ccmug I have no legal training either, but I am trying to work out the actual logic of how this works. The s77/s78 request must have been put in the cca 1974 for a reason. I am guessing that the reason was to compel creditors to provide certain information in a certain timeframe. The penalty being that they are neutered of their rights in the agreement until they comply. So irrespective of whether the agreement is properly executed or can be enforced the default of a s77/s78 request means that the creditor cannot enforce ANY part of the agreement. 1. This surely means that there are NO mimimum payments due. 2. Withdrawing facilities would be exercising a right under the agreement (but they are not permitted to exercise any rights) 3. Adding interest similarly 4. They may not want to reissue the cards, but I don't see that they have any legal way that they can't. 5. Blacklisting by CRAs would be defamation as you would not have done anything wrong as there were not payments due on the agreement. I know that I seem to be taking an extreme view on the effect of a default on a s77/s78 request. But that is what is in the Act. Is it not?

Yes, I agree ccmug, whether an agreement is enforceable needs to be tested in court. But whether the actual agreement is enforceable or not, I am really looking at the specific point of a creditor being in default of a s77/s78 request. In the discussions here, I have read of many creditors that have been in default for over 12 months. Many people have stopped payment once the creditors have gone into default. But the worry has been that the creditor might turn up with a credit agreement at the court. In the mean time the creditor has withdrawn facilities, added interest, put the credit card/loan into default and put adverse info with CRAs Well from my understanding the case should be as follows: If they do turn up in court with an agreement, then yes the agreement can be tested to see if it is enforecable, BUT... The creditor will still be in default of the s77/s78 request and will not be able to enforce any part of the agreement until it properly complies with the request. This means that they must provide: 1. Copy of CCA 2. Any documents mentioned in it 3. A signed statement of account Perhaps they can do this in court, maybe by handing the documents over in person. They will then be able to 'enforce' the clauses within the contract from that point onwards. But the account would have to be returned to state it was in prior to the creditors default. So they would need to reinstate the account, remove the interest added, remove any arrears on the account and correct the records at CRAs. At this point the credit card holder could then continue to make the normal monthly payments and use the facilities of the card as before the creditor defaulted on the s77/s78 request. The only effect should be that the creditor has lost the interest that they could have charged in the period they were in default. I think this was the actual intented effect of a s77/s78 request in the Act. In order to make creditors provide this information when it is requested and in the time required.

In fact, I have just thought... While they are in default, there is no debt. "The Debt" is in fact just an amount of money that is payable under the agreement. So, even thought the agreement exists throughout the period of default, because they are not able to "enforce" any of its clauses, they may not "use" any of the clauses that cause "the debt" to exist. Of course if/when they finally compy with the s77/s78 request they can again enforce the clauses of the agreement and "the Debt" will exist again. I think that this was in fact the exact intention of s77/s78 in order to "encourage" creditors to comply with providing this information and to provide a penalty if they do not.

I may be wrong and will be happy if someone can correct me on this, but I think there is some confusion about the meaning of the word "enforce". I believe this means "to bring into force". As in "to use a clause in the contract". So when a creditor is not permitted to enforce a contract, they are not allowed to "use" or "rely" on any claused in the contract. So for instance, during a default of a s77/s78 request they cannot "use" any of the clauses of the contract (e.g. add interest, request payments etc) So I agree there is an agreement in place during the whole period, but while the creditor is in default the creditor has no right to add any charges or rely on any of the terms of the agreement. This would mean that if they have added interest etc, they have done this without any legal basis.

I would like to get any opinions on the idea that if a creditor does not comply fully and properly with a CCA request then this on its own should be a complete defence against the contract. Section 77/78 states that a creditor must provide within 12 working days: 1. Copy of CCA 2. Any documents mentioned in it 3. A signed statement of account The penalty for not doing this is that they cannot enforce (any part) of the contract. So if the creditor has either partially complied or not complied with the request, then they cannot enforce (i.e. take advantage of) the contract until they have properly complied. Then if they do comply at a later stage, they must return the account to the state that it was in prior to their default. This means that: 1. no interest can be charged 2. no payments can be overdue 3. any default notices withdrawn 4. Credit reference agency records must be amended etc. Have I understood this correctly?

bump

I have just read this from start to finish. I think it's taken about 4 hours. Not sure now what information is useful and what is not. But it has got my head into the idea of thinking of this as a longer term campaign. There is one thing that does not make sense though and does not seem to have been covered by anyone (I think). OTB on a number of occasions states or intimates that you should make an offer of 25% for a debt that is unenforceable. This is also kind of justified if it the case that the problem will never go away. It may be worth it to get rid of the agro. But there must be some legal way of getting this to stop if a debt is unenforceable. Some of you have suggested that this thread might have been a plant. Is this the point of it then. To get people to make offers when they don't need to?

I posted this in another thread, but should probably start a new on of my own. So here it is: I received a response to an Egg CCA which is the same as a number of other ones I have seen on the board. It has two pages: the first page has has some conditions on it; and the second has signatures. The comments on the other copies I have seen have said that it looks like it has all of the prescribed terms. And it probably does, but... ...on looking at it in more detail it does not seem to be complete. In condition 4.4 on the first page it refers to condition 12. Well, the page finishes on condition 5.1. So, I think this might mean that: 1. The conditions continued overleaf on the original document. 2. The original could have been a 4 page document and the two pages that they have provided are pages 1 and 4 (i.e the same side of a folded document). 3. They only scanned pages 1 and 4 when they took a copy of the original for their files. This is just speculation, but why have they not sent the rest of the conditions? Lastly, they have not sent a statement of account. So I don't think they have complied with my CCA properly. Any comments?

Hello Sorry if I am jumping in here, but I received a response to an Egg CCA with the same two pages of an apparent agreement. On looking at it in more detail it does not seem complete. In condition 4.4 on the first page it refers to condition 12. Well, the page finishes on condition 5.1. So, I think this might mean that: 1. The conditions continued overleaf on the original document. 2. The original could have been a 4 page document and the two pages that they have provided are pages 1 and 4 (i.e the same side of a folded document). 3. They onlys scanned pages 1 and 4. This is just speculation, but why have they not sent the rest of the conditions? Lastly, they have not sent a statement of account. So I don't think they have complied with my CCA properly. Any comments?