Thank you Egg Sterminator - I just hope it has some grounds in court ! But an agreement/contract is just what the terms and conditions tell you there's no magic preconceived template that says its enforceable or not - at least outside of the prescribed terms being enforceable that is. My own company has terms and conditions and I am always mindful that the court may find against me if they are unfair or biased towards me - and I'm sure they would find that if they were - so why should banks be any different. All the best !

Hi maybe i should have started a new thread with this but this is probably an appropriate place to its an example of a letter i've sent to a few of my cards just lately under the 'banking code ' - Here it is - Capital One, PO Box 5283, Nottingham NG2 3YG datexxxxxxxx Dear Sirs, RE COMPLAINT under administration of the banking code – account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I have been advised by the Code’s web site that you follow a complaints procedure when the banking code may have been breached. Please advise me as to that procedure and consider this letter a complaint under that procedure. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxsentence deleted As you will know the code outlines the following issues – Under the Banking Code which applies to Credit Card companies there is a fairness commitment and to provide clear information on products, how they work, terms and commitments – detailed information before you commit to a contract – The code specifically states - 4.3 ‘we will give you a full explanation of how we work out interest.’ The Banking Code also reiterates your commitment Under the Data Protection Act of my right to see the records you hold about me which includes copy signed agreements. Furthermore under the banking code you may only contact credit reference agencies if the account is not in dispute. Section 13.6. As you have failed to provide a true copy of the executed agreement other than a single sided photocopy claiming long term interest rate of 11.9 % (which it has not been for some time) showing prescribed terms and no other terms and conditions I believe the account to be legitimately in dispute. That you have placed this account in the hands of a DCA and defaulted it means you have broken your own code. Your DCA has threatened legal action and referring the matter to solicitors. This is completely unacceptable and illegal. I note the following for your attention – Sections 77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 refer to supplying a copy of the ‘executed’ agreement within 12 working days of receiving a written request from the debtor. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable against the debtor until a copy is provided. Execution involves signing the agreement. If no agreement has been executed, it is impossible to supply a true copy of the agreement. Should a creditor supply a copy agreement, even though the debtor has never signed any agreement with that creditor, no indication should be given that it is a true copy or a copy of an executed agreement. To do so may contravene Regulation 5 of the CPRs and be an unfair or improper business practice. The consequence of the debtor not having signed a credit agreement with the creditor is that the agreement is unenforceable except where the court orders that enforcement may take place. Where the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 the court is not able to make such an order unless the agreement was signed by the debtor. Therefore it is misleading to state, when complying with a section 77 or 78 request, that the debtor has signed or would have signed (or similar) the enclosed agreement where the debtor has not done so. From 26 May 2008 such a statement will be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Regulation 5 of the CPRs states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ (Regulation 5(5)(d) of the CPRs). Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is also a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Regulation 5(4)(k) of the CPRs. It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it. Breach of Regulation 5 of the CPRs is a criminal offence under Regulation 9 and can also be enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Under section 218A of the Enterprise Act, where an application for an Enforcement Order is made the court may require the Respondent ‘to provide evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim’ (such as a claim that a debtor has signed a credit agreement). In addition, it should be noted that threats to take action that cannot be taken is listed as one of the factors that will be considered in assessing aggressive practices in Regulation 7(2) of the CPRs. Please read the above information and consider the position. In providing me a copy of what I have signed I cannot agree that any debt exists namely due to the none specification of interest rate and in my opinion I have already paid you considerably more than the original margin advertised and as the rate alteration is not stated in the agreement it has prevented me from finding such terms out and thus assessing the situation. Regarding the interest charged - the following is an extract from the Office of Fair Trading web site - One of the main themes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that there should be ‘truth in lending’, particularly in advertisements for credit and written agreements or other documentation. The Total Charge for Credit Regulations, made under section 20 of the Act, define a total charge for credit (TCC) which includes interest and other charges which affect the real cost of borrowing – even if they are not payable under the credit agreement itself. Simply knowing the amount of the credit charges is not usually enough for a borrower to compare one credit deal with another. The time at which the credit and charges have to be repaid affects the rate of the charges being made and how valuable or costly the deal is to the borrower. Lenders use a number of different ways of charging interest and these can treat the time of payment in different ways. So, in addition to leaving out other charges, lenders’ interest rates will not generally provide a useful comparison. The Total Charge for Credit Regulations also set down how to calculate an annual percentage rate of charge (APR), which expresses the TCC as a standard measure borrowers can use to compare the credit charges under one deal with another, whatever rate or method of charging is used. It is important to understand that APR is not the only thing the borrower needs to consider when choosing credit. For example, the deal with a lower APR might require monthly payments the borrower cannot afford, or run for much longer than the borrower wants or than the goods bought with the credit are likely to last, or the goods might be cheaper from another store, making that a better deal even though the credit charges are higher. However, APR is the only standard measure which allows the borrower to compare the charges being made for the credit provided. In addition to helping borrowers shop around for credit, the TCC and APR have other uses under the Act. The TCC is used in the calculation of rebates on early settlement (details of these provisions are given in the Office’s booklet Matters arising during the lifetime of an agreement) and to determine the charges which a credit broker cannot make, or must return, if he does not obtain a loan for a Office of……etc etc’ Thus section 20 of the CCA1974 defines TCC and this includes APR as a stated requirement and one of the prescribed terms of the Act where a court has no power to enforce if not stated correctly. In your case the interest of 11.9% APR is stated and represented as being long term. Other terms are not stated and the payment details are omitted. The amount of credit and credit limit are also omitted. Thus the single sided ‘copy’ ‘agreement’ cannot be considered adequate under the Act as the prescribed terms are missing. That there is no properly executed agreement contradicts your claim that you are reporting factual information regarding none payment and defaults as there is no proper basis for so doing furthermore under the banking code defaults are not allowed while an account is in dispute. Nor is not allowed under the Data Protection Act and is something I will write to the Commissioner of Information concerning wrongful dissemination of such information. Under the Banking Code which applies to Credit Card companies there is a fairness commitment and to provide clear information on products, how they work, terms and commitments – detailed information before you commit to a contract – The code specifically states - 4.3 ‘we will give you a full explanation of how we work out interest.’ The Banking Code also reiterates your commitment Under the Data Protection Act of my right to see the records you hold about me which includes copy signed agreements. Furthermore under the banking code you may only contact credit reference agencies if the account is not in dispute. Section 13.6. Due to the seriousness of this matter and any legal action, which may arise, I will only correspond in writing and will not accept phone calls or personal visits. Should you either visit or phone I shall consider this as harassment and either take legal action and/or make complaints to the Office of Fair Trading under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Section 40 of the Act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or the occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation.' Please take particular note of the above as I find your company tactics unreasonable harassment. You are clearly in breach of the Banking Code your consumer Credit Licence and S.40 of the Administration of Justice Act. Please note undertake your duty seriously to look at my complaint and answer my letters. Yours faithfully, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

got to be signed by both parties - but the creditor sign can be rubber stamp -

def wouldn't pay that - £28 ? ! cheeky ......rds ...if not signed its not enforceable but she will have defaults now .......ombudsman would deal with that -

Hi I am in business too and like you have waves of self defeat then rally. As you say in 6 -12 months time as in my business which is now getting back on track you may be able to service the debt either by a DMP or challenge none agreements or the interest rate. If you search my other posts I have one relating to the Ombudsman whose office inform me that they are now, only in the past 2 months, including handling unfair interest too. When you've already sent a CCA S.78 request but got no reply or the reply has ground to a halt then look at this letter below. I have constructed it from pasting extracts from others tailoring it and adding my own original sections and thoughts. Please read it and I hope it is of some use. I would welcome comments too from anyone else. Dear Sirs - insert company details agreement number etc. In view of the lack of ability to provide a copy of my credit agreement I must advise you that I am now writing to the FOS as you suggested in your final response letter of that date( if you every get to a final response letter or 8 weeks when they've not replied and you have proof of posting.). I will however inform you of this – Sections 77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 refer to supplying a copy of the ‘executed’ agreement within 12 working days of receiving a written request from the debtor. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable against the debtor until a copy is provided. Execution involves signing the agreement. If no agreement has been executed, it is impossible to supply a true copy of the agreement. Should a creditor supply a copy agreement, even though the debtor has never signed any agreement with that creditor, no indication should be given that it is a true copy or a copy of an executed agreement. To do so may contravene Regulation 5 of the CPRs and be an unfair or improper business practice. The consequence of the debtor not having signed a credit agreement with the creditor is that the agreement is unenforceable except where the court orders that enforcement may take place. Where the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 the court is not able to make such an order unless the agreement was signed by the debtor. Therefore it is misleading to state, when complying with a section 77 or 78 request, that the debtor has signed or would have signed (or similar) the enclosed agreement where the debtor has not done so. From 26 May 2008 such a statement will be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Regulation 5 of the CPRs states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ (Regulation 5(5)(d) of the CPRs). Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is also a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Regulation 5(4)(k) of the CPRs. It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it. Breach of Regulation 5 of the CPRs is a criminal offence under Regulation 9 and can also be enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Under section 218A of the Enterprise Act, where an application for an Enforcement Order is made the court may require the Respondent ‘to provide evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim’ (such as a claim that a debtor has signed a credit agreement). In addition, it should be noted that threats to take action that cannot be taken is listed as one of the factors that will be considered in assessing aggressive practices in Regulation 7(2) of the CPRs. Please read the above information and consider the position. In providing me a copy of what I have signed I cannot agree that any debt exists namely due to the none specification of interest rate and in my opinion I have already paid you considerably more than the original margin advertised and as the rate is not stated in the agreement it has prevented me from finding this out and thus assessing the situation. Regarding the interest charged - the following is an extract from the Office of Fair Trading web site - One of the main themes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is that there should be ‘truth in lending’, particularly in advertisements for credit and written agreements or other documentation. The Total Charge for Credit Regulations, made under section 20 of the Act, define a total charge for credit (TCC) which includes interest and other charges which affect the real cost of borrowing – even if they are not payable under the credit agreement itself. Simply knowing the amount of the credit charges is not usually enough for a borrower to compare one credit deal with another. The time at which the credit and charges have to be repaid affects the rate of the charges being made and how valuable or costly the deal is to the borrower. Lenders use a number of different ways of charging interest and these can treat the time of payment in different ways. So, in addition to leaving out other charges, lenders’ interest rates will not generally provide a useful comparison. The Total Charge for Credit Regulations also set down how to calculate an annual percentage rate of charge (APR), which expresses the TCC as a standard measure borrowers can use to compare the credit charges under one deal with another, whatever rate or method of charging is used. It is important to understand that APR is not the only thing the borrower needs to consider when choosing credit. For example, the deal with a lower APR might require monthly payments the borrower cannot afford, or run for much longer than the borrower wants or than the goods bought with the credit are likely to last, or the goods might be cheaper from another store, making that a better deal even though the credit charges are higher. However, APR is the only standard measure which allows the borrower to compare the charges being made for the credit provided. In addition to helping borrowers shop around for credit, the TCC and APR have other uses under the Act. The TCC is used in the calculation of rebates on early settlement (details of these provisions are given in the Office’s booklet Matters arising during the lifetime of an agreement) and to determine the charges which a credit broker cannot make, or must return, if he does not obtain a loan for a Office of……etc etc’ Thus section 20 of the CCA 1974 defines TCC and this includes APR as a stated requirement and one of the prescribed terms of the Act where a court has no power to enforce if not stated correctly (in pre April 07 agreements). In the case of your alleged ‘agreement’ /reply card the interest or APR and TCC is not stated and the payment details are omitted. The amount of credit and credit limit are also omitted. Thus the single sided ‘copy’ ‘agreement’ cannot be considered adequate under the Act as the prescribed terms are missing. That there is no properly executed agreement contradicts your claim that you are reporting factual information regarding none payment and defaults as there is no proper basis for so doing furthermore under the banking code defaults are not allowed while an account is in dispute. Nor is iit allowed under the Data Protection Act and is something I will write to the Commissioner of Information concerning wrongful dissemination of such information. Under the Banking Code which applies to Credit Card companies there is a fairness commitment and to provide clear information on products, how they work, terms and commitments – detailed information before you commit to a contract – The code specifically states - 4.3 ‘we will give you a full explanation of how we work out interest.’ The Banking Code also reiterates your commitment Under the Data Protection Act of my right to see the records you hold about me which includes copy signed agreements. Furthermore under the banking code you may only contact credit reference agencies if the account is not in dispute. Section 13.6. I will also further add - 'I am repeatedly having to say the same things to your representatives who call my telephone number continually until I stopped taking your calls but still make dozens of calls each week. Please note that under the Data Protection Act I am formally demanding that you remove my telephone number from your records. If you fail to do so I shall take this matter to the relevant authorities for their investigation. Due to the seriousness of this matter and any legal action, which may arise, I will only correspond in writing and will not accept phone calls or personal visits. Should you either visit or phone I shall consider this as harassment and either take legal action and/or make complaints to the Office of Fair Trading under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Section 40 of the Act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she: • harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or the occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation.' Please take particular note of the above as I find your company tactics unreasonable harassment. I am advised by the FOS that the complaint may take 6 – 9 months to deal with fully. During this time I must advise you that you must cease all calls to me and that in any event all dealings MUST be in writing. Should you not take notice of this you will be in breach of the Banking Code your consumer Credit Licence and S.40 of the Administration of Justice Act. Should you not cease this forthwith I shall complain to the Office of Banking Code Commissioners and the Trading Standards Department. When the ombudsman has finished his investigation which YOU have recommended then no doubt the matter will become clearer and any matters outstanding can be dealt with at that time. Yours faithfully, etc This letter in my opinion would still stand even after the recent ruling by Mr.Justice Flaux in McGuffick and RBS. As the Banking Code is probably your greatest friend here. Maybe not law but certainly a code banks have to adhere to. If a creditor or DCA issue proceedings in the meantime the FOS have told me that they would contact the court to ask for a stay of proceedings while the FOS investigates. The you still have that route to follow. Plus further delays could be caused by internal appeal of the FOS decision. Hope to hear what you think and how you get on.

Just to further define my comment above re the FOS - im not after trying to get just a current and future reduction in interest though that would be better than nothing. My argument is that I am looking for a retrospective refund of the difference between what the BASE rate plus average margin was when signing up and the rate it should have declined to. So for every £1000 if the margin was 9.41 above base as it is was in my Mint agreement in '99 when signing up the rate per £1k per annum would be around £100, at todays BASE of 0.5 % plus margin. Thus over 6 years when rates have started to fall dramatically i'm looking at somewhere between £60 - £150 per £1k per annum refund against the balance plus the court 8 % flat rate on the difference. So for each £1k there would be say £360 refund plus interest of round £50 - this formula could be worked out precisely by any financial institution with a computer tracking base rates since 03 (the furthest the FOS will be allowed to go back). Thus on a debt of say £10k that means there's at £4k refund at the lower rate where the interest is now nearer 30 per cent the difference in one year alone between 0.5 base and the old margin above and say 30 % then that means a refund of £200 in that year alone. So my argument is probably that the 'debt' will fall by over or even well over 50 per cent giving the lenders the returns originally signed up to and retaining the moral high ground over that of the lenders. I don't know whether this will work but it is fair and reasonable and it is not fair and reasonable to impose 200 - 300 per cent increases above base on hard core debt without the parties agreeing. Where there is no enforceable debt as there is no signed agreement then perhaps the formula could reduce the debt and then pay 50 per cent of that balance - if any. All this one would hope plus a retraction of adverse ratings or an FOS explanation alongside the adverse rating in order to highlight that this lender had been guilty of unfair rate hikes. They might soon very well want to withdraw all adverse defaults etc. if that deterrent were to be considered.

Hi Ali - you seem to have had some of my experiences there is life after debt I know because i've been bankrupt and frankly never happier ! But that experience I could without again as where I am now I would like to hang onto and I now have a partner. I'm in a situation now where my once substantial assets have devalued greatly and even if i could sell anything it would create unsecured debt with shortfalls on the property values. I owe £86 k on cards and have a ship load of mortgages and some other loans as I was a small property developer. I am only now, after years of self indulgence and being a credit junky, weaning myself off it its hard but its also good as you can get back in touch with some basic pleasures in life. At times it also gets for brief moments or half days pretty grinding and depressing and then I pull out of it. Coming on here is definitely a help. By the way in a low moment today I was talking to the FOS dept.and they were saying in cases of hardship the ombudsman is now tackling unfair interest and if any creditor issues court proceedings in the meantime they would speak to the court to ask for a stay until they complete their investigation which takes 6 - 9 months. So if you want any extra time and you can still try the court option later thats a good ruse apparently they have just started this in the past 2 months. Also its a foolish creditor who ignores the FOS decisions. He cant put rates up but sounded to me as though there is a very real chance he would reduce them. So the trick is to anyone who's got aggressive creditors get a case number on the phone from the FOS and write back quoting that and then quickly asap get the file to them.

Hi -i agree a clean credit rating is essential for modern life. In my own case I have had too good a rating - hence my current position. I have a house with a mortgage that i'm happy to stay in if i can carry on paying it - i'm lucky ! But I don't know of any other industry which enjoys the unfair protection of a credit file for all lenders to see which once blighted can cause such long term effects and misery - in my business if someone doesn't pay all I can do is take them to court - yes they may get a CCJ if they don't pay but in the meantime you cant default them like CRA's. Its unfair when Banks can be given a tax payers bail out ! Its a national scandal that card issuers who have raised interest by 300 per cent causing borrowers to default on more reasonable lenders. There should also be special provisions and debt forgiveness in hardship for borrowers to get back on their feet without an adverse defaulted history.

hi see if this of use - it has been copied from another thread and is allegedly from the OFT in May 08 - Credit card agreement argument useful - ''Sections 77 and 78 of the CCA 1974 refer to supplying a copy of the ‘executed’ agreement within 12 working days of receiving a written request from the debtor. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable against the debtor until a copy is provided. Execution involves signing the agreement. If no agreement has been executed, it is impossible to supply a true copy of the agreement. Should a creditor supply a copy agreement, even though the debtor has never signed any agreement with that creditor, no indication should be given that it is a true copy or a copy of an executed agreement. To do so may contravene Regulation 5 of the CPRs and be an unfair or improper business practice. The consequence of the debtor not having signed a credit agreement with the creditor is that the agreement is unenforceable except where the court orders that enforcement may take place. Where the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 the court is not able to make such an order unless the agreement was signed by the debtor. Therefore it is misleading to state, when complying with a section 77 or 78 request, that the debtor has signed or would have signed (or similar) the enclosed agreement where the debtor has not done so. From 26 May 2008 such a statement will be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Regulation 5 of the CPRs states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ (Regulation 5(5)(d) of the CPRs). Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is also a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Regulation 5(4)(k) of the CPRs. It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it. Breach of Regulation 5 of the CPRs is a criminal offence under Regulation 9 and can also be enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Under section 218A of the Enterprise Act, where an application for an Enforcement Order is made the court may require the Respondent ‘to provide evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim’ (such as a claim that a debtor has signed a credit agreement). In addition, it should be noted that threats to take action that cannot be taken is listed as one of the factors that will be considered in assessing aggressive practices in Regulation 7(2) of the CPRs. May 2008 '' Hope it helps if you check it out it looks pretty stern stuff for these people who want to hide behind we are allowed to send an unsinged agreement out....

Hi thanks Dave ! Seems as though thats the issue so nothing new really. I will state my position briefly here as there seems much concern about CRA's and credit files - and I'm either foolish or sensible but my own case may inspire or deter others but here goes - Since before coming to this forum and definitely since, I have not made one single payment to any of my cards total sums due of £86k. This is because I cant ! Having faced the prospect of over borrowing as a small property developer I haven't any money to service any debt save those which are secured and those are often behind too. That the prospect of a bad credit file being the main worry with a lot of people - some for good reason who may need a mortgage - I took the view that it was having a very good rating that got me in this position and therefore having a bad one would not be a problem. In fact its almost a warning to DCA's and creditors theres no point in doing anything to this guy - if we make him bankrupt he owes so much no one will get anything ! Having been bankrupt many years ago life was much more tolerable then when you didn't owe anyone anything ! I see many of my peer group struggling to keep paying cards with total balances of £100k or more borrowing more money just to service credit card debt. That you will never pay it off by making minimal payments is a fact so whats the alternative - a life of misery by borrowing to pay and keeping your credit file clean just to do that ? - or not paying them where they cant produce a valid agreement ? In place of not servicing the debts you are automatically much better off. In my business my expensive cars on unregulated agreements are a drain if they have to go back I wont be able to borrow to buy new ones but I can buy low mileage formerly expensive cars for £2k or £3k cash and have no debt. As I don't want to buy another house i'm not bothered about my credit rating. Even having a good rating doesn't open the door to unlimited credit again anyway one default = no mortgage offer anyway now so once you've got one you might as well have 41. The hourly calls from credit card companies to me are dealt with by seeing their numbers on my mobile and simply not answering them. Thankfully they don't have my landline number. But if they did a call screener would be the answer there. So I'm enjoying life a bit more and being able to see these posts and threads is reassuring but I cant help wondering as to why anyone in the face of insurmountable and unrelenting debt should place keeping a clean credit file a priority. I'm just hoping the arguments on here are right ! They have to be as the CCA specifies what is an unenforceable agreement and it either is or isn't and the court has now power to enforce if it isn't. So a lost agreement with no signature is definitely not enforceable (as long as they don't suddenly find one ) and that is definitely one not to pay anything to at all in my opinion. In time where the agreements are unenforceable and I can get the money together I may see if I can do a full and final settlement at say 10p in the pound on condition and only if my file is wiped clean. Sooner or later the numbers of folk with adverse credit will contract the future credit industry so much that new options may come along where there is either debt forgiveness or a different way of dealing with adverse reporting or future court decisions help by confirming no enforeceable debt = no default. My other option is to consider a debt management programme until such time as my business recovers and while on that chip away at the card agreements in the background. But that may come as acceptance of the debt so bit wary there - my main argument both morally and legally is that these card companies have had in excess of their money already. In my case over the past 6 years by charging rates of p to 29%APR - i.e.28.5% above BASE rate when the usual rate used to be about 9.5% above base. so on a £10k balance the difference between 10% and 30% for six years is £12k !!! plus interest on the overpayment. And that example or formula still allows for the creditor to have their money back if you like - why should they be able to get away with a 20% hike ? In looking at the terms of the agreements there are often terms which govern how they can raise the interest and as they seem to cite changes in banking practice that must mean downwards in declining interest rates or are 'fixed' as in my Mint card at 9.41 above base and in their case they must have raised rates under the catch all for any valid reason term which I thought was invalid as its unfair, vague and is an imposed term which the consumer could have no power to disagree with or could see the reason why to disagree when signing the agreement years ago. That borrowers should be signed up on rates which have been unilaterally raised by some 300 per cent is nothing short of a national scandal and the people who say you've had the money now pay it back are wrong. They are condoning the worst and most blatant bank highjack in financial history which all the consumer legislation in the 20th century was supposed to stop but obviously hasn't and the courts should take that into account.

Hi - anyone know anything about the high court decision on Friday 9th. Oct re RBS ? - which The Times seems to think has scuppered the route to using lack of an agreement as a means of not paying the creditor ? The High Court held - according to The Times - that even if the agreements had not been compliant the debt is still owed -this I thought may always have been the case but that the court could not 'enforce' repayment - as both sides when the case was heard had apparently agreed that the debt was 'unenforeceable' the decision seemed to be that it still existed - without seeing the full text this seems to confirm what we thought had been the case that yes its a debt that cant be enforced - so wondering whether anyone has seen the full judgement yet ? If The Times is to be believed it implied it was the end of the line for these arguments - but are they just referring to whether a CRA has the right to register defaults or that the court has suddenly decided it can ignore the 9174 CCA ? Any site team members know more yet as if The Times is right most of these threads will be irrelevant ?

A learned argument ! A common law remedy re presented in the Unfair Contracts Terms Act .......

Also while card agreements are reg. with certain prescribed terms - the other terms and conditions are contractual thus a contract dos not allow one party to simply behave how they feel like without the others agreement. An agreement implies just that - not agree to let one side behave detrimentally towards the other. So maybe unfair terms but also any vague conditions are interpreted in favour of the party who has not made them as far as i can remember -.

Hi an application becomes an agreement if the prescribed terms are included which for running agreements i.e. credit cards that really means TCC - total charge for credit and APR and payment terms. Credit limit is usually stated as we will determine this etc. There has to be a signature from both but seal or rubber stamp ok for card co. it has to be legible. So if as on my Capital One application/agreement form the interest is stated as 11.9% 'long term' 'one of the lowest rates in the UK' etc but has no terms showing how or if it can be altered then you could argue for a refund between this rate and the new rate (IF it is held to be an agreement ) if the current rate is far higher as all of them are now.

Hello ! thanks for that comment but I can't agree with that I have found so many errors in all my agreements e.g. MBNA typographical errors section 8(1) referred to when no section 8(1) only section 8 (a) another refers to section 14 but no section 14 stops at 12, they also failed to state the APR for goods only for cash advances when the Total Charge for Credit has to be stated anyway.. etc etc etc....... I realise a lot of the time they get it right like bank guarantees, unfortunately, but these credit card agreements leave you wondering who they have used - if they got them right they would all be nearly identical and they're far from that. Another one Mint fixes the margin of interest at 9.41% above base so having done that they have a big problem then trying to get it up to 19% when base is now 0.5 % !

Hi there ! thanks for reply - both agreements identical and dated august 02 and june 04 - address on both is 'new application' Basildon SS 14 9AA - condition 12 called 'changes ' not in agreement only contained in the accompanying generic terms where it outlines 'change' and refers to rate alterations in line with banking practice codes etc - neither agreement has the right to cancel - but i cannot find in CCA where this is required but presumably it must be somewhere as every other creditor has it in a prominent place. .....

hi egg agreement says rates not altered unless in line with banking practice etc and any other valid reason the valid reason is unfair Mint rate on mine from 98 fixed at 9.41 above base and their alter for any other reason thus unfair Capital one complete contradiction on their documents as they haven't got the original but promised 'long term rate of 11.9%' -in application form Monument under £5k so Im going to let them take me to court if ombudsman cant help - no agreement only signed reply card with no terms etc Last week there was a case in South Shields where MBNA had balance cancelled as inadequate agreement and refund of PPI in cash -you read about that yet ?

small claims is risk free - unfortunately mine is over the limit at £17k so risk being saddled with their costs.

Hello this thread seems to have not been so popular - however I am at the stage where MBNA have threatened to write the balance off as bad debt which I am sure is a tactic to enable a sale to a DCA so thy can start using tactics a banking code subscriber cannot use - however they have not sent my copy agreement and although they have acknowledged the request one has still not arrived. Once 8 weeks elapses and the agreement has still not arrived Im off to the ombudsman with it. What they dont know is I already have my agreement and its illegible micro print, terms are missing, and APR not stated, etc my argument is based on invalid agreement and if proved valid then unfair increases in interest rates under Unfair Contracts Terms Act equating to more being OVER paid than is currently owed. So if the worst is a stautory demand a court would I hope refuse to issue it while no reponse to CCA request and at the ombudsman and if it is thus easily set aside only other option is a court order. Anyone have any updates ?

Hi I have 2 unregulated car agreements and struggling to make the payments to Bank Of Scotland - they say they will not help with any shortfall which will prob be £10k perr car in an auction as they sub contract the debt and the collection and cannot come to any advance in proinciple arrangement on paying the shotfall off - anyone have any ideas please ? Sounds like they are ignoring the banking code but anything else ?

Hi again thanks for message a bit alarming if the ombudsman is biased towards creditor have you had some bad experiences there ? Thought it was the other way round ?

Thanks for your help however I must point out it is not correct to say the Ombudsman will be prejudiced by none payment this is definitely not the case. I am complaining to the FSA and the other bodies such as the Board of Banking Code and Information Commissioners. I appreciate your comments thank you.

Thanks for the warning no never counting chickens - was just a light hearted comment in the middle of an otherwise bleak but recovering position for me !The agreement they have already provided is so defective a court could probably not enforce it even if they wanted to - I am probably going to write to the ombudsman anyway re MBNA but just waiting now as they are in breach of a request to produce the agreement. Thanks.

yes thats good thanks - I haven't paid a credit card company for months now its great - I was paying £3k a month ! Some of my friends also in business borrow money to pay them in order to keep their credit files clean ! But so what why worry about keeping you file clean just to service debt - if borrowing just to pay these cowboys back you will eventually go bankrupt at the amount I owe £80k on cards which is not that unusual ! If MBNA is the first to 'wilt' so to speak after only asking for a copy agreement the default on my file for the whole sum could actually be quite a useful deterrent to others to demonstrate no funds available and maybe others may follow suit !

Hi thanks I probably will take that advice - if they sell debt on to a DCA then they are bound by the Banking Code and the CCA too so maybe nothing to worry about - the one thing that is always a worry is cowboys sending out Statutory Demands as these can be difficult to deal with and bankruptcy can soon ensue if not careful - have any members experiences of these ? Courts don't worry me as a court cannot enforce a defective or no signed agreement. Anyone know anything about mis-selling of PPI and ASU accident sickness unemployments as my defective MBNA agreement has a ticked box for that and at 68p per £100 per month over 10 years at average balance of £13 - £15k it would add up ! I didn't even know I had it until I saw it on the agreement they originally sent me in March this year !