if a lender wishes to enforce a debt through the courts they need to be able to produce the agreement to show that the money is owed - if they cannot produce an original signed agreement then what proof is there that there is a debt to enforce? beware though that lenders might say they haven't got anything for a s77/78 - Natwest did this to me - when sent a SAR the non-compliant agreement suddenly turned up.

I'm experiencing a similar response from Barclaycard as well so will be interested in your progress

Barclaycard are citing s9 of this as they have lost/destroyed/ had an accident with my agreement. Obviously they do not have it after all these years but could anyone give me pointers on which way to proceed.

I sent the request as I have started getting visiting cards from their henchmen after a long period of silence - I had been devoting my time to the more recent and more pressing creditors but I need to put them and the door-knockers to sleep in the most effective way. My problem is that whilst I understand post 1985 to some degree and have all the templates for those agreements that have appeared I have no knowledge of the early stuff and can't find sample letters to use.

Sorry it was a 77/78 request that I sent and they are saying that they have complied by saying that under s9 they do not have to provide an agreement if it has been lost or otherwise destroyed. I was wondering what the differences were when disputing agreements from before 1985 to the more recent agreements that everyone is familiar with.

I recently s77/78'd Barclaycard and they have responded that as my agreement was from before 19th May 1985 under s9 of The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 they only have to provide the latest terms and conditions. Can anyone explain any differences or problems with old pre-1983 agreements

I have a very old Barclaycard and have s77'd them. I have received a response stating that as my agreement is from before 19th May 1985 under s9 of The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 they only have to provide a copy of the current agreement and as the account is in default I should refer to the debt collection agency and they claim this satisfies s77. Any comments or advice in handling pre-1985 agreements would be helpful

Natwest is Triton is Green & Co is RBS - they are the same monkeys swinging from the same tree - just with disguises on. I would wait for the SAR to disclose what they have got.

Funny how Natwest have instructed Triton who have instructed Green & Co when they are all trading styles of Royal Bank of Scotland and are all addresseed from RBS premises. No wonder Fred got away with the jewels with deceptive so and so's sending letters like these. Nastywest told me they had misfiled my agreement and when I SAR'd them there was the non-compliant devil sitting in my file. The one thing 2009 has proved is that the banks lie to suit themselves - bear this in mind when interpretting their correspondence!!!

I had a similar situation with Nastywest and the Judge at the set-aside said that I shoulkd have applied for time to pay rather than a set-aside and would not listen to my arguement. I have since SAR'd Nastywest and lo and behold they cannot find my loan agreement!!! This should be grounds for a set aside in itself. In my opinion your route could be to request a copy of the agreement and see if it turns up, then as they obtained a default judgement you could apply for a set-aside on the grounds that you did not have an oppurtunity to defend the action

They have only sent you a copy of terms and conditions and not a copy of the agreement that you requested. Perhaps write to them with a SAR that means they have to do a full disclosue of your file - see elsewhere on the forum about SAR's. Natwest refused to send my agreement on a S.77/8 but when I then sent them a SAR they capitulated and said that they have "misfiled" my agreement and cannot produce it. Go in with big guns blazing and argue like you know what you are talking about!!!

yes it doesn't seem fair - someone I know bought a car on 10th April 2007 and would love to challenge his agreement but he is 4 days out!!!! But for everyone to be able to challenge their agreements there had to be a cut off when the banks got their act together.

if it is described as a mortgage on the agreement then there are grounds to examine the contract for fair or unfair clauses - however I believe this is a lot more inticate process than anything CCA regulated. Unless there are other experts on the forum I would maybe suggest a debt checking company as you would need a solicitor to audit the mortgage properly as you would not want to jeopardise your home for the sake of £3-400. The Consumer Credit Act was amended so that agreements dated after April 6th 2007 were automatically compliant. However "mortgages" might be a different matter - but do you want to gamble on anything secured on your home - perhaps you should let a specialist company look at your mortgage for you

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 under which you challenge agreements covers agreements up to £25000. If the loan was for up to £25000 and any other charges eg interest, PPI etc bring it over £25000 it is still covered, however if the initial loan was for more than £25001 then usually this is a secured loan and is a different animal and the challenge will be a lot more difficult - also you would probably have the security seized!

Alibabe - my take on this is as follows - arguing against CCJ's is tricky if you defended the original action unless you are able to start set-aside proceedings on the basis that you were not aware of the legalities at the time of the case. Send Black Horse a SOR request for the full contents of your file - enclose a cheque or PO for £11 and see what they send - I would send a copy of the request to the collection agents and tell them that they need to revert to their clients and cease any further action until such time as the SOR has been complied with. Depending on how old your debt is a copy of the agreement may be in your file and then you can assess whether to try and get the charging order set aside due to an illegal instrument in the form of a non-compliant agreement.

AIC are balatantly being bullies and think that as they are based in Glasgow they are above English Law. Like a lot of DCA's they only stand down when confronted by someone with a bigger stick than them!! Ask them from whom they get their legal advice and suggest they find an expert in UK law - that should wind them up!!!

Firefox 1969 - the answer remains the same - if the agreement is dated after April 2007 then it is deemed compliant no matter what. If it is dated prior to the cut-off then if any of the prescribed terms are missing there is a good chance the agreement is unfair - the outcome depends on the size of stick used to beat the lender!!

I too have a ccj from Nastywest for a loan - I CCA'd them and they replied that the CCJ replaced the Consumer Credit Act so they did not have to supply my agreement - I replied that the CCJ is an instrument of collection of the debt and if the agreement is not produced it is unenforceable and an application could be made to overturn the CCJ on that basis - am I correct?

any agreement taken out after April 2007 is already deemed as compliant and therefore "fair"