I dont think anyone is really trying to avoid paying what they legitimately owe. I certainly am not . I am looking at credit agreements purely to be absolutely sure that whatever I signed and agreed to is within the law. Some people could argue that bank charges are fair because we agreed to the T&C at the time, but the law has shown the charges are not fair or valid. Likewise if I buy a product I expect it to last a reasonable amount of time, and dont have to replace it at my expense within that reasonable time. I also dont see any reason to allow a CCP to charge me fees and interest (at more than 3 times base rate) if the agreement that allows those charges doesnt stand up under legal scrutiny. I am not the one who drafted the contract (I had to take it or leave it) in accepting it I and thousands of others followed a path the financial institutions were dictating. If their vision and wording fails to pass the tests put in place by the elected government and the courts then it is not my fault or my problem. I am more than prepared to repay any money I have borrowed, IF they are prepared to refund any money THEIR agreement doesnt allow them to charge me.

Just to throw my 2 pennyworth into the ring. If this went into a court it would almost certainly be judged as an executed agreement. No additional terms and conditions are needed as the prescribed terms are all in that document. The only standard terms I dont see is one allowing variation, but scrutiny of a better copy may show it is there. The rubber stamp doesnt really make any difference as long as the signature is genuine, which we cant tell by looking at the scan. I got a better look by saving the picture and using fax & picture viewer to zoom in as far as possible. the % rate and APR are there along with the credit limit statement, cancellation notice and the credit agreement warnings. The document is also clearly headed.A seperate sig box for them would have made it well within the requirements.

I have been trying to solve this same problem, mainly so I know how many offences certain providors have committed. Just to give me some idea as the information is not forthcoming (I even have a complete SAR printoutfrom one major CCP, which includes reams of paper and just about every note ever made on the account) I have worked on the basis that most cards have a life expectancy of 2 years, which seems to be fairly close.

That was the exact judgement I was thinking of FC In reality the Act is VERY specific and most of the confusion arises from the Statutory Instruments that have subsequently been issued. MAny of these appear to have been released to reduce some aspects of the Act, or to water down its effects. The Act was and still is the flagship in consumer protection litigation. We should never forget that it was put into place to protect the consumer and to safeguard us from the 'loan sharks' that existed in the 60's. Of course the sharks still exist but they have changed and adapted over the years. We are now attempting to fully understand in a matter of weeks what the financial institutions have spent years trying (and failing) to understand. Personally I think we are doing very well as it's becoming more obvious that we are winning the various arguments we are raising with them all. They know that we are getting very close to breaking their 'misinformation' (for want of a better word) and their arguments supporting their position are definitely crumbling into dust.

From what you have said I think you certainly have a case to bring. One problem I do see is that you signed the paperwork and will therefore be deemed to have read and understood it. A court will almost certainly take the view that you should have corrected things you were unsure about before signing. You are also completely on topic, this thread has developed into a forum for discussion about any agreement covered by the CCA which your post is. Actually its evolved over time to cover a lot more than was ever intended

of late the words shooting and foot come to my mind

I'm only using your post to allow continuity on this subject InKogneeToh. This idea of not being able to add interest applies to sections 77-79 as well as sec 85. It's primarily based on 2 things. 1. In all the above sections they are not allowed to enforce the agreement whilst in default. This part of those sections is not IMHO about enforcing payment but about enforcing the 'agreement. If we read the words carefully each section is refering in detail to the agreement and nothing is said at all about payments. Whoever drafted the original CCA picked his words VERY carefully, as has been noted in past court cases. 2. It's accepted (and I believe there is provision in law) that nobody can profit whilst commiting a criminal act, which they do once they exceed the month deadline.

Nope he charges

They are getting better I still dont see anywhere for them to sign it though:( I also like the bit where they send it to you at your address them ask your name and address lmao.

5 days to read this thread ? You must be skipping big chunks of it lmao. Does this fall into the CCA rules about sending credit tokens to minors ? I think you have just given me the biggest laugh of the day

Sorry folks but I agree with Tanz, We should all be fully aware the MIB are monitoring this site and this thread. I have already posted about this in the past. I made a post only a couple of weeks ago which was done after a somebody gave me certain information on the subject. If the professor is one of the MIB then we will soon know it, in the meantime lets give him and any other new posters the benefit of the doubt please. Just as the MIB cross reference our posts against their mail and phone logs to identify us we can also do the same. (Yes MIB I KNOW you do that) If you notice I am not posting anything like as much as I used to. This is simply because I want each stage of my battles completed before giving out too many details. I help where I can and I'm trying hard to catch up on my own cases at the moment, and of course, kick the bad guys as hard as possible in the process:)

By my reckoning Barclaycard and LTSB currently owe about 250,000 each in fines and I plan on making sure they pay them on time

I think we are rapidly approaching this as a next step.

The main point here I think is the legibility, the act and regulations state it should be clearly legible which allowing for reposting of it this clearly isnt.

I agree M55 but how quickly and how often are they going to admit they don't have a properly executed agreement ? I have been arguing with Barclaycard for well over 6 months now, not paid them a penny, yet they keep insisting they are right and I am wrong. Of course 4 weeks to answer an email doesnt help their case lol On the occasions they have set their pet DCA loose, I have written back sharply and rapped their knuckles and they have backed away. It's obvious they don't have any form of agreement that will stand up but they continue to clutch at straws hoping I'll give in to them. NO WAY JOSE!!!!

Sorting your not strictly on the right path. The overdraft part of the bank account is covered under the CCA BUT there will not be a formal agreement for the overdraft. Its a flexible assumed agreement, which operates that way because of the timespan it covers. In theory an overdraft will be repaid as soon as funds are deposited so there is no formal period of repayment. Peter is saying that the account and overdraft form a multiple agreement so a copy of the bank account agreement (which will include overdraft 'rules') should be supplied. This of course is still in the early stages of being experimental. Making a CCA sec 77/78 request where a bank account or overdraft is involved will NOT produce a copy of the regulated credit agreement.

section 3 of SI 1983 (1557) does in fact allow them to leave out signatures on copies of agreements sent under any section of the CCA. Whatever they send must still be a true copy of the agreement, with your details on it. The T&C are another document that is normally mentioned in the agreement and so a copy of those must also be sent. It seems of late the CCP's are also relying on sec 7/8 of SI 1983 (1557) which allows them to send the latest copy of T&C as the original has been varied. The exact words tend to indicate that's ok but the variation can only exist if it's allowed in the original so you also need a copy of those T&C.

I'm in total agreement Seahorse. Recently I haven't posted much as I have been trying to settle a few outstanding matters of my own, or at least to progress them. BUT I have been reading every post and to be honest we need to get back to the matter in hand. Until such time as we have finished and got a court ruling over the enforceability of credit agreements where cc/ loans etc are concerned, secured loans on land and houses are not really on thread. I continually get PM from people who need advice and simply dont have the time to go through over 200 pages looking for what they need. I also regularly see questions posed in here which seem to get a reply about 3 pages later. Please let's get back to what we have been doing so well, namely analysing the CCA and finding joint methods of combating the CCP who continue to blatanly ignore it. We are always going to have differences of opinion, so let's try and sort those out in PM and come back in here with a united front. We KNOW the MIB are monitoring CAG and this thread in particular. We scared the life out of most of them in the first 100 pages, lets show we mean business in the next 100. We are not the enemy in this the CCP's are. Tam

I hate to say this Peter but I have twice completed house purchases and mortgages with no face to face contact. All done totally by mail and telephone. Wondering now if I should drag those mortgages out and get them declared unenforceable

Only problem here Pam ia that I actually cannot remember ever getting a 2nd copy. I seem to remember sending the application form in and getting a card back on the standard card carrier.

That's exactly as I read it, it's alos the reason they all tried to speed up the process bay trying to make the application form and agreement the same piece of paper. Problem comes when they rely on prescribed terms that are in the T&C as nobody has signed those. They are relying on the statement that we have read and understood them to incorporate them into the agreement but we never actually signed them.

Mike , Did you write letters to OFT and TS ? if so any chance of a copy of them I now need to make formal reports for both LTSB and Barclaycard to back up my arguments. Barclaycard have supplied an application form with NO mention whatsoever of the CCA and literally NONE of the prescribed terms or statutory terms. their signature is illegible owing to a rubber stamp over it lol LTSB have supplied an application form with prescribed terms relating to interest and credit limit missing, although it carries the credit agreement heading it stil has LTSB application form as a sub heading. Again their signature is illegible owing to a rubber stamp. Time I started getting tough with both of them. Oh no phone call today

Now it definitely looks like I'll be first into court with them. I always said this would happen lol. Zoot you never replied ot my last zm and I would like your opinion on it. Sandy they are supposed to seve notice on you of the change of saolicitor and defence so you can oppose it if you want to. also, Sandy can you pm your email address to me as I may have something you can use, although I'll be putting it to the test first.

thanks to all they phoned me at 7 pm today and again 5 minutes later so definitely outside the guidleines Term I'll be mailing you shortly with something they have raised.

M55 do you have the SI1983 (1553) detaisl regarding the prescribed terms on the signed agreement handy ? I need the wording and section number