OK folks I am tempted to do what Paul has done and start a petition at number 10 to try and force the regulatory authorities to take action to enforce the law. Any comments ?

The revolution has started and I doubt it can be stopped now. For the MIB when they come back, I discovered something today which I am not happy about, it involves unlawfully applied defaults causing me a problem. Once I finish clearing up a couple of long winded cases the eye of tam is turning to you with a vengance.

Somebody else asked me about this recently, it's not something I have looked into yet (the CCA is a huge subject) but it definitely has possibilities Street canvassing people to enter into credit agreements

Oooo I must look through some paperwork I have

I love the tactic of telling everybody in the office your suing them Wonder if Ken will explain to the tea boy how he got into such a fine mess

The DPA states that data should be kept no longer than is needed for its purpose, however a credit agreement under the CCA is a legal document that is valid until such time as the account is settled and closed. If the account isn't settled and closed then that agreement is still valid in a business sense because the business is not concluded. As long as the account is open then we can request a copy of the executed agreement and failure to supply it makes the account unenfoirceable and causes them to commit an offence. I'm surprised the Judge has allowed the case to continue after they admitted the agreement no longer exists.

Of course I am in on it lmao. Did you have any doubts? Oh and will you lot slow down please, I am trying to catch up and your staying 2 pages in front of me lmao

Karnevil actually said 100% of charges not 100% of claim so in the scenario I used above they offer me £100 + costs + 8% sec 69. so my total refund will be £100 +8% for one day (about 2 pence) + costs. not the £100.08 you have come up with. My scenario isnt about enrichment it's about claiming everything they have charged to the account. I fully agree the 8% is totally at the discretion of the court and when I claim for contractual interest I dont even apply for sec 69 interest, on the basis I want back exactly what has been removed. I have always been reticent about applying the unauthorised rate to the entire list of charges, but if some of those charges accumulated interest at unauthorised rate then I would include it in the calculation.

Even I am confused now. If the bank has taken £100 and it's caused overdraft interest to be added at thier normal authorised or unauthorised rate then that interest becomes part of the claim. If the bank then offers £100 +costs and 8% interest (because that's what the court will allow) then they are still profiting because their authorised rate will be over 8%. Seems to me we are now rapidly changing our minds to allow them to levy interest on the charges without us being able to reclaim that interest. Just my pennyworth

Got the identical letter myself this week Rascal. Trouble is any costs are limited on small claims track so I am ready to argue the case with them next month. If however they would like to send me a cheque to save them the embarrasment of losing in court then I might accept it.

Just to clarify this a little bit. We are NOT making a request under sec 85 for anything. That agreement copy should be sent AUTOMATICALLY with every new replacement issued. That is our legal right according to the CCA. If they are sending a copy of the agreement in response to us bringing sec 85 into the field of play then I don't see how it satisfies the fact it should have been sent 6 months or 20 years ago. How on earth can sending it now absolve them for not sending it say every 2 years for the last 20 years ? they have defaulted 10 times and committed the offence 10 times. One act of contriction doesn't and can't suddenly put 20 years of offending right.

Just for you AC and because I'm a nice guy lol Consumer Credit Act 1974

I don't see the problem. any agreement is still unenforceable during that 6 months or 20 years and they would still need a court to enforce it. In the meantime interest etc cannot be applied to the account. The longer the default period the worse a court would view the offence, especially where several card issues have been made. ( repeat offenders lol)

This may seem like a trivial point but: 85 Duty on issue of new credit-tokens (1) Whenever, in connection with a credit-token agreement, a credit-token (other than the first) is given by the creditor to the debtor, the creditor shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it. (2) If the creditor fails to comply with this section— (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. I read that as saying the agreement should be sent with the new token. I don't see any period of grace, and certainly not one that extends to 3, 5 or 20 years. I don't think that them sending a copy in response to a sec 85 notice absolves them in any way, shape or form.

I emailed them for speed opver a week ago and heard nothing yet lol Going to copy it to paper and post it. They take a month for every 'dont be silly' and 'we know better than you do' type of letter. This is time consuming as it's potentially a large claim.

Glad to see Westy is saying exactly what I told you in PM Milly. Actually make that about 5 Pm's Now will you please stop worrying ?

Oh a new twist in the tail. In theory the request still stands, they should respond to it. The CCA doesnt allow them to pass the file back and ignore the request.

Looks ok to me pmh

Take a look through the PPI forum, you should be able to find enough in there to create a good letter

I think those 'guests' are really the MIB making sure we go to bed on time like good little children:D

You will need to PM a mod Pam although they may get picked up anyway

djlellon, Al asked me to pop in and have a look at your problem. As I see it you have made a section 18 (1) request (which incidently is for running credit , not a fixed loan which should have been under sec 77(1). They have supplied a copy of the agreement, so their obligation under sec 77/78 is satisfied. They have NO obligation to produce a copy of any default notice. Unfortunately iff they say a default notice was sent to your last known address then it is considered as served 2 days after posting by first class mail. You then have to prove it was either never sent or never received, which is next to impossible. Believe me their systems will confirm it was issued and it would become your word against theirs. The only way to get the default removed is to be able to prove it was recorded unlawfully, which is not going to be easy. They then agreed reduced payments, which is good, however they do not have to maintain this for any great length of time. It's primary reason is to give you a breathing space. You say they have refunded any charges applied to the account, perhaps if those were at the level of the default sum then it might be a good case for removal of it. SurlyBonds case was noticably different to yours. As you were only in temporary employment the the PPI was probably totally worthless to you. I would concentrate on tackling them over misselling the PPI. This would reduce the debt noticably and then you could claim that the default situation was caused because of the higher payments caused by the PPI. Sorry it's not all good news but IMHO you should concentrate on the PPI as being the cause of the default and getting it removed that way.

LMAO Tbern. Thats what I was trying to say Pam, the document tbern has posted contains none of the prescribed terms that should be on the signed document except for the credit summary box and names and addresses. Looks like that one is pretty much home and dried tbern

just for reference sake this is from the wilson v secretary of state case. 4. The agreement was a regulated agreement for the purposes of section 8 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless the document signed contains all the prescribed terms: section 61(1)(a). One of the prescribed terms is the 'amount of the credit': see the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553), regulation 6 and Schedule 6, para 2. The consequence of failure to state all the prescribed terms of the agreement is that the court is precluded, by section 127(3), from enforcing the agreement. In the absence of enforcement by the court the agreement is altogether unenforceable: section 65(1). This basically says that if ANY of the prescribed terms are missing from the agreement then under sec 127 even a court cannot enforce it.

Seems to me they only have 2 of the required items on that document Tbern, name sof both parties andthe agreement summary box. I see no mention of credit limit, interest rate or terms and conditions. Them not signing it should immediately make it unenforceable but the rest make sit doubly so IMHO.