shame, completely unenforceable z

absolutely spot on. z

identical to mine - see my thread Zubo v Egg for comments. Did you get the T&Cs which you received in 2003??? also, why is their signature with Mr alibi dated BEFORE yours? its a stitch up of an application... imho - ie its been reconstructed - I never saw that at all.. Z

thats what i said did'll i?? z

Tossup between consolidation or restitution. This is very new with little if any case law. You will need to have a watertight legal argument, I know of only one failed case which would probably have been overturned on appeal. Restitution has the edge on balance because, I seem to recall, the conditions required to support it is a lot stronger. You will need to google it and research the arguments. What you are after is to recover all penalties AND all charges - interest etc, and apply daily interest same as Bank Penalty charges. ok? Z

I cannot recall the debates we had on cancellable or non, Peter B was always my best guide. However, I don't recall that cancellation details was an issue - what WAS an issue was the lack of mention of Default procedures and that IS a prescribed term as I recall. Z

If you took time to digest what other posters were suggesting to you, it is exactly which we are stating. Consider what an unenforceable agreement means: it has to be an agreement regulated by the Act containing all the prescribed terms and constructed in accordance with the Act regarding Headings, Signature box and it must be signed by the Debtor. Time and time again the same comments as you have been made. Production of that agreement is a key requirement and should be asked for under CPR 4.6. Look at my thread regarding CCA Resources Workshop. If a CCP or DCA took you to court and said to you - you must have had an agreement because you paid, you should always challenge them! I thought I had an agreement but under CCA 1974 I am obliged to receive a true copy which I have not received, the OFT make it quite clear as does the Act - without a true copy no Court is allowed to enforce the agreement. Think about it - how can they when they do not know what the provisions are... in fact the court has the authority to vary IN YOUR favour an unjust or unequitable agreement, so they do need sight of the agreement. It matters not one iota if there truly was a correctly executed agreement - inference cannot be drawn what might have been but what from evidence truly is. THAT is what the Act is there for. Now lets close the debate and move on please. Z

Thank you Ian, So FFS you cannot see why I haven't bothered reading your comments - because you do not have a rational argument which is supported by law. In short you have not bothered reading any of the truly great debates we have had with people whose opinion I respect. You have not bothered with researching the detail of CCA. So offering an opinion like you have... well lets see how many people truly support the opinion of a moron. Shut up, do some reading and listen to others giving good advice, you clearly have not got a clue - go save a life. Z

I haven't read your original post and you clearly have not read all the threads AND as you claim CCA - that is pure b~~~~~it!!! Why even bother making an assertion like that - you simply do not have a clue. And that is me being polite. So please keep such mischiveous completely misinformed opinions which are completely unsupported by CCA to yourself. I would even hazard you are MIB.... but even they would not be so stupid.... What do you need in court??? let me think.... oh would that be compliance with CCA 1974??? will transactions do? will proof of use of a CC?? NONONONONO - getit? NO!!! Now do something useful, put a rational argument together PLEASE Z

Excellent post. I suspect there are at least two main issues: (i) When you write as much business as they do, you very quickly run out of huge warehouses to store the paper - and how do you find someones docs amongst all that pile of paper? Think of the problem in reverse - as a nation we create a lot of waste - we are having huge problems trying to dispose of it all - never mind retain it..... (ii) Either not much attention paid or lipservice or total ignorance to the CCA 1974. Back then too you may get the few intelligent people who pushed for a response to the CCA. So, the consequence is that most CCPs have written all their business based on poor documents which do not comply with CCA and carry out flawed processes (complete absence of S85). That weak combination in conjunction with the explosion and sharp focus caused by the Internet has fatally damaged their business model. .... and the UK rot is spreading to Europe and shock horror to the US of A. Tough sh... Crap1 and MBNA... and Amex... The Consumers are finally waking up to what this really means... begining to understand that they do have rights... and that the CCPs AND DCAs have strict laws to comply with and that we are all now well aware of what that is. btw, do not forget unenforceable debt is only one goal, I have moved my sights onto Restitution. If they have taken money from you (from the start of using your CC) in the form of Penalty Charges and Interest AND the agreement is completely unenforceable then there is a very strong argument to say that they were aware that it was unenforceable but chose not to tell you (and you dont have to prove that), they committed an error, you are entitled to all these charges back. Also, same applies under S85 - if they have not issued you with a true copy of your original agremment EVERY time they issued you with a new card (eg lost card, card renewed, everyone had a new one with chip n pin) then from the date of the new card you can claim restitution up until they produce a true copy of the agreement (if at all). Z

The signature and prescribed terms must be on ONE document (which may be several pages long but how do you ensure that each page is related to the other pages AND it was the document you signed upto???) Z

pm me for more Z

CJ Relax. I cannot quite see where you think a bailiff with the new magical powers of forced entry will appear from... A bailiff has to be instructed by a Court to do what you are talking about NOT be appointed by a DCA. So let us dispel that myth. It also might benefit you to read this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/79147-consumer-credit-act-resources.html Now... I have forced a DCA to set to zero all balances on three agreements he did not have - and that was after I had been paying £x pm for 3 years... before realizing my rights. These were all loans. The CCA provides a complete defense regardless of payments/transactions etc etc. The strategy is to get the alleged debt to the point of being unenforceable. Choices at this point are very experimental and a number of strategies are being developed, but I am not going to reveal those to any MIB who might be reading this. PM me for more. Most people currently are in a Mexican Standoff waiting to see what happens next - this suits a CCP because it gives them time to search for the alleged agreement, but we are finding even when they do find the alleged agreement - it is often either a pre-contractual application = NOT an agreement or the alleged agreement is fatally flawed - ie unenforceable. So, don't panic, follow the process, if they have exceeded the allowed time then raise a formal complaint with ICO and OFT. Z

OOC Try this - this and the next letter forced them to write off £6-7k Letter1: I refer to my letter dated 6 August 2006 in which I made a formal request under the Consumer credit act 1974 sec 77-79 for true copies of the regulated credit agreements refered to in the above account numbers. You are reminded that you are obliged to supply these under sec.189 whether you are the original creditor or not and there is no time limit with respect to the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act. I also enclosed the statutory fee of £1.00 for each account. To date you have failed to comply with my statutory request and have defaulted in respect of all 3 accounts.. This means that under the CCA you have now committed an offence punishable upon conviction, by a fine of £2,500 or 3 months imprisonment for each account. Additionally these alleged agreements are unenforceable until such time as the default is removed or enforced by a court of law. It is a further offence to attempt to enforce these alleged agreements until such time as the default is removed. Consequently I am ceasing all payments to your company until such time as this matter is resolved. It is also my intention to report this matter to the appropriate enforcement authority. I await your prompt response. Letter 2: Thank you for your recent letter. Your response from your client clearly indicates his unwillingness to close the accounts at zero balances and therefore implies a basis for those balances. These can only be balances subject to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and subject to the obligations within the Act such as my lawful requests for copies of the executed agreements. Failure to supply these therefore is a criminal offence on each account the penalties are specified within the Act, and it is my intention now to report your breach of the criminal law to the OFT and the appropriate enforcement agencies. In the event that you need to discuss this with your client I will stay my intent for 7 days. Please also note the attached letter contains a formal request under the Data Protection Act which you are obliged to respond to within the given timeframe. I await your response ____________________________ Received a letter stating that the balances on all 3 accounts were 0.00 Z

This fails the test and must be So, the T&C cannot be current, and they must not only be those issued at the time of the alleged agreement they must also be proven to relate to the agreement. I have issued a default notice to a Creditor using that exact argument, details elsewhere. Z

un1, Can you quote the OFT regs reference and extract please - I'm not doubting you - I happen to need that too. Z

Monty, There has been some success with a number of cases I am aware of. The real problem is that the cases has been in the county courts and none of the outcomes can be used as precedent for other cases, so you are at the mercy of how you present your case and the interpretation of each judge. Some of the Act can be a little confusing if not very carefully explained, as you have indicated. Very many CCPs and DCAs are completely off the mark in their understanding of the Act and a few believe that compliance is satisfied by providing simply an unsigned copy of an agreement. I have a very clear understanding of what I will tell a judge about an enforceable agreement and that includes the requirement for both signatures. As to your comment regarding the judge/Bank and debt, the answer is quite simple. A properly executed agreement for credit cards or loans regulates the entire life of a debt. It stipulates precisely what should or should not happen to the debt under different circumstances. It gives the Creditor a variety of rights - to sell or assign the debt, to cancel the agreement, to share information re the debt. Similarly it gives you a range of rights too. When the agreement becomes completely unenforceable - either because the Creditor has no copy or he has no copy signed by YOU then the debt still remains but becomes unenforceable at ALL. In other words the Creditor and you lose all rights under the agreement. That is how I interpret it. Unfortunately, with the way things currently stand we mostly have Mexican Standoffs, however there is a great deal of development activity underway elsewhere where the intention is to produce better strategies in dealing with this. Z

that is what I alluded... however it would be nice if ag replied to that effect Z

I do hope you are not being serious.... would you elaborate please, or is this really truly humour??? Z

Sorry mate - don't understand why you are using without prejudice - it gives the opposition the same consentual rights in court as you doesn't it. Shouldn't you use without prejudice where you really do not wish the contents of the letter revealed???? but then, what do I know??? Z

blade can you post the url for the above story, I feel some focused action coming Z

I always have a big issue with a document which states Application. It is NOT an agreement it is an application - a pre-contractual request to take up the Creditors offer of credit on those prescribed terms. ONCE they have completed their investigations and determined what money you can have THEN they must issue a formal agreement which complies with all the conditions and you must sign THAT document as acceptance. All this business about whether or not its in the prescribed manner etc misses the essence of this legislation and I will argue my way through court. It is this final document we are all seeking and if CCPs think they can bluster their way through all this, then WE have to stand strong and insist that they comply to the letter of the law. My Amex thread is a very good example of where they have sent me a signed Application form, then when pushed have sent me the agreement which is unsigned by me and them AND I have never seen. Sorry Peter, you know my views re Application forms pretending to be agreements: pure rubbish!! Z

The essence of my and everyone else's disputes appear to be: (i) the agreement appears to be reconstructed - I have never signed a two page document and will seek to see the original, I am of the opinion that the document I signed with Egg was an agreement but an application. (ii) they have not provided the T&Cs which were issued at the time. (iii) there is no mention of Default Notices Finally I have asked them to prove to me that Az Alibhai was employed by Egg and authorised to sign the alleged agreement - after all it does sound like the agreement itself - reconstructed - who on earth would have a name which sounds like alibi? Oh, and also IF this was signed by Egg pre-dated than what does that mean? It cannot possibly be pre-approved, so it is a precontractual document, and subject to new documents - THE agreement returned to me with their signature and for me to sign. Right thats about it. I have been sent a pre-trial letter - more likely another frightener. Well I will put these points and ask Egg to comment yet again and remind them again that they are in default and send the complaint to OFT. Z

I never had a reduced settlement amount but the various we are investigating letters are common. The truth is that it is all b+++it, they try to break you down by wearing you down. I personally would not accept anything short of a full financial settlement and then if they have no agreement then the choice is yours how you wish to proceed. Walk away or seek a return of all unlawful charges inc interest. Z

Monty do not confuse the issues. I do not dispute the debt, if you trawl through the main CCA threads you will understand better. However to attempt to summarise the position: The CCA Act obligates the creditor to provide a true copy of the agreement NOT application. Additionally I have asked to see my signature on this copy to prove that they have it. They cannot - they only have an application. Under CCA, if there is no agreement then they cannot enforce it at all. The debt however remains - it simply cannot be enforced. Proof of transactions etc are useless, ALL financial business must be conducted within the strict terms of the Act and subsequent SIs (clarrification of the Act) Z