Thanks basa48 - will take a look.

Recently received a Court Claim from DCA. The POC states 1. Credit Card Reference (which is their own). 2. NOA sent. 3, £xxxx remains due. 4. Interest claimed under s.69. Would this be considered an inadequately pleaded POC and, if so, should I ask them to re-plead. There is no mentiion of an Agreement (they have only sent a reconstituted one to date). I am a bit confused as to sequence here. Should I send a 31.14 asking for more information for items mentioned in POC and another Pt18 request for information on Agreement, statements etc. Or should I just request they re-plead. Another query is the time factor as my defense needs to be in by Easter and it will mean I do not get the full 28 days, so should I ask for extension in one of the letters, whichever one I am advised to send. Any help appreciated. Thanks.

Advice needed. Santander are charging me £35 for an 'overdraft' which I didn't have. I have 2 Santander accounts and I set up a weekly transfer of x amount from one account to the other, in order to set aside money for monthly bills and avoid overdraft fees. One week there was not enough money in my main account to transfer the set amount so the transfer did not take place. How can Santander justify charging me for a non existant overdraft. I have written and telephoned them but only get the set replies. I would be grateful if anyone can tell me where I stand on this legally, as I am considering taking them to court.

Any opinions on how this recent High Court Appeal case regarding CPR requests for Agreements, might affect future cases. https://www.eversheds.com/uk/home/articles/index1.page?ArticleID=templatedata\Eversheds\articles\data\en\Financial_institutions\Alan_Kneale_v_Barclays_Bank_plc

It is this paragraph that I thought was interesting as it mentions 'less obvious' methods of enforcement: 26 notwithstanding that some of the actions 'less obviously' amounted to enforcement. These actions are demanding earlier payment, recovering possession of goods or land, treating any right conferred on the debtor by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, enforcing any security and terminating the agreement.

I am in very similar situation with Citi. My account was defaulted, terminated and sold to Cabot, all whilst Citi were in default of a CCA request. The following section from the OFT regarding a case in the Commercial Courts would seem to reinforce the view that enforcement cannot take place whilst the account is in dispute from a Section 77/78 request: : In a recent judgment, 25 the Commercial Court held, in a case under section 77 of the Act, that passing details of a debt to a credit reference agency and related activities do not constitute enforcement. It also held that steps taken with a view to enforcement, including demanding payment from a claimant, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and the actual bringing of proceedings, are not themselves 'enforcement'. On the other hand it confirmed that obtaining judgment against the debtor was enforcement, as were the actions listed under sections 76(1) and 87(1), 26 notwithstanding that some of the actions 'less obviously' amounted to enforcement. These actions are demanding earlier payment, recovering possession of goods or land, treating any right conferred on the debtor by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, enforcing any security and terminating the agreement. 5.3 In drawing a distinction between actions which were and were not enforcement, no definition of enforcement was given the court, but it would appear that it was distinguishing between actions based on the exercise of contractual rights (which would be enforcement) and other actions intended to obtain payment which did not involve the exercise of a contractual right. 24 Sections 77(4), 78(6) and 79(3). A declaration under section 142(1) of the Act (with the consequent application of section 106 (rendering securities ineffective) is not available, as section 142(1) does not apply to unenforceability consequent upon sections 77(1), 78(1) and 79(1). 25 McGuffick –v- The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2009] EWHC 2386 (Comm) 26 Paragraph 74 of the judgment. OFT1175con | 24

Thanks Peter. However, doesn't this section imply that enforcement also includes: obtaining judgment against the debtor was enforcement, as were the actions listed under sections 76(1) and 87(1), 26 notwithstanding that some of the actions 'less obviously' amounted to enforcement. These actions are demanding earlier payment, recovering possession of goods or land, treating any right conferred on the debtor by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, enforcing any security and terminating the agreement.

If an a/c is in dispute because the Creditor fails to provide a copy of the CCA , it would appear from the legislation below that the Creditor cannot enforce the Agreement. If they attempt to do so, does this constitute illegal recission? Where a creditor fails – on request and upon payment of the appropriate fee by the debtor - to provide the information required by sections 77-79 and 97 of the 1974 Act, the creditor is not entitled to enforce the agreement whilst the default continues. If the creditor fails to provide information relating to any security, pursuant to sections 107-110, he is not entitled to enforce the security instrument. In addition, the OFT and Local Authority Trading Standards Services have powers under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to take enforcement action where there is a breach of legislation which harms the collective interests of consumers.72 Enforcement action may also be taken where appropriate under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.73 AND In a recent judgment, 25 the Commercial Court held, in a case under section 77 of the Act, that passing details of a debt to a credit reference agency and related activities do not constitute enforcement. It also held that steps taken with a view to enforcement, including demanding payment from a claimant, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and the actual bringing of proceedings, are not themselves 'enforcement'. On the other hand it confirmed that obtaining judgment against the debtor was enforcement, as were the actions listed under sections 76(1) and 87(1), 26 notwithstanding that some of the actions 'less obviously' amounted to enforcement. These actions are demanding earlier payment, recovering possession of goods or land, treating any right conferred on the debtor by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, enforcing any security and terminating the agreement. 5.3 In drawing a distinction between actions which were and were not enforcement, no definition of enforcement was given the court, but it would appear that it was distinguishing between actions based on the exercise of contractual rights (which would be enforcement) and other actions intended to obtain payment which did not involve the exercise of a contractual right. 24 Sections 77(4), 78(6) and 79(3). A declaration under section 142(1) of the Act (with the consequent application of section 106 (rendering securities ineffective) is not available, as section 142(1) does not apply to unenforceability consequent upon sections 77(1), 78(1) and 79(1). 25 McGuffick –v- The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2009] EWHC 2386 (Comm) 26 Paragraph 74 of the judgment. OFT1175con | 24

Under CCA 74, while an a/c is in dispute: You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. * You may not add further interest or any charges to the account. * You may not pass the account to a third party. * You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency. * You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

UNLAWFUL RECISSION I have been checking through correspondence and have found a Default Notice and Letter of Termination. The DN states arrears which are incorrect because they included interest which should not have been added due the Account being in dispute. The Termination letter also states incorrect amount due for the same reasons. Furthermore, the account was sold on whilst still in dispute. Can someone please confirm if this is Unlawful Recission and, if so, should I acknowledge this. If it is unlawful recission and my next move should be a letter of acknowledgement, can someone please show me where I can find an appropriate letter to write. Should this be sent to the DC or the OC, or both.

They wouldn't give me any details - I asked for the name and point of law it might cover but was told they could not disclose that information. (it wasn't their appeal).

I don't know but I was just speaking to a firm of solicitors who said that all their claims were on hold pending the outcome of this appeal.

Appeal Case on 15th September could affect claims. Anyone know what this is about?

I had to wait nearly 2 years for a reconstituted agreement, so I really wouldn't expect too much from them, certainly not a copy of an executed agreement.

Thanks bazaar - will do. No - they have not started court proceedings.

The letter informing me that the account was sold to Cabot came at the end of July, when the account was still in dispute, as Citi had failed to supply a copy of the agreement. A 'true copy' of the agreement was only supplied last week.

Hi bazaar. Thanks for response. I have not received a DN. I was not sure if a termination occurs when the OC sells the debt on. Furthermore, the debt was sold on when the account was in dispute and was acknowledged to be so by Citi.

I requested copy of agreement under S77/78 from Citi in late 2008. No agreement was forthcoming although they did send a copy of their current terms and conditions Approximately 6 months ago I also sent a request under CPR 31.16 for copy of executed agreement. I received a letter referring to my S77/78 request to say they were investigating matter and to give them 8 weeks. This passed without any agreement being forthcoming until last week when a reconstituted agreement was sent, not a signed executed one. In the meantime my account was passed to a DCA for collection. I informed them that the account was in dispute but they still pursued the debt. In July, while the account was still in dispute, the account was assigned to Cabot and an enclosed letter from Cabot states they have BOUGHT the account from Citi. Does this constitute an illegal termination?

Abbey have just zapped £50 out my account in charges. I was wondering what course of action to take in the current circumstances. If you have any suggestions BankFodder, they would be most welcome.

Apologies for late reply. My son is now over 18. I opened his account when he was a child. The agreement, as far as I am aware, did not allow overdrafts of any kind. Therefore, legally, would he not have to agree in writing to be allowed an unauthorised overdraft? ie. they have changed the terms and conditions of the original agreement without consent.

If you want some great insight into what is really happening in the banking world and the attempt by the bankers to bring about their New World Order through the global warming [problem] (which has just been debunked as a massive fraud) in order to introduce their carbon taxes on everything that breathes, I suggest looking at the reports by Christopher Story - his reports are sent to banks internationally. You will be shocked to find out how your world is nothing like you might think it is. BTW - only parties with hope of getting us out of the corrupt EU is UKIP and BNP. Not sure if I am allowed to post Christopher Story's site, so apologies if not, but here goes: Announcements Archive

I received a Notice to Owner regarding a parking ticket I acquired in a multi-storey, council run car park. The photo attached to this notice is not my car. Do I have grounds to appeal and, if so, any suggestions as to what line my response should take? Many thanks.

Just to add, My son received a "Paid Referral Fee" notice, is it likely they will also send another notice for their "Unpaid Item Fee" charge? as they could try and charge over £100 in total. Do they normally charge both?. I believe one or more payments may not have been paid for with the cashcard, but with a bank transfer. Thanks

I opened a Bank Account for my son when he was a child. The only card he has been given was a Cashcard. Recently the bank wrote to him to say they were upgrading his card to a Servicecard which would give him extra facilities. Within a week informing him that they would upgrade his card, they now want to charge him a £30 Referral fee because, he made a few payments from his Cashcard, (he checked his online balance before making each payment and his account was in credit), and his account went into overdraft by a few pounds and only for a few hours. It would seem that the online balance does not show available balance which in itself would seem to be a deliberate ploy to facilitate their plan to charge for overdraft. Does anyone know if they can legally do this as he paid with his Cashcard which should not allow overdrafts. They have not sent a Servicecard to him to date.

I agree with you that it is best to try to sort out payment first but Darney has offered an amount he can reasonably afford and it has been turned down. There is no point in being forced to pay an amount you cannot afford because in the end you will default. Consequently, if they do not wish to abide by the Bankers Code of practice by being reasonable to their customers and checking his ability tp pay when granting the loan, then this is probably the best way to proceed. It also seems to me that he could claim Unfair Relationship if he proceeded to court as the bank clearly did not take into account his financial situation.