Pedross, both parties agreed ('helpfully') on the single doc issue. I dont think much has changed there. The conclusions drawn from Mitchell HBOS still apply.

That partucular section section is most worrying IMO. Both parties agreed...... I just dont get it. PTs should be in the sig doc? No? Is there a diff here between s78 and Court procedure. The Mancs prelim' list ( No 5) clearly refers to s61 and 127(3).

Thx Gyos. Are you saying that its OK under a s77/78 but that a lender couldn't get away with it in Court?

So Prescribed Terms DO NOT have to appear on sig doc? Have I read that correctly?

Baggio to the rescue:D:D, and to think you thought I was one of them;)

I will know alot more later this evening. I will post what I hear;)

Txt just come through....result:D

Yes thanks for that response Axiom. I get regular updates from my solicitors two of which have issued proceedings against MBNA and barclaycard. I have insurance with Elite/DAS which I undertsand is part of the ratio 'service'. I am waiting for the mancs outcome before another firm isues on two more. I have felt very frustrated at the length of time these claims have taken, I wish my rep had said it would take 12/18 months from the outset. I can only speak as I find though and I have no problem with ratio money. As for their managers leaving...not really my problem, staff turnover is nothing new. You clearly have an axe to grind with them and I presume your are from a another claims firm looking to recruit claimants and reps? I dont doubt for one minute that you have evidence that some sols firms arent particularly good at what they do, but mine are and I would mention them if I could. IMO most of these problems stem from the length of time these issues are taking to resolve and no one Claims firm is to blame. I wish you well in your venture....I do beleive there is a place for Claims firms. I just wish claims firms could resolve the diffrences they have and do more to fight the real enemy here...the banks. Axiom I have pm'd you details of my ratio appointed solicitors.

Some of my Ratio claims were placed by a TCW agent. The only problems I have had have been with TCW and their shoddy service and '3 months guranteed' non-sense. My TCW agent contacted me last week wanting me to pull the plug on ratio...even though I am about six months into conditional fee agreements!! As for TCW's 'competent solicitors', are you serious? If its the same firm that was mentioned to me then I will need to re-examine my undertanding of 'competent'. Is there not enough business to go around the CMCs? Seems ike an industry riddled with life insurance churners.

If banks are allowed to get away with reconstituted agreements for the purposes of s77/78 I cant see that it will do them any favours. Having to pursue an agreement through CPR will only them cost them more in the long run. Makes sense for the court to insist on original copies in response to a s77/78, saves hassle, time and expense IMO. I doubt CAGers and CMCs are going to go away!

That was my understanding too Egg, but after reading bits in the press Ive started to doubt the worth of the CCA and existing case law..Wilson and Hurstanger in partic'. Surely the CCA is not about to be re-written? Relying on a 'reconstituted' agreement in Court? That can never be, surley?

Not with your drift their Kel. The single doc issue is hardly secondary IMO.

Sorry, the e-mail expalined that these issues were being examined in the Manchester Mercantile Court last week

a) Is a variation agreement enough as a response to a S.78. b) Does a breach of Section 78 give rise to an Unfair Relationship? c) If there is a breach of S.78 could a declaration of unenforceability be pursued? d) Does the prescribed terms be in the same sheet of paper as the signature? Had this on an e-mail from my CMC/solicitor. d must be a worry: I thought Wilson and Hurstanger had already cleared this issue?

Great, but I will save the champagne until the Judge has had his say8)

Is it true that this case also went against the consumer? Doesn't really matter how 'specific' Parliament was does it?

A CMC saves a consumer from eviction but consumers are warned by the FSA to be careful about them. Seems like a misplaced warning to me.

Sorry Dizzy, I was half joking with that remark. It would appear however that in the test cases so far it has been largely ignored.

Thats the point, the law is secondary here. Im not sure though that CC claims could bring the banking industry down. 21 Billion is it? Its a hit for sure but not a terminal one.

We are on the same side here Baggio and I hear what you say....I dont share your confidence though. Keep us informed...

How can it have been misheard when Walker was represented by a top QC? Test case defeats like this come as no real surprise Im afraid.

Baggio, is this the case you referred to that was going in 'our favour'.

Did Torston offer a 'free' service? I had the same issue with Barclaycard and my CMC via their solicitor are still pursuing it. I paid for the CMC service though. Not that that should make a difference! Declining a claim based on current generic T and C is very poor IMHO. The giveaway for me was reference to a 12 pounds late payment charge even though I had been paying 30 odd quid yrs ago. I would try again i I were you;) Ive just looked at my report on those generic BC T and Cs, there is no TCC but that section refers to the 'original agreement'. I know thats not a PT breach, but it was sufficient for my solicitor to get stuck in.

From Waker v SPPL: Lord Justice Mummery : The issue Was it wrong for the court below to rule that the credit agreement made between the parties on 20 April 2005 (the Agreement) is unenforceable on the ground of non-compliance with a requirement of the consumer credit legislation? The answer to the question will affect other cases in the current spate of consumer credit litigation and potentially many other credit agreements. Seems like the likely impact in terms of number of claims vs banks is just as important as prescribed term breaches. I would expect this ultimatley to go against the consumer.