No Ive been going through one of my many (sort of depressions)....I cant sleep very well, dont get to bed before 2-3 am and up early. I sometimes dont go near my computer for many weeks....(not an entirely bad idea) Anyways...thanks for the support rgds Dave

Got a court date a few weeks back....sometime in june about 23rd I think.. barclays contacted me and offered an extra £20 + ..............to which I waited a while and then refused, I re-filed all docs with the court, and guess what...??? Barclays have folded........They emailed me and wrote offering to pay what I asked for....I refused unless they added the extra £75 for the "lost" hearing as extra costs. I also made sure that they would not come back at me for any of their costs if I discontinued........(you never know) they accepted Just waiting for the money to appear in my account and I will write to the court to withdraw the claim..... rgds Dave

Unfortunately.....I didnt agree to there being a "test case".....I couldnt have afforded the counsel, I probably would have to defend myself and that wouldnt have been fair on those that were to follow, I'm not the best speaker, I can digest what has been said or written and formulate an answer...but to do it on the fly.....maybe not........so someone else will have to fight that battle.....I have my hands full at the moment keeping my family fed and a roof over us......dont get me wrong ...I am not (yet) at the gates of poverty, but not far short... rgds dave

Hi patrick..... had to have a little giggle about this case though........I didnt know who to take to court Barclaycard....(ex Morgan Stanley / Goldfish ) or HFO.....So I tried my hand with barclays first, this at least tells me that there is something fishy about the assignment....ie it must only be an equitable assignment.....or barclays havent done their homework properly and they have paid me when they didnt have to rgdss Dave

Not too upset..(although it has thrown my party plans into chaos).....its only a single battle.....the war WILL be won Dave

Just got back from court.................... It was like a full blown hearing, they sent a Barrister.....just as well I took my stuff, he may have dismissed me there and then. The DJ was a somewhat stern looking guy who mumbled a lot, but he turned out ok in that he did help me along a little.......so much so, that until the last bit of summing up I thought I had it nailed.... Application to strike out defence refused Application to strike out order re: 6 year limitation period refused will get a date in directions, case in about 8 weeks, skeletons to be filed along with bundles. He kept on about there being a flood of similar cases since the Supreme court ruling asking for stays to be removed etc...I kept on replying that credit cards were a different matter and not covered by the supreme court ruling. He wanted it to become a test case in a higher court....the barrister was flustered, and I was unsure.......like everyone I am on my uppers at the moment, I couldnt afford counsel for that sort of case !!! not if I didnt have to...... I thought I had presented my case well, had 3 nice binders with all relevant caselaw, various letters back and forth, their offers to pay, the final "gesture of goodwill" with no ties. A letter form Martin3030 referencing his case that he won on the same grounds.......European court of justice rulings....the whole works. nope didnt work....I'm almost sure that he didnt want it to work and wanted a test case. He kept making references to the latest OFT case that lost, and each time he did I tried to put him right that the issues were different, I think he was getting mixed up between bank charges and credit card charges. still there's now time to get my case in some proper order knowing what I now know..... rgds Dave

thanks guys...... Dave

In court tomorrow......... I'm taking everything......(just in case)....got a feeling the judge might not let it go any further and pass a summary judgment ....or the solicitor might just call it a day when he/she sees my bundle..........I hope fingers crossed Dave

look here...they tried the same trick...apparently they do this all the time... Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank - The Consumer Forums Dave

I'll tell you in five or six years if you have had no further contact Dave

yes I managed to get it refunded.....there is no tick box for the ppi (payment break plan) and they said I agreed to it on the phone.......they had no recording of the conversation......I didnt expect them to have one either, because i never agreed to it. was yours originally with Providian? Dave

Hi guys..... Just been getting a LOT of flac from equidebt just recently over an MBNA loan.....the flac doesnt bother me and I can handle it (for the moment) BUT.... I thought I'll get the agreement out and have another look at it..... half way through doing that I had my tea and then sort of lost where I was up to (age)............... and then came and had a look on here. Amongst other things that may be wrong with my agreement it has just struck me that this last agreement paid off the previous one and only about £5k was put into my bank account....(this loan was for about £14k and with ppi etc it was over £19k) This looks definitely like a multiple agreeement, one part used to pay an existing debt, which they kept (restricted use) and the £5k to me (any use) So £10k of this was kept from me to pay off the previous loan and no mention of this on the agreement. I have also just found the bank statement to prove only £5k was given to me!! agreement here p1....>CCA's and Dave against the world !!! - The Consumer Forums what do you think ?? Dave

Hi guys.... with regard to the BC Charges and my objection to a portion of the claim being struck out because its over 6 years, the judge has asked for a hearing on 16 March (30 minutes).....Cant wait !!! Its not for a great deal of money, but its the principle and it will give me some more experience of a courtroom.....(this time as claimant ) rgds Dave

Ok....sorry its been a while....got really tied up in work....didnt have time to think You have to make a decision....!!! on the face of it, the APPLICATION form you filled in DOESNT have the prescribed terms, although it makes reference to terms elsewhere. It doesnt make reference to terms overleaf......so the terms were certainly not "within the four corners" of the agreement. Also on the second page of what you posted they make reference to not being able to determine your repayment schedule etc....this sounds like they DONT have the original terms Dont get misled by the "four corners" routine it doesnt mean on the same page....but it must be WITHIN the document and NOT in an ancilliary document. A document can run to many pages....but yours just seems to be a "short application" form............so As I said you have a decision and its not one I can make for you you can take a chance and stop paying in the hope that they will take you to court. Your credit will be trashed for 6 years, but it probably is already or you wouldnt be on here.......this is ok as long as you dont need a mortgage or want credit cards or a loan. IF they decide to take you to court, you can ask them to supply the original documents and original terms.....read the thread dealing with http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case.html as to what they must supply. since the manchester judgment (Carey -v- HSBC) things have changed.....they can supply crap to a S77-79 request, but must prove their case with originals or at least verified copies of the originals...... whether the judge accepts what they present, is anyones guess...... If they havent got the paper work right you "should win".......unless the judge thinks you are a chancer and out to avoid the debt !! it seems sometimes that the law does not apply as it should do, but personal bias plays a great part. As I said ......only you can make the decision.......ask yourself the question "do I feel lucky" the agreement stinks.......your choice sorry couldnt have been any more help Dave

According to durkin v dsg (as above) and khoprhar v somebody, loss doesnt have to be proved. the potential damage caused by misreporting can be considerable. rgds dave

wouldnt have said so.......its still a regulated loan, but without seeing it cant be 100% Dave

I'm in the middle of something..but I will give it a look over later....looks like one I'm doing for a friend Dave

Might have been.......??? But Kid Galahad was a movie, first starring Edward G Robinson from sometime in the 30's but the most famous one was starring Elvis Presley in 1962 I think rgds Dave

that reply "ages" you......I would put you to be (at a wild guess with no slurs intended) 50+ many people under that sort of age wouldnt Know who "kid gallahad" was!!...(and may not understand the reference) Dave

The law upto the manchester cases basically states that they must supply terms as varied or something like that....meaning upto date terms...they did not need to supply the original ones unless there was a court action, and even then they try to get away with current terms. I havent fully read through the Manchester judgement yet so cant say how it affects the supply of original terms. The oft have just put forward a consultation document for guidelines on what needs to be supplied with a s77-79 request. When the document is finalised it will become clearer rgds Dave

As a bare minimum it should have (1) how much credit (2) how much interest (3) how you will pay it back. if any or all of these are missing you may well have a case for unenforceability. the credit limit can say "we will tell you later" or just "its £ nnnnn" anything else missing and it is only improperly executed and its enforceability will be upto the judge, who will probably make an enforcement order.......he may then decide to change details of the agreement...(or not) depending on how much prejudice has been caused. rgds dave

I am sorry if I upset you.....But facts are facts.......and if I rattled you then good, you need to be made of sterner stuff if you are going up against the big boys, they dont take any prisoners. This thread like all on here is about discussion and debate, and finding answers to problems that would once have had you cowering in the corner, and if we can help some people along the way then thats good too Since Manchester the common understanding now is it is best to defend...if you can. The downside of any defence action is it involves withholding payment and waiting for them to issue proceedings...........and your credit file getting trashed in the process. there is no easy, magic way, as some of these CMC's would have you believe. its hard work and can be costly and you could lose. BUT.......on the other hand, its educational, its exciting, its worrying, its all the emotions you can think of, you can meet some clever people, make some friends..........and you might win !!!! May I direct your attention to these threads picked from many similar on this site and in particular a quote from a recent judgment. they show the sort of bias you will be up against...... "There are a number of cases like this one coming up, up and down the country, where debtors subscribing to forums to write of debts, are using technicalities and CCA 1974 to write off debts. I am not sure that the defendant has done the same or not. I am not sure whether the purpose of the CCA 1974 was supposed to be used in the manner that is being used by debtors who find themselves with mountain of debts ." This was said BEFORE the trial started proper..!!! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/130101-humbleman-hfc-weightmans-court.html#post1369423 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/191784-shakespeare62-nastybank-20.html#post2662268 rgds Dave

Hi paul... do you have a link ? dave

Basically put.....with "offset" they can take money from any account from the same group to pay off any debt to that group.....so if you had a barclaycard and a barclays account, they could take money from your barclays account to pay off your card......without asking you !!! BUT it ONLY applies to companies within the same banking group. that is how I believe it works. rgds Dave

You shouldn't be looking for "subtle" things...... and / or using technical points to try and evade a legitimate debt........ THAT is what the judge will say and are you prepared to stand up and defend it ?? The agreement should contain as a minimum (1) how much you borrowed. (2) how much interest will be applied (3) how you are going to pay it back. IF it has those then your chances of avoiding the debt are slim. I use the term "avoiding" because that is how the judiciary now see this, thanks to the growth of companies set up to claim back money. If however you have a genuine grievance or are in definite financial difficulties, then post the agreement here and we'll have a look.... and we'll see what we can come up with. rgds Dave