Hi. I can't believe you think that I am a mole for Egg!?!? What the hell? That's really really offensive. I am a HSBC consumer in practically the exact same situation as you. I am on your side! However, I am trying to look at it from all angles...to see whether my arguments hold any gravity...and I'm beginning to doubt that they are. As a result, I wrote my earlier post for you to consider what I had begun thinking... For whoever asked what level I am... I have studied for thee years now. I am a student/full time fee earner specialising in property law. So nowhere do I profess to be an experienced lawyer who you should believe word for word! I've explained all this in earlier posts! I am not professing to be knowledgeable in the Consumer Credit Act! I have never ever studied this and am doing it from scratch like the rest of you. I'm just joining in and telling you that I have started to doubt myself. I will re-iterate what I said earlier and still believe:- ss67-73 are not applicable. They apply to cancellation within the "cooling off period". cooling off is defined in the act. ss87-89 are re default notices to be served if the account is in breach for any reason - this gives time to remedy the breach rather than cancelling it outright. I understand that, if we had been in breach...it looks as though we'd have been better off than the position we are in now. Which is completely unfair and can't be right. s98 re termination (that is what has been done to us! Non-default agreement has been terminated!) I don't understand why Toymaker is saying I'm getting confused. Terminated/Ended the agreement? But...this isn't applicable to credit cards because they are of an unspecified duration... Therefore...cancelling of our agreements, to me, doesn't look to be protected by statute. In my recent letter to HSBC, which I am still drafting because I don't feel confident with the contents, is talking about contract rights and how can they pursue me now that they have ended our agreement. They are no longer giving me credit which was a term of their agreement and I should therefore no longer have to pay them back in accordance with their T and C's. However, even if this is the case...we still owe them money. Their money. We have no right to have that money. We have borrowed it. Just like you borrow a loan. They shouldn't be able to charge a high interest rate on it now...and to be honest, we should be able to agree a repayment programme to how we want it. But I don't believe that we can claim they have no right for the money back. Like I said, when money is owed on a mortgage after they have sold through repossession, they can pursue it from you as a personal debt (i.e out of the agreement). When taking it to court, they wouldn't ask the judge to enforce the agreement...which no longer applied. It'd be a personal debt that they had a duty to repay. Many of you will simply shrug off what I say because it's against your own viewpoint and I'm beginning to see my input wasn't appreciated. However, for those of you out there who don't want to argue a case and then later realise you were barking up the wrong tree all the time. Maybe stop listening to other people on here telling you what's what when they themselves have no experience in Consumer Credit Act law and just form an opinion yourself and consider both sides. If you still want to go ahead and fight your case, then you should do. I certainly will be doing regardless of what I've said here. I'll just be aware as to what may come back and if the time comes I run out of arguments, I'll have to accept what has been done can be done and can't be changed. No matter how much it sucks. We need the ability to appreciate two sides of an argument in life. N the law is the law at the end of the day. The law isn't always fair.

I am very sorry to have to do this, as I hope to have some legal argument that can win the case too. However, s67 - 73 is about cancellation of the agreement within the "cooling period" only. I.e, usually so many days after entering into the contract. It is not applicable in our case, as far as I am aware. Termination of the agreement is bringing it to an end/cancelling it. s87-89 is for accounts that are in default only. This section is not applicable whatsoever unless one has defaulted on their account. Which leaves us which s98 - non-defaulted credit agreements. This isn't applicable to credit cards. The act IS silent regarding termination of credit cards that are not in default. I am not confident in your belief that, as you say "credit agreements which are not in default are not, indeed cannot, be terminated by the creditor". I am sorry but this has to be untrue! If this was the case, a creditor would not be able to bring an agreement to an end if there was a serious breach of an agreement (criminal activity, third party usage etc etc) but there was no default. As I stated earlier, they would then be "locked in" to the agreement with no escape route and I really cannot see that the law would have intended this. Most credit agreements state that the bank may cancel/end/terminate the agreement subject to the service of any notice required by law. If the credit card is not in default, then there is no requirement under CCA 1974 to provide notice? Therefore, it looks like, though unfair it definitely is to the consumer, banks can cancel agreements without notice. Where does this leave us? In my mind...and it is late and I'm tired and getting confused by it all ... we are left not with an agreement but with an outstanding balance that must be repaid. I agree that we surely cannot be bound by the contract and I would love to think that this meant the outstanding balance could no longer be pursued. But unfortunately, I don't think this is the case. Here is where I am sure, as a property lawyer, when a mortgage company repossessed a house and sells it...if they don't reclaim all of the monies from the sale of the house and there is an outstanding balance owed - the mortgage agreements is no longer in place BUT they COULD pursue the individual for the outstanding debt. However, this is rarely done in practice because people who have been repossessed are highly unlikely to have any money/assets that can be used to repay the further debt. So the companies usually write it off. Similarly with our case, lets say the banks could cancel our agreement - the outstanding balance becomes a personal debt that they could pursue us with and take to court etc? I hope you're following me. I hate realising that they might be right. SOMEBODY PLEASE restore my faith and tell me something that makes me realise they are wrong again. We have used the money, think of it as a loan - we get the money, don't get any more money...but repay it over time. I think the repayment facility at the end of the credit card agreement is more like a way of us paying off the "loan" now...rather than paying off our credit but being able to take further credit. Ah! It's late and I'm blabbing on. Someone please tell me they realise/understand what I'm saying... i.e, after all this...are we wrong?

It was me that was bothered about the notice provisions. In HSBC's Credit Agreement there is no express clause allowing them to cancel an agreement without notice. My card was cancelled, for no reason, without notice. So I had tried to use it and was declined! I thought this was not legal - having read the statute, it may be...but it stinks if it is. However, I am also fighting with them about being bound by their agreement now that they have cancelled it. So I shall keep a look out on here to see what's going on with others. A different bank I know...but the matter is very similar. I am going to the Financial Ombudsman with it too.

P.S Mistermind does have a point with some of things he has said in this post. If it is not covered by the act, I am unsure where that leaves us. But I am positive that the law did not intend it to be that banks are stuck in a contract (where no "duration" is expressed in the agreement) until there is a default. It simply wouldn't make sense. There has to be a way of getting out for both parties. The fact that many of you have got 35 days' notice is really all I wanted from my bank - not the fact that they cancelled it. My argument is based on no notice being given and that, possibly, being a breach of contract.

Hi, I am new to the thread and have read almost every post with great interest beginning to end! I am a trainee lawyer - however, please don't let that suggest I have any expertise in the Consumre Credit Act! I don't deal with Financial Law so I know just as much as the rest of you! However, in January HSBC cancelled my credit card with immediate effect WITHOUT NOTICE and I was not in default and kept up minimum repayments etc etc. All very similar. The only difference being, Egg gave consumers 35 days notice whereas I received none. I have been in correspondence with HSBC who claim that they dealt with the matter within their Credit Agreement Terms. They stated that the "Variation" to Terms section helped defend them - however, I am going to write back and argue that point. How can they be claiming a variation when they have "ended the agreement". There is a completely separate section in the Credit Agreement terms for "Restricting Use or Cancelling the Card". Nowhere in my credit agreement doest it say they may cancel without notice or at any time. I am concerned that the s86 CCA 74 etc that are being quoted are being misquoted. These seem to only apply where an account is in default! Unless your account is in default, they can't be applicable? s98 on the other hand deals with the termination of accounts that are not in default. This requires the creditor to provide minimum of 7 days' notice. HOWEVER, only applicable where the credit agreement has a specified "duration". On first appearances, credit card agreements do not come under this section. This leaves me feeling uncertain as to our position. Has anybody considered that the "expiry date" of the credit card could be deemed as being the fixed duration of our credit agreement? Alternatively, because the Act is silent on cancellation of credit card agreements does this mean they are well within their rights to cancel the agreement without notice. OR, as some of you seem to be claiming, can they simply not cancel a credit card agreement that isn't in default? Unfortunately, I don't think the law would make banks enter into lock-in agreements with no means of escape if the consumer never defaulted. My main argument is that they should have given my notice...not that they weren't entitled to end my agreement? However, I am beginning to doubt even that. My next argument is, however, that once the agreement has ended - does this mean no contract and therefore they cannot pursue me for the outstanding balance? I am going to write to HSBC again and draft my complaint to the financial ombudsman. Cheers.