OK, this is what happened...
About 18 months ago Crapquest contacted me about an AMEX debt of c.£4800 they had been assigned. Right from the start they were unorganised and aggressive, and would come on very strong then go away for months on end.
In October 2007 I received a County Court Summons, and that's when I found the CAG and even more importantly PT2537!
The CAG members helped me file a defence, and whilst I won't bore you with the details, Crapquest were very obstructive; they did not send particulars of the claim, didn't arrive in Court for the first hearing etc. It appears by instigating each stage they expect you to give in and pay. So when they didn't show up in Court the Judge made an order that they should, amongst other things, serve me with a copy of the CCA and a notice of assignment. Eventually (late) they sent me a copy of my original AMEX application, called a "60 Second Application" and a statement from a Crapquest member of staff saying that whilst they could not trace the default notice and notice of assignment, it was academic, I owed the money! Clearly, they could not supply the original credit agreement.
PT2537 then helped me with my defence and preparation for the hearing.
When I arrived at Court, Crapquest had sent a Barrister, who was quite bullish, but poorly prepared.
My case was, that under the CCA 1974 Section S127(3) for a consumer credit agreement to be enforceable, it must contain all the Prescribed Terms and that the application form supplied by Crapquest did not. The amendment to the CCA in 2006 doesn't have this requirement, however CANNOT be applied retrospectively.
The prescribed terms must include the interest rates, my signature, payment terms and credit limit. The Barrister argued that the monthly statements sent to me had the payment date, interest rate and credit limit on them, and also as I had had the money and I should pay.
I just kept firm on the point that no notice of assignment had been produced and no credit agreement.
In the Judges summing up, he firstly said the claim should fail as there is no notice of assignment, and whilst Crapquest would not pursue a claim if it had not been assigned to them, it still needs the notice of asisgnment. I am not sure if he would have thrown it out just on this, but went on to say that without the Credit Agreement, and the prescribed terms in it, and as it was clearly in force prior to the CCA 2006 amendments, the claim must fail. He did touch on the moral aspect, but that is not the law.
From my point of view remember this:
(1) If it is Crapquest, they are so unorganised and as their Barrister said to me afterwards, "it's a numbers game, 9/10 fail". Push them all the way, and ignore their bully boy tactics.
(2) If the credit agreement was in place prior to the 2006 CCA amendments, then they must produce it, with the prescribed terms.
(3) They must produce a notice of assigment and proof it was served on you.
(4) A moral obligation to pay is not the Law, you may feel a bit embarrassed etc, but you are at a Court of Law not a Moral Court and these organisations deal with the law all day long.
(5) Get advice timely from this forum before you do anything; no one here is judgemental. The advice I received was 100%!
Finally, I would like to thank all the CAG members that gave me advice and in particular PT2537, without his help, I could not have done this - thanks everyone!