Yep, they think they can. Regardless of the fact that they have not sent u any statements, ask for them Mike

Totally agree mate

I've sent one off today, the thing is I know that they have only just started to add a £5 charge to the account if u havent made a payment for three months. However, have you seen the way they calculate your interest? Look on the back of your statements, tells you quite clearly how to calculate e.g. 2.014% of the opening balance of your statement. Now get your calculator out with your statements see how many work out to be alot more than that! I wrote in 2006 regarding MOH account got a fob off and a £10 goodwill token. However seeing this site has called me to question again. Having seen what has happened to others I've asked for the CCA first so that if they close the account any DCA can be told to go away. Then I shall hit them with my calculations. THe thing is if there is no agreement, MOH's account was opened in the 1980s and I know for a fact that there was no agreement, they have been charging interest ever since without an executed agreement! Look at the payback! Mike

I'm afraid you are both missing the point, however, farewell from the thread. Mike

Sorry you've been poorly mate, hop you are OK. Back to section 59 business, which SI are they referrring to. MIke

Youre right but it would only take one of the parents to ring the police to find him in the cop shop for a few hours explaining what hes doing. Remember the police were involved in drwaing up the FA guidelines. The safest thing for everyone is do not take photos at kids football matches. As regards the LEA that one earlier person has mentioned, they have no jurisdiction over FA endorsed matches, but if my memory serves me correctly the rigidity of their guidleines depends on wher you live. The other poster who mentioned the boy in care, we've had a couple of lads signed on in a similar situation. Ring your local Count FA, the number is in the phone book and ask for the number of the FAs child protection unit at Lilleshall Shropshire. They will handle the situation for you and it will all be in confidence. If the snapper is a member of a Football organisation and refuses to comply with their instructions he/she could find her involvement in kids football brought to a speedy end. I know its maddening to those who are probably reading this and thinking that I'm typing a load of rubbish, but these are the rules that I've had to abide by over the last few years, and one of the reasons I'm going. I got into kids football to give kids the opportuinity of playing the game, nothing else. THe trouble is the heavy rules that are handed down are such that alot of potential managers cant be bothered, so the number of teams shrink, so the number of players shrink. In time football in thsi scountry could be where Cricket or Rugby is, played by a select few, who have always had the ability, not by those who, with a little encouragement, and time can blossom. Without the means to do that the game will lose potential good players. Mike

In a perfect world that would be nice, but in kids football beleive me that it isn't and you can get yourself and your team in alot of trouble if it gets reported. Mike

I'm playing devils advocate here so don't shoot the messenger! Each junior team manager has to give a FA certified code of conduct and also one endorsed by the club the player signs on to. Each parent has to sign and send it back. With that wad of paper is a FA endorsed permission slip which allows the palyer to be photographed. No signed slip, no photograph. Charter Standard clubs (please don't get me started on this aspect of Junior Football) have to have a paper train of child protection permissions to comply with the FA rules. If a player plays for a CS team then you must be issued with the necessary permissions and they must be filed away safely by the club, because the FA audit it. The rules are so strict, that if a team photograph is published in the paper, the paper is not allowed to name the children. Iknow, I know we all have seen these photos, but strictly speaking they are against the FA child protection guidlines and the team, club and or manager can be sanctioned by the FA. My local paper for instance will not allow photos to be published without proper names thats why my team have never been published. However other teams have for the same paper, but you will be surprised how many Rooneys, Owens and Lampards play in Shropshire. I know, I know you all say that CP is common sense, well it is, but if you flout the FA rules on CP then you will bear the price. Incidentally, not only do the players have to comply with the FAs rules on conduct, parents do as well, and they can be sanctioned by the FA as well, read the small print of all codes of conduct, if you are issued. Nevertheless, it doescn't stop the parents of players using racists remarks abusing players and physically and verbally abusing refs. I'm glad its all over I'm going back to my adult Sunday League side its alot easier beleivee me. Mike

As a now ex-junior football manager (thank god) the taking of photos by anyone of junior players is a big no no and really anyone who is involved in junior football should know this. Everyone in the game has to take child protection courses and CRB checks, so the person who took the snaps should be in no doubt. However this may be a genuine mistake by the snapper, she may not have realised a youngster was playing. Maybe a short phonecall to the person involved will be enough to remove the errant photos. If this doesn't work then a complaint to the Child Protection Officer at your County FA should do the trick, and this would mean that he/she would get a very sharp rap on the knuckles. AS an aside, and I know I'm going to be inflammatory on this standpoint. I've been involved in football for over 30 years, but the paperwork that I have had to deal with regarding the lads game from the age of 11 onwards has escalated beyond belief, behaviour is monitored the standard of the behaviour of parents, team and officials is scurtinised, but quite honestly it doesn't stop the really nasty events still happening. I must admit I'm glad that (from a personal point of view) that my time has come to and end. We've had success, but the last four seasons under 13 to under 16 have seen us permanatly at the bottom of the lower division of the age group. The lads get alot of stick at school and on the street, but they turn up every week, only once in six years have we had to field 10 players! I've seen these lads grow into fine young men. No I'm not the sort of manager who wants the team to win at all costs, every lad gets a fair crack of the whip, but what I do stand up against is poor sportsmanship, cheating, violence, bullying, swearing, smoking and drinking. The best player in the team for many a season was asked to leave at Xmas coz he was hung over. Oh dear I've seen to gone of the plot a little now, I'll get off my soapbox Mike

agreed Mike

lol

Actually what I think they are saying here is that "we know we are breaking the law by harassing you or pursuing the debt, but we consider the action to be justified since you have borrowed money on the account" it is a trusted defence in a court, killing in self defence is an extreme but valid illustration of the point. Neverthless, and here is the rub (I take it that they hav efailed to provide you with a cca agreement), they could enforce the debt under section 65 and 127. However, if they cannot proove the debt was lawfully established, all they can claim back is the money that you have borrowed, the principal, they cannot enforce the imposition of interest to the account since that would be 'unlawful enrichment'. So any interest you have paid must reduce the outstanding, debt. You cannot add contractual interest to the paid interest, because by your own admission no contract has been extant but you can claim the 8% under section 69. The same process is applicable to improperley executed agreements. Mike

Criminal law does not come into this at all, except where they have not complied with the legal requirements of statute. Remember that your position until the court comes on board is a civil matter and subject to the law of tort. Regardless of Blair et als standpoint, if they did take the matter to court to try and get the matter established under section 65, and 127, they would not have a leg to stand on without the original document. Mike

I agree with DX Mike

I bet the reply card is not signed by a Monument (or Providian) employee, I bet its just stamped. Unfortunatly, that is not good enough for trhe CCA, if that is the case you have an improperly executed agreement, and they have unlawfully enriched themselves by applying interest and charges. I'm having a bit of fun with this lot at the moment. Mike

Wooh slow down abit here, you're getting yourself tied up in knots when realliy is they who should be, read my thred here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56001-mike220359-blair-oliver-scott.html Mike

This is the problem with MCOL it doesn't give you enough space to cite you whole case. Point 2a is just asking you to paricularise you claim and tell them what youa are claiming & when they were applied to the account. Its time wasting on theyre part. Without looking at yor case I can't comment on the cases require, can u PM me

Right the first thing that you have to realise is that you (beleive it or not) have control of ths situation. What BC have done is they have passed the debt on to the next stage in their debt recovery program, after six months of it being with Mercers the debt will be passed over to a DCA. The card that you have received is a scare tactic designed to work you up to a point where you will (in their eyes be amenable to their pressure). The person who says he will call has no legal right or need to be there, a personal debt collector can only turn up on your doorstep with your permission if he hasn't got it then you can tell him to clear off. A baliff can only call with a warrent from the court, I take by your post that no court action has been made. So take comfort in the fact that a baliff will not be turning up. Nor will there be any court action by mercers or barclaycard they know that a court will ask you to provide an income & expenditure sheet and the level of repayments set will be tapered to a level that you can afford and not what the bank want. They know this this is why they pressure you. In the meantime, I would right to Barclaycard and ask them for a copy of the original agreement under section 78 of the consumer credit act, they have 14 days to supply it after that point they cannot enforce the debt, it will relivede the pressure alot. Mike

I don't understand the judges standpoint at all on this one, it doesn't make sense since his actions are contrary to the law. Phantoms case does make sense but you have to remeber on this site you only get a summary of an action not the nitty gritty, as we've always said victory is in the preparation and delivery. You can't just go in front of the judge and say 'they haven't got the agreement, so they can't charge me interest' you have to argue the point of law. Rossino, I think I see where you went wrong, you made an offer of a repayment, did you send that 'without prejudice' if you didn't then Link would use that as an acknowledgemnt of the debt, small point but enough I feel. Mike

You got more back from Bridget than I did, the thing is they cannot say the add interest one way and then alter it with an addition, this really is legal dynamite and very serious for them. Could you scan the letter you got back from customer ralations and PM it to me, it may be the kick up the bottom that I need to do to sort out my wife's account. Regards Mike

Never pre-empt what a court may do, if that were the case why don't they enforce more often? Mike

Never pre-empt what the court may or may not do, if it was the case why don't lenders go to court more often to get them enforced. i would argue that it is because the debtor has the option of requesting that some or all the interest be set aside, I would argue that is not a risk that the banks would take. Mike

There is a countersignature that Westcott could infer is the bank's, however, some of the prescribed terms are missing, interest rate and credit limit, although the latter may be in the T & Cs that I assume weren't sent with the copy. They should have provided a copy of the original T & Cs with the copy if they didn't they are still in breech of section 78 Mike

300 posts wahoo! I feel like a spartan

Not only an application form, but lacking prescribed terms it is therefore improperly executed. Mike