Did you get PT's or Stevens view on the agreement post 8? I would say that, in my view, you should assume that the agreement is valid until someone very knowledgeable points out otherwise as i know they look separate on the computer screen but if one page is the reverse of the other i could well be accepted by a Judge. I am unfamiliar with charging orders so won't comment on that specifically only to say that if they were going to do it they would have done it already and their letter is an attempt to scare you into payment. I'll ask CB to stop by and have a look and give some advice...

Ignore them.. or tell them that you believe this matter should go to Court if they feel it appropriate and that they should begin legal proceedings as soon as possible. You'll probably never hear from them again. Trouble is then you will hear from the next DCA and the one after that. So you should consider the CPR/N1 route if you want this to have a conclusion within a reasonable time frame.

Haven't done the planned SAR as i haven't had the cash but will do that in the next few days. Interesting response from MBNA on the securitisation aspect although has anyone had any feedback on that issue directly from the ICO themselves as Elgrands reply is only from MBNA and as we all know they bend the truth or lie outright. As BRW says, even if that is true that the ICO will not get the securitisation info out of a creditor, if it is something that the lenders are concerned about sharing then adding such requests through a CPR, N1 and/or Replies to Defence in the build up to a Court case could prove a valuable addition to the argument and get the creditor on the back foot with offers to settle out of Court at any cost.. maybe. I think an email to the ICO is in order (if nobody has done so already) to see how they view the request for information on securitisation as per a DPA request although that will have to be worded well.

"Dear Davey Thank you for your recent enquiry. We are in receipt of the Notice of Correction/Add a Note you have provided and confirm your Credit Report has been updated. A Notice of Correction/Add a Note cannot be appended to the exact data it relates to, however, it will appear to the Lender prior to any other data on your credit report. The Notice of Correction/Add a Note will be available for you to view when you purchase your next Credit Report on-line.. If you require further information on the content of your credit file, you may wish to visit: https://equifaxuk.custhelp.com. Here you can view our Frequently Asked Questions and submit an on-line query or attach supporting documentation via our "Ask a Question" facility, with no concerns about postal delays. We hope the above details are of assistance to you. Equifax Customer Services"

And come to think of it. Call Credit never responded to the same request so a complaint going off to them tomorrow.. grrrrrrrrrr lol

Yep I'm with you there BRW. Lets hope someone will take these CRAs on big time. We need a win in the Courts! Case in point. Email reply from Equifax. After saying as the above and giving them the amended info including the 'i believe' sentence the annoying beyond belief template response from them is: "Dear Davey Thank you for your recent enquiry. Upon investigation of our records, we regret to inform you that we are unable to record your Notice of Correction/Add a Note in the exact format of which it has been received. Equifax are unable to load a Notice of Correction/Add a Note if we think it may be defamatory, or for any other reason unsuitable. Should you require that an amended paragraph be loaded to your records, please re-submit the Notice of Correction. https://equifaxuk.custhelp.com In order to deal with your Add a Note / Notice of Correction more efficiently, choose the correct Product, Category and Sub Category. Choosing "Add a Note" will ensure your submitted text is reviewed and added to your file. We await your resubmission of your Notice of Correction/Add a Note before taking further action with your enquiry. Credit Agreements We acknowledge your comments (what comments?!) concerning the details recorded on your Credit Report. This information can only be amended by either the lender directly, or by Equifax upon receipt of written instructions from the lender. If you believe any of the entries are factually incorrect we have a Disputes Team who can investigate this further for you. If you would like us to investigate any entries on your behalf, please update this incident below or write to us at the above address. If you wish to dispute more than one entry please raise each item in a separate incident. (i know. I already jumped through this hoops a year ago. You wrote to the creditors and they told you they had every right to pass info as they had supplied valid agreements. You took their word for it and told me to bog off.) The information you supply should include: • Details of the entry being disputed  the account name,  account start date,  current status of the account,  current balance of the account,  address that the account is located • The reason why you are disputing the entry • Any supporting documentation Upon receipt of your updated incident we will contact the supplier concerned to verify the accuracy of the details we hold and we will add a notice to your Credit Report to show the entry is "in dispute". Please be assured that we will proceed with our investigation as quickly as possible. We will ask the supplier of this information to respond to us within 21 days after which we will contact you with the outcome. If you require further information on the content of your credit file, you may wish to visit: https://equifaxuk.custhelp.com. Here you can view our Frequently Asked Questions and submit an on-line query or attach supporting documentation via our "Ask a Question" facility, with no concerns about postal delays. We hope the above details are of assistance to you. Equifax Customer Services" ------ My reply: "Your template responses are starting to annoy me and i haven't got time to waste replying to them. The amended sentence containing the wording "OWING TO WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A COMPLETE FAILURE etc" has been accepted in full by Experian and is acceptable in the view of the ICO. This phrasing will relieve your company of any liability and is a valid Notice of Correction statement. I have already given you the accounts this statement of belief should be attached to and fail to see the point of giving you further information when what i have supplied is adequate. I have made no 'comments' regarding your company's abilities and/or duties to process information correctly and i have no requirement for your quaintly entitled "disputes team" to contact any lender on my behalf as i have already jumped through those pointless hoops to no-mans-lands to no avail and as companies such as yours merely take the word of the lender as to valid or invalid agreements i have no such need to waste my time with such meanderings. If you continue to refuse to place the exact wording (as amended for the purposes of avoidance in the area of defamation) i shall make a complaint to the ICO as they have already confirmed the sentence i wish to be added is acceptable. your sincerely, me"

tehe, yes a machine gun would be helpful CB! Yeah i see where you are coming from BRW. To be honest though i am probably going to let it slide as i have other battles to deal with at the mo. The Valid Default notices would only get lonely without a new friend anyways. A response now from Equifax along the same lines: "Dear Davey Thank you for your recent enquiry. Upon investigation of our records, we regret to inform you that we are unable to record your Notice of Correction/Add a Note in the exact format of which it has been received. Equifax are unable to load a Notice of Correction/Add a Note if we think it may be defamatory, or for any other reason unsuitable. Should you require that an amended paragraph be loaded to your records, please re-submit the Notice of Correction." I also know the ICO are totally on the side of the creditor when it comes to Credit File info and an agreement (or lack of): http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/198936-no-agreement-can-i.html So my plan is to take on the creditor directly and destroy them thereby getting the Credit File tidied up (along the lines of CAP1).

Hi CB, no they are moving fast on this one.. scared of me probably! The difference for the notice of correction is in the addition of the word 'I believe'. "ACCOUNT IN SERIOUS AND VALID LEGAL DISPUTE OWING TO WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A COMPLETE FAILURE etc...." A statement of belief rather than a statement of fact. I can live with that to be honest.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox | Banned director runs loan firm "A BBC investigation has discovered that Yes Loans' licence expired in June 2008. But the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), which issues licences, has allowed the company to continue trading before it decides whether to issue a renewal of the licence."

OFT Imposes requirements on Link Financial: The Office of Fair Trading: OFT warns debt sector about tracing tactics http://www.credittoday.co.uk/news/news-item.cfm?news=1146

Experian Consumer Help Service: Dear Mr Davey Thank you for your email, which we received on 07 May 2009. Re: Notice of Correction Request Thank you for sending us your Notice of Correction. I cannot add this as is may defame the companies you are referring too. WHAT I HAVE DONE FOR YOU: - I have changed the wording a little and would like you to consider using this instead. "ACCOUNT IN SERIOUS AND VALID LEGAL DISPUTE OWING TO WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A COMPLETE FAILURE TO PRODUCE EITHER A PROPERLY EXECUTED REGULATED CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974, OR A VALID DATA CONSENT IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998. MR 'davey." WHAT I RECOMMEND YOU DO NEXT: - Please let me know in writing or by return email whether you are happy with this. FURTHER INFORMATION: - You might like to use a different statement of your own. However, if you still want me to use your original statement, please let me know and I will send it to the Information Commissioner for a ruling. Kind regards

Nice to have peace from them. Hope it stays that way and all is well with you MB.

Interesting... "can confirm that the reverse of this agreement contained the prescribed terms required under the CCA" but not god enough. Their word is useless to you. Don't worry, they always mention collection activities. You are no where near Bailiffs. You would have to go to Court first, fail to pay if a Judge ordered. Just be aware that debt collectors sometimes call any visit (which is highly unlikely to materialise) a 'pre bailiff visit'. This is a LIE. There is no such thing! Besides, you need to have been sent a valid Default notice before they can take you to Court. (Copy of Default should be included when you SAR) apart from the issues of their compliance to your request for the agreement which could be used to halt any potential Court Action.

hmm the mist is clearing.. i see you getting a tan this summer. If that helps!

I happen to have my crystal ball in front of me so can tell you what the next letter from robbersway will be (should you ever get one). "we have contacted the original creditor and can confirm you have been supplied a copy of your agreement under section 78 of the CCA1974 and as a consequence your liability for the full balance remains outstanding. Therefore we consider the account not to be in dispute and require payment of £xx within 7 days otherwise we will be forced to escalate out collection process which may involve legal action and/or a visit by one of our field agents".

The FOS?! Have these solicitors never dealt with creditors/DCAs and credit agreements before or what! Everybody here knows the FOS are useless when it comes to Credit Agreement issues.

To be honest you can send polite requests and remind them of the CCA requirements until the cows come home. I think you need to take a tougher stance and start the CPR request rolling. Have you done a SAR? If the application form page and the CCA.No1 could be shown to be part of the same document then they have a valid agreement but without page numbers to indicate they are page 1 & 2 respectively, they are, for now relying on their word alone that those pages belong together. Other side of the coin is you cannot conclusively prove that the other page wasn't part of the application form either so it's kind of in limbo as i see it. Best course i would say is to glean as much information out of them as possible with a SAR and CRP 31.16, hope they slip up with an admission that could be useful to you, or send you different pages stating 'this is the other side of the application form etc' which would make them look foolish and deceptive regarding the information they are supplying you.

Looks like a cut and paste then, as you say, nothing to link those 2 pages together?! And the difference in font adds suspicion. If they could show (although not sure how they would) that the second page IS connected to the signature page then, with a missing lenders signature would make it improperly executed (not outright unenforceable). They mention condition 8.2. If that wasn't included how can you know what it says?! (Or you!) Also their choice of wording in the letter is odd to say the least. "Includes the credit agreement in an abridged form on the reverse". Abridged: Shortened, cut down, condensed, censored. In other words they have admitted there are other parts to this agreement that they have left out? There is also the point to make that, (as i understand it although will need confirmation of this) the first page is headed 'Credit Agreement' and not a Credit Card Agreement as strictly defined within the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 SI 1983/1553. Therefore you could argue it is invalid for any purpose linked to a Credit Card account. Now how seriously a Judge would view that kind of 'minor' error and how you could use that in a valid argument is another matter. I would get pt2537 or Steven4064 to look in and give their valuable advice before drafting a response to smellyfax.

No worries. Definitely pre april 2007 then. Haven't been through your links with a fine tooth comb but can't see any signatures and that looks like it's dated 0608 from the number on the last page. So what they have sent is the varied unsigned(?) agreement. Not enforceable without a signature and not the original but.. what they have supplied probably complies with their duty under Section 78. Saying they have failed under Section 78 to supply you information isn't going to wash so you need to move away from S 78 and request the Original Properly Executed Credit Card Agreement. Something along the lines of: After reviewing the documentation sent in response to my Section 78 request for information relating to the above account and after Legal Advice i note what you have supplied may, or may not, comply with Section 78 of the CCA1974 but in what you have supplied you have failed to produce a document signed myself that contains the prescribed terms as per section 61(a) and section 127(3) of the CCA 1974. I am also aware that there are certain terms that are required to be within the “Agreement” and should these terms be mis-stated or not present within the Original documentation then agreement can be rendered irredeemably unenforceable in law and i therefore refer you to the following of which, as a large financial organisation, i am sure you are fully aware of: s61(a) CCA - Signing of agreement: (1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless— (a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and (b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and © the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible. s127(3) CCA: (3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). I understand that section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 sets out clearly what is required to comply with my request and quote “shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it” For clarification I require a copy of the agreement, any terms and conditions from the time when the agreement was executed together with a copy of current terms and conditions and a copy of the cancellation notice if the agreement refers to “Your Right to Cancel” within it. I also require a statement of account as laid out also within Section 78(1). If there weren’t any terms and conditions then please confirm this in your response I am aware that the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) at Regulation 3 allows the Signature box and signature to be omitted in a copy document but the copy document must contain all the terms off the agreement contained within the signed executed original document I should also like to draw your attention to the decision in Wilson v Hurstanger (2007) EWCA Civ 299: "...Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them." In light of the above I respectfully request that you provide a copy of the original agreement signed by myself that you hold on file and while I accept that you can omit the signature box for the purposes of compliance with my request, you will be aware that any challenge to the agreement in court would require the signed copy of the original agreement. If you still reject this, please provide clarification on the status of the Original Credit Agreement and confirm either that you hold the original signed agreement on file or a copy of it on microfliche or that you no longer hold the file. I look forward to receiving the documentation requested and within the spirit of the Civil Procedure Rules shall allow 21 days for your reply.

Pendle and Lb145.. As tortilla says, best to start your own threads that way you will get some folks helping. The Halifax thread is here: Halifax Bank and Bank of Scotland - The Consumer Forums Near the top left of that page is the 'New Thread' button that should get you started. Tortilla.. what date is the original application for this?

Update - nothing heard yet. Solicitor's 21 days (as above) expire about now so guessing will hear something further shortly (assuming they haven't run out of legal aid yet.)

Subbing

Hey Andyr666, Good luck with that. Hope my thread will be of some use. Update - Nothing heard from Regal Credit or RBS-Mint to date. I think my last letter scared them off.