Thanks for your replies. I just want to clarify if I can challenge their decision not to allow me to sell the flat myself, which has deprived me of the opportunity to fully repay the debt, and, since the flat was only sold in 2013, also come out of this situation with a small surplus for myself. Thanks and kind regards

Hi CAG team, In 2012 my home was repossessed after I could no longer pay the 2 mortgages on it due to unemployment and chronic health issues. My local council had tried to get me into the mortgage rescue scheme, but the housing association involved declined due the the short term remaining on the lease. I had the flat valued by an estate agent and the first lender, Mortgage Express, encouraged me to sell the flat myself, but the second lender, First Plus, refused that offer at the final court hearing, saying it would take too long. The judge granted possession. I owed about £180,000 (135,000 to Mortgage Express and 45,000 to First Plus) and the valuation was for 180,000 in 2011, a bad year for house prices. I had a legal aid lawyer, but he could do nothing about it. For the past year the debt collection agency Red Castle has been chasing em for £35,000 on behalf of First Plus, since they had received only £8,000 from the auction sale. I refused to talk to Red Castle on the phone and wrote to them, stating that I had not received any communication about the auction sale, and that they should qualify the figures. They never replied, but I received a letter from First Plus, stating that they had no documents relating to the auction sale. Eventually I found out who was administering former Mortgage Express accounts and received details from them. The flat was sold at auction in 2013 for £155,000, with Mortgage Express recovering all of its money, and after related expenses leaving £8,000 for First Plus. In 2013 the value of the flat was much higher, and even considering the short lease, would have raised about £200,000 in a private sale. I feel that First Plus has deprived me of the opportunity to mitigate my losses, and that the argument that a private sale would take too long is not valid since the auction sale only took place a year later. Can I fight their demands? In any case, I would not be able to pay, since I am now living on benefits and have no other assets. Thanks and kind regards

Hi all, If this subject has already been covered, my apologies, but I did not find it. I have had some success with FOS ruling in my favour in the past, but I have never tried to reclaim for mis-selling of PPI when the insurer has settled a claim. I have heard that this might not be a reason for rejection, just because the one instance did not match any pre-existing health conditions. There is one very obvious case: First Plus sold me PPI for an up-front payment of £9,000, although I had postponed the loan application because I had an emergency hospital admission. When they called me a few weeks later to ask if I was ready to take up the offer now, I told them about the sudden onset of diabetes, and they sold me the PPI all the same. I later made a claim when a slipped disc prevented me from work, which they have paid. But the mis-selling was very obvious. A similar situation also applies to a number of credit cards. Some have paid as little as £10 and think that they are immune from re-claiming. What is the official position on mis-selling and paid claims? Due to continued illness I have defaulted on all loans by now, but don't think that would be a reason not to claim. Best regards Hog29

Hi, The FOS has, after more than two years, finally dealt with my mis-sold PPI complaint against Barclaycard, and has found in my favour, as with all of my complaints. This policiy had originally been sold to me by Morgan Stanley, but Barclaycard had later bought the account. I have now received a letter from Barclaycard confirming that I am entitled to a refund of just over £1,700.00, but they have paid that money to the debt collection agency to reduce the outstanding balance. I have been in dispute with Barclaycard since January 2009, because they could not supply me with a proper or even a "true" copy of the agreement. Then Barclaycard has sold the account to a number of debt collection agencies, most recently to Moorcroft, ignoring the in-dispute status. Moorcroft sent me a copy of the original signed document, which was not legible, but has failed to supply me with a legible copy on request. What I am trying to clarify, is: Since Barlaycard are no longer the owners of the account, are they entitled to pay my refund to a third party, regardless of whether there is an outstanding balance, or not? All the premiums related to the refund had been paid before the account had fallen into arrears and before I had cancelled the cover. Many thanks Hog29

Hallo again, MBNA wrote to me about a test case at the Manchester High Court towards the end of last year, which, they claim, seems to indicate that financial institutions do not have to provide any evidence of a properly executed agreement, and will render all unenforceabilty action unsuccessful. Is that true? Thanks Hog29

Thanks, Slick, No I have not made the Court Application yet. Do I have to pay anything for doing so? And what about my point that the T&Cs are not true copies? Thanks Hog29

Hi, again, BC keeps sending me so called "true" copies of the credit agreement and then passes the account on to yet another debt collection agency, after previous ones have failed to get anything from me. I am interested in clarifying two points: Since the original agreement had been with Morgan Stanley, can a copy of the agreement/terms and conditions on Barclaycard headed stationary and stating that the agreement is between BC and the other person ever be a "true" copy? The other point is: BC do not know that I have a photocopy of the original agreement, which was sent to me when I demanded my PPI premiums to be refunded, a case which is still with the FOS some two years later. The copies of the CCA which BC offers as true contain all prescribed terms on the first page, the actual signed Morgan Stanley document does not. Has BC been guilty of a dishonest manipulation of the truth here? After all, even allowing for the signature box and my name and address, etc, to be omitted from the copy, the copies they supplied cannot be called "true". Regards Hog29

Hi Usaname, Thanks for your comments. The whole page carries the "Credit Agreement" heading, and, as far as I am aware of, the card provider does not have to sign for an agreement to be enforceable. Regards Hog29

Hi Silverfox, Is the back page of any significance in this matter? Thanks Hog29

Yes, it has a back page, containing terms and conditions. Very small print, but I can figure out with the aid of a magnifying glass, that it shows a credit limit and a range of APRs

I think I just found the answer. The other odd thing about this form is that only my signature and initials are genuine, the other test has been filled in by somebody else. Can't explain that. Regards Hog29 mbna agreement 1.pdf

Thanks. How do I upload?

Hi again, MBNA keep sending me the same photocopy of one my agreements with them, this time the copy is even large enough to be almost readable. But it is missing prescribed terms, such as the amount of credit and the rate of interest shown on the page which I signed. Can I upload a copy for one of the experienced members to have a look at, so that I can be absolutely sure that I am not missing anything? Best Regards Hog29

Thanks, Silverfox, Just to make sure: The page which I signed does not contain any information on interest rates or credit limits. Is that unenforceable? Thanks Hog29

Hi all, I have 4 MBNA cards (originally 1, but they acquired Homebase, Virgin and A&L cards as well). I had PPI for all of them and successfully claimed due to unemployment. The PPI cover has now ended, and, still being unemployed and in arrears, began to receive the usual nasty letters and phonecalls. I requested to see true copies of all the agreements, and received photocopies for 3 of the accounts (except A&L) within the time limit. Although the copies are too small to read properly, it is quite clear that they do not feature all the prescribed items, as per CCA 1974. I would appreciate some advice on what to write to MBNA now. Thanks Hog29