First of all, it was a female judge. :D On 44 the judgement was a suspension pending full compliance with that section. To me it means that it is suspended but if they can comply they can claim enforcement. On the other hand I believe that there was also the factor of the unfair relationship regarding the selling of the PPI.

Ok. Upped your response to 50p But the argument lies in that when somebody relies too much on templates, as you said the problem arises when it goes to court. I have seen too many sending off dispute letters not even reading what is in them. For example, the Data Protection Act gives 21 days for a data controller to reply why he/she will not terminate using your data. Yet the dispute letter, first it says "have 21 days" but then later on gives 14 days for a reply. You cannot do that! Yet people "fire them away". Also the same way that members use the forum so do banks and DCAs access. How many times does a bank or a DCA have to get the same letter (template) from so many thousands of people? After a while they will add a template to their computer (maybe just press F11). People, yes, they need help but they have to also be able to change things about a bit, mix and match and most of all know what they are sending, why they are sending and understand what they are sending. At least if appear in front of a Judge can explain a bit of what is what. In fact it seems that a lot of members actually think that if the bank does not comply with a s.77/s.78 application the debt is written off and that is it. It is not written off. It is just unenforceable BUT if the bank turns up with a copy of the agreement they can then enforce. That is why I prefer to go for a faulty/invalid default notice compared to a default on a s.77/s.78 application.

4 and 5 do not apply to enforcing the agreement in court BUT they do apply to assigment if it was to happen later on. 7: A DN is a statutory document. There is no obligation as to how it is sent i.e. second class post, first class post, recorded, registered or even by courier or personally served. BUT, the rule is "Post does get lost in transit and even Proof of Posting is not Proof of delivery". Hence, the bank can claim that they posted on so and so date. The OP can claim that it was never received or although it is datemarked say 2nd January it was only received on the 24th January. Not the first time my postman dropped one of my letters at some wrong door and I got it a few days later. The bank should know that unless they have served a DN then they cannot terminate and enforce. This is one of the reasons why it should be the bank that issues any court claim and not the defendant. Then the onus falls on the Claimant to prove that proper service was made of the DN.

Ok. Read it like this: 100 In fact Reg. 2 says that all copies must be easily legible. And the judge keeps on repeating about "easily legible". The OP got copies that un legible.

In line with the above what I think (might be wrong) oilyrag was referring to was the fact that a lot of members just go for templates and hope for the best thinking that if anything goes wrong, then ask and somebody will fix it. Seen too many threads where people got a letter from a bank or a DCA and they thought "lets use search" or "post a question and hopefully by the time have watched eastenders I will have an answer". Personally I do not think it works like that. In the first instance the person created the debt and enjoyed spending the money. Fair enough, a lot of members (like Dotty 50) said are on here because due to circumstances they need to solve the problem of debt be it they became unemployed, change of circumstances or whatever. But that person has to read and learn. And also it is not just the Consumer Credit Agreements that you have to use. There are other Acts that need exploring and............. as in the Judgement that was made in the Newcastle Court (huh! A Sunderland woman being in court in Newcastle LOL), she did not win on the s.78 issue even though her solicitors explored that point. She won on the Unfair Relationship issue and that is why post 74 says that she won on a little bit of technicality. Just my 2p post.

In the above copy it says they can assign to third parties. If it does not say that then you can challenge the fact that they passed on your personal data to a third party without your consent. Have you had a DN issued re yours? Also have you had an NOA issued? Might be a way to challenge yours. Also, both of you :D have a good read of http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case-58.html go to post 1142 some very good reading as may apply to you especially re the PPI (if you had any sold to you) and the interesting parts also start from part 35 on the judgement. (Might possibly apply to you). If there has been an Unfair relationship you can use that. Do not just bet everything on the Consumer Credit Act.

Done. Dont forget to edit yours.

I think I have found the problem and have to do a bit more reading but it looks positive. ;) Totally different route to the other one. Check pm as do not want to say in public due to possible reading by the DCA.

I agree with Dotty. As far as I know (once again maybe somebody can confirm this) there should be a box for the signature and a date box. Fair enough might use a stamp in the box but it should be there. Also, the date will confirm when the agreement became binding. One other thing: General vii. Be careful of that one. It means they can sell the debt and register a default on your credit reference.

Not so easy to crack as you may think. Sorry to say but you have done some damage yourself. e.g. You have been paying them since 2006. They are correct. On the law of probabilities if it was to go to Court they will win. Also, although the McGuffick case was a crap case in the first instance, they are correct. IF a bank/DCA cannot send a copy the debt stays but is just unenforceable. As to the CRA I would argue that one on the basis of what was in the agreement. i.e. Did the agreement say "They can assign their rights to third parties"? OR did the agreement say something like "We will use your data for marking purposes" and that is it. I would first of all send then an Subject Access Request. They in turn will have to send it to Halifax and that should buy some time.

And from Carey v HSBC 100 It is also said that the requirement that the Option A notices and Option B statements must be "easily legible" implies current information only, because it emphasises the importance of the legibility of this information. That does not follow either. In fact Reg. 2 says that all copies must be easily legible. If they are under Reg. 7 now to consist of or contain only the terms as varied, one wonders why easy legibility is repeated. There might be more need for it if (as the Claimants contend) these are additional materials to be supplied. But on any view this feature does not advance the Defendants' case.

First of all (I have not read the CapQuest letter yet) who did you send the CCA application to? Edit: Found the answer in the letter. Also did the bank ever send a DN? And how long have CapQuest been involved? Edit: Found the answer in the letter.

Well have read them and to me it looks ok except I do not like to read the words "Application form". But then again on the right hand side at the top it says "Credit agreement". I am not an expert in discecting agreements/application forms and neither do I purport to be but, I do notice that there is: 1: No signature from anybody from the bank and 2: No amount of credit they gave you declared. Now as far as I know (somebody correct me if I am wrong) for a contract to be binding it must be: a: Signed by both parties and b: Must show what you are getting for that signature and not just how much interest you are going to pay and what penalties they charge. Maybe somebody can confirm or correct me on this????????

Thanks for the offer but I have to decline. You have already told me that "You like to collect" and I do not like issuing IOUs even though you said you accept them. :D

Nah! Do not call them. Get it in writing that hopefully you can sue them for damages. ;)

Section 88 (3) The default notice must not treat as a breach failure to comply with a provision of the agreement which becomes Operative only on breach of some other provision, but if the breach of that other provision is not duly remedied or compensation demanded under subsection (I) is not duly paid, or (where no requirement is made under subsection ~1)) if the seven days mentioned in subsection (2) have elapsed, the creditor or owner may treat the failure as a breach and section 87(1) shall not apply to it. Plus: 1. Application form and not agreement. 2. Says "Not providing all ................ processing your application". 3: Right hand side top looks like it says "Personal information". 4: The part where it refers to Missing payments is very vague. All it says is about effecting credit but does not say anything about Assignment or Passing information on to third parties such as CRAs. 5: Data protection reference same as 4 above. 6: Front page very very unreadable but it does say "Is this your correct Nectar account number? If not please correct below". Now to me that says that it was something that was sent with a card so............ maybe that may change things a bit. But it is still very unreadable. 7: Default notice (already referred to I think on page 1) says 14 days from date of service. As said, when was the date of service? It could have been delayed in Christmas post. What I would think will be the crunch is the date on the Termination Notice.

Says otherwise to me. 78.—(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of 15 new pence, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,— (a) the state of the account, and (b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and © the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor. (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence. Hence The reason for issuing a DN is to enforce the agreement. IF a bank is in default s.78 subsection 6 says they cannot enforce which makes it an unlawfully issued DN.

IF it was to (let us say) go in front of a Judge it will look better if you write before. This will show that you assisted the bank in your querie. Personally I would write to the bank. I will tell them that you requested a true copy of the agreement not the application form and that is what they have to send you. Also (do not forget every week has 2 days weekend plus it takes a day in the post so effectively you are only giving 4 days) I would tell them that in order to assist, the 12 + 2 days run out on the xx/xx/2010 and I am extending that date by 7 days. The reason is, once again, IF it was to go in front of a Judge you were lenient and tried to assist. Goes in your favour. As to the uploads I have tried to read them but even downloading a copy and enlarging it I still cannot read them. The front part refers to Data Protection. It depends what it says you authorise them to do with your data. e.g. They can use it to market products. They can use it for administration. This depends a lot on what is written. If we take the first example then, by rights if you default and let us say it goes against you in court, they cannot sell the debt to a DCA because you never gave them that right. Same for administration. They CAN authorise a DCA to administer the account BUT they cannot sell it. (So it becomes another loophole in your favour). Administer means "to manage" but does not mean to "Assign or sell". But the second page, I cannot read anything except for the headings so I cannot say anything. Maybe somebody with better eyesight then me can help.

Read the application form. Does it say things like "We can refuse your application"? Does it say things like "Application form for credit"? An application form is not an agreement. It is a form where you fill in information to apply for something. Also for an agreement (somebody correct me if I am wrong) to be valid it has to talk about APR and has to show what credit limit you have. I would take the template "letter of dispute" and amend it slightly to add that an application form is not a true copy of an executed agreement and put the account into dispute. BUT REMEMBER.......... it can be in dispute but IF they send a copy of the agreement then it COMES OFF the dispute.

Actually, having given this a bit more thought, 21st was Thursday. Allow 4 WORKING DAYS for delivery from next day. So next day is 22nd (Friday). Plus 3 more days (starting from Monday) makes it delivery should be on 27th. Might, just might, fall in as invalid due to not 14 clear days to remedy.

2. Practice Direction Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail. With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore. 1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. 2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:- (a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting; (b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting. "Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday. 3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used. 4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process. 8th March 1985 J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master Queen's Bench Division

22 plus 4 days post (unless sent recorded mail and have proof of delivery) = 26. 26 plus 14 (allowed days) = 40. Jan has 31 days. 40 less 31 = 9th February should be the expiry date. Edit: 22nd was Friday. It says 4 working days after the date of posting. Saturday and Sunday are not classed as working days. Hence, really if as per Practice Direction it should be: 22nd, forget 23 and 24, add 4 days after the 25th makes it the 29th. Then should add 14 days on top to remedy the default.

Agree as the date is 21 Jan. It says 17 days starting from the next day after the date. That makes it 17 days starting from the 22nd. To me even if posted and claimed it is second hand post it still gives 14 days. As citizenB said check the figures. That may make it invalid and faulty. Otherwise, 21 plus 4 days post makes it should have been delivered yesterday but 17 days to remedy (when should have 14) still allows for the one day delay in post.

By rights we are not interested in statements. UNLESS they have sent the DN by recorded or registered mail and can prove when it was served it is an invalid DN and faulty. Sent on the 8th Nov Date given is the 25th 25 less 8 = 17 Claiming it was sent by second class post, according to the rules second class post takes 4 days for delivery 17 less 4 = 13 The law says you should get 14 days to rectify a Default. 14 less 13 = under by 1 DN is technically invalid and faulty. Simple.

Already answered in the thread Steve v HFC. And you have just shown that you have not done much homework before you started challenging the banks did you? Seems you read a couple of posts, thought "Heck........ seems ok lets go for it" and decided to take "The nice lollipop out of the banks mouth and they will not cry and scream to have it back". I would suggest you post so that members on here can take an idea of what is what. Then get advise. Split each problem and do NOT think they are all the same. And take notes of what is being told to you. Then when the time comes, it may either be a strike out or, if it goes to Court you should have enough information in your hands to be able to fight it, put a good argument forward and win.