Thank you for that Means2anend- I was aware the answer was starring me in the face-I simply stated the facts in my original post. they have very obligingly put the statement I originally referred to in my original post in two letters now-copies of which are with my solicitor. I would add they have provided digitised/microfiched copy of alleged original document -but only one side-The A/F with alleged copies of the signatures.

I would like to add that both institutions eventually provided micofiched/digitised copies of the alleged original document-but only of the side with signatures on- no T/Cs "overleaf"-one instiution has stated now in two letters "While we try and locate the the full ORIGINAL agreement etc"-certainly indicates to me and also to my solicitor that original means just that-The original document- A type 2 original is new one on me- however the term "Best evidence" comes to mind:cool:

Thank you Prioity One-I had actually worked that out, nontheless your comment is appreciated and reassuring-I tend to look more at the white bits than the black bits in a letter now-the white bits have less BS!!!

I have asked the question as to to the existance of original agreements of two credit card providers on very old agreements -one replied -While we try and locate the full original agreement we shall not be seeking to enforce the agreement. The other card provider simply stated that they had nothing further to add and would not enter into any further correspondence-ie either could not/would not answer the question.

I have been using S59 in my dealings with my credit card providers-needless to say they have side stepped the issue. -As you say it is something else to chuck at them- and My views are the same as yours, however my solicitor does not entirely agree

In the BOS Mitchell case the bank bottled out at the last moment-The prescibed terms were in a seperate booklet. HH Judge Langan QC. I quote from that case-"In my judgment the point with which I have been dealing is not properly to be characterised as a new point on which the bank can present itself as being taken by surprise"....."previous to that- quoting from Mitchell's counsel -"The key words in Section 61(1)(a) are the reference to a document itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to the regulations under Section 61 (presumably S/B 60). This language is clear and specific and ensures that mere reference to terms contained in another document will not suffice. The document must contain the prescribed terms just as the signed document referred to in Section 127(3), which might save the day must however contain the prescribed terms. "-The Judge concludes "The only realistic view of what has happened is that the bank has surrendered on a straightforward point of law to which it has on several occasions been alerted by the defendant or his solicititors". In the Carey v HsBC case-Judge Waksman keeps referring to a" piece of paper" or peices of paper. If I photocopy War and Peace on one side of a piece of paper and copy on the other side say a picture -in my view these are two seperate documents albeit on 1 piece of paper. Therefore if the agreement does NOT CONTAIN the prescribed terms but may be in Conditions overleaf IMO these are two seperate documents. I would be interested in others opinions on this

If You have a fax-let the fax answer the calls-then you can decide who want to talk to, I use the fax quite efectively for this situation-its an idea to let those you TRUST in on this idea-anyway hope that is some help.

Thanks-I should have mentioned that whereby they can leave out the signature and date etc.

I have been reading this and other forums with interest regarding the Manchester Test Cases and the matter of a reconstituted agreement. I have a situation with BOS whereby they eventually produced a digitised copy of the alleged signed agreement but unable to produce a copy of the original T's & Cs. To cut a long story short having been been messed around by a CMC I have a solicitor dealing with this matter due to defects in some of the prescribed terms and in the meantime BOS have at long last replied to my various letters-having issued a default notice first stating "Have as yet been unable to supply details of the reconstituted agreement" and "While we try to locate the full original agreement we will not be seeking to enforce the agreement"-having stated to FOS several months ago that they could not produce the original terms and conditions-The alleged agreement was made in 1986. My solicitor told me the following and this is reinforced by extracts from the rulings in the Manchester test cases that "if an agreement has been subsequently varied by the lender, then the lender is obliged to supply a copy of both the original agreement as well as the current one"-there is no reference here to any "reconstituted agreement"-In my particular case the agreement has been varied on numerous occaisions. I imagine most credit card agreements have been varied, hence the lender must produce a copy of the original. I would welcome any comments of my understanding of this.

I phoned Leeds County Court and they gave me the details -since I did not know who the bank was I simply mentioned Judge Langan and Mitchell and a rough idea of timescale. The case was heard at Leeds County Court, but proceedings I understand commenced in Harrowgate County Court and presumably transferred to Leeds County Court. It is quite conceivable that this is not the case in question, I am afraid I do not have the judgement. If I have got it wrong I apologise Sorry to take so long to reply-those charming people at AA Credit Card and Bank Of Scotand are sending a "Representative" around to my place on Tuesday, so I have been involved with Solicitors and decided that since these So and SO s wont reply to my letters to hand the matter over to the Lawyers. Sent letter to AA credit card threatening to call the Police if this Rep turns up-but there again they dont respond to letters. If they cant enforce it in Court they try and enforce by harrassment!!-very stressful

I have established that a judgement was handed down by Judge Langan on 13th November re Lloyds TSB V Mitchell in favour of the claimant-ie the bank-I can not be certain that this is the case in question but it seems likely that it is -the claim/case No. 8XR79750- I understand came from Harrowgate county court. Permission to Appeal and hearing of costs is set for 23rd December 2009. Clearly this issue about " determing the manner in which the credit limit is set could now possibly be given a high profile"-If anyone else has more information on this it would help to see it posted here.

Many thanks for your reply, I shall keep watching this thread.

Hi first time in this forum-but have been following with interest the situation over the credit limit issue-ie "The manner in which the credit limit is set" sch 6 for S127(3) purposes in the Leeds case as outlined by Axiom99-especially the case at Leeds County Court where the Judge is having a think about it-Judge Langan and R mitchell-I agree with the arguments here, some method of determination is required. I have two whereby the term states- " The Bank will determine the credit limit and notify you of any changes from time to time"-ok it is in schedule 1-but not schedule 6-Solicitors and experts seem to think that is ok as a prescrbed term for the manner in which the credit limit is determined-how the manner in which you determine something by determining it beats me-My question is has Judge Langan passed down his judgment on this one yet at Leeds-does anyone know-as mentioned by others the judgment here could have very significant consequences.