May I suggest that you ask your solicitor why he thinks MBNA settled on the steps of the Manchester Mercantile Court. Waskman has not changed the CCA but has made some CMCs and solicitors realise they will need to do a proper job to earn their fee. Post some more details, Im sure you will still have a good case.

'I am a simple engineer from the plasma physics industry'. Im sure there must be a contradiction in that sentence somewhere:) Keep on posting OR, I enjoy your posts.

Seems to me like they must have been relying on non-compliance with s78 for the claim to go through:eek: Utter madness.

Yes Katie I think it would be a good idea for you to tell us who your CMC and solicitor is too. Firstly they write to you dismissing your claims in the 'light of Waksman' but when you put them on the spot they tell you they are looking for Prescribed Term breaches? Seems like a firm best avoided.

I would katie. Seems to me like you have landed a really inept firm of solicitors. In fact Im surprised you even went to a CMC having just read some of the other issues you are dealing with for your friends. You seem more than capable of handling these matters yourself, unike me:D.

this issue is up in the Court of Appeal in March isn't it?

Thanks for your concern Priority One. Im not paying either my solicitor or barrister. They operate on a CFA. If I lose my costs are covered by ATE.

I think the point is that UCA claims are not just about compliance with s78. My lenders sent copies of signed agreements both of which omitted certain PTs. Apparently there are many many ways of attacking a CCA. Im told that the Waksman ruling gives the go-ahead for these claims under another section. My sol tells me he expects to find even more non-compliant credit agreements post Waksman. Sorry I cant be more succint....Im an engineer;-). I have faith in him though as he issued against another lender pre-xmas and they have indicated they are prepared to 'talk'. We will see.

This one presumably. Im sorry to disappoint, but thats the situation.

PT breaches on MBNA and Sygma agreements. I have insurance with 80e. Im told he is ready to issue on 100s of other claims. In his opinion issuing a claim on s78 non-comp was always foolish.

Not according to my solicitor. He now intends to issue on my two remaining claims, having been given the go-ahead by the barrister. We will see.

Brilliant:D so thats a copy then? Or is it:confused:

There is more to it than that though according to my CMC. They issue based on prescribed-term breaches and/or unfairness regardless of the signature. They say it is folly to issue based on the lack of a sig doc and to be fair have said this since day 1.....rocky I have pmd u.

To even mention a forum suggests to me the judge was well aware of this particular thread. She has reminded us, in no uncertain terms, of who makes the decisions.

There are a number of cases like this one coming up, up and down the country, where debtors subscribing to forums to write of debts, are using technicalities and CCA 1974 to write off debts. I am not sure that the defendant has done the same or not. Subscribing to forums? Pretty clear this thread had been decided upon some time ago. You never stood a chance.