Thanks, that sounds like good advice. However the fact that I was paying them makes it likely they will pursue. Its not that big a problem, I have had far worse thrown at me in this life...lol What the hell is a court going to award them out of £55 a week?

Ok thanks, they would do me a fav going for banruptcy, no house, no job, nothing but £55 a week. Save me paying the bill. I think ill let them take me court, run up the bills, then bankrupt myself. I can afford the £550 so thats better than paying £1800 in my book. Get rid off the others twats as well. Thanks for your help. The contract Lowell sent, after getting hold of the debt, is pretty unreadable, you would need a magnifying glass.....seriously...but knowing that everything is set against the debtor...they will get around it with a nod and a wink, masonic handshake....etc. That why some of the CCA missing now...bent barristers ? Anyway thanks

Ok thanks for your reply. Problem is that there is conflicting advice on here. This the letter I sent (personal stuff removed). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30thth March 2010 ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE Re account no Dear Sir/Madam I write regarding recent communication regarding the above account. Further to my request under the above act, your attention is drawn to the fact that this account remains subject to a lawful serious dispute. On 5th October 2009, by recorded delivery, I requested that you supply me a copy of the executed credit agreement covering this account pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78, a copy of this request is enclosed. To date you have failed to comply with my request, supplying only a generic agreement and terms & conditions, which cannot be linked to any agreement which you claim that I have signed and a set of again unrelated terms and conditions. Without production of the said agreement I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable for any alleged debt to you, nor does it give me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’ as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Contrary to your assertion, Barclaycard have not complied with the terms of CCA 1974 s78. The documents that you have supplied, do not comply with your duties to supply a “True Copy” of any agreement you claim to have been signed by me, for pre 2007 agreements. As you will be further aware, an agreement is not executed, until signed by both parties, so the document that you have supplied, being a reconstruction, cannot be a True Copy of an Executed Agreement. While this account remains in serious dispute, the relevant main points of the Law and OFT regulations while the account is in this state and Barclaycard remain in default are: You may not ask for payment against this account. I am not obliged to offer any payment against this account. You cannot register any data with a third party. You cannot take any enforcement action, including registering Defaults. You cannot pass the account on to a third party for collection. You cannot sell the account. What is a true copy: In a recent letter from the enforcement department of the OFT, the text below was quoted, explaining what is required. “The copy of the executed agreement need not be an exact copy but it must be a ‘true copy’ and not some reconstruction of what the original might have been and it must contain the same terms as the original. Where the terms have been varied as provided for within the agreement, the copy of the original agreement must be accompanied by a document setting out the current terms, as varied. Certain details may be omitted from the original agreement eg the signature but the debtor must be in no doubt as to the true nature of his obligations under the loan. Should no original agreement be in existence it is very hard to say that the copy the creditor offers to the debtor is, in fact, a true copy as there would be no original with which to compare it. In our view the onus of proof would be on the creditor to show that the copy is a true one and where none existed he may have difficulty discharging this. Neither should creditors suggest that a consumer has signed a credit agreement where they are unable to provide evidence to support this — to do so is likely to be a misleading action under Regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs) and would also constitute an unfair or improper business practice.” I also refer you to the information below. 1. A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor. 2. Further, s.127(3) CCA 1974 makes the account unenforceable if it is not in the proper form and content or improperly executed. In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement”. 2. The need for prescribed terms to be contained in the credit agreement is confirmed by the Author of the CCA1974 act, I quote ““As the draftsman of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I would like to thank Dr Richard Lawson for his interesting and well-argued article (30 August 2003) on Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2003] 4 All ER 97. Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.” - 167 Justice of the Peace (2003) 773.” I am now granting to you a further 7 days to produce a copy of an executableagreement.After that I will consider that the above matter is closed and that you will no longer pursue the alleged debt.If you are insisting that the non enforceable document, that you have supplied, is the only alleged agreement in your possession, then I would suggest that the best course of action would be to immediately set the balance of the above account number to zero. Yours sincerely ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What your are suggesting is something very different than what the above says....what a true agreement is? Surely they have to send more than generic terms and conditions? Thanks for your help

Hi, I also note that in the current CCA 1974 s78 (6) listing what the creditor is prohibited from doing whilst the account is in dispute, its basically blank. Ive tried to follow the links but fairs to much sense to me. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/78#commentary-c1990554. Has this been amended? Where is the law (writing) for this? In the event that I do take lowell to court, I want to literally take a printout of this section. (My friend got buffed off buy court, say something like, "this is not my area of the law....you need to direct me to the relevent part...etc) When my friend asked the legal if the contract was truely enforceable he was taken back...! lol

Hi, thanks for your reply. The account was in dispute because they only sent me some generic terms and conditions. I have a letter(s) x2 saying the account was SOLD to Lowell from Barclay card. Both letter arrived together and both say sold. Thanks for your assistance.

Hi, can someone please tell me where i stand. I had a debt of around £1800 with barclay card. I done a sar,letter in dispute, and have copies of letter postal receipt from back in 2010! They sold debt to Lowell. (This is a breach of CCA isnt it?) I have paid them £20 a month for about a year. Ive now stopped paying after realising that the account is in dispute. They say they are looking into the matter.....bull I want to take them to court and claim back the money ive paid them. Any suggestions

Hi Pathway, no I havent recieved a NOA from MBNA. I do have a default notice, and the amount on this is the same as Arrow Global are claiming to the penny. However the default notice says I can remedy the breach by paying an amount before 22nd June 2010, and yet the NOA from Arrow Global say they were assigned the rights on the 12th June 2010? Is this significant? Looks like they Arrow Global were assigned the rights before the default notice was issue? Thanks JJ

Hi Pathway, I will check if MBNA have confirmed assignment, I recall a letter saying they were going to sell the account on. That was months ago. However im pretty certain that the only "offical" letter stating "NOA" is from Global Arrow. I will check now. Thanks JJ

Hi Tinkerman, thanks for your input. What is a "DOA"? Should I write to Global Arrow and ask if the "Assignment" is absolute or equitable? Maybe a letter to MBNA? Any suggestions are greatly appreciated, Thanks again JJ

Hi Bazooka Boo, thanks for your reply. Im out of my depth here. All I can say is the snippets of info in my original post, are copied exactly from the letters. What I need to know is that if it an "Absolute assignment" can I do anything about it? The quote I posted from the other thread, suggests I have to agree for it to be legally binding. But who the hell is going to agree for a that to happen? Very confusing. JJ

Hi, Global Arrow are threatening to take me to court for a debt assigned to them from MBNA. Ok, I believe the CCA agreement is very likely enforceable as I took it out online in 2006. I have a copy and from what little I know it has "a right to cancel" etc. I have recieved a letter from "Global Arrow" and also an "Assignment Notice" from them. The first letter I recieved reads.... "We refer to the above and to the previous letter advising you that the debt owed by you to MBNA has been assigned to Arrow Global. We are a Debt Collection Agency (DCA) and have been appointed to collect payment of your debt." The letter which indicates "Notice of Assignment" Debt Owed to Arrow Global Ltd Amount Outstanding XXXXX Assigned By MBNA We advise you that MBNA has assigned all of its respective rights, title and interest in respect of the above referenced account (including the right to recieve payment of the outstanding balance) to Arrow Global limited, effective 12th June, 2010. Total outstanding XXXX Any payments made on this account after 12th June 2010 will be passed to Arrow Global Ltd and will be deducted from the current balance above. It is essential that all future payments and correspondence regarding this account be directed to:- (Their address in Glasgow)" --------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, it looks that they have "Absolute assignment" and therefore can take me to court? However on another thread I have read the following. (Thread Aktiv) There are two types of deed of assignment - equitable and absolute. The first assigns the right to pursue the debt to the assignee but not the obligation of the OC. The second assigns both the rights and obligations of the assignor to the assignee. However, in order for this to be legally binding you as the debtor would have to give your consent to such an assignment. My question: If they have absolute assigment, can I refuse assignment to Arrow Global and if so how do I go about it? Is it a strong case? Any help would be most appreciated JJ

Hi, Ford & Cerberusalert, thanks for your post's. Its clarified my mind somewhat, I was pretty sure they would be limited to CCJ, and it that happens ill pay what I can afford. Thanks again JJ

Hi, yes done the CCA request on all the accounts, I had a letter the other day (although I did the above around a year ago) saying that they would not take action as they could not supply a contract on that account. All but the one they are chasing me for, are in dispute for various reasons, mainly the print was so small you would have needed a magnifying glass to read them. I sent all recorded delivery and have copies of everything, DCA's attempts, contracts, etc. Even if they are enforceable...I cant pay them. Are you saying that only if I default on a CCJ can they try for a charging order, because they are implying that if their not happy with the outcome of CCJ they will try for a CO. Thanks JJ

Hi Cerberusalert, thanks for your replies. Im going to hang on, and do nothing as many of these companies threaten and do nothing. However I get the impression Global Arrow are a bit more serious. They sent me something about the DPA 1984 saying they could hold the data about me, and then they sent a "notice of Assignment" letter threatenig CCJ and if not succeesful Charging Order. Also in my defence, although i rang up very large amount of debt, (all unsecured) I had some of those cards for 20 years! I paid an awful lot of interest over multiple cards. Also MBNA were prepared to give me no less than five cards! Surely they have a responibility to be a responsible lender. In fact the card they are chasing me with, is in fact the last card I ever took out, so they should have done their due diligence. Although I admit my responsibility and should have faced up to the situation alot earlier. Thanks JJ

Hi Cerberusalert, thanks for your reply. My debts are too big for anything but bankruptcy. Have you the knowledge to answer my original question? (the start of the thread, rather than me type it out again) Is there a time limit on transfer of property? This is my only real concern to be honest. The creditors cannot have what I dont have....as im broke thats pretty much zilch. Thanks JJ