Me too, me too! Got the letter a few days ago. I'd previously reported Abbey to the OFT and thought that Abbey had agreed to hold off on collecting my overdraft (made up entirely of charges) until the case was resolved. I reckon they've sold off a job-lot of accounts like this to Capquest. How tricksy of them. Does anyone know if it's too late to put in a court claim for these charges? I thought the OFT had sorted it for me but clearly not. If they've sold the account to Capquest, can a claim still be made against Abbey? (Alexsandr I'm in the same kind of financial position as you, what b******s they are, hey?)

Hi all I had default notices served on me by a Barclays and another company last year, and I wrote to both of them (as per advice in other threads) pointing out that they didn't have a valid credit agreement to pursue the debts and asking them under the Data Protection Act to remove the default notices. I recently got my credit reports for the first time from Equifax and CallCredit, and both of these have no information WHATEVER on me apart from my electoral registration. How weird!! Nothing about the last 15 years of financial dealings, my previous current accounts, credit card, catalogue orders, loans, NOTHING. I applied for a new current account the other day and got turned down because there wasn't enough credit information on me to make a decision. Has anyone else had this, or does anyone know what is going on here? This is almost as bad as having default notices, because I can't get credit at all now. Any light that anyone could shed would be gratefully received. CHeers Jo

Sorry please ignore the above message. I've just found the Data Protection & Default board where all of the info on this issue seems to be. Cheers Jo

Hi I had an account with La Redoute where they put £45 of unfair charges on it. They refused to refund them. I then CCA'd them instead saying that they had no credit agreement so they should close the account at zero balance and call it unenforceable. They agreed it was unenforceable and closed it, but refused to remove the default. I then served them official notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection act saying that they had no permission to share my data with credit reference agencies, no written agreement and therefore should remove the default. They've written back with this . Basically they say that I've placed orders and received goods, so therefore they can share my data with any CRA's they want, and the Data Protection act doesn't apply. This is way unfair. Is my only option now to take them to court over this? Any thoughts? Cheers a lot Jo

The more I think about this the more crazy it seems. I have no legal knowledge, but it seems that the entire point of the Consumer Credit Act was to make sure that any credit agreement is fully and properly documented, with terms visible to both parties and signed by both, before any money changes hands. If the creditors are allowed to get a simple application form signed and then supply (or not) a list of terms & conditions at a later date, without even any actual proof to say that they did send them or any proof to say even what those particular t&c's actually contained at the time, then doesn't that negate the whole entire point of the Act? It just leaves everything as one person's word against another and is open to complete abuse (yes, honest guvnor we did send the t&c's and by using your Barclaycard you have agreed to jump up and down and quack like a duck - look, it's here on this separate list of t&c's what i have here in my hand so you can't get out of it now...) I agree that by using the card I borrowed money from Barclaycard, but nowhere does it actually say what terms and conditions I borrowed it under. Hmm. Need to translate that into official legal language and then I'll be ready with my defence! Maybe not the quack-like-a-duck bit. Jo

Thank you very much - I wasn't aware of those posts. Will now try to get to grips with them and try to understand exactly what the deal is here. I saw several posts from people in the same position as me who have suddenly had court action stepped up against them by Barclays, presumably as a result of this judgement. Do you think it might be possible to add something about the Rankine case to the sticky that deals with CCA Requests in Legal Issues? I was about to give up because I thought Barclays now had a watertight case, but it seems this is far from true. I think other people will be fooled too (as pointed out by other people in those threads), so it might be really good to have something up there visible to everyone - do you reckon? Cheers loads for your help Jo

Hi all I am in the same position as a lot of other people here, a CCA request to Barclaycard generating only a copy of my application form. Like lots of others, I wrote back to them, sternly pointing out that this doesn't comply with CCA law. After several back-and-forths, I received a long letter from them today. I don't have it on me but will scan it in if anyone wants to see it. They say that the High Court has decided that the application form **IS** a valid credit card agreement, and they are now legally entitled to chase me for the debt. Their argument is that since I applied for the card, and they sent me one along with their terms and conditions, then as soon as I started using the card then the T&C's became binding. Googling around produces the following link: Debt Questions • View topic - CCA Requests and Credit Cards (High Court Ruling) which has a little more information on the test case that produced this decision. Basically I think this means that everyone who is in this position can now expect court action from Barclaycard to chase the debt. I think this is really important for people to know about, because not only are they going to need this information to prepare their defence, but also it seems there is controversy over this judgement and in some cases district judges have disagreed with it. Jo

Hi Rob Yes, it's a personal loan not a store card. The way it works is that you write them a postdated cheque which they give you the money for, and at the end of the month they either cash it with your bank or you can pay a fee, write them a new cheque and so on. I guess what I'm seeking to clarify is that under the CCA, if the credit limit is changed, there really should be a new credit agreement signed, no? (the MoneyShop certainly seemed to think so at the time!) I'm about to write a letter to the lawyers refusing to make further payments and saying that they are in breach of CCA so would like to check that I'm on solid ground before I break out the legalese. Will try to find a scanner and upload the document. Cheers a lot Jo

Hi all I have a question about a debt to the Money Shop. I borrowed £750 from them just over a year ago and have paid £1400 in interest alone (!) since then. It was completely draining me dry (basically I couldn't pay the rent or bills because it was costing me £100 a month in interest) so I stopped paying them. Now the lawyers have got involved so I asked for a CCA copy agreement, and they've finally produced one. However, it's got the wrong credit limit on it - it says £600, which was the initial credit limit they gave me. They had changed it after a couple of months to £750 and a new credit agreement was supposed to be signed. It seems a trainee clerk dealt with me signing the new credit agreement and accidentally didn't keep a copy, leaving the Money Shop with no record of the new agreement. So where would this leave me? Can they enforce the £600 even though this is a previous agreement? Or can they say that they only changed the credit limit so the previous terms and conditions stand and I owe them the full £750? The thing is, it was all done through post-dated personal cheques which I wrote to them each month and they held for me. So in effect I've actually paid off the £600 and the £750 could be said to be a completely separate arrangement. Any ideas? I know this isn't a straightforward one and would be grateful for input.

Hello all I've had exactly the same saga as nickt1976 regarding the whole application form scenario. All they can produce is a signed application form and a separate sheet of t&c's which in their letter they claim are "incorporated" into the application form. Nowhere on this form do the t&c's appear, so I fail to see how they can be "incorporated". I therefore wrote them a long legalese letter quoting the actual CCA paragraph where it states that the t&c's must be in a single document and what else (e.g. credit limit) needs to be included in order to make it a properly executed agreement. I pointed out that none of these appear in the document. I told them that no more payments would be made and asked them to write it off as it's unenforceable. I then received the following from them: "We apologise for sending you the documentation that was supplied to you previously. We now enclose your Credit Card Agreement as requested" - and they've supplied the EXACT SAME application form and t&c's as before!! Furthermore, they've repeated "Your terms and conditions were incorporated into the document" even though I've already written demonstrating that they aren't, by law. At the same time they've now passed my account to Mercer's, so now I'm getting threatening letters from them as well trying to collect this money. This display of blatant f***wittage leads me to think that they haven't got a leg to stand on. They're apparently just going to keep parroting the same thing and ignoring my letters. What I would like to know is, do you reckon I can take them to court? It seems now like this is the simplest way of getting an answer on this issue. I was thinking of putting in a claim to get the following: 1) That Barclaycard immediately cease and desist from attempting to collect this money until such time as a valid credit agreement can be produced 2) That Barclaycard admit this debt to be unenforceable and inform their debt collectors accordingly 3) That Barclaycard remove all adverse entries from any credit reference files until such time as a valid credit agreement can be produced. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. Jo

Hi everyone I've got as far as a court date for claiming back my Barclaycard charges - I'm at the stage of submitting my documents for the court. BUT - I've put "Barclaycard" as the defendant and apparently it should be "Barclays Bank". Line one of their defence argues that Barclaycard is not a legal entity and therefore cannot be sued. Is this the reason why they're not settling? Does anyone have any comments or knowledge about this? If I have to put in another claim I will, but its going to be a bit heartbreaking if I go to court just to be told I've put the wrong name on my claim... Arrgh. Thanks in advance for any advice about this Jo