Received this today in response to my pre court protocols issued to Sainsburys on the 18th December and my defense which was submitted to the court on the 12th January. Still no original terms and conditions from reverse of signed application form/credit agreement as requested. They have only sent the top copy which is illegible in places. They have also sent a seperate terms and conditions. Copies are at beginning of thread. No copy of the default either. I am still unsure if these are the documents that they are going to use in court or that they will submit others. (I requested this in my pre court protocols which they failed to respond to within the timescales I indicated, or in time to submit a proper defense other than the embarred one) Basically they are saying pay up or go to court. Advice on next move. Received this today in response to my pre court protocols issued to Sainsburys on the 18th December and my defense which was submitted to the court on the 12th January. Still no original terms and conditions from reverse of signed application form credit agreement as requested. They have only sent the top copy which is illegible in places. They have also sent a seperate terms and conditions. Copies are at beginning of thread. No copy of the default either. I am still unsure if these are the documents that they are going to use in court or that they will submit others. (I requested this in my pre court protocols which they failed to respond to within the timescales I indicated, or in time to submit a proper defense other than the embarred one) Basically they are saying pay up or go to court. Advice on next move. http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/roygoodbeat/SCAN0054.jpg http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/roygoodbeat/SCAN0055.jpg

Sent my defence yesterday and it arrived today. Did get a letter today dated 5th January from Sainburys acknowledging receipt of my letter dated 18th December and that they would forward the information to me. (they had 10 days in which to produce this, although I give them some slack as it was xmas). Bit too late now!

Not yet. Still chasing through a DCA.

Now sent the letters. Lets see what happens next. I also have another MBNA card (Originally through BoS) They too have issued an incorrect default notice, but have not sold this one on. Does the law of unlawful rescission apply?

Thanks. So the best way is to send this with a copy of my pre court protocols letter and see what happens next?

Something like this??? In the Northampton County Court Claim number XXXXXXXX Between XXXXXXXXX - Claimant and XXXXXXXX - Defendant Defence 1. I XXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXX am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Sainsburys Bank 2. Except where explicitly stated below the Defendant neither admits nor denies any of the assertions or claims made by the Claimant. 3. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia:- 4. The claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters; a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim. b) A copy of the purported written agreement that the claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form. c) A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form. d) A copy of any termination notice served under section 76 and/or section 98 of the CCA, on the alleged account, has not been served attached to the claim form. e) A copy of any notice of assignment compliant with the provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925, on the alleged account and proof of original service of said assignment to the defendant, has not been served attached to the claim form. f) The defendant requested information referred in the claim under CPR 18 & CPR 31.14 from the claimant by Royal Mail Special Delivery. The request was received by the claimant on the 18th December 2009, compliance with the requests has now expired. The defendant wishes to make the court aware that the claimant is trying to frustrate proceedings and denying the defendant an opportunity to file a defence and counter claim. 5. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof. 6. I respectfully request the courts permission to submit an amended defence should the claimant file a fully particularised Particulars of Claim. I respectfully request that the court consider striking out the claim under CPR 3.4.2(a) because it is not fully particularized nor offers any legal cause of action. I respectfully request that the court consider striking out the claim under CPR 3.4.2© because, in light of the failure to respond to both CPR 31.14 & 18 requests, the Claimant is unable to substantiate their claim with documentary evidence. Statement of Truth predefense.pdf

I have prepared a draft defense. Can anyone check it or give advice? THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT Claim: 7XXXXXX BETWEEN: Sainsburys Bank - CLAIMANT -and- Me - DEFENDANT DEFENCE 1. I (me) am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by Sainsburys Bank. 2. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, I neither admit nor deny any allegation made in the claimants Particulars of Claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof. 3. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: - 4. The claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularized and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters; a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim. b) A copy of the purported written agreement that the claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form. c) A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form. 5. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof. The Request for Disclosure under the Civil Procedure Rules 6. Further to the case, on 18th December 2009 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice. 7. To Date the claimant has ignored my request under the CPR and I have not received any such documentation requested. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person ( a copy of the request is attached to this Defence marked 01) The importance of a copy of the credit agreement and its production before the court 8. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 there are certain conditions laid down by parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the courts 9. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain Prescribed terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) 10. The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following-- 1. Number of repayments; 2. Amount of repayments; 3. Frequency and timing of repayments; 4. Dates of repayments; 5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable 11. It is submitted that if the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement then the court is precluded from enforcing the agreement. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition there is case law from the Court of Appeal which confirms the Prescribed terms must be contained within the body of the agreement and not in a separate document 12. I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 "[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said: "33 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 (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) 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. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1." 13. If the agreement does not contain these terms in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 60(1) CCA 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by court order 14. Notwithstanding point 14, The agreement must be signed in the prescribed manner to comply with s61 (1) CCA 1974, if the agreement is not signed by debtor or creditor it is also improperly executed and again only enforceable by court order 15. Therefore the claimant must provide a copy of the agreement compliant with the regulations as laid out in points 10 to 16 of this defence to have any right of enforcement. The courts power of enforcement 16. The courts powers of enforcement where agreements are improperly executed by way of section 65 CCA 1974 are themselves subject to certain qualifying factors. Under section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 the requirements are laid out clearly what is required for the court to be able to enforce the agreement where section 65(1) has not been complied with 127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). 17. Further more the courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced 18. With regards to the Authority cited in point 17, I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) 28.........I should outline the salient provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Subject to exemptions, a regulated agreement is an agreement between an individual debtor and another person by which the latter provides the former with a cash loan or other financial accommodation not exceeding a specified amount. Currently the amount is £25,000. Section 61(1) sets out conditions which must be satisfied if a regulated agreement is to be treated as properly executed. One of these conditions, in paragraph (a), is that the agreement must be in a prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms. The prescribed terms are the amount of the credit or the credit limit, rate of interest (in some cases), how the borrower is to discharge his obligations, and any power the creditor may have to vary what is payable: Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, Schedule 6. The consequence of improper execution is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor save by an order of the court: section 65(1). Section 127(1) provides what is to happen on an application for an enforcement order under section 65. The court 'shall dismiss' the application if, but only if, the court considers it just to do so having regard to the prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it. The court may reduce the amount payable by the debtor so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention, or impose conditions, or suspend the operation of any term of the order or make consequential changes in the agreement or security. 29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order. 30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be sidestepped..... And further more 36. In the present case the essence of the complaint is that section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act has the effect that a Regulated agreement is not enforceable unless a document containing all the prescribed terms is signed by the debtor 49. ".............The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched. 50. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order. In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the statutory provisions. It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398. 19. Since the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead clearly sets out that without a credit agreement the claimant's case cannot succeed 20. Therefore I respectfully request that the court order the claimant produce the original signed agreement before the court to show the form and content of it and that it complies with the regulations referred to in this defence, otherwise the courts powers of enforcement are surely limited in these circumstances 21. Further more the defendant requires clarification on the status of the original agreement, the defendant requires the claimant provide a certified copy of the original agreement. If the document is no longer in existence the defendant requires certification of destruction and furthermore the defendant will call into question the validity of any purported copy of the said contract where the original has been destroyed. The defendant will require production of details as to when any copy was made and what medium the copy has been stored on along with clarification of who has had access to the document and also require written clarification that any copy document produced is authentic. The defendant notes that the Civil procedure rules also require the original documents to be made available under practice direction 32 22. The defendant is under the belief that in the case of Rankine v Barclays Bank Plc [2005] on appeal from Stafford County Court the issue of the loss original or destruction of the credit agreement was central to the case and the defendant is under the belief that the outcome of the case was that where the original agreement could not be produced the claim could not succeed and that the appeal was successful. 23. Should the claimant be unable to produce the original agreement signed by both debtor and creditor and containing the prescribed terms, I request that the court uses its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the agreement as unenforceable. SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST made under the Data Protection Act 1998 24. On the 27th April 2009, I made a Subject Access request under the Data Protection Act 1998(DPA). I again sent a copy of this letter, along with a reminder on the 13th May, of which I retained proof of postage. The Claimant failed to comply within the required 40 day period, therefore broke the Sixth Data Protection Principle (that data is processed in line with the rights of the individual) I requested details of all transactions, a schedule of all charges & interest applied the alleged account, a copy of the original contract by which this account is/was governed including all amendments made to the contract terms since opening the account. A copy of the contract requested under this act was not sent. I refer to the following exert of section 7- Right of access to personal data of the Data Protection Act 1998 (7) An individual making a request under this section may, in such cases as may be prescribed, specify that his request is limited to personal data of any prescribed description. (8) Subject to subsection (4), a data controller shall comply with a request under this section promptly and in any event before the end of the prescribed period beginning with the relevant day. (9) If a court is satisfied on the application of any person who has made a request under the foregoing provisions of this section that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the request in contravention of those provisions, the court may order him to comply with the request. (10) In this section— • “prescribed” means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations; • “the prescribed maximum” means such amount as may be prescribed; • “the prescribed period” means forty days or such other period as may be prescribed; • “the relevant day”, in relation to a request under this section, means the day on which the data controller receives the request or, if later, the first day on which the data controller has both the required fee and the information referred to in subsection (3). 25. I also refer to the response to my Complaint from the Information Commissioners Office an exert of their letter dated 22nd October. “As you have provided proof of postage it is now my view that it is likely Sainsburys Bank failed to comply with the sixth data protection principle (that personal data is processed in line with the rights of the individual) in this case. This is because it now seems reasonable to assume Sainsburys Bank would have received your subject Access Request and therefore would have failed to comply with it within the required 40 day period. Therefore it is now my view that it is unlikely Sainsburys Bank complied with the DPA in this case” Request made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 under section 78(1) to Sainsburys Bank 26. I would respectfully submit the debt is unenforceable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 until such time as the claimant provides the necessary information 27.The request for the alleged credit agreement was made under section 78(1) running account credit, of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on the 10th June 2009. The prescribed time limit for furnishing a copy of the alleged credit agreement containing the full relevant under this act is twelve working days from receipt of the request, as stipulated in Regulation two of The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983. 28.The claimants were legally obliged to furnish a copy of the alleged credit agreement by the 1st July 2009/ 29. Furthermore, under section 78(6)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Claimants may be committing a offence as of the 01st August 2009, as the default will have continued for a period of one month. The Claimants will have continued to commit an offence if they have not produced a credit agreement. The claimants have issued a Court claim without having any proof that a credit agreement exists. I would therefore contend that the Claimant’s conduct amounts to unlawful harassment. The Need for a Default notice 30. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the claimant must under section 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a default notice before they can demand payment under a regulated credit agreement 31. It is neither admitted nor denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant 32. Notwithstanding point 28, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237) 33. Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) 34. The defendant contends that: a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the claimant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the claimant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the defendant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Claimant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. b) The contractual provision that permits the Claimant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) and the common law. 35. Accordingly I put the Claimant to strict proof that every charge and collection charge made to the account was valid and lawful. I aver that any default notice sent would have included these charges. Conclusion 35. In view of matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case pursuant to part 3.4 (2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court - (a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending (b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or © That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order. 36. If the court considers it inappropriate to use its case management powers, it is requested that the court order the claimant to produce the original documents before the court. Without production of the requested documents the case can not be dealt with justly and fairly, and will severely prejudice my rights to a fair trial 37. As laid out in point 24 the defendant requires that the claimant provide the requested information and proofs and authenticities. The defendant requests that the court order that the claimant supply the information requested 38. Having instigated these proceedings without any legal basis for doing so, having failed to provide sufficient information required under the pre-trial protocols in order to investigate this claim, or indeed to provide a reasonable time period to investigate this matter, and having failed to investigate a dispute as required by the OFT Debt collection Guidelines I believe the Claimant's conduct amounts to unlawful harassment under section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970. Furthermore, the Claimant's behaviour is entirely vexatious and wholly unreasonable. 39. I respectfully ask the permission of the court to amend this defence when the claimant provides full disclosure of the requested documents Statement of Truth I XXXXXXX, believe the above statement to be true and factual Signed: ......................... .................... Date: …………………………………………… defenseprecourt.pdf

The copy I have is just about legible. The document I have refers to conditions of use set out overleaf, but I have never received these, only are reconstitued version. It is a copy of these terms and conditions and the document in full I have been requesting but they have failed to send. Apart from the court papers, no other documents have been sent and Sainsburys have not repliedtomy precourt proticols. Do I mention at this stage my data access request sent outside the 40 days by Sainburys. The Information Commissioner ruled that on the balance of probililities, in was likely that they broke this principle? The reconstructed version does contain my name and address. They cannot use this as evidence as the account was taken out in 2004 and they will have to use the original in court. Is that correct?

Quote: "The Claimants claim is for (between 5-6) presently due pursuant to a credit agreement entered into by the parties, full particulars of the claim have been supplied hitherto. By an agreement dated 30/10/2003 the defendant has an account number (blah blah) with the claimant. The Defendant has failed or delayed to adhere tothe terms of the default notice issued by the claimant under the terms of the consumer credit act 1974. The balance as at (blah blah) on said account is (Between 5-6)" Have left out exact figure as you never know who reads these!

I have to submit a defense to the courts by Tuesday. I still have not received anything from Sainsburys. Could someone check these documents. Account was taken out in 2004. These are the only ones I have had. 1) There is a front copy of the said agreement, which clearly states application form, but is almost illegible in places. http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/roygoodbeat/agreement.jpg 2) They have supplied a reconstructed credit agreement, not a copy of the original. Page 1: http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/roygoodbeat/reconstrcted1.jpg Page 2: http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/roygoodbeat/reconstrcted2.jpg Page 3: http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/roygoodbeat/reconstrcted3.jpg Page 4: http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/roygoodbeat/reconstrcted4.jpg Page 5: http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/roygoodbeat/reconstrcted5.jpg Page 6: http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/uu351/roygoodbeat/reconstrcted6.jpg Can anyone suggest how to write a defense?? Keypoints. 1) Made a subject access request on the 27th April. Sainsburys failed to respond within the time frame. They claimed they did not receive it. The Information Commissioner ruled that on the balance of probililities, in was likely that they broke this principle. (I have the letter) 2) Made a consumer crefit agreement request on the 8th June. Copy of agreement didnot arrive until 23rd August.Reconstructed agreement was sent on 27th June, arrived 3rd July.(Two days out) 3) Have written about account in dispute. Debt collection agents continued to chase. Had advised that I considered account in dispute until full copy of agreement was in place. Sent them the bemused letter. 4) Requested information under the Civil Procedure Rules on 25th July. Ignored by Sainsburys. Gave them 14 days 5) Wrote to Albion Collections on 11th Sep as they were ignoring my in dispute. Reminded them of OFT guidelines and that I was still awaiting consumer agreement. Asked them under section 10 of data protection act to cease processing data. 6) Started receiving letters from Blair, Oliver and Scott. (Did not receive notification that they were changing agents. Wrote on the 1st Nov with bemused letter.Asked them under section 10 of Data Protection act to cease processingmy data. 7) Wrote to Bank Ombudsman,who replied with usual, sorry cannot help,go to ombudsman. Have quoted all the relevant actsthat I beleived that they have been breaching. 8) Received court claim. Wrote to them on 18th Dec using Civil Procedure Rules again requested information and copies of original agreement. Gave them until 29th December on letter. Nothing returned by them. Cannot fully complete defence as info not given. (Sent by recorded delivery) Its a bit short notice but due to xmas period could not get a solicitor, have no money and Sainsburys did not send me the requested info.

No, I have not done a subject access request. I last did one in April and only received the info end of July. Took them over the 40 days period. Would you recommend I add the line. All other defaults committed by you still apply and I still await the outstanding requests and resolution. This account still remains in dispute until such matters are resolved. This covers the Consumer Credit Agreement default, and outstanding information still awaiting from my request in June. Also I believe that this is still unenforceable and still remains in dispute. If anyone can think of a better line to add, if at all, any help would be appreciated. I am hoping to send this tomorrow.

Thanks Guys. Had a look at this and they passed the file to Varde on the 30th September, with the default being issed on the 8th, received on the 14th. I cannot confirm when the account was sold. According to Varde it was between the 30th September and Mid October.They wrote onthe 23rd October confirming it had been sold tothem.I had untilthe 26th October on the default notice. Willsend this: Account in serious dispute. Unlawful Rescission Dear xxxxxxxxxx, Re account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I refer to your Default Notice dated 8th October 2009, received by me on 14th October 2009 and your subsequent sale of this account to Varde investments.There letter wasdated 23rd October but they have confirmed that this was sold prior to this, an act which confirms that you have in fact terminated the above agreement Notwithstanding that the default notice failed to give me the required statutory time in which to seek legal advice and/or remedy any alleged defect, your action confirming that you had in fact terminated the agreement, resulted in insufficient time for me to even obtain an appointment with a solicitor let alone remedy the alleged default. These actions by you, have resulted in you unlawfully rescinding the alleged agreement. I accept your unlawful rescission of the agreement and I note that you are now entitled to claim those arrears genuinely due at the time of the termination (not including any unlawful charges ) and I would be obliged if you would advise me of the exact amount of those arrears, against which will be a claim for unlawful rescission. Yours sincerely

Can you explain what this means regarding my outstanding credit agreement and the rest. By admiting just the arrears, does this hold be liable to them for just this. What if the credit agreement is unenforeable? Would I only be liable for the arrears?

I am for a campaign against the Banks. After joining this forum, I have exercised my rights and I am frankly appalled the way Banks and DCA's behave, ignoring the rules and laws. After trying to write to the OFT, Banking Standards Board, the trading standards and the Fos, they are all but useless. None of them appear to want to enforce their rules and the whole system appears not to be fit for purpose. Consumers need protection and the only way to resolve things is to go through the courts. Most of us have no money to pay for high flying legal teams and the banks win when they should not. An immediate overhaul of the system needs to be done. This year, more and more people will get into financial trouble and the banks will get aways with it.

Most solicitors have been closed for xmas. I am extremly worriedasI have no money to pay for costs. I did write to Sainburys with a Pre Court Proticols request on the 18th December. I gave them 10 days to produce the required documents sothat I could submit my defence. To date, I have not received anything. I have until the 12th Jan to submit a defence. Any help would be welcome.

Barclaycard sent a letter stating that they had forefilled their pbligations on the 16th Juneand had sent me a true copy of my agreement. They still refuse to acknowledge that they have not sent me the agreement, only Barclaycard Terms and Conditions. Depsite my repeated attempts to point out that the original account was held with Morgan Stanley, they have ignored this. My local trading standards office rang after I had sent them a letter.They agreed on the phone that I was in receipt of Barclaycard T&C's and that it would appear that they had not sent me the Morgan Stanley copy agreement. They did say that they could not deal with this and they would have to pass this to their Northampton Trading Standards office to see if they could help get a copy of my credit agreement. I also got a letter from the Office of Fair Trading stating that they do not look into individual cases, yet my Trading Standards Office said that they should be dealing with any breaches of their debt collection guidelines? I am still waiting to hear from the Fos. Any ideas of what to do? I feel tempted to write back to the Office of Fair Trading after reading this forum and others. They surely have had a large number of people writing to them to warrant an investigation. Surely it is their duty to do this? Finally, I have sent Barclaycard a number of letters using the Pre Couirt Protocol rules for a copy of the CCA.(23rd July, 17th Aug, 05th Oct) They have ignored these. What should I do next in this case. Should I send them a final letter giving them 14 days or can I start a court application?Can I also get the court to declare its enforceabilty if they suddenly produce it?

I have attached a copy of the application form they sent. This was sent under my Subject Data Request, requested on the 27th April, but only sent by MBNA on the 25th September. I made a consumer credit agreement request on the 10th June, which MBNA entered into default on the 1st July. To date, a part from the front copy of an application, they have not sent a true copy, no documents such as terms and conditions, no full statement of account and nothing else.They have ignored all requests or references to my request. I did receive a letter at one point saying that they were having trouble retrieving the documents. Throughout and since this, MBNA have continued to send texts, calls and letters. I wrote on the 29th September stating that this was an application, not a consumer credit agreement. They acknowledged a complaint on the 7th October. They then sent a default notice on the 8th Octoberasking for the full amount, to be paid by the 26th October They sold the debt to Varde Investments (Experto) on the 23rd October. To date, they have not responded to my complaint of the 29th September. All I have received is a letter dated 26th Nov saying that the complaint is taking longer than expected. mbna29thsep internetcopy.pdf

Like a number of people, I have made a bank charges claim against the Co-Op. I was suffering financial hardship at the time and asked that the fsa waiver be applied. Just prior to this, I was overdrawn and I requested that The Co-Op cancel all direct debits.This was requested verbally and in writing. Despite my request, and a letter some weeks later confirming that they have acknowlkedged this, they continued to apply charges as they did not cancel the direct debit payments. During this time I applied for all charges up the point that I requested all direct debits to be cancelled, to be refunded under my fsa waiver rights. They ignored these requests and refused to acknowledge that I had requested the fsa waiver rights. After many months, several breachs by the Co-Op later, I wrote to the fos. Their initial letter stated that this was a bank charges issue and this was pending the test case. I wrote to them to point out the contents of my complaint had not been read. Part of this was a bank charges claim and that the Co-Op would not acknowledge my FSA waiver rights, part was the Co-Op not cancelling the direct debits as requested and the rest was about the breaches in law and regulations that the Co-Op had made. After the FSA wrote to both parties, the Co-Op had then passed the case onto Frederickson International, against the guidelines on this. I wrote to Fos to advise them of yet another breach. I am still waiting to hear back from the Fos. Today, I have been sent a demand from Moorcroft demanding the full overdraft. This is despite the Co-Op being fully aware that the Fos are looking at a complaint against them. Any advice?

Perhaps it is time someone did. After reading many peoples experiences, it would appear that its the authories that are not effective in enforcing the rules and laws. Perhaps an action group is needed to force them to enforce the rules and laws and not let the law breaking banks get away with things.

They have sold the debt onto someone else who is demanding payment. I have written to them twice now, firstly with the bemused letter, but they have ignored these and their degrees of threats are increasing.

They have now passed this onto another agent, stating that once an application is signed, it becomes my cca. They have also stated that this is enforceable.

I am going to put in a claim for the ppi, even though the old loan was taken out in 2001 and closed in 2004. At the time they insisted that I had to take the ppi and I could not cancel it. Ihave been waiting since the 27th April for a copy that I can read, the amount I paid and a copy of the insurance policy. I have written a number of occasions since but stillno reply.

I finally had a letter regarding my complaint and compensation claim. They stated that they could not find the complaint (Sent recorded) and that they can continue enforcing this agreement. I expect the next move is to the fos?

Now had a letter from Debt Managers stating that they are closing their file. Probally togo back to Barclays, then onto another. Waiting to hear from the fos. Anyone had any experiences with them. From what I have been reading about them the last few days, they seem useless and do not answer the complaint.

I have only received an illegible copy of my first loan with them. I know I wasforcedtotake PPI with them, but I cannot read the amount. I have asked on a number of occassions for a clear copy and a copy of the PPI insurance policy. To date, I still have not received this. I originally made this request on the 27th April. They did not process thiswithin the 40 days. Even the Information Commissioner found them guilty of breaking this rule. Any advice what to do next?