Jump to content

Urgent: Nationwide/E'sheds- Court action & reconstituted agreement

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5016 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi folks, I've just registered and am trying to find my way around, so please bear with me if I make procedural erors in this hallowed place.


I can already see that there are many cases like mine on here where people filled out an application form in their Nationwide branch and got a CC. Subsequently, N'wide could only produce said application in response to s77/78 request, not any compliant agreement.


Order of events:

Credit card issued long before the April 2007 watershed date.


Summer/autumn 2008 CCA reqyest to NW Months elapse with no response and payments stopped

(Interestingly, they do pay attention when they stop getting money)


Feb 2009: They issue faulty DN: Usual date error, requires full amount and format errors.


Finally, whilst in contact with KPR, they actually respond to CCA request and the application is tendered as an agreement. So, it's spring 2009 and we finally have something from them.


Late spring 2009: E'sheds issue proceedings

Defence entered and case transferred to my local County Ct

All goes quiet


Nov 2009 Carey judgement. Still all quiet.


Early summer 2010: They're back ! E'sheds re-commence proceedings quoting Carey judgement and proferring a reconstituted agreement. Second DN issued, this time requiring payment of outstanding payments on account rather than full balance. They seek to have the case dealt with, without a hearing. Cheek!


My gut feeling is that the Carey quotation and reconstituted agreement is a bluff which is intended to beat me into submission and agree to pay them. BUT.. How do I show the courts this? I'm sure that I can only win if I expose their errors, rather than trust the justice(?) system to protect me from these bullies.



1. They quote the Carey judgement, particularly para 43 and infer that by providing a reconstituted agreeement that they've met the legal requirements and should be paid. This seems to casually overlook the lack of any original signed agreement with the full PTs within its four corners. I feel that s127(3) CCA still applies and they're bluffing. But how do I get that across in my defence?


2. 1st Default notice. Did not specify date by which compliance was required,

Required repayment of full balance, not just outstanding payments

Did not use the correct foirmat as shown in other examples in this forum.

How do I deal with that DN?


3. 2nd Default Notice. Can there be such a thing? This one corrected the errors of the previous

attempt, but surely it is not allowable?


Although I feel that I should not have to challenge the reconstituted agreement, it seems necessary to blow it apart if possible.


4. Can anyone tell me when N'wide started referring to PIN numbers in CC agreements ?


5. Can anyone provide me with info on the formats used in these agreements to show APR etc, and

when any changes took place? I'm particularly interested in the rates applicable to the 'N'Wide Classic

Card' in 2004.


6. When did they start to put (variable) in the CCA agreement format when giving APR % rates ? eg: 13.5%(variable).


It really feels like this is a big charade on the part of E'sheds who are just playing a numbers game. However, we have to play the game. I really would appreciate the guidance of anyone here as I'm in a race against time and have to get my amended defence submitted this week. Thanks

Edited by V_Meldrew
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...