You don't need to do anything about fast track at this stage. Just follow the normal procedure. If the time comes for you to go to court (and it probably will eventually) you will be sent an Allocation Questionnaire. Shabbey will be sent one too. When you've both filled them in a judge will take a look and decide which track to allocate your case to. Almost certainly, (s)he will allocate you to the fast track. But it is up to the discretion of the judge. Another short word of advice. When it comes to filing a court claim (not yet though! follow the procedure first!) I would recommend that you do NOT use Moneyclaimonline. Go to your local friendly county court and pick up an N1 claims form. There are templates for filling this in in the library forum. The advantage of the N1 over MCOL is that you have much more space to set out your arguments properly. This could save time as the case moves forward.

Well, I for one would love to know, pcr1. I gave HSBC 10 days to comply with my very generous offer and their time is up. I need to start constructing a convincing N1. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/24736-default-removal-katenandpete-hsbc-4.html Goode? Is this a text on consumer and contract law? If you give me details i'll try and find a copy.

i've just PM'd zootscoot for you. for future ref. the private message facility is at the top right.

Contact a mod to get this thread moved to the "legalities" section. Get the Equifax and Callcredit files aswell ASAP. You should be able to tell from the CRA files who put it on and when. Check out this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=321828#post304491

alan is 100% correct. the judge ordered exchange in my case, i think - the allocation is here... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=321828#post304491

Done

Ok. Fair enough. They aren't lenders at all and don't hold a consumer credit licence. Their business is data alone. Which makes it even worse that they don't comply with the DPA.

The next stage if they don't fold is to prepare your list for standard disclosure. This is available in the templates library, as I remember. There may be some more recent OFT statements etc. and stuff specific to NW. Bookworm is the person to PM about these.

Remember I never had judgement or a set-aside, but I don't think that matters. I've not seen your part 18 request, but i'll bet it's the same as mine. Good luck

Here is my reply to part 18. I was helped to do this by BF himself. Natwest folded the day after they got it

Ok. But I found it useful to go down to the court and pick up forms, ask them stuff etc. If you pick Carlisle, for instance, you'd have to travel for any of that. As for the 5000 thing. I had my 3700 claim fast-tracked and actually though this worked in my favour. You could always hang the lower limit in Scotland and claim for the lot in a higher court (is it Sheriff Court?). I think after so many successful claims, we can be utterly sure of the justice of our arguments. So why be scared of a higher court?

OK. The agreement is dead. The debt is still there. You and they need to either make a new agreement (maybe on better terms to yourself) or let a judge do so. The CCA doesn't require lenders produce default notices. But if you were to challenge it under sections 87, 88 and 89 (read these in the library) they would need to prove they had followed correct procedures. I have a thread in the legalities forum where you can read my learning experiences in this area. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/24736-default-removal-katenandpete-hsbc.html If a judge told them to take it off, they couldn't put it back. Full stop.

Yes and yes.

You're in Scotland so Scottish Law applies, I think. There is a sticky in one of the scottish forums from the Govan Law Centre that explains jurisdiction thoroughly. If you know how much you've been charged and have sent a preliminary letter before you can move striaght to the LBA stage.

I'm afraid you've missed the point a little jimfishybob. What you say is completely correct. HOWEVER, the 1983 Regs state that a copy of an executed agreement does NOT need to have a signature in order to satisfy a CCA s.77/78 request. Utter madness, but sadly true. A number of us have contacted our MP's and the DTI about this as it is a fraudster's charter (like i argued in my last but one letter to HSBC). Check out the http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/10900-loan-company-cannot-supply-21.html thread, posts 400 onwards for lots of details. The only way to get a copy of the signed agreement is to demand it as part of standard dislosure in a court case. The CCA provides NO right to see it per se. This is a loophole in the act.

Wrong. CRA's are data controllers aswell. They have just as much responsibility to comply with the data protection act as their clients (the banks). The data they hold is about you. It is YOUR data. YOU own it, not them. For instance, in my case they have "decided" to take HSBC's word over mine in a dispute about an incorrectly registered default. I have asked HSBC to prove this incorrect data. Of course, they can't. It is my opinion that the CRA's are just as guilty as HSBC in defying the DPA, which states that data must be accurate. I've asked the CRA's to prove it aswell. They can't. Furthermore, they say, "HSBC told us it's right, therefore it must be right". So, in addition to defaming me with incorrect data, they DO NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for it. They are parasites of the worst kind.

Thanks BF

You need to check out some other threads in this forum and in the defaults sub-forum. This issue has been discussed quite a bit. Under the CCA they don't need to supply you with a default notice. In fact, according to the CCA (and accompanying statutory instruments), they don't even need to provide you with a copy of your signed agreement, but that's another matter. The important bit though is that if you were to take them to court, they would need to show they had complied with sections 87, 88 and 89 of the CCA. (Read it in the statutes library on this site). I can't see how they would be able to do this without a copy of the original default notice. The situation seems to be the same with original executed agreements. You need to go to court in order to see it. Check out some of zootscoot and Number6's posts on these issues. They know far more than me.

Get your credit reports from the three horsemen of the apocalypse (Experian, Equifax and CallCredit) (god i hate these guys - they're worse than the banks, at least the banks take responsibility for their decisions). Find out how bad your credit is. If there are defaults from old accounts you can get them COMPLETELY REMOVED. The creditors have no right to "continue processing this data" after the credit agreement is finished. There are many threads about how to go about this in the "Legalities" forum. Specifically, check out surlybonds sticky thread. Be warned though - this is more on the rocket science side of the action of this site. It takes dedication.

YAY! Another one bites the dust. Bet you've got the cheese out tonight, chedder! Don't spend it all at once though ;-)

OK. For better or worse I have sent this to HSBC. Thanks to zootscoot, peterbard and Number6 for help with this.

They will do anything to charge you money. They did me too. And millions of other people. But it's payback time now! This site is huge and the information can sometimes be overwhelming. Take a good few days to read around the issues and the procedures. Start at the FAQ's. You will win, but it's takes a bit of time and effort. I started on NatWest in June and it was only settled on 23rd October. It was, however settled in my favour - for £3708!!!!! This includes 8% interest on all the charges! Best savings account I ever had! Have fun

Here's a corker folks. Ikea card from about around August 2000. We suspect charges. Account has been dead since around 2003. Interestingly, this only occured to us because the account is still listed on Experian and Equifax credit reference parasite (sorry should read agency ) reports. We Data Protection Act-S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'d them. We didn't have an account number so on the SAR we put date of birth, all addresses linked on the CRA reports. This was done 26/09/06. We specifically said, "Please supply me with ALL personal data you have in your records". Remember this folks! We then stated that the data should include, but not be limited to a complete list of transactions and charges, manual interventions, yadda yadda yadda. On 05/10/06 we get a letter from them... WTF! No account number, no details of transactions. NOTHING. NADA. ZIP. They literally just asserted that there were no charges. The bare-faced cheek of these people. Nevertheless, this meant that they had found something, eh? Needless to say, we wouldn't let it lie. On 12/10/06 we wrote this back... We received another letter from them on the 1st November. Sit down for this one:rolleyes:. So: 1. They LIED in the first letter. 2. They assert that I never bought anything with this card. Well I have a sofa that proves otherwise. They never received any payments. They never charged any interest. Is this really a "complete list of transactions". I think not. 3. Their 40 days is up. Pardon me for making unfounded suggestions, but I think that they've lost the lot and are making everything up as they go along. This is blatent DECEPTION. I'm sending all correspondence straight to the Information Commissioners Office for a start. I really want to hammer them for this. How can they hold a consumer credit licence and be a data controller and LIE LIE LIE to the consumer. This is a big deal in my opinion. I want suggestions on the best way to turn the thumbscrews on this lot.

So, after receiving a reply offering to reduce the charges to the new level of £16 retrospectively, and assertions that the charges are a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' rather than a penalty, I have today sent the following:

This is a current issue and appears to be a loophole in the Consumer Credit Act. A number of people on here are taking this up with MP's and the DTI as we speak. It is my opinion that they would need to produce the originals to enforce in court. But at present you can't have access to it under the CCA (we think). This is clearly unfair. See discussions here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/10900-loan-company-cannot-supply-16.html