Hi there you wont need to go there if you just simply pay £1 a month - please dont let them take your house or your share in it for the sake of such a small sum being offered - they are obliged to accept any payment over £1 but does not stop them asking for more - you are on benefit so that should be sufficeint for the court to agree (if it ever gets that far) the payment if they press on with a bankruptcy they are in serious risk of being de licenced and fined. Creditors in the credit industry are supposed to operate fairly if you cant pay declare your income and outgoings and they really are obliged to accept even though technically they could make you bankrupt (as long as the sum is over approx £700 I think).

Not much it seems - unless they have already given you a copy of an agreement which is defective - they can only concoct something and hope to pass it off if they have lost the orginal - i should think some creditors will now be wanting to lose any docs they know are unenforceable and then when challenged reconstruct them which is allowed now with the recent court decisions. But if you already have your they cannot get away with reconstructing or creating a brand new one.

Hi Steve - mainstream unsecured creditors holding consumer credit licences or debt collection agencies acting on their behalf are not suppossed to use tactics like that. It is more likely to be a threat to cajole you into doing something. They are unsecured and threatening to cause the sale of you home would be seen as unacceptable by the OFT who may even fine them or refuse to renew their licence. The lowest amount they are legally required to accept is £1 a month as a regular payment, thus if you send them a regular minimum payment each month they would propbably accept it. If you are challenging the enforecability of the agreement you can still carry on paying while also challenging. Another option would be a debt management plan run by a charity or company which would act on your behalf using their experience to strike a deal they are almost duty bound to accept. I used to get all these problems until I enteed a DMP now I dont get any hassle at all. Everything is under control.

Hi I posted on here a few days back re my own revised position concerning agreements. I am entering a debt management plan and the aim will be as my business starts to recover in the next few years to pick off the enforceable agreements with much reduced sums in full and final settlements - this seems to be a route which does not involve the courts and if a creditor got a court order i'm quite sure the court would only order less or equivalent to what is in the DMP - ,my claims handling company is to use 'unenforceable' arguments to broker a better deal where the agreement is defective and arguably unenforceable - remember if you have an ACTUAL agreement which is defective a reconstituted one will NOT take precedent but then whether the courts start allowing more liberal interepretation on the part of the lenders is another matter e.g. the Egg agreements where 'approved' limit rather than 'credit' limit may lose ground here ............. against the borrower ....

Yes very worrying this Manchester situation - Ive now reconciled myself to adopting a different approach rather than relying on an erratic and rapidly moving set of goal posts the CCA has come to be -my approach is now centering on going into a debt management plan as a self employed businessman - the plan is self certified and the creditors have no realistic option but to go with it (other than issuing statutory demands and bankruptcy which the OFT and Court would frown on ) - once the plan has been established then it will serve as a collection point for all the other unsecured debt I have as it unfolds upon vehicle HP shortfalls etc and the co existence of so many creditors in the plan would be a deterrent to any one creditor breaking loose so to speak as they can all clearly see that one being preferred to another is not an option and a bankruptcy would not release sufficient to pay them. Then Im hoping once sickened off by the small drip each month may well be inclined to take a full and final settlement paid off over a shorter finite period - coupled with a rearguard action by my claim man. company to approach the more questionable agreements with a zero to 30 per cent deal paid off within the debt management plan.

Hi all - Due to the seemingly muddied waters produced by the Manchester cases I'm now agreeing a debt management programme with a specialist to get the creditors on hold pending then 'working behind the scenes' on each one and if unenforceable then removing them as that becomes confirmed and the others which prove to be enforceable(if any) to aim to offer a much reduced full and final offer when money is available - that seems to me to be the best strategy in my circumstances for now - if this is of any help or inspiration to anyone -

Ok thats good - thank you very much -

Hi NB thanks for the help - but the judgement stated an agreement could be enforceable in the absence of a signature if the creditors procedures indicated that it would have been signed as part of the process to set up the account - In my own case I have around 7 accounts where I already have copy agreements which I have signed so they are beyond doubt and it looks as though the prescribed terms are stated incorrectly or are missing - I have 2 accounts where i know the agreements have been destroyed by the creditor - The 7 I have are thus incapable of being replaced by reconstituted agreements and this leaves the 2 I dont have of possibly under this agreement (or probabay if its right ) capable of being reconstituted and even though a signed copy is no longer available the court then using the creditors procedures to hold it WAS signed on the grounds it would have only been processed in the first place if it was signed.

Hi anyone there who knows whether the Manchester judgement is being appealed ? As I understand it after reading the full judgement if the creditor can demonstrate that their procedure is always to require a signed agreement before the account is finalised then a reconstituted agreement would suffice for enforcement by the court as the judge has said it can be enforced if the agreement WAS signed - and the agreement would be deemed to have been signed if the creditor can demonstrate presumably on a balance of probabilities that it WAS signed. To have the law changed in this way to then allow a reconstituted agreement to be used for enforecement in certain circumstances seems a contravention of the CCA Act -

Hi Newbloke - very interesting info - would be useful to get all this points into one template letter -

Hi again thanks for your comments - as noted before if put back to square one and sums borrowed are to be repaid that will come off the sum already paid e.g. borrow £10k at 1.29 per month = £1548 interest x 10 years = £15480 but if in fact actually paid under increasingly high interest rates again as illustration only at double that rate = £30,960. Thus overpaid sum thus = £15480 current balance say £12000 then refund of £3480 would be due. This argument would esp be of benefit work where the term is 6 years i dont know whether under a running account whether the 6 year statute of limitation would apply ? If it did not then if you can go back further so much the better. However I appreciate it would require a copy of every statement to track the interest rises and a good computer programme to work out the cost - but then any bank or accountants computer should be able to do that - if you are a barrister or solicitor you may advise as to whether this sort of argument may succeed and where can the specialist lawyers be found or has it not been tried yet ? Thanks.

Hi thanks for that info - Misrep back to square one would be fine as that way the interest rate would be what was agreed to and any current balances be recalculated to refelct what should have been the true sum outstanding under that rate - Seems the weak link now is the T&C's not being within the 'signature document' before it was assumed that the T&C's had to be within a signature document ? In order that T&C's outside signature doc can be included reference should be made to that ? i.e. see section 22 etc ? I understand that the prescribed terms are always to be within the signature document ? Or - has Manchester ruling altered this ?

The CCA 74 as statute law cannot be eroded to the point of irrelevance by ANY court - if the agreement is produced with a signature from both parties and prescribed terms are there it is enforecable - if they are not it isn't. However as a court's interpretation of statutes and any statutory instrument refinements may affect the original act does the recent Manchester ruling allow where there is no orginal agreement for the court to enforce an agreement ? In my case I have all the signed copy agreements except for HSBC. So as far as I am concerned these agreements are defective so 2 scenarios may be possible - in the case of HSBC as no signed agreement can be found can the court enforce where there is a only a reconstituted one ? I would have thought 'no' as it is not compliant with the CCA. But in allowing a creditor to present a reconstituted agreement to then enforce where no other can be found or exists would imply that there is much evidence that this is what the creditor would have issued using evidence from its files and copy agreements with others from that time which indicate the format it would have adopted. BUT that if for example evidence from other debtors can be gathered showing that the same creditor had IN FACT issued defective agreements from that time in question this would undermine that creditors argument that the reconsituted agreement was what it was in the habit of issuing. Thus in my own case the HSBC situation may be the only 'worrying' one to me. The other agreements which HAVE been sent to me by the creditors are defective thus in this case I dont think it could be possible that a reconstituted agreement would take precedence. If it did this would go to the root of all contract law and turn it on its head for every contract case and would also give unfair weight to a creditor - What is also at the core of these agreements which so far has been lacking in just about every case I have ever seen is that when sigining an agreement you are AGREEING to borrow and pay back the money within a set of 'agreed' terms which could be read prior to signing the agreement. The most important terms being the frequency of payments and the rate of interest. If the rate of interest is stated at say 1.29 % per month while base rates are say 6% per annum then a 'margin' over base is established which becomes a 'representation' of the rate you then agree to and which then becomes a term of the contract. This then becomes a term of the contract at that rate as it was what led you to sign the agreement. Thus any vague references to allowing the rates to vary against the interest of the debtor must be regarded as unfair and thus in common law unenforceable and also perhaps a misrepresentation under that act of '67. So if for example it then ensues that base rates decline to 0.5 then it is probably fair to assume that the margin broadly declines with it and does not go up as all credit card rates have in recent years. Thus any credit card balance currently standing which as been carried forward for say 6 years probably has been arrived at by unfair/unauthorised interest rates hikes. In simple terms to illustrate the point - Paying every thousand pounds per annum at say 10 per cent interest is £1000 - over 6 years £6000 would be paid. If for example the rate has gone up to 25 per cent the rate would be £2500 thus as an illustration only there is an overpayment of some £1500 per annum or £9000 in total. In other words the debtor has already paid off the balance ! It is this that annoys me and appears to be completely immoral - being forced into paying many times more than that originally agreed to - especially where financisal hardship has been caused as a result. That a credit card company can lend more and more to desparate borrowers and thwn once imprisoned in that debt then increase the interest rates. This is more immoral than seeking ways of not paying them back ! It is irresponsible lending and then once trapped the courts are upholding it by not seeing through the creditor's [problem]. The slack execution of agreements was one way of redressing this grossly unfair imbalance.

Also if a reconstituted agreement is used in court where the creditor does not possess the original what happens where the debtor has a copy but which lacks the prescribed terms or maybe is signed by debtor but not by creditor - thus indicating it is 'the agreement' as opposed to the reconstituted version - Put another way - where an agreement is lost /missing the court can now substitute one except where the debtor already has a signed agreement in his possession but which may be defective - I presume the debtor signed version takes precedence ?

Sorry missed a word out - hope it does 'Not' apply in court .....

Hi PD this is in s78 situations only ? I hope it does it apply to enforecability in court where under the CCA 74 a signed agrement with the prescribed terms must exist and presumably be produced as 'proof' of existence ? Do you have legal training in this area ? Any opinions would be appreciated - Capt.

Anyone know how much the Manchester judgements have impacted on the enforceability issues - my claims adviser seems to think its reduced the debtors position quite substantially - but as I see it if the CCA '74 says a signed agreement is required to enforce with the prescribed terms then I cant see how the courts can avoid that ? Even if the courts allowed quasi reconstituted agreements to be submitted where an agreement has been lost i still cant see how that negates the signature and prescribed terms argument. Any comments ? And can a reconstituted agreement be used in court to enforce an agreement or is that just to satisfy a section 78 request ?

That bankers conference/training day posted by Smartchick sounds like a worthwhile investment - could easily spend that sum on useless claims handlers - if go and especially if i get any handouts and notes i will post on here ......

Thanks Mike - good to know CCA not undermined - but a useful diversion nevertheless ! As you never know when or how a court may attempt to push its own definition ! I've read your posts back in 07 when you were first having the problems - good to hear you've presumably overcome some or all of them ! It is daunting and resolve does weaken from time to time so experience of others is good to hear especially where its been successful - My CRA file is littered with defaults already so Im past that threshold. I'm now only interested in not paying any of them where I dont have to........I am self employed and Ive organised a commercial DMP handler to manage all my debts in a plan and then have my agreements looked at by a no fee claim handler as I dont think any of them are enforceable - so for now I can regain control and then get rid of them for good whenever possible - I found Payplan and CCS pretty useless in dealing with self employed situations.

Any agreement they produce and pass off as 'always issued' would only need one or two examples to contradict that argument -

Beginning to look that way !

If enough actual and signed agreements are posted on here covering as much of a time span as possible then it could present a resource to use in challenging reconstituted agreements to show evidence that they were often defective - This could open up a way forward in demolishing any agruments they were likely to get them right !

Putting this another way would indicate the following options - 1. lack of signed agreement may mean a court can enforce the agreement as the creditor is allowed to re-construct what may have been signed and thus assume it was signed -unless the agreement has been varied e.g.interest rate has risen - when a signed agreement is then required - This seems too vague to me without seeing the full judgement. 2. Following on from this where an agreement is signed but the prescribed terms are missing or defective then a reconstituted agreement cannot replace a signed one - thus enforceability is still dependant upon the prescribed terms being present - In practical terms, as I see it, the scope to have debts declared unenforceable has narrowed in theory in that lack of a signed agreement is of limited use as an argument except where the agreement has varied. This effectively means the narrowing scope is almost negated as Im not aware of any credit cards where the interest rate has declined - The argument about lack of a signature appears to contradict the requirements of the 74 Act and potentially open the door to any creditor who may claim lack of an agreement in order to be allowed to construct one of their own liking and convenience. But that if a debtor already has a signed one but which is defective he has an advanatage over the creditor. Are we then to see in future creditors holding back from providing copy agreements as it is safer for them to rely on one not being available and to reconstruct one ? Putting a couple of examples into context - 1. An HSBC agreement from the former Midland Bank taken out in '96 where they at first admitted lack of a signed copy but which they then provided reconstructed ones has now seemingly gone from probably being unenforceable to enforceable unless I can demonstrate the agreement has varied ? 2. Whereas a signed Egg agreement but where the term 'approved limit' is used instead of 'credit limit' is not enforceable due to misstatement of prescribed terms. Comments would be appreciated. Is this an attempt by the courts to look as though they are trying to stem the tide of unenforceability while in practice upholding the debtors position ?

Hi All - anyone heard of debt addiction ? This is apparently a recognised condition. Given the banking code of not giving credit to those who cant afford it -there may be a case for reckless or irresponsible lending where a creditor should clearly have looked at a debtor with say £80k worth of high interest unsecured debt before giving any more - If the argument is that the CRA file showed good compliance then it may be because like a Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme in reverse the payments are possibly being funded by an upward spiral of increasing debt. Does anyone in here have any such knowledge of arguments advanced under that guise? If so what was the result ? To succeed in this it may be necessary to get a consultants letter and confirmation ? Cheers !

Act says has to be signed - but seeing the Act is starting to be interpreted as courts think fit to suit the creditor wherever possible its quite worrying -