Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases. in Financial Legal Issues Posted November 4, 2009 This is the arguement submitted by the barrister in a case brought by some bank or other against a Mr Mitchell in the Leeds County Court and he was defended by CMC barrister who tried to argue that the fact that the agreement did not clearly state the credit limit rendered the agreement unenforceable. Apparently Judge Langan reserved judgement yesterday but should hand it down in the next couple of weeks. Whichever way it goes the other side is very likely to appeal but if the judgement is found to be against the lender it could have very significant implications One of the prescribed terms within Schedule 6 of the Agreement Regulations is a term stating “the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or a statement that there is no credit limit”.It should be noted that the creditor has the option of choosing one of the three means of complying with the requirements of Schedule 6.In the present case the Claimant has most definitely not stated the credit limit within the credit agreement;it has not stated there is no credit limit. That leaves only the option of stating”the manner in which the credit limit will be determined”.We are concerned therefore with the manner of determination. It is submitted that the words” We set a credit limit and can change it.We will notify you of the limit and any changes” does not satisfy the requirements of Schedule 6. The statement is meaningless in relation to how the credit limit will be set. A determination is an ascertainment or fixing and the reference to “the manner” requires reference to some sort of methodology. The claimant will no doubt respond that there are millions of credit agreements which use similar rubric and that the use of such phraseology has become an industry standard.But that misses the point .Parliament was quite specific in its requirements and as was found in Wilson v First County Trust there is no room fortolerance or deviation from the strict requirements of Schedule 6.If this case opens up floodgates then so be it. What do the legal eagles on here think?