All, Thanks for the information, I hadn't realised the implications of waiting for the HOL decision. Immediately I read this thread, I posted off an SAR to my bank (Halifax). I have now had the application returned to me twice for trivial errors in my application. Today I will try a third time after receiving further clarification from their customer confusion department. Is anyone else having similar problems. Is it possible that the banks have wised up to the implications laid out in this thread and are now employing "mischief" to let the clock run down on the test case, and, in so doing, avoid the statutory interest portion of any new claim?

Someone just clicked my scales. Thanks for that whoever you are. Yes it was a pity Cap 1 weren't there, perhaps they are so far off planet that they thought it didn't affect them:D. A decision they may come to rue, if they aren't already

Thanks CitizenB I will amend my original message to give proper credit.

What would we all do for entertainment if there were no journalists. If "factually based journalism" ever became fashionable, the whole industry would be "en poo sans paddle":D I read a post relating to the Chester situation, I thought it was this thread but, having just skimmed through it, I can't find it. "1.The judge condemned the media coverage about his letter of May 1st as being totally inaccurate.Surprisingly given the coverage afforded to the story in the media last week there were no representatives from the media in court or at least they did not declare themselves when asked to by the judge.Look out for a report about this Case Conference in the media-I don't think! The following banks were represented; HSBC, MBNA, Barclays, NatWest, RBS, Lloyds 2.There is definately no stay being imposed on any case in the Chester County Court and it was emphasised that anything being considered applied to that court only although other courts may decide to follow the lead. 3.The purpose of the conference was to said to be to discuss with interested parties how the court system could benefit from having trials of cases which have specific points of law to clearly establish these points where there may be some doubt.A total of 52 cases were being considered at this time which is how many CCC had dealing with unenforceabilty at this time. The assembled QC's Barristers etc were quite clear in agreeing that as far as they were concerned the law had already been clearly established in the House of Lords and elsewhere(even most of the representatives of the lenders agreed upon that) and did not need any further cases to clarify it. However there were representations from one solicitor who asked that a case be selected to highlight a possible obscure point about the definition of interest rate as stated under the 1974 act so a case was selected which had the necessary point and will be allocated to Justice Smith in London as soon as possible. What was very interesting was that Barclays were particularly keen to establish a point about banks being able to still report you to a Credit Reference Agency even though you have proved that your agreement is unenforceable. They even had the cheek to say that it would be in the interest of consumers to know for sure whether having proved their agreement was unenforceable if they stopped paying then they could still be reported to a Credit Reference Agency. What they really want of course is to discourage people to try and prove that their agreement is unenforceable because they will worry about having a bad credit report. Barristers for the CMC's argued that this was just enforcement of an unenforceable agreement by another name and cited unfair relationships. Apparently people are now applying for injunctions preventing the banks from adopting this practice however a case involving this issue was agreed upon and will be heard by Justice Smith in London asap. A total of 4 cases were identified as being treated this way to highlight one issue or another but they were all minor points and the rest of the 52 are being dealt with at Chester in the normal way. So,NO STAYS NO CHALLENGE TO THE EXISTING ESTABLISHED CASE LAW just one very small storm in a teacup. Except that the original estimate given to Judge Halbert of 100,000 cases of this type being expected is more than the total number of Fast Track and Multi Track cases which were dealt with by all the courts in the UK last year. However only about 15,000 of those came to trial and I believe this is the point -if all the contentious poits are cleared up or at least as far as possible then claimants will know when they are on a winner and so will the lenders so the vast majority of cases will be settled before trial and so will help to avoid clogging up the courts . I think that the judiciary know which way this is going and want to avoid a debacle in the court system. I witnessed the banter and body language of the claimants legal teams and the lenders legal teams and there is no doubt that the banks are on the run now and are just putting on a brave face whilst the CMC's are scenting blood as they are desperate for as many cases as possible to go to trial as soon as possible to achieve some victories. The way I see it time is running out for the banks and they will not be able to hide behind the media for much longer." This is Trickie Dickie's original post (link below, in next post) but I wondered if anyone knew if this situation has moved forward.

Perhaps they were short of "news" as little of this is new. The bit that made me smile was "And the banks are furious at having to devote expensive manpower to digging out old contracts that are the subject of dispute." It must be a real chore, all this complying with the law and stuff. Are the banks trying to exercise their shareholders (the Govt) to help them out of a corner so they can focus on core business - ripping off the peasants . All the usual mis reporting of the stay on cases. Does this meaqn that the banks are trying to collude with the regulators, the government and all the influence that entails to put a stop to this? Christ, they even mention the police - are we acting illegally now? Where were they when the accusations of harrassment and mis-processing of data we being made? What it must be to have money and influence .

Within 1 month, possibly less. We are still negotiating but I get the impression that its Hobson's choice. Work overseas or not work at all. Financially, I have to go and I'm pretty sure they know this. I think I will be pressured to travel sooner rather than later. I know the projects involved as I have worked on them in the past - from the UK.

Hi Everyone, I'm not sure if this is in the right place but if not, perhaps one of the site team can allocate correctly. I am part way through a CCA challenge process. I have sent out all the usual letters and received the normal replies. I have issued default notices to 5 of 6 alleged creditors. I have issued 3 SARs and received 2 replies to date, the third is still within the 40 days. I understand the merits of DIY and an happy to continue on this route. I have recently been made redundant so have the necessary motivation - more details on the above available if required. My employer has now approached me with a proposal. My UK position has been determined redundant but a proposal has been made for me to go contract in overseas facilities. This will involve me working for significant periods overseas - initially, Brunei has been suggested although other places are also available. My problem is that I will be away for months at a time, my post will still be delivered to my home, which I will rent out, whilst I live in hotels or on board ships. As I see it, I have 3 options: Give up for now, pay the arrears and restart once I am in a more stable position. Carry on and risk a CCJ and attachment in my absence - I know this could be overcome but it is a long and expensive process. Pass the matters over to a third party. I have read extensively of the merits of DIY and the risks associated with CMCs. I don't really want to give up, I don't really want to pass this over to a CMC but I'm not sure which is the best route to go and if there are decent CMCs to use - I also don't have the time to do the research necessary. Anyone got any advice - I need to move fairly quickly. Thanks

Well, I'm sorry supasnooper, but my SAR came back today - 20 days early, no reminders. They must like me Haven't gone through it all yet - too sunny outside! I have got the usual tear off strip, microfiche malarky that most people get. Which I think is an application form. I've scanned both sides and flipped one to see if the tear lines up and it appears to. Is there a consensus on the legality of these, I've read both sides but is there any precedent I might have missed.

Well, I got my SAR back today - 10 days early, well done Cap 1. The only agreement that it contained was the one they sent mea couple of weeks ago in response to my CCA 74. The only doc with my sig on it was a direct debit mandate from 2001. Haven't been through all the other stuff in detail yet but there is nothing of an agreement or signed nature anywhere else in the bundle. Question: Do I accpt that the document is a true copy of my CCA (s172, I think) and go to court to get them to produce this document with my signature on it. I know they can't so they would be buggered on that one if I did. Go the CPR 31.16 route so "en-vogue" at the moment. And try again. Write to them stating that my efforts (s78(1)) and SAR have failed to yield a signed agreement. I contend that you posess no such doc. If you want any more money then sue me or go away. Thoughts?

I'm sure you will tell me if I'm being stupid, but; If you send off a s77-79 request and get back a crappy document or, as with the above post, and I had the same from Cap 1, an amended one, as long as the accompanying letter states that this satisfies the request. Then they are saying this is the executed document. In court they would have to produce this document, exact on material matters, bearing you signature, based on s172. So, if the alleged agreement states £12 charges, then you need to produce a signed agreement bearing this term. If they try to produce a different document, could you have the new document ruled inadmissible on this basis. How do the lenders stand if they make a statement, governed by law, and then effectively admit that they flouted the law, first time around, and in most cases, repeatedly?

Personally, I would say it is; But, I find it surprising that your CMC has received no replies from anyone. Most companies reply, even if the response is not providing you with the information you require. Did your CMC provide copies of correspondence? If they haven't, then I suggest you repeat the exercise - it wil cost you around a tenner to repeat but you need to ensure that your request is more than 28 days after the previous request or they will just say they are not required to comply - which would be true. I have tackled 6 CCCs and only one has not responded with anything, the others have sent variations on a theme but consistent with the responses receive by other Caggers. I would urge you not to be too reckless about such a claim unless you were on pretty solid ground. It may come back to haunt you further down the line. My opinion

Would it not be better to take the CCA 74 s172 route where an application form or a clearly defective "agreement" is provided. Wouldn't this scupper any attempt to produce a second "executed agreement" in court.

You might want to have a look at this thread too. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159445-getting-them-reveal-their.html

A thought for all. The CPR 31.16 request, and subsequent litigation, if required, will produce the documents that purports to be the executed agreement. If the document is considered unenforcible, then proceed to court to have a declaration of unenforcibility. Assuming this is successful then, include in the POC that any and all default notices be withdrawn, where issued against the aformentioned agreement. The rationale is that, upon declaration of unenforcibility, the terms of the agreement are immdiately and similarly declared unenforcible. As the processing of data is conditional within the agreement and becomes unenforcible at the order of the court, then the data subject denies such authority under schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act, and, moreover, s10 of the same act. As the right to charge costs to the account is also a term, and, duly, unenforcible, then the creditor can evidence no right to apply charges to the account. The agreement so declared unenforcible, being the executed agreement, must have been unenforcible at the time of inception so there has never been any right to apply charges, therefore these should be refunded under the unjust enrichment determination ( Wilson Vs First trust). The capital expended by the debtor, would be discharged against the interest and charges accrued with the net balance refunded. As the debt has been discharged then the creditor claim to "legitimate interest" has no foundation (the true debt is discharged). Once the court declares unenforcibility then they have no option to comply or they would risk ruling at odds to the primary ruling of unenforcibility. OK, rip it to shreads Guys n Gals Stubie;)

Hmmm, you're right, they do have tons of energy, I've had two. A very generous Cagger has offered me his POC to plagerise and since he won, I'm fairly hopeful too. I think I will wait to see where MBNA go next before I go into bat with Cap 1. Cap 1 did phone last night but the OH got to the phone first and they soon dis-appeared. Answering the phone is the sport of choise in our home at the mo and we are all disappointed when its a kosher caller. I still get the occasional missive from Ms Renshaw but she seems to be getting bored (or running out of places to hide). I took the trouble to do a lot of research before I engaged the CCCs as I do like to be in a position of knowledge before I take something on. It seems a bit of a waste of time to some extent as the people I am dealing with don't seem to have a clue. Perhaps they have gone off to bully someone less well informed. One day all consumers will find CAG and the end will be well and truly nigh for the CCCs and their minions. Stubie:wink:

Hi Wigeon, I think you are pretty close to the Chester action. If so, are you able to give us a status update on HHJ Halbart's activities Sorry if I'm mixing you up with someone else Stubie

Hi Henderson, I'm sure this will get the attention of the mods fairly soon so I suggest you start a new thread for each of your claims and post a link so we can all help out. Otherwise this thread will get lost. Sorry to be a pedant but the discussion on this thread is important to me and I would like to keep it on track. Post a link to your new threads and I (and others, I'm sure) will hop over and help if we can. Stubie

OK, Weimeraner will stay (but only if he behaves;)) You think that the Cap 1 bozos can read!!!! I'm happy that they have gone quiet for now, I want to take MBNA to task first. Looking forward to a healthy payout from them. Cap 1 are next but might get promoted if they play up. Set puppy on them You got a vimy or just like them? Stubie

I'm late! So sorry, just came on this today. Subbing with interest and trying to catch up All the best:) Stubie

Hi Exchange, It seems to me that if enough people in a similar situation get together on a thread then the discourse keeps the thread alive. As it grows, so the more experienced caggers get drawn to it and all the participants get supported. For me, I've been a member for years but have made little contribution until now. I have decent knowledge of the legislation and supporting regs. What I lack is the benefit of experience that the more senior Caggers have by the bucket load (evidence the contribution of BRW). I don't want to hijack Nancy's thread, far from it, but I wonder if this is a way to keep us all progressing, and if all else fails, keep each other sane whilst we battle the machine. Anyone else? Stubie

Hi Nancy, I'm in the same position as you, and many others on this site. Interestingly, the calls to me stopped recently and not heard from them for a while until someone called to make an appointment to review my financial position. The call is set for tomorrow but I can't decide if I should be really cruel to them or just withdraw and insist on written communication. I also got the threatening letter - take you to court, loads of legal costs, CCJ, charging order and repossession. As has been said before, this is only possible through the court and a CCJ. I wrote back to remind them that these thing would only be possible if they won, and without a CCA, they wouldn't win. I have read some horror stories on this site but I am blessed with a family who are understanding and supportive - we actually fight to get to the phone first so we can muck them about. I get the impression that MBNA score people on vulnerability and prioritise harrassment on those likely to fold early. If you fight your corner, they move to a more suitable target. The acts of true cowards I will stick with your thread and we can try to help each other. From reading around this site the names on the posts are well known to me and are very experienced in this process, you could do a lot worse than be advised by these people. My link is here, there's not a lot on it at the moment but you can take a look if you like. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/201335-stubie-mbna.html Good luck Stubie

Hi, I had a call from MBNA last night wanting to set up a call to review my financial circumstances. I have agreed to this as I want to push them to come up with the agreement - so far I have sent 3 letters to 0 (zero) replies. I also wanted to confirm that the account is in default (and has been since 20th April) and all the other good stuff about non-enforcibility. And finally, to highlight that I am considering claiming all interest and charges etc in the absense of a CCA. I propose to record the call - and tell them I'm doing it - and have my partner (Det. Con. Stubie) on the call - also introduced - as a witness and observer. Is this a wise tactic or should I just say I've been advised to limit communication to written. Any advice greatfully received. Finally, can anyone point me at some top shelf POC to plagerise. Thanks Stubie P.S. What do I have to do to be promoted from Basic account holder? I feel so stigmatised.

Hi SkintBoy, Excellent result, did they pay up yet? I'm fast approaching the same stage you were at when you started this thread and would be eternally grateful if you would share your POC. I'll PM you an email addy if that's OK Cheers and well done, again Stubie

Thanks for that, sussed the pic but need to sort out the one I really want, this little chap will do for now. At the moment I'm happy to sit it out and wait for cap 1 to make the next move. For some reason they have stopped bugging me on the phone so all is peaceful in the house right now. Perhaps they are plotting something, or am I giving them too much credit:D Stubie

I think the clue is in the wording: The act requires a true copy of the executed agreement - the one you signed. As they have confirmed thast the copy provided has been amended, it cannot be a true copy. You may also find that they acknowledge receipt of your request for a copy of your executed agreement, but then confirm that the copy provided is a copy of your current agreement or regulated agreement - they deliberately avoid referring to it as the executed agreement - fencing with words, in effect. This is a standard letter and I, like many others here, have the same letter apart from personal details. I wrote back pointing out the inconsistencies in the letter and confirming that they have still failed to provide a copy of the executed agreement. If the agreement has been updated then it cannot be a true copy of the executed agreement. They are still in default etc etc. As to the token payments, that is a choice for you. Since the agreement is still in default, you are not obliged to pay, and they cannot enforce. In court they would still have to produce the original or there would be no way of confirming that this is a true copy - it could only be done by comparison. I haven't received a reply to my letter, I will post it when I do but these letters are just generic mailers and part of Cap 1's game of chess to avoid producing the original document. I'm not paying them at the moment so am waiting for the next stage of escalation. Hope this helps Stubie P.S. Keep the letter as it could be useful in the event that they try to enforce based on the claim that this is an executed agreement. This letter casts doubt upon the provenence of such a claim.