Sorry Nick ... its done it again .... merged paras that is ... know idea why it keeps doing it !!!

I know Nick, sorry about the lack of paras - for some reason everytime I posted my reply up, the blinking whole let kept merging ... !!! (sorry if it gave you a headache !!) After withdrawing my OD facility, my bank never wrote to me within the specified time scale - i.e 3 mths & 7 days - so that was a bit of a boob on their part, as well as a dud DN (although the dud DN did not form part of my row with them).They also tried upon my CCA request, to claim that ODs are not regulated whatsoever under the CCA - and that they did not have to present any paperwork - which is wrong - nor did they mention or claim part v exemption ....which is what my argument to them was based on. I completely agree, that unless someone has actually got to court and argued either way - then none of us will know how it will pan out - and that any advice given on any forum has to be taken by the individual as its meant - with best intentions by the poster - but that if its going to court the individual really needs to seek qualified legal advice. My responses to my bank seemed to see them off, now whether that's because what was presented was correct, or because they didn't want to chance it, is anyone's guess .... I'm just glad that the advice I recd myself, and how I argued the point, seemed to work. But of course ... someone else may not be so lucky ...Abs

Thank you for your congrautlations on my success Nick - albeit I think a little tongue in cheek ..... The following, amongst other similar advice from others, was provided to myself when I asked for assistance on this very subject ..... I can't remember the OP of the following so apols to them for not seeking their permission to re-produce ... "An overdraft is a debtor creditor agreement as defined under section 8 and 13 of the CCA and is running account credit as defined in section 10. This has high court case law - coutts vs sebastyn.When they say it is not CCA, what they mean is that there is part v exemption from the CCA but,-they still need to show the contractual arrangement set up with 30 days of the o/d-they still need a valid default notice-they still need a termination notice.A current account is covered by the Banking Code (FSA) and does not offer credit facilities. An overdraft is a credit agreement and as such CCA.This is my specialist area I've seen off HSBC and ltsb on this. They will try to tell you that CCA does not apply to an o/d this utter nonsense. What tehy mean is that they have the part v exemption. So a Subject access request requesting specifically the default and termination notices plus the letter they sent you within 30 days of setting up the o/d (which must include interest rate and conditions such as limit) will tell you if they can enforce it. But I would still start with a CCA for the o/d it is for them to prove part v exemption.A CCA request applies to an overdraft until and unless they tell you in writing that it is Part V exempt. At that point they must provide all the documents under the determination for the overdraft to be enforceable else section 78(6) of the CCA applies.LEGAL BIT8. The Claimant believes that it will form part of the Defendant’s Defence to this Claim that this agreement is not a regulated agreement under the CCA 1974. The Claimant avers, however, that this is a regulated agreement and falls under the remit of that Act. To help clarify these matters, this is an extract from a Court case (Coutts v Sebastyen) and is part of the summing up by the Judge in relation to effect on overdrafts and the function of the CCA in such circumstances;“The Defendant provided an overdraft on the account;a. The agreement was a regulated debtor-creditor agreement within the meaning of s.8 and s.13© of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, providing for 'running-account credit' within the meaning of s.10(1)(a) of the Act (in effect, a revolving credit within an agreed credit limit); andb. That, as such, it was subject to the requirements of Part V of the Act (including the requirements as to documentation set out in sections 57 to 63 of the Act) save and in so far as it was excluded or exempted from such requirements.Section 65 in Part V of the Act provides that an "improperly executed" regulated agreement is unenforceable by the creditor without a court order. It is common ground that a regulated agreement is "improperly executed" for this purpose if the requirements of sections 57 to 63 have not been complied with. Section 74 of the Act provides for the exclusion of certain agreements from Part V. It provides as follows (so far as material): "74. – (1) This part …. does not apply to – (b) a debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, …(3) Subsection 1(b) … applies only where the OFT so determines, and such a determination – (a) may be made subject to such conditions as the OFT thinks fit …(3A) …. in relation to a debtor-creditor agreement under which the creditor is …. a bank …. the OFT shall make a determination that subsection 1(b) above applies unless it considers that it would be against the public interest to do so.THE DETERMINATION: The Determination (which is signed by the Director of Fair Trading) is made under section 74(3) of the Act. I set it out in full:"1. Under the powers conferred upon me by s.74(3) and (3A) and s.133 of the Consumer Credit 1974, I, the Director General, being satisfied that it would not be against the public interest to do so, hereby revoke with effect from 1st February 1990 the Determination made by me in respect of Section 74(1)(b) and dated 3 November 1983 and now determine that with effect from 1st February 1990 Section 74(1)(b) shall apply to every debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a bank.2. This Determination is made subject to the following conditions:-(a) that the creditor shall have informed my Office in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply;(b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:- of the credit limit, if any,- of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,- of the procedure for terminating the agreement; and this information shall be confirmed in writing.© that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than 7 days after the end of that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable.3. In this Determination the terms 'creditor' and 'debtor' shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section 189 of [the Act]. The term 'bank' includes the Bank of England and banks within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 as amended."9. The Claimant avers, therefore, that the Defendant is in default of the Claimant’s request to provide those details required by the Determination of The Office of Fair Trading and, while that default continues, should be held in default within the terms of s.78(6).10. The Defendant has failed to provide a document that complies with this request. Accordingly, the Defendant is “in default” under s.78(6) and the Claimant respectfully submits that this prevents the Court enforcing this debt until the default is rectified as per s.78(6)(a) CCA 1974. The Defendant has also committed an offence under s.78(6)(a) CCA 1974.11. The Claimant, therefore, puts the Defendant to strict proof of;11.1. The contractual agreement between both parties in relation to the Current Account, allowing the Claimant to request overdraft facilities and which terms and conditions were included as part of that agreement;11.2. Where no such agreement can be provided, the agreement between the two parties as to the overdraft facilities provided to the Claimant at the time of application for an overdraft by the Claimant;11.3. Where no such agreement can be provided, copies of original documentation sent to the Claimant that complies with the Office of Fair Trading’s Determination, issued in relation to overdrafts on Current Accounts, under s.74 and s.133 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; (that Determination being dated 1st February 1990) "You disagree with this Nick, which is fine - and I presume based on your own experiences. To answer your question, no court proceedings haven't been initiated in my case as it appears my bank accepted the argument presented to them. I also didn't actually post on here, and whilst I have not taken personally the tone of your post, as debate is always good, I believe it would be of benefit to the OP if you would instead give them your guidance/experience on how you would address their issues that they are seeking help with. You may also want to let Cerbs know, site staff, that you believe he is giving incorrect advice to posters looking for OD help - I'm sure he would appreciate your input & experience. To the OP, seek out as many OD threads as possible, get info from lots of places, and then decide how you wish to proceed - my suggestion is always to try and mediate with your creditor to come to an affordable arrangement, and only if they are obstructive or just plain unreasonable seek other avenues to assist in your current financial position. The comments made by myself on any threads, are based on my own experiences, I am not legally qualified, nor do I present myself as such - and you must always follow your own instincts on a balance of advice given by all posters. Nicks argument is actually beneficial to the thread, as he is quite right, just because one poster doesn't end up before a Judge doesn't mean another won't - so you should always seek as much guidance from as many places and people as possible .... in fact with one facing court I would always suggest seeking qualified legal advice from a consumer credit solicitor. Abs xx Apols if the spacing is out ... I'm having a probs with this at the mo xx

Thanks Cerbs ... Nick please refer to post 177 of the thread suggested by Cerbs ... I would also advise that I have successfully seen off my bank and subsequent DCA to whom the debt was sold, with this very argument - but of course your post may be based on your own personal experiences where this defence has failed.Moving on, I think the thread Cerbs refers the OP to would be an excellent place for them to do their research, as its comprehensive with lots of debate and info from many Caggers. Best of luck to the OP ... Abs x

Its incorrect because ?

Not correct in what aspect?

Thing is .... I've got one in the window right next to the front door ..... !!!! Obviously he didn't think that cold calling for a disputed debt collection is classed as cold calling .... As a side issue, my Mum heard a noise on her doorstep opened the door and there, with his back to her, was a man .... (my mums an OAP by the way) .... she asked him what he wanted, and that she didn't accept cold callers as the sign on her door made clear .... "madam" he replied with his back still to her "I am not a cold caller, as I haven't actually knocked on your door" ... she eventuallly got out of him that he was trying to sell NPower electricity - my Mum told him if he didn't remove himself from her step, she would plant her furry slipper right up his nether regions ... that shifted him ..... So Npower sale tactics seem to be .. if you dont knock, but just loiter on OAPs doorsteps instead, you aren't actually cold calling, and aren't actually breaking the law .... I heard it all now, and couldn't stop laughing when she told me ... !!! Abs x

Thought I would just post up, that I have been doorstepped (and having read though recent posts seems to be the current order of they day, these little swines seem to be popping up everywhere!!) Anyhoo ... had a knock on the door at 7pm - opened it there stood quite a scruffy man, who asked if I was Abby25, and then waved a little laminated card with his pic on, in front of my face. He mumbled that he was from CCS - had to ask him twice "Who ?" - as he mumbled so badly. He then stated "I'm here to collect a debt on behalf of CCS and M&S - what can you pay today" .... well I firstly told him he was breaking the law, and that he could only attend my property following invitation he said "I have one" ... "not from me" I huffily retorted, then he changed his mind and said "he didn't need one" . ... well I lost my ladylike cool then, and preceeded to advise him that if he didn't remove himself from my doorstep immediately I would have the Police to him, and my rather large brother .. ... "alright, alright " he snorted as he turned on his heel and proceeded down the path . .... "don't forget to close the gate on your way out" I happily advised him ... and god bless him ... he did just that ..... Truely satisfied with myself, I decided to reward myself with 3 chocy digestives and a mug of tea ... the simple joys in life eh ...!!!! Abs x

Hi, Told you ... I know what they are going to send you before they do ... !! Now the following is only if your friend does not want to request a payment arrangement, holiday etc - and based on if you want to challenge the agreement held as a whole. So having said that ... With regards to the pres terms being contained within the t&cs on the reverse of the app - refer post 18 - also my previous posts on where the pres terms must be located. Secondly, IF they were on the reverse, then the front they have sent you i.e the bit with your signature on ... must tell you this .... if it doesn't then they are stuck. s61 (b) .. I;ve already covered - s61 (a) refers to pres terms and where they must be found (and no thats not in another document, T&Cs, back of a crisp packet, or anything else they would like you to believe) - but within the four corners of the defined pages forming the agreement (which can be one page or several). Carey they have quoted refers to "reconsructed agreements" (where they claim they can't find the original), so quite why they have made ref is anyones guess ... but I did tell you they just cut and paste template paras, without really understanding what they are saying ... seeing as they have raised it though ... Carey relates to the satisfaction of a s77/78 request with a recon agreement, which means that once it is produced the "dispute" (unless you also dispute the terms or accuracy of the recon agreement) has been satisfied. Problem is they haven;t provided you with a recon agreement have they ... further to which the original of the agreement is reqd for any court proceedins, and under Carey, if the agreement has been varied since inception, which in this case it most definately has ... store card to credit card ... then the original agreement MUST be presented before court .... Furthermore, do a google on the M&S store to credit card .. the OFT did not back their actions at all .. rather the opposite in fact ... changing a store card to a credit card is not a simple variation on terms, it is a whole different animal - messed up but can't admit it. So you simply return the compliment, by refuting their allegations, telling them why, and asking for a true copy of a properly executed agreement for the credit card held. Don't worry about these letters, they sound as though they have been especially penned for you ... but the reality is there is template base that they simply add template paras which may address your point, or may not, depending on what you have raised, and if they have a template paragraph for it - which is why you will over time find repetition of the same paras , letters that are disjointed and don't address your point, but answer a point you haven't even raised for discussion. Abs x

No probs, if you need any help you know where to find me .... Abs x

David, This is exactly what I did, I did enclose my own I&E to back up my request - I had serviced my debts for a good number of years, inc paying them all off when able, and then using them again ..... Egg were particularly helpful as were a few others, but those who were less then helpful (M&S being the worst) ... well as BB says .... 2 can play at that game, which is exactly what I did .... I got my own I&E sheet from the National Debt Line site - just filled it in - remember to allow yourself enough to live on too re food etc, and send it off with a covering letter just explaining that since you entered into your agreement with them, although previously handled in an excellent manner, your financial circumstances have changed, and you you find yourself unable to meet the agreed monthly amount. I also included in mine, that I was actively looking for employment, and that I hoped the arrangement to be temporary, and would advise them as soon as my financial position improved. Good advice from BB re your equity too ... I wouldn't get into more debt to pay off what you already owe - thats never a good move... Abs x

Hi, If the agreement is in more than one piece i.e more than one page (as they infer) then clear reference must be given to that in the signed agreement, i.e a clear association with all pages, numbered etc. If pres terms are to found anywhere outside of the signed agreement, the agreement must make ref to them (even then its doubtful it would be construed and allowed as a correctly executed agreement). In your case, neither applies - the CCA provided appears self contained, inc the signature at the bottom - there appears to be no refe to any other document either. 61(b) they quote to support their claim is only relevant to GENERAL terms which may be emboided in another doc - NOT prescribed terms 61(a) (which they obviously don't quote) dictates where prescribed terms must be located, which is within the 4 corners of the agreement, which can be 1 page (in this case) or run to several pages. If the agreement consists of more than 1 page, then clear ref must be made to such and a clear relationship between all the pages i.e page number, ref etc. They also, have you noticed, not told you WHERE, the pres terms may be found, just that they can be embodied in another doc - they have not explained why or how this relates to your request .... so I would push them on this ... make them tell you where the pres terms are - as it stands now they appear to be concealling their location from you wouldn't you say.... So, there we have their argument regarding where the prescribed terms are located addressed. Furthermore, you may want to make reference to the fact that the agreement to which they are going about where things may or not be located, isn't actually relevant to your request - as you asked for a copy of the credit agreement for the credit card they are chasing .... yet they have sent you one for an old charge card ... completely different animal ... Put this to them .. see what they come back with. I am already way down the line with M&S, so know their tactics, their template letters and how they will try and convince you that they are right and you are wrong ... What they have sent you is unenforceable, and they know it as their reply betrays..... Abs x PS - re the telephone calls, report to the OFT, inc a para in your letter re accepting tele calls and also informing them that you have reported them to the OFT. You may also want to include the paragraph re "doorstepping" too.

post removed by Abby25.

Hi there, You're in the position most of us were in when we found CAG. I had similar problems, but my debt siguation was a LOT worse - I contacted my creditors - some were more agreeable than others. Those who refused to accept reduced payments, or wanted an amount I obviously couldn't afford - I had no alternative but to get hold of my orig credit agreement to see if they been charging the correct amount of interest, charges etc to try and reduce the overall balance. Most CCAs that came back however, we merely application forms, with no info at all regarding the terms under which my account was being adminstered - so as I was unable to check the details under which they were making threats, etc ... the accounts swiftly went into dispute - as they are now ... and the OCs receive nothing at all .. and won't do until I have a vaild agreement provided which will enable me to check what interest, charges etc I did agree to at outset. So .... coming back to you ... you will receive defaults against your name with CRAs - this is pretty unavoidable as the creditor is allowed to do this as soon as you default the terms of the agreement ... whether they actually have one to provide or not ... (and thats a whole other kettle of fish, trying to get them removed even if they can't provide you with a copy of your orig agreement). As a self employed bod, its CCJs, IVAs, bankruptcy orders that can cause problems, if for example your company is LTD - so try and avoid this if at all possible. I would suggest keeping paying what you can for now, but also send in a CCA request letter to all your creditors, with your £1 postal order. Send it recorded delivery. Now they have 12 & 2 days to respond with a compliant CCA, if they don't respond, send you an application form, send you anything by which you are unable to check the validity of the administring of the account to what you signed at outset - well it goes straight into dispute, you suspend all future payments, writing to them advising them of the basis of dispute. The template letter library has the letters in there ..... send them off, diary them, and then come back for my help as and when they arrive, you put them into dispute etc.... Any copy agreements you receive, scan up on your thread (maybe a new thread for each creditor would easier for all to keep up) and you will recieve lots of help and guidance on the validity of what has been provided to you, and how to take things forward .... Abs x

Exactly .... I was in the same position myself .... your circumstances change, you try to arrange a revised arrangement to reduce the debt and to keep the debt from getting any bigger, but the OC or DCAs just won't listen, show any sympathy etc ..... etc .... Thats exactly when you need CAG .... and to fight fire with fire .... Sorry if my prev post seemed harsh, it wasn't meant to be me with a big stick, but rather to make it clear that CAG is a helpful resource to those in our circumstances, and not how the credit industry would like to paint it, a source to help people simply avoid their debts - I just wanted to make sure the OP was aware what CAG was all about, and to make sure that they had arrived at the right place for help ... which is always here for those who need it... Abs x

Hi, It isn't clear from your initial post why you are exploring having your outstanding debts "reviewed" . CAG is a valuable and supportive forum to help those who have due to financial circumstances, now find themselves unable to afford the contractual monthly amount due to their Creditors - and where the Creditors have been un-helpful, obstructive or just damned unhelpful in assisting the individual to re-negotiate a more realistic amount, until their circumstances change. It should be noted, that CAG is here to help peeps who are unable to pay their os debts, not unwilling to ... that simply amounts to debt evasion - and behaviour not condoned nor supported by the advice and guidance provided on this site. If you are in the former position and unable to maintain your commitments, then lots of help and advice shall be gladly given by the good peeps on here (however it is doubtful that your debt whatever the circumstances, will be written off). If however your motives are the later and simply to avoid your obligations, then this isn't the place for you. Apols if my response seems harsh, but I think its necessary to make clear. Abs x

A SAR will give you everything on the account - inc your agreement. I would want to check if your parents are guarantors or not - just for my own and their piece of mind, and so that you will know where you are starting from. Now, when you receive your copy agreement if you scan and post it up here we will check if its been correctly executed, guarantor or not, then you can decide how you are going to move forward from there. But you must not ignore this any more - they have contacted your parents as a last resort - so send in your SAR request £10 (giving you a copy of ALL docs on your account) or your CCA request £1 (just your agreement) - either way make sure that you also ask them to provide documentary evidence of the alleged guarantor aspect of the agreement (as it may be a separate doc to the credit agreement itself - which is why I sugested the SAR route to save time ). CAG is a wonderful place, full of helpful and understanding peeps - and as rightly said earlier on - its a real haven and support to those who find themselves in financial dire straits and a can't pay situation, just trying to get themselves straight and to know their rights, when creditors and DCAs are baying for blood, won't accept reasonable attempts for repayment and threaten with totally illegal tactics ... but it is not, and will never be, a source to help those who simply won't pay. However, I'm sure that's not the case from what you have said, and you will receive lots of help, assistance and support as you need it .... Abs x

The basis of a guarantor for finance - is if the debtor defaults on the agreement the guarantor becomes responsible for repaying the debt. Sometimes the guarantor is reqd to put a charge on their property - in that event the creditor can apply, if the guarantor also fails to maintain the debt, for a forced sale of the property to repay the debt. Becoming a guarantor is very serious, and your parents should have been told by the creditor to seek separate legal advice so that they clearly understood the implications of securing the loan for you. My first action would be to do a SAR request - which will give you copies of all the docs associated with the loan- and should also provide a copy of your parents signature as guarantor to the loan - and what the basis of guarantor liabilities were i.e was their property noted as security to their guarantor position. Statue barred is 6 yrs from the last payment under the account - which from what you have said doesn't appear to apply here - you need to take control of this for your parents sakes - as its a bit unfair for them to be hounded for a debt that was yours and you benefited from - but have now defaulted on. Hope this helps Abs x

You're right Cerbs ... I can confirm (from my own) that the back of the application was the M&S branding, with the return address for the app to be sent (Pre-paid post). Now they in the v beginning foolishly sent me this, along with the front and T&Cs, and when I challenged them re s60/61(a) - the thought they could just say ... ah the pres terms are in the t&cs on the reverse of your app - which we know is an outright lie - as they had already sent me the proof that this wasn't the case. (I have attached a copy of my own reverse, which is from 1991 - but will be similar if not the same to the reverse of your own). Futhermore, pres terms are not permitted to be contained within the t&cs - they must be clear and transparent, and within the agreement itself - which means between page 1 and the final page of signature. Nevertheless, if they are to be found elsewhere, there must be clear reference to this within the agreement doc - but under s61(a) - it really isn't permissible - the pres terms MUST be located within the agreement (which can run to just 1 or be several pages long). So you have some kind of idea of how M&S like to work - their motto is "treat them like mushrooms .. .keep them in the dark and feed them s**t" - unfortunately CAG and the help I have both greatly recd, and been able to give, makes a total mockery of this type of cavalier attitude, and lets them know they are no longer able to get away with such tactics. Moving to your dilemma, the first thing to do is send the in-dispute letter - there is a template in the letters library (I think)- basically challenging them on the document that has been sent - at this time I wouldn't go into to much depth (don't forget the longer it goes on, the nearer you are to statue barred - when it really is game over). Your letter MUST be headed "I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT" - THIS IS ESSENTIAL. Your in dispute letter to them, in a nutshell, simply lets them knows that the document they have sent (alleged as a CCA agreement) is primarily an application form, and futhter fails in its compliance to s60(1) of the CCA74 - and until they send you a complaint agreement then the ALLEGED account WILL remain in serious dispute. A debt can not be pursed whilst in dispute, and whilst there is no enforceable agreement s127 of the CCA74 strictly prohibits and prevents any judicial action being brought. When they reply with their standard cut and paste template paragraphs, come back (if you need help), and I will give as much assistance as I can. Just remember - what they have sent is utter tosh ... they know they have nothing to go anywhere near a court with - but they WILL try and bluff otherwise, hoping that you don't know Consumer Law - and haven't head of CAG .... unfortunately for them .. they're very wrong on both counts .. Abs x 8) PS - don't forget to also look at any default/termination notice sent - if this is defective too - we have a full hand to play with ... scan up for peeps to have a browse over !!!

Hi there, Firstly, as it contains the correct heading regarding regulation under the CCA74 - it is treated and viable as a consumer credit agreement ... which is what they appear to be relying upon and is great, as what they have sent you is utter and total rubbish. You see, what they have sent you is for a chargecard or storecard - these were all changed (without request and against OFT regs) to credit cards - without a renewed agreement signed by the cardholder. So in essence you have a credit card with no formal signed agreement - which although the debt exists - it is unenforceable in law. Second to which, even if the law permitted the provided chargecard app to represent the credit card - it contains no prescribed terms - so is utter usless on that score too. Now M&S if you use this argument, they will a) say OFT allowed them just to switch card types, and that a letter was sent to the cardholder asking them to ring and cancel if they didn't want their store card changed to a credit card (not true by the way), they will b) also quote s61(b) to you - that the prescribed terms may be included or emboided by ref in another doc i.e the t&cs - its utter crap and designed to blind you with science .... Thirdly, the docs and T&Cs are largely illegible and blurred - which is against the terms under which you requested the docs - and the basis upon which they may be permitted as part of court proceedings. I have been dealing with M&S over an ex store card now credit card myself - and have been in dispute with them for 2 yrs - they have given up the argument, knowing they are beaten - and slopped off .... so any help I can give please shout .. !! As a PS - I have heard rumour that all the M&S chargecards changed over to unsolicited credit cards, have been written off by HSBC , due to the right royal legal cock up made by M&S relating to no new CCAs being signed .... just a thought to keep you warm !!! Abs x:-)

A reconstructed agreement, under Carey, must contain all information that was in the original - that is what makes it a reconstructed (or replica) agreement which the lender is saying mirrors exactly the document which you signed. So it should have your name and address at the time you applied for the credit, the interest rates applicable at that time, details of PPI etc .. etc ... all pertinant at the time the agreement was signed ... the lender MUST also advise the basis upon which they have supplied a recon agreement, instead of the requested copy of the original ... A recon agreement is NOT sufficient in court, if there has been any variation to the original agreement, or the debtor challenges the accuracy of the information in the recon agreement - in such a case the lender is reqd to provide a true copy of the original agreement to satisfy both the courts and your own requirements ... Creditors sending out recon agreements with bits missing, wrong etc are doing this to satisfy (in their opinion) the debtors request for their CCA - and thereby take the account out of dispute for non-supplying of the agreement which is lost, destroyed, does not exist etc .. etc ... it doesn't mean they have any intention of actually using it in court ..... its all in the game of bluff .... I have found that if your responses to them demonstrate that you are aware of CCA law and legislation ... they would rather not chance their arm with you, and instead concentrate on those peeps who are less informed of their consumer rights .. and the consumer laws to which the creditor is bound ... Just my pennys worth ... on a v interesting thread .... Abs x

Hi Ok .. the DN has to be clear and specific in what you have done to create a breach, and what is reqd of you to remedy the breach, and a specific date by which they remedy must have taken place. It should also inform you, should you fail to remedy the breach, what the creditors actions will be ie register if with CRAs, demand payment in full, etc .. etc ... Mailsort IMHO would be 14 & 4 days - any bank holidays are also excluded from the 14&4 tick down ..... if you haven't been given sufficient time to remedy the default as per CCA74 regs, then technically, it hasn't been correctly served ... but and this is important .... until the account has been TERMINATED ... the creditor/owner of the debt can just keep churning out new DNs until they get it right .... So, if I were you, and unless the account has been clearly terminated, I would keep quite about any errors in the DN you have recd - as alerting them to their errors will only give them another throw at the dice .. before terminating ... Once terminated, the account in effect now longer exists as a going concern, so technially can't be defaulted again ... as there is no live acct to default .... there are many threads on here re defaults, and the ins and outs of how to deal with them ... with some v lively debates !!! If you are trying to gain some insight into DNs it would be a good idea to have a scout through these threads too ... But remember a dodgy DN on its own, going on some of the performances of Judges reported here, isn't always enough to see the creditor off ... By the way ... the net effect of an incorrectly executed DN means that the creditor/owner of the debt losses all future rights under s87, which means they lose the right to collect payment of sums only due in the future, at the time the DN was issued - technically meaning that they are only legally entitled to the genuine arrears at the time of default ... so if just relying on a dodgy DN, with a judge that finds in your favour - having laid judgement strictly in accorance with S87, then although the whole debt isn't now legally payable, the arrears at the time of DN would be - so you may still have a sum to pay following judgement ... if it ever goes to court that is Hope this helps Abs x

Hi Mailsort assumed as 2nd class .... do you know what date you actually recd it .... I always write on the envelope the date I actually got it .... I got one default by mailsort ... 9 days after it was dated .. !!!! So thats why I always write the date on, and send a letter stating when I recd it against the actual date on the dn. Abs x

Default details need to be specific in what breaches of the CCA have been committed, and needs to tell you what specific sum is reqd to remedy the breach - the only specified sum I can see is that they have demanded the total amount if you fail to remedy the breach, and the account agreement has been defaulted on. It also has to give you a specified date of remedy, which must allow for 14 days plus service (2 days first class post, 4 days 2nd class post).. The prescribed wording format also hasn't been strictly adhered to ..... which is a small point and on its own I don't think would hold much water, but as part of an overall host of errors certainly shows the issuer in a dubious light ... Be wary though, a dodgy default on its own, may not be enough to save the day should it appear in front of a judge - but a dodgy CCA to boot would give you added weight to your defence ... have you requested a CCA yet? If so was it compliant ? Abs x

Normanton is a Halifax (HBOS) processing centre - so any member of the group could be being administered from there - remember HBOS (and their subs) are now part of the Lloyds TSB group too. Abs x