreement is unenforceable. This case is expected to set a legal precedent. Does anyone know more about it?

A friend of mine had a similar experience in one of the London county courts. The Judge had not read the case at all, did not know what the prescribed terms were, was unaware of the legal preceedents, he had a personal opinion about debt avoidance and was clearly siding with the bank even though they were talking nonsense. He dismissed all arguments in a pre-allocation hearing. The bank discontinued the claim just before the formal hearing when my friend wrote to them saying that he would proceed with an appeal if this misinterpretation of the law continued. The court was Edmonton County Court. I can say who the judge was as well if I am allowed to. Am I?

Hello everyone, I have recently sued a financial organisation for a declaration of unenforceability. For obvious reasons I cannot disclose details or names yet (even through PM), but I am not doing it by myself. I have not seen many posts here of other people who have done it, so I thought a post like this was needed. I will post news as soon as it comes.

If I were you, I would not volunteer my copy of the credit agreement/application form. Let them produce their own copy if they still have it.

I also seem to remember that a solicitor was telling me that only the original would do for a bullet proof case. If copies only are available, there is scope for a lot of doubt. The more problems the copy has, the more doubt it will raise.

You can raise objections to the two documents being linked: Do both documents have the same microfiche serial number? Is there reference from one page to the other? The usual problem with microfiche agreements i have seen is that they are not very legible. If not legible, it is difficult for them to prove beyond doubt what it really said even though if they give witness statements. These are just some ideas.

For the purposes of a request of the executed agreement under s.77-79 ONLY, barclaycard has complied with your request. This is all they have to send. I repeat, for the needs of s77-79 ONLY. However: 1. s.127(3) of CCA, does not say the BC can produce a true copy of the agreement to prove enforceability. It simply says a document with all the prescribed terms and your signature. They will be unable to establish that with true copies without signatures and dates. 2. s.127(3) of CCA uses the term "CONTAIN" and ΝΟΤ "EMBODY". A useful interpretation of this has been provided by Berkeley QC in the recent case of Mitchell in Leeds, where the court declared a credit agreement unenforceable because it did not contain in the four corners of the document all the prescribed terms. CONTAIN means: must be in teh four corners of the document EMBOBIES means: can be in seperate documents. I repeat, s127(3) says CONTAINS not embodies 3. There has been a case in a court of appeals where the Judge clearly said that the prescribed terms and signature of client must be within the four corners of the agreements 4. Professor Goode, an authority in Consumer Credit, clearly explains in his literature that the prescribed terms and signature must be within the same document. 5. Statutory Instument on credit agreements clearly states that important terms cannot be indespersed across different documents. I got the same response from BC like you. Then tried DSAR and they sent me a microfiche printout of a barely legible agreement with my signature but without any prescribed terms i.e. unenforceable. So this is the reason they are trying to put you off. They most probably have an unenforceable agreement

I have reported it to the police using the online reporting facility. I am just concerned of what other tickets he might have got while he was driving the car.

About a month ago I had a reckless 18yo from abroad staying in my home as a favour to a friend. He stayed in my home for 4 days in order to attend university open days. He thought it was a good idea to borrow my car using my spare key to go and get a take away without saying a word to anyone. Days after he left the UK, a letter landed on my door mat saying i needed to tell them who drove the car on such date and such time, because a traffic light offence had happened! I gave them the name and address of this guy abroad. I also enclosed a letter explaining the situation and a letter from my flatmate confirming my whereabouts at the date and time of the offence. A month has passed and I have heard nothing. What is happening now? Any advice will be much appreciated

The only quaranteed success for unenforceability is the lack of prescribed terms and signature of the client within the document so that s127(3) of CCA 1974 can be invoked!What you say about the lack of other conditions and the signature of the bank making the agreement improperly executed and enforceable on court order only is true, but does not quarantee the unenforceability. It is up to the Judge when other conditions and the signature of the bank is missing. And unfortunately, many judges side with the banks from what I see in the forums. I would not risk it if it was my card. On the other hand if yo ualready are in a debt management plan you have nothing to lose to fight it. All banks have secrets to hide and they would rather lose a case than expose their failures.Why don't you ask HSBC to inspect the original? Take a friend with you as a witness. It may be the case that those terms were not in the back of the form. Is the copy they sent you a photocopy or a printout from microfiche? If it is microfiche they have destroyed the original obviously and they will have difficulty proving beyond doubt that what they hold is an exact copy of the original. Also HSBC may have also made mistakes in stating the prescribed terms. I could not see them clearly. Hope it helps.

What they need to enforce is a document containing the prescribed terms and your signature within in, not in seperate documents. This is what s.127(3) of CCA 1974 says. It does not matter if it is an application form. The lack of their signature is not sufficient for unenforceability. If the prescribed terms were in the back face of the same form/sheet, then it is within the document if there is sufficient reference from the signature page to the back face (e.g. an expression like "I agree to the terms and conditions stated in the back of this document" + they have the original to prove that the back page is indeed the back face of this document and not another document). If the prescribed terms are in a seperate document or they do not have the original to prove it was the back face of the same sheet, then immediately doubt is cast and they are in trouble.

Laiki Bank settled a friend's court claim in full: credit card charges, contractual interest and 8% interest just before the final court hearing. We also found out from other claimants that this is their usual tactic. To leave the case to go to last days before the court hearing in the hope that the claimant will get scared and back off. then they settle because they cannot defend claims for charges. Also, we are told by other claimants that their legal department is pathetic and depend on the fear they inspire to their clients. They only win cases by default and not by argument. By the Way, i have shown their credit card agreement to a solicitor. Completely unenforceable too! Prescribed terms are missing from the agreement documents. About DSAR: they keep everything for 12 years at least. Don't believe what they say that they keep data for 6 years only.

don't forget to draw little pink hearts around your signature. it will make their life much harder in photoshop! LOL

yes I signed it in pink pen! wonder how they would even dare scanning and copying a signature in pink pen! LOL

The banks will nor write off anything unless they get court papers for a s142 declaration of unenforceability. People go to CMC because they promise they will refer the cases to no win no fee expert solicitors. The reality is that they collect the fees immediately, then take ages to do the audits, and ages to allocate the case to legal firms. The legal firms they choose have little or no experience in CCA. The credit crunch has dried up all conveyancing work and all legal firms are looking to stick their noses in the CCA industry for a quick buck. They seek advice from barristers who usually reject them. How many barristers are experts in CCA really? And how many would risk their reputation for CMC's the customer then waits for longer and longer. I know people with unenforceable agreements with CMC's who have been waiting for over 12 months. Tha banks know all this and refuse to entertain claims from most CMC's point blank. They only acknowledge court claims.

I had the exact same response from them. Sent a data Subject access request and they sent the signed form. It is stored in microfiche, it is illegible and contains no prescribed terms at all. Completely unenforceable

If the CMC's have enough resources to sue individuals for libel, why do they also not use these resources to write off unenforceable credit agreements? Thousands of people have paid up upfront fees and wait for months on end. Not enough cases seem to be getting written off through courts or even out of court compared to the volumes of clients they have! the whole thing smells a bit fishy to me!

When I gave them the cases, they said that it would be on a no win no fee basis and that insurance would be also obtained. They said that they would be able to recover costs from the opponent because the claims are over 5k each. I do not expect to pay a penny in legal costs. I have today written to the firm and the court asking if my cases are of the 52 or of those referred to the Commercial Court. I suspect they may be, this is why all of a sudden further advice is sought. I will report back once I know.

I have two credit agreements challenged for unenforceability by a legal firm in Chester. They took on the cases months ago and have been negotiating with the banks without result. I received a letter from them today saying that they sent my cases to a Barrister to get more clarification on several points. I rang them and asked them if this is related to this Chester Court case management conference. They said it did but did not disclose any further information and could not give a timescale either. Do you think that my cases could be 2 of the 52? Are they not supposed to give me full information on my cases? Thanks