Thanks Tom. The issue I have is that they tend to use the "(if any)" argument from those sections. They say we sent you what we have and because it says "if any)" we are in the clear. TS and OFT seem to agree with that in principal too. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Well done Elizabeth and well done also to hubby I still can not believe they are asking for more time. Have you thought about using CPR Part 40 to draw up an order and have the order include a consequence if they fail to comply? Section 8.2 is the interesting bit. Best Wishes MoonHawk

They are just being awkward as some other do as well. So far I have responded to three separate companies with this and they all have responded without requesting further proof of ID. You can use that and see. Unless you have moved of course. Best Wishes MoonHawk

It's true. Because they never have the right to take you to court Best Wishes MoonHawk

Yes but you will have to wait a little for the case to complete No. They might have a learnt a little, but they will still need to show the documents proving the existence of the agreement. I would immediately send them the CPR letter if you have not already done so. Also put up the link to your thread so we can keep an eye. Best Wishes MoonHawk

I was not disagreeing. I was pointing out that unless we have site of the original we are making assumptions. Best Wishes MoonHawk

That's the thing ... I do not think this is even a shop one. It is printed which makes me doubt it is from the shop as they would be handwritten. Best Wishes MoonHawk

There is an assumption on your logic there mate. It might be printed on an A3 sheet folded in which case all the terms are effectively on one sheet. Also by it's nature it does not have to refer to Evans at all. The agreement is with GE Capital for a card I can use in Evans. Just like the fact that not all credit cards are accepted anywhere, this would be the same but accepted in rather a lot more limited number of shops. If you read below the heading at the top, it specifically says the agreement is with GE. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Thanks for the replies guys. Peter, going to section 63... Point 1 does not apply as it was not executed when signed by the debtor because it is missing the creditor signature (going by definition in section 189 where it is signed by or on behalf of the parties ... in plural meaning debtor and creditor) Point 2 could have never happened as the agreement is not executed yet Point 3 and 4 .. see 2 Point 5 makes the agreement not properly executed I could not find a definition for "prospective agreement" I am assuming you are referring to the fact that it does not meet the definition of "executed agreement". Whether or not this is seen as an agreement it is never the less not yet executed properly.(I tend to be less gun-ho and agree with you that it is likely that the court will see it as an agreement). What is there stopping me withdrawing from the agreement now as it is not yet executed? I would say there has been no agreement. I do not deny there has been credit used, but not under this or any other agreement, so i only owe the money used and not any charges or interest applied. Vulture, I follow what you are saying in relation to "is it with GE or Evans" but I do not think that has much milage and is very hard to argue in my opinion. The missing pages I will definitely ask for as well as the missing statements. They have not mentioned court yet, so I am keeping CPR ready for when they do. I do not agree with your statement that "liability will also be assigned" as that depends on the nature of the assignment and as to if it is "absolute" or "equitable". That again only comes into play if either I am claiming charges or they want to go to court to enforce the agreement (if it is equitable on their own they can not). What I am trying to do is to get clear on the holes in the document they have sent, so that I have a case to argue to have the charges, and possibly the interest removed from the balance. The prescribed terms are there as far as I am concerned, the rest is missing for sure, but the main points that stick out for me is that it is "prospective" and not yet properly executed. Best Wishes MoonHawk

In my view there is no contradiction if you consider the definition of "enforce". They can not force you or pressure you into paying, nor can they use the courts to seek a remedy. They can keep sending you reminders that there is a debt, and they can keep asking you if you would like to pay anything. It is a matter of how they go about this and what wording they use that makes it an attempt to enforce or not. The law does not say they are not able to contact you nor does it say they can not ask if you would like to pay. You can in return just say no and ask that they only deal with you in writing. You can then choose to ignore the letters or treat them as a pen pal. Best Wishes MoonHawk

More for consideration. The agreement has no signature from GE ... no agreement date ... no stamp or anything to show execution on their behalf (save the hand written account number). I have now a copy sent without the signature, so they can not sign and pre-date it. If they sign and send an executed copy now, we will have a cancellation period where the agreement can be cancelled. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Thanks Newborn and Andy At the top the account number was put in by hand, although the rest is printed. On it's own I don't think so. But if processed and stamped once they receive it then the stamp would be accepted for execution as far as I am aware. (long discussion has gone on about this). I thing the prescribed terms have to be, although they can be on the reverse. Got that one, thanks The situation probably makes it a bit more difficult as Link have bought the debt from GE and have to go back to them requesting the information. I CCA'd Link not GE. Hard one to answer. Not my account and the account holder does not remember, although they are sure it was not in a shop. In my view it could not have been as it is printed and no Evans shop that I know has a large printer for this sort of document. And again no idea about the notice... they can not remember (even if they knew what it was suppose to look like). Best Wishes MoonHawk

Hi Vulture I get what you are saying, but not sure where you are going with it? What is the argument with them or in court? Best Wishes MoonHawk

Congratulations Stebiz Enjoy your well earned cup of tea. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Thanks Peter for the quick response My thinking was very much along with what you have said. Following your "an agreement can be regarded as an application" my question would be that does that not make it prospective as an agreement? They will be carrying out checks (which they also have to prove they have done) and section 59 would make it void as an agreement. So we would be at an odd situation where the court will be using a document with all the prescribed terms (section 127(3)) to enforce an agreement which is void (section 59(1)). Best Wishes MoonHawk

Good god. I have so many pages to catch up on Hi guys, I would appreciate some input regarding an application/agreement from GE Money on the thread Link Financial / GE Money (Evans). Best Wishes MoonHawk

Hi, This is an account for an Evans card (run by GE Money) which has been sold to Link Financial. The responded to CCA request by sending the following document. I have highlighted the points I think are of interest in yellow, and would appreciate other peoples view on the enforceability by a court. Specifically, given that it is prospective and void (as per section 59), could it still be considered as a document with all the prescribed terms to enforce the agreement via section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. One thing I forgot to highlight is they have sent only this page, although at the bottom it clearly states "Agreement page 1 of 3". They have not sent a statement of account, but have sent "some" of the statements, of which there are a number of early ones missing. Best Wishes MoonHawk

This is exactly what I ended up doing with my case against Next. They delayed supplying the info until the last day. Have a look at Next Directory Making a Claim & CCA Best Wishes MoonHawk

I agree with both Car and ncf here. I would write to the court stating that they are refusing to comply with your request and as such are ignoring the "The overriding objective". Best Wishes MoonHawk

Another point just came to mind Patrickq ... if the assignment was not "absolute" the assignee in their own could not have brought an action in court against you. Either the OC has to do it or be included in the proceedings. So I would look into the nature of the assignment and the name on the claim when the charge was applied for... i am hoping to be corrected by someone with more knowledge of law if I am not correct Best Wishes MoonHawk

Not at all daft Car. I asked the same questions to Curly and Tom until I started to learn You can ask for info under the pre-action protocols too, and any document you have telling you of an assignment should be OK. You have been told there is one, have asked for clarification from the parties and have not received that clarification. So as far as I can see you are within your rights to put both parties on the claim to ensure clarification. Not sure if there is a legal way of asking the judge in the PoC, to excuse whoever does not hold any responsibility once it is clarified, without paying to amend the claim. Cheers Patrickq. I do not know the legalities in relation to charges, and a legal head would be better answering. I would imagine that it depends on the circumstances around when the charge was placed, e.g if the amount in dispute in court was accurate and did not include penalty charges. Also I do not think you can just say a contract is null and void without the other party agreeing or a court saying so. Best Wishes MoonHawk

OK lets see if I can calm you down a little Gentle breaths I have checked Companies House and both Triton and Style have addresses which when searched on then internet, show as belonging to RBS. TRITON CREDIT SERVICES LIMITED, WATERHOUSE SQUARE, 138-142 HOLBORN, LONDON, EC1N 2TH Company No. 03275895 STYLE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, 24/25 ST ANDREW SQUARE, EDINBURGH, EH2 1AF Company No. SC074080 If you have received letters of assignment, then put both companies on (The OC and the assignee). In your claim say that the account has been assigned and when you asked the OC and the assignee to clarify the nature of the assignment and the legal duties of the parties, they have not responded, and as a result you have had no choice but to include both parties. Also state that due to the registration information at Companies House you also believe they are associated organisations. I would say you must include both. I attended a case where the claim was against the OC only, and the case stopped in it's tracks because they just said we do not hold the liability anymore, and the judge asked for the claim to be amended. You can ask for the judge to give you some slack because the other parties have not co-operated as required by CPR pre-action protocols. Best Wishes MoonHawk

You are most welcome. Even though you have disputed it, they will say that as they see no reason for a dispute. They seem to somehow not see the lack of a CCA as a reason for a dispute. Unfortunately the wording is very clever and does not say what further action is ... it is designed to scare people into thinking it is legal action, but they know they can not take legal action so are not saying so outright. Sit tight and we'll see what they send next, or like with me go all quiet. If they send a letter threatening legal action let us know. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Just to point out something while you are modifying the defense. The one that Tom kindly wrote for my Next case, was put forward as a "placeholder" defense, as I stressed I did not have all the documents necessary to put together a proper defense and a possible counterclaim. The basis of that was that I do not know if the charges and interest applied are valid under the agreement and have no way of knowing this. The varied terms which they may provide, can also be argued away, as without the original agreement, we do not know if it permitted any of the terms to be varied. I've subbed so shout if you need anything further Best Wishes MoonHawk

No at all Spirit. I'll have a look at yours and see if I can input. I have not updated for a while as it is in negotiations, but I should be able to post some major updates soon. Best Wishes MoonHawk