Dear Sirs, Account Number: XXX Re; your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of your companies current Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act. To clarify, just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a "true copy" of the agreement. This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows; As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, "the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form." This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557. Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are: Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements; And more importantly Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations. You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations. Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557. The regulations state: (2) There may be omitted from any such copy- (a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy; (b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies); It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations. The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso. Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions. It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented. I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues Yours faithfully ---- Courtesy of Rory32. ------- That is to highlight the discrepency in the first letter : Stating : "The 'true' copy requirements can be satisfied by providing a copy agreement at the date the card ..." etc Which are they are in error in quoting . It is partially applicable , obviously need to delete and amend to suit .

I wouldn't like to go to a curry restaurant with you , I would have to wrestle with you to even get a popodom while you stuffed your face with vindaloos . /

I suppose . It's not fair , people on here hogging all the dca's 5 or 6 at a time ,. all i want is one to play with (

Is there a way to attract dca's ? I heard going for a free credit report works . I want a dca to annoy again ( . No lightweights , I want another Robinson way who can stay the course of perpetual harassment , they don't make dca's like they used too

So why would anyone want to stand up there and be a martyr for some dubious truth and say .. oh .. yes, I owe every penny . Would the judge get the OC's solicitor up next and swear him into admitting they had no valid cca ? I bet they wouldn't . The truth is an ethereal abstraction to them . Play them at their own game and deny everything .

That puts me in mind of that most haunted episode . I did not see many , but there was two of them walking through the graveyard at night and one of them fell through an open grave . The one still on normal ground level started looking around for his suddenly lost companion , like trigger looking for del boy who fell down the gap in the bar . I never laughed so much in ages . You need to look morbid , despondent and unhappy for that job . I know , dress up in a tottenham kit .

Here is a 'prove it' letter .. Dear Sir/Madam You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves. I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name). I am/we are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question. I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods. Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment. I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question. I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions. I/we look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully After that , perhaps a statute barred letter . I believe a statute barred letter should always be sent in the unlikely event that they can prove the debt is yours . It isn't really a case of wether it really is or not statute barred , but wether they can prove it isn't . If they pass the prove it and SB letter test .. then it is onto the usual cca request etc . Do not send them ( SB /prove it) out at the same time , it is all about procrastinations and finding out what they know (before you commit yourself to fighting them , or to see if they are worth fighting ) .. and drawing them into making mistakes you can make complaints about at a later stage . A constant barrage of complaints is a good terror tactic to use on unsuspecting rearguard office staff , they want you to deal with their telephone monkeys . Instead you are plaguing them , and they don't like it .

Don't do anything for awhile . Not unless they persist . You have letters above you can use if they do not go away and /or show some resilience or persistance . But usually these kind of companies .. with those kind of old debts , just send out those letters to see if they can catch a live one . Ignore them . Unless you wan't to take them on for sport , I do not know if you want to just be rid or would like to engage them for maybe fun and training purposes . It is always useful to delve somewhat into the dca threat environment . It gives you good stories to tell us on here , and it is an overall good practice arena to develop your telephone techniques for other similar pest calls .

I remember playing some cliff richard and assorted horror songs to a dca while they waited . It was awful songs . Millenium thing?.. might be that . I was in pain just listening to it from downstairs without it being in the earhole . I used to have a whole library of truly awful songs on my old pc for the dca collector to listen to while I went to get my visa card to pay them (that I could never find .. took me ages , must of been those cans of beer in -between). Unfortunately , many dca's cannot live by the torment and fun regime and they go away , never to be replaced (

I reckon judges that ask that kind of question are really looking for an easy way out , especially if they aren't familiar with consumer laws . And are banking on your fear of the situation to give the answer both the judge and the creditors solicitor wants . So they can get it over quickly and meet back in the judges chambers for a few brandy's before lunchtime. It's not perjury to say 'no, I don't owe them the money ' . Truth is a state of mind really . Just be sure to adopt the right paradigms of what constitutes you owing the money before you get to court .

If I said , I do not owe the money , then I believe I am answering honestly . I am not prejudicing the courts decision nor answering in an ambiguous way . To my belief , I am not liable to the sum that the creditor seeks unless it is proven in a court of law that I am wrong .

It's not fair you demeaning their efforts so . These dca's have a hard time trying to come up with new threats that are not the subject of general merriment and derision . The work experience boy who came up with that one was probably very proud of his achievements at the dca that day , and probably told his mummy about the new letters they were sending out bearing his rapier -like thrust upon the unsuspecting debtors.

From a few cases I have seen here , the judge seems to hold the opinion , that if you do owe the money ..regardless of a CCA or a DN not in order et all, then he will rule for the creditor , regardless of your defence . So , I would say , No .. your honour , I do not owe the money .

I was thinking of scanning a few of those old debt collector letters in from the 1990's . They were worse then than they are now ! . There wasn't as much pressure on them then to maintain a standard as there is now , wasn't any CAG to go to for help then either . Had to rely on basic ducking and diving instincts back then to get rid of them. Those were the days ) All my old debts became statute barred , not because I knew the law or even heard of the statute of limitations and aimed to get those 6 years of non payment . It was all due to ducking and diving , I only read about it years later , years after the 6 years had passed . Then realized I was safe . Except for those ccj's , but I doubt I will hear anything about them now, not after 14 years .

Yes, you need to play your cards close to your chest . Don't do anything to reveal your hand . Find out exactly what information , if any , this dca has on you before you make any moves . Don't want to go stirring up any ccj hornets nests un neccessarily . I have seen a few cases on here where a dca is chasing debts where the OC has lost all the court papers , or at least forgotten about . If they can't keep their cca's in order , is there any reason to suspect they keep their court papers in order too ? . A ccj can last till the day you die ... or until the OC loses their paperwork or the court stamps become illegible with the normal decay of time . From your post above (#21) , it just looks like a statute barred debt anyway. They have had the account since dec 02 and now hope that you can recall the account . Sounds like they are having a bit of a rough time with the credit crunch and have to dig out some ancient debts to try and get some money . Just routine SB letter or Ignore them .