Your RBS defence? Just read it - I'll apply the same principles of Default balances being correct against Termination notices as being correct in that case. Is it just me, or are all Default/Termination notices now questionable since the Bank charges fiasco? What I don't understand is why they insist on non-removal without a Court case when the law is substantive and comes from primary legislation! They don't have a leg to stand on and are hoping we are so stupid that we can't even read! (Rant over, but this is relevant to a CCA thread as well...)

I think that's absolutely fair, given the amount of people who need this "help" from you, tomterm8! (Which includes me, in lots of other threads, BTW!) I think Wobbles has this one sorted, given what is outlined in post #88, he just needs to construct something and get some advice I'd say.

Thanks Paul - do you think it's fair to say that a failure under a s.76 Termination Notice in line with that in Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co (which was a failure under a s.88 Default Notice to be accurate) would apply here? The reason I ask is that a s.88 Notice isn't required for an overdraft, but - at least arguably - a s.76 Notice should contain the same level of accuracy? I won my claim for charges against Barclays, without them defending the case despite turning up. I'm now trying to argue that the s.76 Notice was inaccurate as it contained the value of the charges, rendering it an unlawful termination - and I'll argue that Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co applies. But what are the chances? Still interested in hearing about prescribed terms for overdrafts too, as I haven't had any but need to construct some POC before issuing?

Peter, another clarification question; Overdrafts? They are covered by s.10 CCA as "running account credit", but are exempt (right terminology?) from having a properly constructed agreement with all the prescribed terms, right? But I've read here that they would have to have made the customer informed of the limits/interest rates when they provided the overdraft - which part of the Act/Regs covers these and does the effect of not complying with those mean that the overdraft could be, or definately is, unenforceable? Also, is the s.88 Default Notice and subsequent Termination Notices compulsory on overdrafts? Again, which part of the Act/Regs cover it? Is there anything else - in relation to overdrafts - that I should be asking and if so, what should/would the answer(s) to those questions be?

Agreed, but that doesn't mean you can't bring an action against unlawful Default/Termination - which you're in your rights to do, as they've offered no evidence that they have done this right - and ask the Court for full standard disclosure at the AQ stage, which will mean that they have to find a properly executed (and signed!) agreement and a true signed certified copy of the original Default Notice during the trial.

That has to be your call, rrfcfan - I personally wanted more time to question/query/clarify Barclays response and they have now said "we will no longer respond to any further letters..." so I feel I have no choice but to issue against them. I'm not saying you are in the same position, but I think it will strengthen your case - and probably "P" the Judge off more in your favour - if you respond to them again. As they've already given you a response, you can give 7 days (from Recorded Delivery!) to respond or you will take Court action as you're just boxing them in further. On the flip side, I can see you've already done a lot and spent some time constructing and posting letters, so if you can't be bothered you can just issue against them now. We'll need to work on your POC to get them watertight and - while I can help - we'll be looking to get some "more expert" help in to take a look over "our" POC, (I want to issue against Barclays for the same reason, so I have a vested interest here too!) so using the extra 7 days may come in handy! When to sue? You decide? (I'm saying that in a Big Brother style Geordie accent, which doesn't sound stupid as I am a Geordie! That might be a shock, horror, for some reading this... )

Eyes down for a full house! (Barclays response to my latest, in other words!) I'm now seriously considering bucking the system and just issuing against them on MCOL of £1,000 in unlawful/inaccurate Default and recission of any contract they have! Furious!

You can file a Defence and Counter-claim on MCOL - it allows quite a lot of characters/lines, so you should be able to fit all this in. (If you "start" your Defence entry, it will show you the limits - you don't need to save, but if you do you can always go back and amend what you've already put in) If filing via MCOL you have until 4pm on the 33rd day after issue - 5 days for service and 28 days to submit a Defence. Take your time with your Defence, you need to get it right. I won't presume I can help, but tomterm8 was a great help in compiling mine and should be along soon... Don't panic!

Second response from Equifax; (the speed of this response means they can't have dealt with my complaint effectively!) and my second response;

First response from Equifax; My response;

Are we making an assumption that Laiste wants to return to the forums? From her response above, I don't think we can. Also, what good does sounding off do to those members that are viewing this thread? I love CAG and **hope** the loss of Laiste isn't a massive issue going forward, (although secretly many will fall foul of her removal) but I can't see how continuing this thread in the way it has been going is adding value to either existing, or prospective, members. I think that CAG may need to review this decision giving the public outcry to bring Laiste back - we (the site management and it's members) now know that CAG isn't the only forum of it's type available and I would hate to see this forum degrade as a result of her removal.

This is a standard fob-off response - same that I had in my case against Barclays. Take a look at my response here, if you want to give them one more chance to get it right before taking them to Court for enforcement of your s.10/s.12 Notice; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/110184-car2403-barclays-bank-default.html#post1181209 Interesting that they can't provide a copy of the Default Notice, but are happy to rely on the date it was sent and the fact they gave 28 days to comply with it - this is rubbish, as the Banking Code has nothing to do with Default Notices (look at s.88 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the regulations made under it) and the prescribed period is 14 days, not 28! Just goes to show your complaint hasn't been taken seriously at all! You could now argue, as they are bound by what they've sent you under your CCA request, that the account was unlawfully Defaulted and Terminated. You should include this somewhere in your reply; "Failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co NLD 14 July 199:cool: but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give the Defendant a counter claim for damages. (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119)" Let me know how you want to proceed? (I think you've given them enough time to respond positively, but I have given more time so they can really hang themselves when you get to Court in the past!)

Letter from the Court; Bleeding cheek! OLF have the original and "claim" to have submitted it to the Court on 5th September - never received. I'm also not paying £40, so the claim can remain stayed...

Letter from Northampton County Court; Haven't defended a claim like this, so is this normal? Does that mean I only have to continue defending if the claimant decides to pursue the claim? If they don't, do I claim against them as per my counterclaim, because you can only (presumably!) counterclaim where there is a claim in the first place? With the date of the letter, they have until 16 November to proceed.

I don't understand your point, un1boy?

A regulated agreement has to be signed to be enforced as per s.127(3) CCA 1974

Second response from Equifax; My second response;

Blimey! I just got the 10,000th post to this thread! That is purely coincidence and I, in no way, admit to spending my life reading/replying to this thread! Is there a prize, mods?

This is a whole thread on it's own - and I believe some even exist - because where a contract is void in that it doesn't meet the basics of the CCA, doesn't automatically mean that the consent to process within that contract ceases to exist. Not my opinion, before I get anyone's back up, but this is the way the ICO seems to want to play it.

No, you're right - it won't - but this is why I brought it up in response to the question asked. Equity will (arguably, and I completely propose we don't even go there!) state that they can collect on an outstanding debt, while the law will say they can't enforce it against the debtor. Don't worry Paul, that could be because I'm being a McMuffin, as TomTerm words it, (which is a brilliant phase that I've now coined as my own!) in introducing equitable arguments on a thread that is about the legality, or otherwise, of an agreement. I'll get back in my basket, now.

I think you're confusing "enforcement" with "collection", personally? As you have had some funds from them (presumably!) they will probably have an "equitable right" to attempt collection within the law - i.e., not to harrass you for payment. They can't enforce the debt if the agreement isn't regulated, but that won't stop them attempting collection as the "debt" still exists regardless of it's legal basis.

I don't think this is right - if the agreement is unenforceable that doesn't mean that the debt doesn't exist? If you haven't drawn on the card, or used the credit, or even applied for the card yourself you may be able to use that argument against enforceability. Remember - "no CCA=unenforceable debt", not "no CCA=no debt" If you're in dispute with them, they shoudn't be hounding you like that - company policy or not!

First response from Equifax; and my response;

This argument is getting a little "big brother" for me - I can see where the concerns come from, but I can't see the point in continuing to question as we won't get answers. All I can say is that she is a massive loss to the CAG community and many of us will be severely disadvantaged as a result - we have to assume, though, that this was in the interests of all and move on. Hopefully someone can take up the reigns and avoid the same pitfalls that has become of Laiste.

I too have much respect for Laiste and don't have any further info, but I know she is no longer using CAG.