Yes I see what you mean. There might be a default registered in 2013. That should not make any difference though should it? I will state that no payments have been made since 2007. And they will have to prove that payments have been made or that for some reason the cause of action was later than April in 2008. And cause for action will be in February when they had two payment dates missed. I'm hoping that is correct... If anyone knows different please comment.

I haven't looked at my credit file for ages... but will get a copy. But does it matter when the default date is? The last payment was in December 2007. The date that they could have taken action does't have to relate to the date when they sent a default notice or defaulted the account do they?

Thanks for that dx100uk. I will read through that. And I guess I must have originally posted in wrong section? On another note, I've just noticed that they have used a date in 2013 for the default balance in the POC. Maybe they are going to say that is the date of the COA. I've read a post about confusion regard when the COA date is deemed to be. Is it the last payment date, a couple of months after the last payment date, or when the default notice is issued? I wasn't able to work that out yet. In this case: Last payment was in December 2007. So COA date should have been Jan/Feb 2008 shouldn't it? Or do I need to try and find a date for when the default notice was served.

Thanks Ford, The court papers are dated April/2014 and the POC are: The Claimant claims payment of the overdue balance due from the Defendent(s) under a contract between the Defendent(s) and MBNA date on or about ##/##/2002 and assigned the the Claimant on ##/##/2008 in the sum of ##### PARTICULARS a/c no:-################# DATE ......... ITEM ............. VALUE ##/##/2013 Default Balance ###### Post Refrl Cr NIL TOTAL:- #######

Received a court claim for £14,300 for disputed MBNA card agreement assigned to Arrow Global from Restons Solicitors. Card was sold to me at Heathrow airport, face to face in 2002. I seem to remember something about the process of the sale not being normal. But in any case, it is 6 years since any money was paid to this account. I issued a S78 request in December 2007 and did not get a satisfactory response including no terms (not even reconstituted ones). No money has been paid since December 2007. So I think the alleged debt became statute barred at the turn of the year. It seems this has been the trigger for Restons to take this to court. Does anyone have any pointers of what I need to write in the defence to this case. Thanks

Yes I understand that it will depend on the terms of the agreement. But what form of words does the agreement need for it to either incorporate compound interest or not. I have looked what agreements I can find on CAG and have noticed that the more recent ones explicitly state that interest can be charged on balances due to interest. Does this mean that if that is not specifically mentioned in the contract then it cannot be charged? I know I have many contracts where they have charged compound interest but they do not mention charging interest on interest balances.

Does anyone know how you tell if a credit card company is allowed to charge compound interest. In this case of Armstrong vs Amex, Amex agreed to drop all the interest charges because the contract didn't allow for compound interest. This would probably mean they owe me money on many of my cards!

Does anyone have the correct wording for an n244 application in respect of something like this?

OK I'm going to have to work on the basis that the interest rate charged being different to that on the credit card agreement means that the agreement may not be enforced. I would really appreciate any guidance on how to complete the n244 form properly along with should I complete a witness statement, a statement of case or put evidence in the box? Anyone please.

I have had a ccj registered on an agreement in default. For various reasons I was not able to defend the case properly and subseqently applied to have it set aside on the basis that the interest rate charged is different from that on the agreement. This application was struck out because I did not receive notice of the hearing date until after the actual date and so missed it. I want to reapply for a set aside and additionally apply for a declaration under section 142. But I have read in one of the threads here that even though the interest rate being different would appear to mean that one of the terms is stated incorrectly and so the agreement may not be enforced under 127(3). This is not actually the case but instead the creditor is in breach of the contract. The contract being implied to have been made at the interest rate shown in the agreement. I would have thought that charging a different interest rate than on the agreement would be prima face evidence that a prescribed term is not stated correctly on the agreement. But PeterBard in a discourse with PT2537 states otherwise in and around post 2215 of the extensive thread entitled "why you shouldnt use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agreement" and further on on in the thread. I think the argument is that there is a notional idea of an interest rate when the agreement is executed. If the creditor then charges a different interest rate (even in the first statement) they are just in breach of the agreement. I really don't feel that this makes sense and the argument seamed to peter out. I would love to hear any comments, especially from PB or PT

To successfully apply to have a judgement set aside you need to demonstrate to the court that you have a reasonable chance of success in getting a different verdict. So you can't get it set aside just because you didn't know the case was going ahead. But if you can show that you would have had a good chance of winning the case, then the judge will set the judgement aside.

OK, I've looked at the alleged copy agreement and statements provided in details and have found: Statements provided start about 2 months after credit agreement was supposed to start and have a starting balance of £4,732.48. So I do not know how this nearly £5K is supposed to have been accumilated in 2 months. Do they have to prove how it was made up? The copy agreement they have provided is a photocopy of the front and the alleged back. The interest rate shown on the back is: On all amounts charged to account in first 5 months = 0.253% On all amounts charged to account after 5 months = 1.323% But the interest they have charged according to the statements do not match: in the first 5 months they have charged 0.252% (a very small difference - is this enough?) after 5 months they started charging 1.323% on all outstanding money. So they charged 1.323% even on the money outstanding from the first 5 months. (the agreement says it should be 0.253% on money charged to account in first 5 months). So they have charged different interest to what is on the agreement (or the copy they have provided is not the real back of the agreement). And they haven't shown how the initial balance is made up. Or am I getting this wrong?

On a practical note, I have found that a lot of credit card companies seem to produce a template default notice with a computer print out showing that one was produced. Even though I have not received one. Is this taken as good enough proof for a court that a default notice was sent.

The agreement was taken out back in 2001 and was a credit card agreement. The stamp is a box with the word 'Received' written in it. With a date and signature in it. I don't understand why them failing to sign the agreement does not kill the agreement (until they get an enforcement order from a court). The agreement is not properly executed unless it is signed by the creditor. They can take to a judge and ask her for an enforcement order. But as I understand it, the judge may vary the agreement or the amount owed. I wanted to find out if anyone had any experience of/insight into what happens in this situation.

I guess that that may or may not be the case. Does anyone know of any cases where a creditor has argued that a received stamp properly executed the agreement. Did it work for them? What I was really concerned about, in any case, is that if I am able to defeat them in this instance on the basis that it is not executed. They will then apply to the court for an enforcement order. In that situation, does the court normally grant the order or do they reduce the amount outstanding before granting the order. does anyone have any experience of this?