That was not completely clear I thought.

I think it should be made clear that 'defaults' recorded on a debtors file with the CRAs have absolutely no connection to a Default Notice issued by a creditor. The former is simply a device by which creditors assess the 'risk' of lending to potential debtors and have no basis in law and nothing flows from them. The latter is a legal notice warning a delinquent debtor that a cause of action will arise upon the expiry of the Notice (usually but not definitely 14 days after receipt by the debtor). Default Notices can be negated by the debtor paying the overdue amounts and continuing normal repayments. Defaults registered with CRAs will not necessarily be removed or negated by that action as the file records actual payment behaviour (i.e. missed / reduced payments etc). Statute Barring (being a legal device) is NOT determined by a default on a CRA file but by the legal device the Default Notice and the CoA it invokes. Hope that is clear.

Same as me. Well done.

Well done 'delbuk' and I really don't want to rain on anybody's parade but there have been instances I have heard of where a creditor without a CCA has convinced a court that credit could never have been made available without a signed agreement because their procedures don't allow it. The court then decides on the balance of probabilities that there was an agreement (which is all s127(3) asks). It reminds me though of a case I won recently where the 'agreement' was a scrap of paper with a signature and nothing else (I wasn't even sure where that signature came from!!). The judge wasn't impressed with my request for the return of all the interest I paid though (no agreement, no interest - seemed fair to me!). Basically he said "I've written off the debt, how much more do you want!"

BS!!

Littlewoods tried to pull that one with me (there was a 10 year trading history!) but the judge decided with no signed agreement the debt was unenforceable. In this case I sued Littlewoods so the onus was on me to prove there was no agreement. The OPs case should be much simpler as Next have to prove there was/is a compliant agreement.

See my posts #18 and #21.

I can't actually believe you are paying them anything! (*sigh*)

The agreed repayments scheduled I referred to would have been the one included in the original signed credit agreement - of which of course there is not one! There is therefore no agreed original repayment schedule to be in default of.

Agreed - the issue of contractual v default termination is important. I would, from reading the judgement, assume that once a creditor has issued a default notice and terminated on the strength of it cannot later change its mind and rely on contractual termination.

I'd like to comment contrary to many of the posts here. I had a similar issue with SDFC after they stated they had no signed credit agreement. They also argued evidence of transactions proved the debt. True, but that does not afford them a legal route to reclaim that debt. I sued SDFC and won a complete write off. The issue is that whilst the debt does exist there is no legal route for them to enforce a non existent credit agreement. How can they prove contractual interest and the agreed repayment schedule?

Well yes, that is the point. I would expect anyone faced with a claim based upon an admitted unenforceable agreement (assuming it actually is unenforceable) to apply for 'strike out'.

Well just because a creditor is unable to pursue in court (and even that is not a 'given') does not prevent them pursuing by 'other means', i.e. threat letters. I forget the case, but I recall one judge did declare that 'enforcement' only begins at the courtroom door. To threaten legal action is not enforcement although it may well be 'misleading'.

You miss my point, that being that the banks, being both financially AND morally bankrupt would use any legal loophole to grab any money they can without any duty to pay it back. They even sh*t on one another! On the question of Littlewoods catalogue debt with no signed agreement. I sued them to declare my account unenforceable and won that bit. Unfortunately I 'screwed the pooch' in asking for interest paid to be returned since I missed allowing for the sums already written off. Ah well you win some and lose some!

I suppose morally you should pay back the credit you've spent, but I prefer the morals of the banks (i.e. grab as much as you can and never pay it back!!)> But legally if you never opened an account and signed an agreement (Littlewoods always do this) why should you pay it back? I have had my Littlewoods account declared unenforceable for this same reason.