Thread: Is this MINT agreement enforceable?

I would say that the form by itself is unenforceable as it lacks the prescribed terms. However if they were able to produce the other side, that may well be a different matter. It would appear the quality of copy may suggest an actual photocopy of the original rather than a microfiche one, in which case the original may well be produced. Although I am led to believe that whatever a creditor supplies in relation to a S78 request is/are the only documents they can rely on in court, this from s172:

Section 172 states:

172 Statements by creditor or owner to be binding

(1) A statement by a creditor or owner is binding on him if given under—

section 77(1),

section 78(1),

section 79(1),

section 97(1),

section 107(1)(c),

section 108(1)(c), or

section 109(1)(c).

This means that the documents you have been sent are the only documents the bank may now rely on in any attempt at enforcing these alleged debts. Any further documentation they may present is irrelevant as they did not provide it in response to your lawful request.
Advice given is IMHO and should not be taken as fact, hopefully someone else will contribute to your thread.

hanks. Just annoying that there is so little left to pay but too much for me to pay off in the short term especially when it is mainly there charges.

Can any one confirm griffin's post? Thanks

Originally Posted by raydetinu

if you challenge the validity of the agreement, the IMO the account is in dispute and they cannot any further default charges!? somebody else may have a view on this.

Thanks I have re-posted the agreement in the OP.

Lacks prescribed terms as said before, so if thats all they have, I would dispute the agreement.