I think you should start a new thread mate or maybe the mods will move it?

ops

My apologies I rechecked my advice and others are quite right according to section 29(7) of the Limitation Act 1980 which says "but a right of action, once barred by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent acknowledgment or payment." Well done you legal eagles

It is important that you dont mix up the DPA and the CCA. I believe that with a section 7 DPA request that they are allowed to verify your identity(not an expert on DPA matters so please correct me if Im wrong). In terms of a CCA request I dont have a clue why they would ask for your passport

The question you ask is very complicated and technical. The answer to your question is both yes and no. I dont think it should matter really. If it was me I would keep very quiet about the agreement and let them take me to court and then show the judge that the copy of the agreement they sent does not have the creditors signature. Remember what I said the court cant make an enforcement order in the above circumstances. The information commissioner has said that in terms of ones credit file with a defualt. When it comes to improperly executed/unenforceable agreements they will look at each matter on a case by case basis, if you attmept to get the default removed.

I have a word document of the legislation for you how can I ping it over to you or get it onto the forum

lol I cant sleep at night with the headaches I get. No mate it just has to be a regulated agreement, therefore Section 61 applies.

Really sorry to say that you have started the clock again, and The Limitations Act 1980 no longer applies. There may be other ways out of it though.

Section 61(1)(a) requires both creditor and debtor sign. So if what you say is true then the agreement is not properly executed. I would never really advise on enforcability that is ultimately for a court to decide. However section 127 states that a court shall not make an enforcement order if 61(1)(a) was not complied with.

Zootscoot may be kind enough to give you a copy Otherwise when I get into work on monday if I have time I will log onto lexus nexus and try and get you a copy.

Totally agree and thats why it was excluded for section 77/78 in the Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983

What you say is not incorrect but it is not really relevant (im not been rude) I dont think that we are debating the signature properly executed thing here. It goes without saying. think the argument is whther ancillary regulations made under the act mean that the creditor can leave off the signature when sending a copy under section 77/78. The regs say that this may be left off for certain sections of 62 but not for 77/78

Well where do I start with the letter. 1. They say that "There is no necessity for the agreement to be specifically documented. The Consumer Credit Act S74 specifically excludes and covers this point". My understanding that section 74 3(a) says that banks do have to comply with part V if it is the bank of england or a bank within the meaning of the bankers book evidence act 1879 as the OFT has to make a determination to state this (wouldnt like to put my life on it but that is my understanding). 2 They say "similarly it should be noted that for an overdraft facility the provisions of S87 in respect of a default notice are not applicable. Facilities of this type can be immediately called in without the normal 7 day notice required by S76 of the Act." What 76 says is that it does not stop the bank from stopping or restricting your overdraft. However 76(3) says that the notice for subsection1 must be in the prescribed formst. 76 (6) does not apply to a right of enforcement arising by reason of any breach by the debtor. Therefore a default notice is most certainly required. 3. They say "This should have been separately documented and you should have been provided with a copy of the agreement at the time it was signed. While you are correct that you are entitled to a copy of the agreement the term “copy”, under the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act, does not require it to be a facsimile or exact replication of the loan agreement originally signed. Specifically the copy can exclude signatures and dates of signatures. In effect there is nothing to stop a lender providing a document from the information he has recorded in his records in another format so long as the “copy” is recreated and has the necessary information that would have been in the original." As already discussed by me and others this would appear to be incorrect. You dont have to show me a copy of the letter I trust what you say, but you need to make a complaint about this to the cheif trading standards officer to the local authority that gave you this advice

wow what a load of bollocks, I am totally amazed that TS gave this advice and in writing. I would never ever give advice in writing. I may give my opinion over the phone but to go into this amount of detail in writing is crazy. Did a TS department really give this advise and in writing ????

Hi Mate What I think your refering to there is the fact that lenders only take into account those "footprints" that are withinin the last 6 months. However what andy8 says is correct

Whilst I am confident that section 77/78 applies while the account is in default, I wouldnt like to say whether a CCJ automatically terminates the agreement. If it does then I would argue that the agency may not have to comply with section 77/78 of DCA. I just dont know.

The "footprint" will last 1-2 years from date of search depending on the agency used.

1. You have totally misunderstood the regs and I do not have the time to explain them to you in full. However I will get straight to the crux of the argument because you are looking more and more out of your depth. The final crux is whether a signature is required under section 77/78 The only thing you have got right is that there is mention of section 77/78 in reg 3(2)(d) (easy for you really because you have a copy of the regs in front of you. I am trying to work from memory as I am not at work at present so dont have access to lexus nexus) What the reg 3(2)(d) says is that the only thing that may be left out of the copy of an agreement sent under section 77/78 is a description of pawn (if a person takes in pawn to be used as surety). Therefore a signature is required Tell me who from trading standards gave that advice and I will take it up with them.

CCA cabot and see what happens.

If its terminated then no debt is payable under the agreement anymore (as the default notice has not asked for repayment of sums or asked for the debtor to bring the account up to date etc). Like I said before termination is only really useful in hire purchase agreements. Sorry you last paragraph does not make any sense. Regulation 3 (what subsection) 3(1) refers to unexecuted agreements and 3(2) talks about the copy provisions. This has nothing to do with section 77/78 CCA1974 but to do with sections 62/63 CCA1974 But I see that you have quoted me as saying "Are you sure it was a copy of the original agreement with your signature on it." Yes very simple sec 77/78 talks about a copy of the executed agreement. The executed agreement will have the debtors signature on it.

>>

Because it arrived after the allowed time frame it does not effect the enforceability of them. Are you sure it was a copy of the original agreement with your signature on it. Im amazed that they have been kept for so long. Anyway the upshot is that they can not enforce the debt until they send you a copy of the original agreement. You can get trading standards involved and yes they may or may not take action, but you have to remember that what ever Trading Standards decide to do that it will not benifit you very much as they will still be able to pursue the debt one they provide a copy of the original agreement. I am no expert on data protection matters so Im not sure whether the new creditor is allowed to register the default. Remember if you have not had contact for 6 years with any of the creditors then it is staute barred (providing there is no CCJ)

"At common law" (all though not incorrect this phrase is not helpful as we have to remember that 99 times out of 100 the agreement will be a regulated d-c or d-c-s)and this is what section 98 CCA1974 is designed for termination when not in default and allowed in the context of the agreemnt. I think that there are wires being crossed here. Your quite right in that the act does not prevent the creditor under section 87 1 a from terminating the agreement. But the statement from a practical and legal point is not helpful. 1. Because the creditor wishes to terminate the agreement it does not mean that it is terminated. 2. From a practical point of view default notice will never specify termination for a breach because there are other options available. Remember we are arguing from a legal perspective, the ordinary lay person will not understand half what is being said and therefore I have tried to use language that conveys the message. The upshot is I am of the opinion that section 77/78 will apply if the account is in default (even if the creditor has gone for termination which in the vast majority of cases that wont be specified in the default notice).

Do you want my honest answer or do you want the answer that will toe the party line. The honest answer is not alot, and thats for so many various reasons such as no time, lack of understanding, more important things etc etc. Unfortunatly you may receive the brush off in which case you have to kick up a fuss complain to the cheif executive, and threaten the local government ombudsman. First and foremost Trading Standards have a legal duty to enforce the consumer credit act. You must point that out if you get stuck. Secondly if after 12 working days then a month has passed you must tell them that you are reporting a criminal offence. Some trading standards may try and say that this a civil part of the consumer credit act, but it is not. You may get lucky and get the trading standards dealing with it right away. Remember though one thing is never be arsey as if you know it and you are telling them their job. Ultimately Trading Standards do not have to prosecute. Be polite and kick up a fuss if necessary but dont be rude. In the end they will assist. Off the subject I would always advise that when you send the CCA letter that you insert one more paragraph asking for a genuine copy the default notice. The default has to comply with the The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and. Termination Notices) Regulations 1983. If it doesnt then they will have a problem. so always ask for 1. copy of agreement 2. Deed of assignment 3. Copy of default notice

With all due respect read my very last post I said exactly the same thing. Yes they can ask for termination but the agreement wont actually terminate (there are limited circumstances where a creditor will ask to terminate the agreement). An example of where a creditor might go for termination is mainly in hire purchase agreements, where there really isnt a sum of money outstanding). A creditor in your bog standard loan or credit card agreement could not go straight to termination because if you read other parts of 87 there are other sections such as getting all sums repaid etc etc, that would be more applicable. Asking to terminate the agreement does not mean that the agreement automatically becomes terminated. When I said the act does not allow for this what I meant was that in the original context of the thread the act would not allow for the creditor to go straight for termination. As there would have been sums outstanding then a default notice would be served asking to either catch up on payments or repay the whole balance. You see if you comply with a default notice then any breach is to be treated as if had not happened.