Consumer Credit Act

[Jagsman]

Hi. My first time on this forum and looking for advice please specifically in relation to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I've seen guidance on this in other forums and am confused on two aspects particularly, both of which seem to be relevant to my circumstances. I haven't approached any of my creditors yet however as I want to be more sure of my facts first!

I have numerous debts all in relation to credit cards. I've been making small payments to all creditors since 2008 with some of the debts still being with the original lender although many of them have been sold on to a DCA. Having seen guidance on other forums I think I should write to all creditors and ask for a copy of the agreement under the CCA 1974 which I suspect some of them will not be able to provide, especially those where the debt has been sold on (in some cases more than once).

I want to check please if A. This is the right thing to do and B. Are the "prescribed terms" provisions only relevant where the credit agreement was taken-out before a certain date? Possibly before 2006?

If they are unable to produce the agreement, is the debt unenforceable? I'm sure I've seen guidance on other forums that suggest I make a very small offer of repayment in such circumstances though that seems contradictory to the debt being unenforceable.

Thanks!

[charitynjw]

Re: Consumer Credit Act

Hi Jagsman & welcome to LB.

B. Are the "prescribed terms" provisions only relevant where the credit agreement was taken-out before a certain date? Possibly before 2006?

Imho
The 'prescibed terms', as mentioned in the original 1974 Act, were finally legally defined via the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, which came into force 19th May 1985.
This also concerned s127 (notably s127.3)
The prescibed terms are still relevant, but s127.3 was repealed in April 2007 via the Consumer Credit Act 2006

If they are unable to produce the agreement, is the debt unenforceable?

Not necessarily. If they can show other evidence of an agreement (ie electronic data/file records), they can (& have been able to) persuade a judge that, on the balance of probabilities, there was a legally binding agreement.
It would then be for the defendent to rebut the evidence.