Have Mischcon raised the card carrier yet? This seems to be the Amex/MBNA/Capital One line when their agreements are no good in court. (Funny all the US firms).

Martel No it is in fact the original carrier that the credit card came attached to, for some reason I had kept it. I was really hoping they would produce something in court that as they said "contained all the prescribed terms" only for me to produce the one their external supplier had sent that was completely different. Unfortunately I did not get the chance. Also, may have confused you, but in this particular case was not about an Amex Card - sorry if I gave you that impression.

Also the card carrier I have from them does not have an APR rate shown, just the standard variable rates for Cash Withdrawls, Purchases and Balance Transfers. So don't think that contains the required prescribed terms.

Martel Never got too see anything in court as they discontinued few days before trial. However much was made of the card carrier in their witness statement and how this would have contained all the required prescribed terms. Said witness statement then went on to say that they did not keep a copy of the card carrier sent as (big mistake by them I think here) this would have been supplied to the defendant with the credit card attached and would have been produced by an external supplier. B40

Martel You'll probably find they will claim (in their witness statement and skeleton argument) that the card carrier supplied to you - which your credit card was attached - will have been a copy of the executed agreement. Hence the amended POC. B40

Martel Just been reading back through your thread and wonder have you been supplied with a copy of the original signed agreement. I requested under s78 a copy of the agreement I had had with Amex Credit Card taken out in mid 90's - all they sent was a copy of an application form headed "SIGNATURE only required. Virtually all you have to do is sign your name" I got this checked out at CAB (person I saw knew what they were talking about) and was told it would not hold up in court as contained none of the prescribed terms. If yours is the same this may be why they have added the bit about s65(1) and s127(1) to their amended POC. The DN I received from Amex also did not give an actual date by which to remedy the breach, but just states "fourteen days from the date of this notice", was sent 2nd class, and arrived ten days after the date on the notice. Giving me four days to remedy the breach, which happened to be Good Friday, Easter Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Over the next two years the account got passed to AIC, Newman, Moorcroft and finally VIL Collections. Since then (over two years ago now) have heard nothing. Only two years to go and it will be statute barred - but expect to hear from someone before then. I'm surprised they have not sold it on yet.

I was only savvy enough to challenge them because of what I learnt from CAG

Reading the posts about the defective DNs with interest. I have had two claims against me discontinued by claimants (both OC's) just a few days before trial was due to take place. In both cases they stated this was due to the DN's issued "not having complied with the regulations in force at the time of issue". In both cases they stated they intended to issue new DN's which would comply with the current regulations. One didn't issue anything, the other (A&L) issued a further DN which once again failed to comply with the required regulations (even when they get told they got it wrong) they still don't get it right. I may just have been lucky.

I have previously posted (Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases) but have decided to start new thread to follow on as this has now taken a change of direction and would appreciate advice on how to continue. Following the outcome of the test cases the stay on the claim was lifted by the court and notified at being of May of new trial date for September/October. A week after hearing from the court received a further letter from the court informing me that the claimant had requested (and been granted) a further stay of three months to enable parties to reach a settlement. Two days later received from Solicitors a copy of the order granting the stay plus a letter saying how they believe that this matter could be settled without wasting the courts valuable time and the further expense of a court hearing, how both parties are required to attempt to settle such disputes prior to any court hearing, should they feel a settlement could be reached and parties required additional time they would apply for a further stay (Can they?) and they would write further after taking instructions from their client. That was four weeks ago and since then have heard nothing further. So what are they playing at?

Probably not bizarre, maybe they know the agreement falls down. I would not give my consent to them amending their POC. IMO you are "prejudiced by these reasonable amendments".

Martel They may have added the bit about s65(1) and s127(1) because if the agreement is not properly executed, and therefore only enforceable on an order of the court, if they have not asked the court to enforce the agreement in the POC, the court may not enforce. Hope that makes sense

Feelingdownandout If you are paying £100 a month, and the amounts you owe are £1500 and £324, are you not paying the minimum amount per month anyway? B40

Boiled Many thanks… …looks like cases that had a bearing on mine all got discontinued following Carey v HSBC… …wonder how this will affect mine!!!!!!!!!

Can anyone provide any info on the test cases due to be heard 8/9 March in Manchester. I've checked "Dissecting the Manchester Test Case...." thread but this seems to deal with the cases heard in December 09. One of the posts mentioned the 8/9 March cases and that judgment would be handed down approx 3 weeks after. Anyone got any further info. (my previous thread on this Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases has gone off at a different tangent now and seems to be dealing with DNs/termination/contract law). Many thanks. B40

Any news yet on the cases to be heard in Manchester this month? B40

Baggio Many thanks for your update, I can understand the need to be careful at this stage. B40

Been missing in action on this one (crap at work) so lost the thread (ha!). Has their been any further developments, notice from LIBM's post about preliminary hearings. Has is been established yet what these particulars cases are dealing with. B40

TD You beat me to it. And on my own thread. I saw it at work during my break and nearly spat coffee all over the screen. Hopefully could be a turning point. Let's encourage MBNA to appeal. Have to say this bit is the best: Repayments Judge Smart also agreed that the debt on Ms Thorius's credit card was unenforceable because the card company could not provide a copy of the original loan agreement, which is also required by the Consumer Credit Act. MBNA's claim for the repayment of the outstanding money on the card was rejected. B40

Would MBNA be that daft and appeal. They seemingly have enough problems already without taking this to a Higher Court and setting a legal precedent. Maybe we should encourage MBNA (Hi, everyone in Chester reading this) to appeal.

LIBM And after finding this site over two years ago and thanks to the information and advice on it regarding unenforceable agreements - that I have been able to defend four claims - two which the banks discontinued just a few days before the trials and one which was struck out. And this one - currently stayed due to the hearing to be held in Manchester on 08 Oct.

LetItBeMe I've seen BANK OF SCOTLAND -v- ROBERT MITCHELL before. I love this bit: 9. Miss Gardner has given no reason for the withdrawal of the action. She is in no way to be criticised for the omission. She is bound to act in accordance with her instructions, and those instructions were presumably to say no more than she has in fact said. 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. B40

Thanks for update, I guess we all know this is can be a bit of a waiting game at times. B40

Did you speak to your solicitor and get any news? B40

TD, many thanks for the update. How many complaints would the FOS received if this is upheld. When I complained to them about the creditor who has issued this claim they told me creditor was entitled to enforce the debt. When creditor issued CC Claim FOS closed the files as at is was "now a matter for the courts". B40

Josie I'm not to clear on what this would mean. Can you clarify? Many thanks B40