As said earlier. NOA should be sent RD - but they never are - and there are many cases of a judge saying "well - you admit you got it - so doesn't really matter if RD or not" In YOUR case J&P are claiming it WAS sent - so if you keep denying you got it then it might buy you something - as they should be asked to PROVE it - by your signature on the Royal mail RD paperwork. If everything you have looks as if it came from microfiche or Computer printouts - (i.e not a photocopy of the original CCA) then I would do a CPUTR 2008 (see PriortyOne's thread on this) as it might just get everything put on hold. Have you looked at the Carey judgement regarding what should be sent in response to a CCA request? You probably haven't got half of what you should have got - especially if the T&C's were ever varied. I also have an AK debt they bought from Egg - but they have currently gone quiet as they can't find the CCA (which I asked for in Dec 2009!) and Egg haven't complied woith my SAR request (sent to Egg in Oct 2009!). I got a dodgy "NOA" from AK by ordinary post - not even on official letter head, no details of my specific account etc. - if it comes to it I'll ask them to prove it was actually sent RD and signed for at my end. AK's incompetence got me off an £11k Morgan Stanley cardit card debt which they had bought in 2006/2007 - but never ever chased up - other than a single letter saying they now owned the debt and could I please pay them now and not Morgan Stanley! This debt became time barred in Nov 2010 - so it might be worth playing a long game - and see if they drop the ball? Good luck! BD

W Glad things mostly still under control. Re Santander, some advise to keep paying a token amount if account in dispute due to not sending out a CCA. However if they CAN'T find it - and can't enforce the debt at all - then that is just money down the drain. I personally DO NOT PAY A PENNY to those OC's and DCA's who have still not produced enforceable CCA's. Currently I'm only paying out £5 to each of two DCA's - zilch to all others - and not even getting threatening letters any more - phone calls all stopped after the "harassment" letters. One £11k card debt (Morgan Stanley) reached the SB deadline last year - with nothing paid to it for over 6 years. Others are now working towards that same goal as we speak! Perhaps some of the remaining creditors will get heavy again - but no sign of that so far. I think they are all far too busy going after easier targets and so leave us bolshy ones on the back burner - I certainly hope that's the case! BD

W Happy Anniversary! A Year today since you started your thread! Things seem to be quiet with you just now - which hopefully is a good sign? Look back and see how far you've come in the last year. Good luck. BD

Panther Good for you. If they do contest it, then it will be Small Claims - so zero risk for you to contest - and a good chance it would go your way in court. If this looks likely remember to get info from other threads on 3rd party F&F cheques etc. as part of your defence. On reflection I think it best NOT to tell OC at this stge. If they then get another DCA involved then just send a "puzzled" letter stating this last DCA accepted a cheque in F&F on XX May 2011 and as far as you are concerned the matter is closed. That will cause a bit of head scratching both at the next DCA and the OC - and waste their time into the bargain - time which cannot then be spent chasing anoher debtor - so everyone wins - except OC and DCA! BD

Panther This is an excellent letter from Mould. Hopefully you've hiot his star to express your thanks? I would send this letter off ASAP - by recorded delivery. Perhaps even fax it NOW if you have their fax no? I think your prompt actions will be in sharp contrast t the delays they have shown - and their unreasonable conduct in ensuring you could NOT adhere to the "conditions" they had applied. There is some case law (on other CAG threads) re 3rd party payments - and I think speed (by them) is of the essence in rejecting the T&C's accompanying the 3rd party cheque. 3 1/2 weeks is not exactly speedy - especially when they expected YOU to turn it round in minus 1 day - without a time machine to assist! I really think they have screwed up royally and you will be off the hook - but don't expect it to be too easy! Expect lots of further contact and threats etc. Is the written off balance above or below the Small Claims Limit? That might influence how much they fight - but I think the OC will be far from pleased with how they've screwed up. It might be worth send in copy of both letters to the OC - what does Mould think? BD

I quote from the very first post on this thread - without making any further comment. BD

Car Yes - that is what I recollect Lord Phillips saying on the day the judgement was announced and interpreted this as the SC pointing very clearly to another way to skin this particular cat. However on a recent TV programme he stressed the SC had NOT rules these unauthorised overdraft charges to be fair and went on to say he regretted the OFT were not legally allowed to challenge the "fairness" of these charges - but the SC were asked to rule on a very narrow point of law regarding what the OFT could do - and it was clear they could not legally challenge these unfair charges. I fully accept the difficulty of using reg 5 - but believe if GLC win the two cases in Glasgow Sheriff Court we'll get back to the Banks shelling out - as they did before the OFT stuck its oar in - and as they currently do in the case of Credit Card default charges - paying out IN FULL (even the last £12) in order to avoid court action. I guess it's similar to using CPUTR 2008 at present - if it works for you - then use it - and the sooner the better - just in case some smart Bank lawyer yet again manages to argue black is white! BD

I do not wish to be accused of personal attacks and so shall not respond any further after clearing up one point by a statement of indisputable fact. The SC ruling DID NOT prohibit further legal challenges on unauthorised overdraft charges and at least two such challenges are active in Glasgow Sheriff Court. BD

Peter I'm getting very confused as to which SC ruling you refer. Are you saying you believe the SC has: a) supported credit card default (i.e.penalty) charges of up to £12 are FAIR? If so, when was this case? b) ruled that unauthorised overdraft charges (of any amount) are FAIR? If so, did Lord Phillips get confused both in his summary judgement (shown on TV) and in his recent TV interview? BD

See comments in bold above. BD

My claims can certainly be confirmed - but I do not see any need to do so as it is a no-risk tactic for others to follow.

I'm glad we agree on something. Hopefully GLC's efforts in Glasgow Sheriff Court will give us a way forward? BD

My (and many other CAGGERs') experience is these are not contested in any great numbers currently. I am glad you do not wish to encourage any claims. I personally think it's better to have a position where "sooner or later" Banks MIGHT start to contest these (a matter of personal speculation) - than the position "NOW Banks WILL contest them" - which would be a matter of fact! I do not think anyone (other than you) is asking for proof of what I have put in my signature. In any case testing out the practical effectiveness of my tactics will be a no risk task for any CAGGER wanting to get back EVERY PENNY of unfair (unlawful?) default charges. BD BTW - Have I missed something? Has it been actually been established that Bank overdraft charges are actually FAIR? I thought the SC clearly left the door open on that issue and merely ruled the OFT did not have the right to investigate the "fairness" of such charges? This is certainly the view Lord Phillips attempted to convey on a recent TV programme on the SC's ruling.

Is Brandon not being appealed? I really don't understand why there is any need now to rely on any "pre-estimate" - genuine or otherwise - when there is ample data available (going back many years) to to the card companies to establish actual historical data to justify the level of default charges. However they do seem most reluctant to publish such data and the experience of many CAGGERs (myself included) is that they fold when challenged to justify the £12 (or any amount charged) in such circumstances. I also do not understand why you feel the need to devalue most of your posts with snide comments. BD

Peter The difference is my "real life experience" of success in reclaiming default charges is backed up by "evidence" - in my signature in the same post. Other similar threads show equal successes by other CAGGERs. I really do not understand why you wish to discourage CAGGERs from reclaiming the FULL amounts charged as default fees by having any posts providing evidence of real successes removed. BD

Car I totally agree. My own experience is that when I asked a credit card company asked to justify the "fairness" of the £12 charge or the "ongoing accuracy" of its "pre-estimate" it just folded and repaid the full amount of all unfair charges (plus contractual interest). It seems that after a half hearted initial attempt to "justify" the fairness of the £12 which they initially attempt to retain, just offering a refund of the excess charges above £12, they soon cave in when challenged to put up or pay up - as they do NOT want it to come out that their "genuine pre-estimate" was far from "genuine" with the true cost of an automated transaction to charge a default fee probably being only a few pence. My reading of the OFT report is that they will deem any default charges above £12 to be "unfair" (apart from Egg who seem to get away with £15) - but that does NOT mean the converse - i.e. any charge of £12 or less is definitely "fair". BD

BF Well done. IMHO the chances are much higher that they'll go after other easier targets - and you may well get left totally alone until SB kicks in. That happened to me with an £11k debt - and that was even before things like CPUTR 2008 were available (last payment made to the OC was in 2005!). Other creditors have backed off since I used CPUTR last year. I have heard (so it must be true!) that Barclaycard, Morgan Stanley, Goldfish etc. shredded a lot of original documents around 2005 - so they can't prove anything to be a true copy - and in Scotland (at least) - England seems a bit less clear cut - they can't enforce without an original signed copy of the CCA. Keep the faith! BD

P1. Well done - nice to see Bryan Carter getting a bl**dy nose! I have an e-mail address for them if you want to save the cost of paper, ink and stamp. Funnily enough I found some earlier e-mails were replied to by Freds and some by BC - so they do seem to live under the same stone. I'd really like to see how you reply (and what they then do about it) if you feel able to share this with us. Good luck! BD PS - I think this result should serve as "proof" (if further proof were needed) of the (current) practical (as opposed to theoretical) effectiveness of the CPUTR tactic to even the most doubting of sceptics?

G OK fair enough - but I'll still need to write them down so I can remember them! BD

G Can you post up the words please? BD

Daisy Getting back to practical/pragmatic issues.... Are they still chasing the debt - despite admitting they don't have the documents you requested? If they are not actively still chasing you then I would just keep a low profile and await on SB kicking in - it's worked once for me. If they do persist in chasing you then I would go down the "prove it" route - and if they seem likely to go to the wire then I would either call their bluff or negotiate a low F&F - both tactics have worked many times for me. Good luck! BD PS - I am giving information on what I would do based on what has worked for me. This is not advice based on knowledge of applicable legislation as I do not care about that and have never understood its logic when I have tried to do so. I used to understand rocket science but that was based on logic - unlike our legal system!

Peter Can you please re-read my post and quote where I offered (or sought) advice ? I seek and give information based on real life experience - not advice based on assumed (or known) knowledge. BD PS Can we please now drop this "exchange" as it is not adding any more information to the thread and you seem to be descending into insulting behaviour yet again? To set an example I shall NOT respond any further even if you decide to do so - but shall report any posts I perceive to be offensive.

I think this is a case of P1's experience of what actually happens in practice trumping PB's theory of what might happen? I'll go with experience over theory every time! BD

I'm not going to ask you to explain how a bumble bee flies - I'm just happy it does!. Your second point is the nub of where we differ. I am NOT on CAG to debate - but to get (and give) real life practical information on reducing indebtedness by whatever means possible (banks don't do morality - and neither do I any more in dealing with them) - and I'm equally happy even when I don't understand why/how the methods used actually work - as long as they do work. I suspect most drivers - and airline passengers - subscribe to a similar pragmatic approach - but please feel free to air your own views, opinions and knowledge - provided you are sure it cannot harm any fellow CAGGER by giving knowledge or succour to the other side! BD

I subscribe to the theory that a little knowledge is dangerous. Proof of the benefit of ignorance is that the bumble bee continues to fly as it remains blissfully ignorant that it is theoretically impossible for it to do so. BD PS - Please don't tell it otherwise our flowers won't get pollinated!