yes correct

This section was removed by the enterprise act

If the house is in joint names and you are joint tennants if a final order was granted, the most they can do is get a "form k" restriction put on land registry against your benificial interest. Now I am not condoning anything inappropriate but at the end of the day but this does not guarantee the creditor his money. And a sale can go ahead not like a caution.

See This Removal of Default Notices -Accurate Default Notices are vital

If you got this information from the DTI then it must be correct. I would therfore like to humbly apologise to Zootscoot on the signature issue, and for been so rude. Whilist it may comply with the regs I still contend that the DCA's will strugle in court to show the debt exists. I have received further info. The idea of section 77/78 was to identify the terms and conditions within the agreement. A signature is not needed for this. S77/78 is not about proving the debt. Again humble groveling apologies to Zootscoot

Following on from this then the agreement would have to be sent with your signature as this would be classed as persoanl data. However Would there be an issue of whther the agreement was stored in a relevant manual filing system?

Well the court will want to see evidence that a properly executed agreement exists. (There is case law on this). There was an argument in the past to suggest that if you paid a debt to start with then you accepted that a debt exits(contract). The court have said (cant remember case but will try and find it) that its irrelevant of the existence of a debt but whether that debt if in a regulated agreement complies with the formalities of the act. So in the end regardless of section 77/78 or the copy regs, if it goes to court a copy of the executed agreement would be requested.(signature and all to prove it is properly executed).

Anyone with expertise in the DPA assist with the following. Can you make a section 7 DPA request with reference to your credit agreement. (Totally forget about the consumer credit act 1974). I appreciate its a manual record and the requirements may therefore differ. Anyone know?

Just to say that maybe it is not that clear cut. Today I have received 2 different answers from credit professionals both contradicting each other. Whilst in my own head I am happy satisfied that a signature is required. 1 person argued that it could be provided without a signature because the idea was to see if the form and content was correct and a signature didnt come into play, and the idea wasnt to prove that the debt exists. The other spoke of the fact that a signature was required because although a contract may have been formed it was the essence to showing that there was a properly executed agreement and whilist this was not important in terms of section 62/63 it was of the essence in terms of 77/78. Maybe its not that clear cut if 2 very distinct professionals have given different opinions. This leads me to believe that I may have come accross arrogant to which I apologise. No wonder everyone is so confused

This is the full text from the regulation 3 General requirements as to form and content of copy documents (1) Subject to the following provisions of these Regulations, every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall be a true copy thereof. (2) There may be omitted from any such copy-- (a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy; (b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancellable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of the signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies); © in the case of any copy of an unexecuted agreement delivered or sent to the debtor or hirer under section 62 of the Act, the name and address of the debtor or hirer; and [(d) in the case of any copy of an executed agreement given to the debtor under section 77(1) of the Act for fixed-sum credit, or under section 78(1) for running-account credit, under which a person takes any articles in pawn, any description of the article taken in pawn.] Have a read of this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-bailiffs-advice/43666-debt-collection-agencies-credit.html and make your own mind up

ooppps sorry I meant to say that I wont be writing on this post anymore (not on the board). Sorry I couldnt help myself but I think that you may have misunderstood what I said. What I said was that following default of the account which is then passed onto a DCA then they are required to give a copy of an agreement. Remember if the DCA buys the debt then the date of default is the original date and not the date that the DCA bought the debt Please read towards the end of this http://www.experian.co.uk/downloads/compliance/dataprotection_guidanceondefaults.pdf

1. Bob Imerie will not give his opinion. If you are been turned off then Im sorry but this is an open forum and I dont believe my language was that strong. I have already stated my case, and i wont be writing on this board anymore. 2. Please fell free to seek clarification from the OFT that is what they are there for. Regardless of what the regs say or dont say and regardless of whether they are ambigous or not I will say that a signature is required. If it wasnt then any old creditor could make up anything they liked. I have given you my opinion and provided the evidence, now anyone else please feel free to either take up zootscoots advise or seek clarification from the OFT. I wish all of you the very best.

What you have said is over the top and strong. Personalised maybe, but the rest I disagree with. I have however amended my posts accordingly to remove the personal element.

It does not need to say only it is quite obvious that the regulations are primarily talking about section 62/63. Im not going to continue this anymore. Like I say go away and check your facts, write to the OFT or get a proper legal opnion. Like I say I have a qualification in consumer credit law was taught by Bob Imrie (google his name), and specialise in this area, whilist having sat on a number of groups.

errr yeah thats it, read the words in the case of any copy of an executed agreement given to the debtor under section 77(1) of the Act for fixed-sum credit, or under section 78(1) for running-account. page 25 supports my point have you read it. Under the box the first paragraph relates to 3(2)(b) and the second paragraph relates to (3)(2)© DID YOU READ IT