Section 78 used to state if a section 77 request of the CCA1974 isn't complied with after 30 day then the lender has committed an offence, but the "offence" bit has been removed which is why lenders hang thing out now. The OFT won't enforce the CCA, trading standards won't and the FOS take months. We have laws but no one to enforce them. How did we get to this situation?

The FOS is a complete waste of time, they don't consider all the issues, won't award for distress and disruption and they put things in limbo for months on end. When I complained about their speed i was moaned at for complaining and they said "I had cost the bank their fee of £495 which is charged by the FOS" and it makes things more difficult later when the FOS say the bank has not done anything wrong.

Your mail travels part of the journey on the train! it gets your notification of bank charges in letters travelling quicker by rail.

If there was a PPI which was not asked for then all premiums paid are refundable with interest. Send a section 77/78 to the lender, and as experience tells me Lloyds dont comply or answer to anything at all, what weas signed by both lender and borrower on the agreement, not application form, is what governs the agreement. A 77/78 is what the lender must comply with within 12 days, (77) and if this is not done within 30 days then the consequences are in the (78) part. Unenforceable so you won't have to pay it while the lender is in default. He may not either serve you with a default or enter a negative reference on any CRA.

Re PDF copy of application form-terms. This is not a credit agreement. It is unenforceable if both the lender and the borrower have not signed it. It must have all the "prescribed terms " in it as in Section 60, and 61, not just both signatures but every other financial information. Another section says the agreement can only be enforced in a court of law but if all the terms are not in the document and entered properly, the the court is precluded from enforcing the debt.

"direct breach of CCA 1974 requirements. This agreement is from August 1997 and is on the back of an application form." Firstly, the application form is before April 2007 which means that a court cannot enforce the debt if there is a breach of the CREDIT AGREEMENT Secondly, and APPLICATION FORM is not a CREDT AGREEMENT which is required under the CCA 1974 which means it is now a valid form of contract under law. To different things! I would not worry about the charges as I would not worry about the debt and without a proper CCA agreement if you put it in dispute the lender cannot put a negative entry on any Credit Reference Agency and if they do they commit an offence.

Thanks for this. Although I did not see his name "on the sheet" but saw another Judges name on the sheet. But all the terms are in the Act so I think it is definitive.

No, it isnt that one, it was before Lord Justice Clarke in 2002 but I dont know the case

On looking for Lord Justice Clarke, I was browsing and found this. It outlines a case in McGuffic v RBS and is on pdf. (the first link) It is about anything under the CCA 1974 with all the sections and about unenforceability and CRAs. But I will find the quote you asked for. Link; Judicial Internet - Search Results

I don't know exactly where this quote comes from but it is part of a judgement by Lord Justice Clark in 2002 but I don't know the actual case but it was where a borrower was contending an agreement under the CCA 1974. It was handed to me by someone in the TUE Club. He has studied the Consumer redit Act for about 2 years now. For and agreement to be enforceable it has to have all the prescribed terms in it, Sections 60, 61, sections 127 and some others of the loan or credit card lending is not enforceable and cannot be enforced by a court. However, I shall find this out for you as it intrigues me as well.

sorry about the spelling...the cat jumped on the desk!

You may find that what you have is not a credit agreement but an application form copy with terms and conditions which does not comly under the CCA 1974. The balance may be totally unenforceable. Se quote below; "Failure by a lender to observe strictly, the intricate requirements of the Act can lead to a loan being completely unenforceable with no right of restitution or other form of relief" - Lord Justice Clarke, 2002

CCa 1974 has to be legible, must have all the prescribed terms in it, interest rate amounts payable and many other things. Up to 80% of agreements are flawed. To have these loans wiped/cancelled takes around 6 to 12 months and that is only due to the speed of the lender. it is also more difficult for the litigant in person to attempt to contest an agreement as lenders now use solicitors and barristers in court. Anyone who wishes to contest an agreement should use a company specialising in this work and a company who is regulated by the Ministry of Justice. Whatch out for section 60 -61. section 65 needs a judge to enforce it and section 127 is also important. Companies who do this work correctly first approach the lender and serve a section 77/78 and then do a 28 page audit from which the agreement can be assessed as flawed or not. If they take the case and if flawed, then after the initial fee, no other charge should be payable. And finally, if the loan is unenforceable, the credit rating will not relect any adverse history and I am sure you will know why that is.

This look a bit of a mess to me. What my argument is with Lloyds (amongs other things) is where the Manager authorised items for withdrawal eg fax to the local branch the authorise the wages then charge penalty interest rate @26.4% plus £15 plus put it on the statement as "unauthorised borrowing" which to me is dishonest or...a downright lie. They don't answer any letters and can't keep agreements even when the Ombudsman has made agreement all round.

I checked them out as well so did not lose any money. I have used Daniels Silverman (Liverpool)which were good until they changed the system. They used to collect the debts and if it needed to go to court they would do all the pre legal work within their remit at no charge and provide an Agent for the court hearing which we paid for (£150 about) but they now send eveything to solicitors which changes the way we collect debts. They changed the system half way through collecting our debts which left us high and dry. Caused a lot of trouble! I complained by had no response.

Yes it is just a bit outdated but the principal is the same;). A loan where a section 77/78 has not been complied with is still unenforcible and the offence has been removed which is why the lenders are going slow. You can get you loans cancelled in most cases but now the lenders have "twigged on" as to what is going on.

77.—(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of 15 new pence, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (a) The total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor; (b) The total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due: and © The total sum which is to became payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due. (2) If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amounts and dates mentioned in subsection (l)©, he shall be taken to comply with that paragraph if his statement under subsection (1) gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained. (4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) If the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

if you have had no default and you have paid more than the reqwuired amount then they DO need a court order to repossess. If they do not do this then you can sue them for damages, car back and costs. See below: "Failure by a lender to observe strictly, the intricate requirements of the Act can lead to a loan being completely unenforceable with no right of restitution or other form of relief" - Lord Justice Clarke, 2002 It works both ways. Serve them with a section 77/78 notice. Look at the CCA 1974 and print and send a letter with the requirements of this section. If they do not comply within 12 days, after 30 days the loan becomes unenforceable and you cannot be persued while the default exists. No court can then enforce the agreement. Turn the tables on them! 80% of agreements are unenforceable.

Standard sort of letter. I had the same type of letter from the Ombudsmand. They are not on the bank customer's side but I feel the service is a device to appease the poeple who don't know better. What I did with Lloyds was to block the account untill the account was put right. That way then puts the bank "in a box" and every correspondence they send I rebuff with the discrepancies. It perhaps is not right but it allows me to carry on with the business.

There are firms who get back charges on a no win-no fee basis and their commission is 20% of the amount they get back. Would this be cheaper than a solicitor. I know solicitors charge, win or lose and they are around £250 per hour

Dont forget, the Ombudsman Service is paid for by the banks and it costs the bank £495 for a simple case (as the adjudicator told me) but this is far cheaper than going to court and the banks like the Ombudsman because he mostly finds in the banks favor-its a fix!

Serve on the Co-op a "section 77/78" from the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If they don't give you the information you require within 30 days, they commit an offence and cannot enforce the loan. Section 77/78 below; 77.—(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of 15 new pence, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (a) The total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor; (b) The total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due: and © The total sum which is to became payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due. (2) If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amounts and dates mentioned in subsection (l)©, he shall be taken to comply with that paragraph if his statement under subsection (1) gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained. (4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) If the default continues for one month he commits an offence. Also see the judgement by Lord Justice Clark; "Failure by a lender to observe strictly, the intricate requirements of the Act can lead to a loan being completely unenforceable with no right of restitution or other form of relief" - Lord Justice Clarke, 2002 I did this with Lloyds and they have committed an offence and the Trading Standards said the loan could become unenforceable so I reported it to the OFT

Banks-Lloyds-what about this? We have 8 issues of dispute with Lloyds all connected. One of the disputes includes insurance. Lloyds have a policy of refunding premiums where the insurance is not appropriate or unusable. (£2000 in my case) I have a contract for £32000 and have agreement from the client about the payment system to give us better cash flow. Without the debackle with Lloyds (cost so far £50000) we would just do the job. We need the refund of the insurance refund (£2000)NOW to save 3 jobs and the contract. I found out tonight there was not one contract of £32000 to be had but 8 (EIGHT) = £280,000. Now they have said no we can't have our refund. They just don't know what damage they are doing!

Further to this item about section 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, I issued Lloyds with a section 77/78 by recorded delivery and they did not comply. I reported this to the Trading Standards Dept as it refered to a loan in my case, and they confirmed that where the lender had not complied with the request, the loan would become unenforceable as written in the Act. I reported it to the OFT and they are going to persue it. The Act also says the copies should be legible and what Lloyds sent me was a copy held by the insurance company (loan insured) and large parts of it were blanked out...illegal! In my case Lloyds issued me with a default notice in the sum of £1650 where two loan payments were missed (£273.50 each) and the loan had £3000 paid early which had not been taken account of. Lloyds had also added to the loan without my knowlege. Whilst I calculate the loan then to be 13 months ahead, they have not reduced the payments or adjusted the last payment date.

The UTCCR. Unfair Terms 5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. this is part of the Act and so it must be this part which applies as it is a pre written contract, which cant be influenced by the consumer and gives the lender an unfair advantage. The courts have a duty to protect the consumer even if the contract has been signed because the average consumer cannot know all the implications of law in a contract which has been pre written (European ruling by ECJ)