Blue motor finance are a commission based agent, who use companies such as Duncton. Don't use Duncton

Yes, they are Yes, technically they are in default, but they will accept it only if you tell them why. Again, only if you can state why their response is wrong and that you dispute the debt. Do you know of any cases where they have been fined MTM? Unenforceable until they produce it in court and then it becomes enforceable. The crux of the matter is this. Citi are hiding behind the regs, but have misquoted them to you (actually omitted parts): Section 3, subsection 2 a is what he is attempting to hide behind, but he hasn't told you about is that this only relates to the signatures and other personal information (like household income, other cards etc) that isn't required by the act. This provision is put in here to make sure a credit card supplied with a copy of the agreement (i.e. section 85 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974) isn't sent with the cardholders signature on a document sent with it. You need to send a reply back to them with a big heading on it 'Account in Dispute' and basically tell them that you do not accept their interpretation of what is required by a s78 request and that their response has fallen foul of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the SI 1557/1983 and the SI 1553/1983 regulations and that if they do not provide you with a copy of the information you have legally requested you will be witholding payment until such a time as they have complied. Add something along the lines of you will be reviewing your position as this matter drags on and will consider taking legal action to give Citi an opportunity to explain to a judge exactly why they believe they have complied. Somewhere there is guidance from the OFT that states they cannot supply you with what they have to comply with the act.

The law may appear to be the law, but waffle designed to redress the letter of the law to suit the views and position of the party is how the game is played. The law falls by the wayside, it is the person who puts forward the best arguement and sways the county court judge who is the winner, and many a judge may well side with those with whome they have more in common, which is, unfortunately, against the LiP. The answer is, be prepared to fight the waffle spouted by the other side and have your own convincing arguements present. Be careful when quoting case law, as you will need to know it inside out and back to front and know exactly why it relates to your case as if you don't, you may well find it bites you back. I'm not being negative, I'm just attempting to make people realise that walking into a courtroom without sufficient preparation is dangerous and at best counter productive.

I agree, but you need to think of some reasons why you have been disadvantaged by them not providing this information and have a number of responses ready to fire back at the judge. Don't just say that the regs state this or that, explain your reasoning why you believe it is so - otherwise you may well get bamboozled by the waffle the other side spews.

Just attempting to make sure people are more clued up to the broadside the OC / DCA will fire at them and that they cannot hide behind flimsy premises and small technicalities as their principal arguements and must have depth of response to anything the other side throws at them.

A copy of an agreement does not have to be certified to be accepted. Also, if they swear under oath that the worst photocopy in Christendom is a true copy, the judge will accept it as so. I have never heard of a judge throwing out a case for not having the original paperwork, and of the six cases mentioned earlier on this thread, I would like to hear about them as I believe some other reason must have come into play. Be careful including letters and responses other people have written to and received from other people in court bundles and do not attempt to use them in court without the author in court with you to answer questions from the other side.

Unenforceable. Where are the prescribed terms? They (Cap1) did not understand their obligations when they wrote these, or were so 'blaze' that they didn't care!

Missing prescribed terms. Unenforceable. Where is the statement with regards to credit limit? Where is the bill frequency? This is outputted from a computer with details given by you to them (possibly in a Barclays Branch). Did you sign it at home and take it back to them? It may have had terms and conditions on the back, but it also may well have been a plain piece of paper. As it stands, this is not an agreement. Did they send you a signed statement of account and terms and conditions from inception? (Although, apart from the Balance transfer T&C's, there is no reference to T&C's

Not executed and therefore s127(4) comes into play. Cannot be made enforceable (if creditor unable to prove that cancellation documents were sent when card issued in court). Also, creditor not complied with section on issuing card (s61 I think). Also, have you blanked out the part where your name and address are supposed to be? I assume you have. If you haven't, and this is missing, it isn't an agreement as your particulars are missing (but I do realise in all probability you've removed these details). You didn't receive the cancellation parts did you?

If it contains this inside the signature box then the agreement falls foul of s61 by virtue of SI 1553. You can't have this information inside the box. In most agreements it will have a line something like 'by signing this agreement I confirm I have read and understood the terms and conditions overleaf'. If anyone has an agreement with erroneous text inside the signature box, it is improperly executed, and if it is an application form come agreement, it may well not be an agreement at all.

The quick answer, not at all. You need to see whether or not the agreement you signed conforms to the Consumer Credit Act. If you could scan it and post it into a new thread and then put a link to this thread you will get the best response.

I know of at least one case where an agreement copy such as this was deemed to be enforceable. I believe that point will be up to the judge. The counsel on the other side lifted the piece of paper to their nose and read out the terms quoted as being unreadable and the judge accepted that, even though parts were not legible, as a whole it wasn't illegible and therefore allowed enforcement. I wasn't stating a fact, merely pointing out that legibility is objective and that you will need to close down any points made by the other side with regards to legibility. Also, if you intend to quote the guidance from the OFT with regards to legibility, you would also have to counter an arguement with regards to when those guidelines were produced and therefore any predating agreements would not necessarily have to comply. I'm not saying I support that view either, it would appear to me that the agreement in question is indeed illegible, I am merely pointing out the counter attack by the opposition so it isn't a shock to anyone

Just a couple of thoughts.....

You can't apply for the card then. Isn't that a chicken and egg question?

Not really, you don't need an agreement when you purchase a bus pass or tokens for things do you? An agreement can be verbal, therefore you will not have a written agreement. If a written agreement is required (i.e. for a credit card) you can't hide behind the 'if any' clause as there should be a written agreement. Somewhere in the depths of the CCAA thread there is a more eloquent description.

The 'if any' has been debated at long length and it is stated (by the author of the act and by other authorities) that the 'if any' refers to agreements that do not require an agreement. This is another holy grail question - anyone got any case law to back that up?

The debt (if you haven't made any payments) would be statute barred after 12 years. Unfortunately I am not experienced in this matter (other than the 12 years rule )

Has anyone had any CCP or a DCA stating that current terms and conditions fulfill a s78 request (ignoring the signed SoA for a moment)? I have, from Next and by others too. This is, of course, a misquote from SI 1983/1553.

Oh, and so the SI is irrelevant? I'm serious here, I've had CCP's misquote the SI and I was wondering what the borg on this thread thought?

Without having to read back through this thread again, what is the current understanding of what is acceptable with regards to contents of a s78 request? Lets not get hung up on original vs current T&C's here, I'm talking about the agreement itself. Specifically for claims under the SI 1983/1553 ?

Received a letter from a sols working on behalf of a DCA appointed by Cap1. Will these people ever learn about the consequences of an improperly issued default notice? Will they ever learn about non-compliance of a s78 request? Will they ever listen about their errors with regards to issuing notices of arrears under the 2006 act? Will they ever actually get a grasp of the legislation? Take me to court I say, issue an N1 I say, line up and get justice dispensed I say. Expect a full and immediate defence, expect a claim for damages too and fully expect me to not rest until the default notice is removed.

Interesting point, but if the court takes the view that in issuing a CCJ that takes the post judgement interest entitlement within the ruling, do you think that would be stopped to?

It is pretty simple really, they mean that if you had requested a copy of the agreement under sections 77-79 and they hadn't complied, the courts would not be able to enforce the agreement. However, in issuing a CCJ the agreement is therefore enforced and as such the agreement is irrelevant as the CCJ is the overriding document. Getting a CCJ overturned because you didn't ask for a copy of the agreement, or query it, is perversed. You'll have to ask for a copy, see if it is enforceable and then maybe, with a fair wind behind you and a helpful judge, they won't throw it out immediately and you may be able to get the courts to look at it. Be aware that a CCJ kind of makes all of the smoke signals and mirrors available within the CCA fairly redundant.

We're they being construed as being advertising for the entrepreneurs club?

CreditCardKiller is still watching this thread though. Maybe we should all take the fact that threats of litigation get people nowhere, especially as after a little bit of delving most 'services' such as this may not have the legal footing (i.e. regulatory clearance) they may well require. The fact still remains that the registration of the CCK trademark predates all posts on this site by nearly 3 years and that litigation hadn't concluded until this year. Things like that do lead me to believe that the business plan was present long before any legal ruling and that the 'holy grail' of court rulings came by way of an accident. I can't remember how many charging orders it was, was it 2 or 3? We're there other DCA's involved? At the end of the day, if you come out of hiding (and with the help of information gleaned from this and other sites) stating you have found the elixir of life and that you are intending to charge for this, is anyone surprised at the response you get? I wouldn't be. I thought you couldn't be an IFA if you had a CCJ?