CC writ issued against suspected statute barred debt

keeperlit

***update*** (and backstory so you don't have to scroll up)

Hi again guys,

I need some help/advice & i need it rather urgently.

Bit of a back story here regarding solicitor but i'll not get into it as it is irrelevant at this point

In December of 2014 i received an initial writ to attend an ordinary court (I live in Scotland). This was issued by Shoosmiths on behalf of arrow global regarding a sum of £7500

Last payment I made to the account was in Dec 2010
MBNA put it into default in April 2011
It was then sold to Arrow Global - not sure of the date

Having tried unsuccessfully to come to an arrangement with MBNA regarding the debt I refused to speak to any DCAs and I still have
When I received the summons I sent a CCA request to Shoosmiths requesting the original agreement. It arrived some 11 weeks later ( I just received a copy of this agreement this morning from my solicitor) and essentially it seems to be a copy of the application form that was filled out in an airport.

Problem is I am due in court on Tuesday 10/03/16 to defend this case

My question is...this surely can't be acceptable as an agreement can it..?

The agreement they have forwarded to me is only two pages long and with the exception of my personal details the vast majority of it is illegible. Also the front page with the signature on it has no details stating terms and conditions, APR, Credit limit that type of thing. Also I was under the impression that an agreement should contain details on how to end it / cancel it or as it was signed in an airport it should mention a cool off period...

I'm not even sure if that second page is a true copy of the original agreement. It just seems to be stuck on there

Anybody any thoughts on this - it seems that shoosmiths want some sort of debate on the matter but as I see it this agreement they have provided me (as it stands) is next to useless.

link to agreement
**see post 18**

CCA is on pages 2&3 not sure what pages 1 & 4 are about

At present my arguments for court on Tuesday are as follows:

I am entitled to a legible true copy of my CCA as per the credit consumer act - this is not legible and i do not believe it to be true
It does not meet the criteria of an agreement as per the credit consumer act 1974 in that:
it does not contain the provisions to cancel said agreement
the signed front page page does not contain any terms and conditions including APR
as the second page is unsigned I would require the original copy to be presented to prove these were the terms and conditions I agreed to


Also...I cant quite make it out, but on the first page it asks me to refer to section 11 before signing to read some terms and conditions but section 11 on the second page is just some blurb about hiking up interest rates - i really need a better quality copy!

Does anyone notice anything that this is specifically missing..?
Thanks in advance

all opinions are welcome

matttye

Is dec 2010 actually the last time you made a payment or is that what MBNA/Arrow/Shoosmiths are telling you?

sourcrates

An application form is not an acceptable response to a CCA request.
When did you originally open the account ? What year ?

If after April 2007, they can send a reconstituted version, which can be made up of information they hold on you.
Wear as a recon may suffice for the purposes of sec 78, it's a whole different matter if they want to rely on it in court.

keeperlit

Well I have a statement that tells me to that effect so whist I really can not remember doing so - an old statement tells the tale

keeperlit

it was opened in feb 2001 but I think a recon copy will suffice as long as it is a true copy - how to prove that it is - dunno

this is the application form that i filled in at the airport back in 2001 as I remember giving them only half the information they needed including the wrong telephone number - I only filled it in because the girl was hot - lol

however at the top of the page it calls itself an agreement - i guess that it can become an agreement should be be accepted. I really wish i could upload it!!

although all it has on it is really my personal info - nothing specific to the credit card at all

I also ticked no to PPI although i just seen in old statements that the !!!!!!s charged me PPI anyways!!! Crooks!

sourcrates

keeperlit wrote: »

it was opened in feb 2001 but I think a recon copy will suffice as long as it is a true copy - how to prove that it is - dunno

this is the application form that i filled in at the airport back in 2001 as I remember giving them only half the information they needed including the wrong telephone number - I only filled it in because the girl was hot - lol

however at the top of the page it calls itself an agreement - i guess that it can become an agreement should be be accepted. I really wish i could upload it!!

although all it has on it is really my personal info - nothing specific to the credit card at all

I also ticked no to PPI although i just seen in old statements that the !!!!!!s charged me PPI anyways!!! Crooks!

No, it won't suffice.

From 2001 they would need to send you a copy of the original agreement, what they have sent you is an application form, not an agreement.

It should contain all the prescribed terms of that agreement, interest rate, credit limit, how and when to discharge payment, it should also contain your signature.

This makes me suspect they don't hold the original, and are trying to call your bluff, basically no agreement, no debt, no judgement in court.

They go into the court room with no credit agreement, the judge will throw out the case.

keeperlit

Ok, if you copy the text below and paste it into your browser it will open the link to my CCA. Hope this works for y'all

please scroll to page 2&3 dunno where 1&4 came from

//drive.google.com/file/d/0B6arALhuCAFnbXhONF9LVWJEMms/view?usp=sharing

keeperlit

from reading about - some cases have been won by the creditors without the original agreement being produced - so I didn't want to go down that line and push myself into a corner. Do you happen to have a reference for that by any chance..?

Also, from reading about I reckon the judge will probably just give them more time to produce the original agreement - these guys really are chancers though...

sourcrates

keeperlit wrote: »

from reading about - some cases have been won by the creditors without the original agreement being produced - so I didn't want to go down that line and push myself into a corner. Do you happen to have a reference for that by any chance..?

Also, from reading about I reckon the judge will probably just give them more time to produce the original agreement - these guys really are chancers though...

It's all down to how an individual judge interprets the law, if a creditor can show that an agreement probably did exist, then that may suffice, some cases have been thrown out because of no agreement, there are no hard and fast rules unfortunatly, but I would still defend, as there seem to be other issues, previously mentioned,that may work in your favour.

keeperlit

oh yeah!!!! I'm defending! what have I got to lose at this point... I'm just checking with you experienced folk to see what else I can throw back at them.