Don't know if this helps you in anyway. I have heard of a few more claims being stayed in the last couple of weeks due to the Manchester cases.

I recently wrote to DCA requesting confirmation of assignment (absolute or equitable) of credit card debt and this is what they have supplied in return: Assignment of Debt SUBJECT TO CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT is made on XX XXXX XXXX BETWEEN (1) CREDITOR Bank plc a company incorporated in England under the Companies Act with registered number XXXXXXX and having its registered office at XX XXXXX, XXXXXX XXXX XXX (the “Seller”): and (2) DCA (Registered Number XXXXXXX) whose registered office is at XXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXX XXX (the “Buyer”). Each a “party” and, together, the “parties” BACKGROUND (A) The Sellar and other members of the Seller's Group are, inter alia, in the business of providing credit to consumers. (B) The Seller hereby agrees to assign (or procure the assignmnent of) the Debt on the terms set out in this Agreement. NOW the parties agree as follows: OPERATIVE CLAUSES: 1.INTERPRETATION 1.1 In this Agreement and the schedules to it the following expressions have the following meanings: “Account” the accounts listed in Schedule 2 “Account Agreement” a copy of the agreement with the Customer which includes the terms and conditions of the Account “Agreed Rate” in relation to interest accruing in respect of any day means 4% above the base rate of XXXXXX plc prevailing at the close of business that day “Agreement” this agreement “Affiliate” any person which is, in relation to a company, its parent or undertaking or its subsidiary undertaking, or a subsidiary undertaking of its parent undertaking or any other person controlled by or under the same control either directly or indirectly. “Parent and that's it. How does this prove that a debt has been assigned as they have claimed. They have stated in an accompanying letter that they will not be able to supply a full copy of the agreement (I take it they mean the Deed of Assignment) because the information contained within it is commercially sensitive. They have also requested a copy of the agreement from the OC, as they were unaware of any previous request made to our client, on my behalf. But go onto say that if they are unable to provide a copy of the original agreement, they will be able to supply a true copy of the document(s) that make up the agreement which will comply with section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This will be interesting as OC still haven't supplied one in response to my s78 CCA 1974 request over two years ago. Also how can the OC be their client if the debt has been assigned, the OC would only be their client if they has passed the account on for collection. Wrote to OC requesting confirmation debt has been sold - HAD NO REPLY

I wrote to DCA point out OC's failure to supply CCA under s78 of CCA 1974 and requesting confirmation of assignment of debt and this is what they have supplied in return: Assignment of Debt SUBJECT TO CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT is made on XX XXXX XXXX BETWEEN (1)CREDITOR Bank plc a company incorporated in England under the Companies Act with registered number XXXXXXX and having its registered office at XX XXXXX, XXXXXX XXXX XXX (the “Seller”): and (2)DCA (Registered Number XXXXXXX) whose registered office is at XXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXX XXX (the “Buyer”). Each a “party” and, together, the “parties” BACKGROUND (A) The Sellar and other members of the Seller's Group are, inter alia, in the business of providing credit to consumers. (B) The Seller hereby agrees to assign (or procure the assignmnent of) the Debt on the terms set out in this Agreement. NOW the parties agree as follows: OPERATIVE CLAUSES: 1.INTERPRETATION 1.1 In this Agreement and the schedules to it the following expressions have the following meanings: “Account” the accounts listed in Schedule 2 “Account Agreement” a copy of the agreement with the Customer which includes the terms and conditions of the Account “Agreed Rate” in relation to interest accruing in respect of any day means 4% above the base rate of XXXXXX prevailing at the close of business that day “Agreement” this agreement “Affiliate” any person which is, in relation to a company, its parent or undertaking or its subsidiary undertaking, or a subsidiary undertaking of its parent undertaking or any other person controlled by or under the same control either directly or indirectly. “Parent and that's it. How does this prove that a debt has been assigned as they have claimed. They have stated in an accompanying letter that they will not be able to supply a full copy of the agreement because the information contained within it is commercially sensitive. (They don't want people to know how little they have paid for the debts). They have also requested a copy of the agreement from the OC, as they were unaware of any previous request made to our client, on my behalf. But go onto say that if they are unable to provide a copy of the original agreement, they will be able to supply a true copy of the document(s) that make up the agreement which will comply with section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This will be interesting as OC still haven't supplied one and how can the OC be their client if the debt has been assigned, the OC would only be their client if they has passed the account on for collection.

Did the train you caught usually stop at Goodmayes - check with the train company. Also looks like the "army of ticket inspectors" might have known they could catch a number of people out. The reason I ask – a guy I work with uses the train for work, on one occasion the train he should have caught broke down and all customers were told to catch the next service (express) which would stop at all stations. However the train did not stop at the station he required, he got off at the next station and everyone who got off had their tickets check. Of course a large number did not have valid tickets and had to give their personal details. A month or so later he received a letter similar to yours. He however objected, explained the situation and subsequently received a letter withdrawing the threat of prosecution which "had been sent out in error". To this day he believes someone at the station was trying it on.

One further point from claimants Witness Statement that I was not certain of the relevance is the following: "Upon the acceptance of the application the new account was processed onto the computer system used by the Bank to operate credit card accounts. First Data International is the provider of the computer system the bank uses to store customer records and to create new accounts of both new customers and existing customers". I have had a look at First Data International's website, not clear on the relevance as seems more to be about processing and payment collection. This is from their website: First Data is a leader in the European payments industry. As a major independent third party processor, we provide a comprehensive range of services with speed and security through an unrivalled network of regional hubs and local operations. Does this suggest that First Data have responsibility for the handling and maintaining of all records relevant to the account and that the agreement having been transfered to microfiche would be their responsibility.

Thanks Josie - that makes it a bit clearer. So, if in claimant's disclosure statement and their Witness Statement they state that the original agreement would have been transfered to microfiche at the time the agreement was made and subsequently destroyed, and in their Skeleton Argument say "…due to the length of time elapsed since the agreement was entered into the original is no longer available, for these reasons the copy documents relied on by C can be proved to be the relevant signature documents and be relied on as proof of the contents of the agreement without the need to produce the long-destroyed original". Where would that leave them?

Get's more interesting every day From: Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

I got the impression from the Judge who stayed the claim against me until after the Manchester hearing that this is the reason why. But that's only my impression.

Re: Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

From Re: Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice

Going by these two posts looks like different matters.

Just in case anyone asks got that info from CAB this morning, they advised me not to do anything further until after the hearing in Manchester. Don't object to the stay, don't write asking for clarification.

Is that not a different matter to those raised originally at Chester in which the agreements aren't enforceable as they don't contain the required prescribed terms?

Have also heard about two more being stayed for same reason, one same court and same Judge as mine, earlier this week. At my trial judge did mention Chester County Court but I got the impression that the case to be heard at Manchester had far more relevance. However this is only my impression.

The order I have refers to: …Manchester County Court and shall be listed for directions before His Honour Judge Waksman QC on 8 Oct 2009.

Think your right on that. I wonder how may more he's stayed or is going to stay.

Have seen this judgment before, in particular like: 9. …But this does not prevent me from drawing what is in my judgment the only inference which can possibly be drawn from what has happened, which is that the bank realises that if the issue were to be contested it would either lose on the issue or be at serious risk of losing. There may be hundreds of similar cases and the bank would plainly not wish other defaulting customers to get wind of an adverse decision on the fundamental point which is embodied in the quotation from Mr Berkley's written argument, which I have already set out.

Advice from Court: If object to the stay should make an application for stay to be set aside or varied. Didn't feel I was going to get anywhere so just thanked them for their help. Not really sure what to do next. Very confused

Sorry, not sure which post you refer to. B40

Will give Court a ring in the morning (being to think the excuse to dump into some other court maybe correct). B40

DJ finished by handing Trial Bundle back to Counsel as "court has no room to store all this paperwork". Maybe DJ did not want to rule on this particular case and is hoping to pass onto another court.

Ok, these are the notes I made at the trial of DJ's comments: This case raises a number of issue common to huge number of cases doing the rounds. One CMC with over 400 claims ongoing in one court - Not a sensible use of court's time. Surprised cases got as far as being listed far trial, as staying claims such as this - more practical. Test cases on unenforceable agreements needed to resolve issues. Civil Judges suggest stay pending test cases. Rankine v Various Banks Case to be heard late September which may resolve some issues. Stay case until issues sorted. Counsel – advise client if any more cases similar in this Court they contact Court Manager as this will affect those (also mentioned other courts in the County). So, either something new is going on or he's not up to date. Take it I'll get a better idea when claimant objects to stay.

So the DJ who ordered the stay on the basis of these "test cases" is out of touch.

Maybe the DJ should join CAG.

Order says: In the event of any application to have this order set aside or varied this claim shall be transfered to the XXXXX County Court and shall be listed for directions before His Honour Judge XXXXXXX QC on 8 Oct 2009. Now I came away with the understanding that if either party wanted to apply to have Stay set aside, then the case would be put forward as one of those to be considered for the Test Cases. I assume the actual test cases have not been decided yet.