It does contain the prescribed terms, and it is signed by you and themso could come under this bit of the CCA 1974: (3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). I would say that this is 'a document containing all of the prescribed terms'and it is signed by you. However, it's complicated by the fact that it is certainly an application, and one that they reserve the right to reject. This could make it void as it is an agreement to enter a future agreement. I'm no expert on that bit and am exploring that (with Peter's help) for my Cahoot agreement.

He's just blocked them out for security.

I've emailed you as well Peter, happy to test this out in any way we can.

Thanks Peter, by pre-contractual I was meaning like an application form, in that the creditor is still reserving the right to refuse it using the wording above. So you think the fact that they are binding the debtor to enter into a future regulated agreement in this way means it MAY be unenforceable?

Any thoughts on this anyone? I have the same wording on my Cahoot agreement, and am wondering if this makes it a pre-contractual agreement?

This would be allowed under the Electronic Communications Order 2004. What is the date of your agreement?

Sorry, but you make it sound like the debtor stops paying and walks away, and the whole world is rosy. In reality, they are still subject to huge amounts of harassment by the creditor and subsequent DCA's. They also have a default put onto their credit record which will mean credit is an absolute no-no for 6 years. The odds are stacked so far in favour of the creditor it's unreal. Don't forget, they can whack up the interest rate whenever they feel like it for no apparent reason. They can change the credit limit at will. They can adjust the minimum payment on a whim. Asking for the original agreement is the only real tool at the debtor's disposal. if the creditors, who make billions each year from these tactics and unlawful charges, can't be bothered to keep correct records and documents, then i for one am not going to feel in the slightest bit sorry for them.

MBNA are in a real mess. I got a letter on Saturday saying thank you for advising them of my financial difficulties (I didn't as their agreement is unenforceable, so I've just told them I won't be paying). It thanks me for making token payments (I haven't) but says they need a small increase to avoid further action. It says they cannot continue to suppress interest and fees if I don't increase payments (funny that, as they are still applying interest and fees) and says they really want to help me but I must ring them (don't think so). They obviously don't know what they are doing at the moment.

Oops, account number removed, cheers.

I wouldn't mention anything about application forms, the idea is to accept what they send as a true copy. If you state it's an application form, then it still leaves them open to send an agreement instead. We should just be saying: "Thank you for the true copy of the regulated credit agreement that was sent to me. I regret to inform you that this agreement does not correspond in form and content to the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and therefore is completely unenforceable. As a result, I will be making no further payments towards this alleged debt. Any court action you may take will be vigourously defended using Sections 61 and 127 of the CCA 1974, which will preclude a judge from making an enforcement order in this instance" or something like that.

Blades, that letter still implies that we are disputing the satisfaction of S77/78, which is not what Peter is saying. Any letter should now thank them for the copy of the agreement, and state that under Sections 61 and 127, the agreement is unenforceable.

I assume you mean sense of honour but I like your version better! I sent them this, you can adapt it to suit your needs if you want to: Alliance & Leicester Credit Card ChesterBusinessPark Chester CH4 9FD 23/5/2007 Dear sir or madam Re: account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I am in receipt of your letter from Matthew McGrath, Head of Customer Assistance, and dated 17/5/2007. Once again, I am appalled at the conduct of MBNA. Your threats to sell this account on to a third party are both toothless and unlawful. Let me explain. I recently sent you a request under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. To date, you have not complied with this request. You sent me simply an application form that contained absolutely none of the prescribed terms required under the CCA 1974. As things stand, this alleged debt is completely unenforceable, even in a court of law. Moreover, this application form was not signed by anyone from MBNA/A&L and therefore you could never claim to have executed this agreement. This means that all interest payments incurred since the account began have been charged and retained unlawfully due to the fact that you have NEVER had a right to enforce any agreement (or application form!). This is in addition to your default under Section 85 which was explained fully in my earlier correspondence. Laughably, your most recent letter claims that it is your final attempt to demonstrate good faith to resolve this matter. If this is your final attempt, may I respectfully request you explain when your other attempts were? I have written to you countless times over these matters, and all you do is send me a letter saying you will investigate and get back to me by a certain dates. These responses never arrive. Instead, all you do is carry on trying to pressure me into making a payment. Given your continuing default under Sections 78 and 85, my ongoing complaints, and the completely unenforceable application form you sent me, I am not obliged to offer you any payment towards this alleged debt. Note, this is me acting completely within the law, not something that could be said for yourselves. I trust you are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading guidance on debt collection? If not, may I suggest you read it in the near future as every single one of your recent actions is completely against these guidelines when a debt is legitimately disputed. These actions by you include: Repeated attempts to pressure me into making a payment. Threatening me with a default. Threatening me with court action. Threatening me with the selling of this account to a third party. Stating that you will register information on my credit records. You cannot lawfully do any of these things and I demand that you stop these threats immediately. Let me make it abundantly clear. This alleged debt is completely unenforceable, even in a court of law. In fact, you will owe me money due to the defaults described above, and to work out exactly how much this is I have recently sent you a Subject Access Request, so I can be sure of the exact amount of interest applied to this account since it’s inception. You can be sure that this amount will be far in excess of the outstanding balance, so a payment will be owed to me. I give you a final chance to simply set that balance to zero and save yourselves some money. Should you proceed with selling this account to a third party, I will send any such third party a copy of this letter and all correspondence between us so they can see that you have unlawfully sold them an unenforceable debt. As they would also incur all liability on this account, they will actually have to make me a payment. I am sure you can see that they would not be happy with this. Please stop these meaningless threats immediately and turn your attentions to actually addressing the issues raised in my many letters to you. I am copying this letter to my local Trading Standards Officer as she is now involved in investigating your conduct. Your actions are threatening your fitness to hold a credit licence, and I suggest you begin to take this seriously. All future correspondence demanding payment will be ignored. I refuse to keep spending money on sending you recorded delivery letters which you never reply to. I will only partake in further correspondence which actually addresses these issues and undertakes to rectify your defaults under Section 78 and 85 of the CCA 1974. Be warned, any further threats will be treated as harassment and I reserve the right to seek compensation for distress caused by this behaviour. Yours faithfully ian1969uk

The debt exists, it's just that there is no recourse available to them to pursue you through the court. They can prove that you used the card through transactions etc.

It does have the credit limit. It has a statement saying they will determine it from time to time and inform the customer, this is acceptable. The issue with these Egg agreements (I have one the same) is that there is no way we can link the two pages together to know they are one document. It also lacks details of the default charges. Whilst this isn't a prescribed term, and so the lack of it wouldn't make it completely unenforceable, it is required to be there. This agreement would, therefore, be improperly executed and enforceable with the order of the courts only. One thing, though, did you blank out the signature or haven't you ever signed it?

Because they don't know what to say to you.

The FOS is supposed to mediate between creditor and debtor to sort out problems.

They have 40 days to respond the SAR, and yes they must by law respond. The MAXIMUN fee is £10.00 so don't let them tell you that you have to pay more. You can send the SAR immediately. You can stop paying lawfully after they have had 12 working days to produce the credit agreement, as they are then in default of your request. Some prefer to then leave it a further calendar month as they will then have committed a criminal offence. It's your call, really, but it's lawful to stop paying after the 12 working days.

The debt is unenforceable unless they can produce a signed credit agreement that contains all of the prescribed terms. It looks like they don't have this, hence their attempts to bully you into paying. You are right to assume that if they had the document they would be taking action by now, so stay strong in the face of their attempted intimidation. An SAR is a Subject Access Request, and it means that for £10 they have to send you everything they have on you. It might be worth doing this as this should include the credit agreement if it does actually exist. Section 85 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 states that, every time a credit token (eg credit card) is reissued (so all after the original card) then the creditor should send a copy of the executed agreement with it. None of them do, relying instead on the credit card mailers they send attached to the card. It is our contention that this doesn't meet their obligations under S85. S85 states that, whilst in default, the creditor cannot enforce the agreement. Therefore, the theory is that all interest they have charges since the first card reissue should be refunded to the debtor. This has not yet been tested in court. Hope that helps.

I sent a CCA request for a Northern Rock credit card on the 10th April, and have received nothing despite sending them a reminder after the 12 working days were up. I've sopped paying now so I assume that will get their attention.

Sorry, no.

They are rubbish. Annual Credit Report are much better.

Your defence is simple and all you need is contained within Sections 61 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Well, if that's all they have then you can quit worrying right now. Problems with this include: 1. It's an application form, not an agreement. 2. It has no credit limit. 3. It has no interest rate. 4. It has no schedule of repayments. 5. It has no details of default charges. This falls squarely into the completely unenforceable category, even in court.

Don't think like that. Despite the clowns at Trading Standards etc, the law in a courtroom is a very different beast. If, as is the case with most applications they try to pass off as agreements, it lacks some/all of the prescribed terms, they haven't a hope of getting a judge to enforce it. That's as long as you point out the errors in the document to the judge, he/she is not going to do your work for you. Can you scan what they sent you so we can see how it holds up?

Very good, thanks, I'll use the amended version!