A DLA (Direct Legal) has bought an account from Citi and is chasing me for payment. There were several issues I disagreed with about this accoutn so I sent a request in the the CCA 1974. They continued to pursue. I then sent an email to Trading Standards and copied in Direct Legal's Data Controller, who sent me the following email: I can confirm that this account has been placed on hold, pending receipt of a copy of the agreement which was requested from the sellers in August, 2006. Certain of our staff were ‘mis-informed’ to notify you that we had complied, or were complying, with section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act. Please accept my apologies for the continued action without having addressed the relevant points. Until the document is provided we will not resume recovery action and accept that we are in breach, technically, of the statutory provisions. However, if we are unable to provide a copy, we will be able to provide an extract of all the terms and conditions and contract details as at the time of signing thereby remedying the breach. (The logistical aspects of recovering a document from CitiFinancial archives makes it virtually impossible to comply within the retrieval timescales envisaged appropriate by the act some 32 years ago). His email suggests that he believes that if they cannot get a copy of the original agreement then a copy of the Ts and Cs the company was using at the time will suffice. My argument, of course, is that I never agreed to these Ts and Cs, and without a signature they cannot prove otherwise. Any comments...?

They also used that phrase in their official Defence against my claim. My response to the court was: The Claimant would like add some clarity to the above statement. The statement suggests that the OFT has set a “new industry standard” of £12 for default charges. This is misleading. The OFT actually stated: Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12. To suggest that the OFT has set an “industry standard” of £12 is a gross misinterpretation of the statement.

My Citi account was recently sold on to another company. The account stood at £3,800 and they sold it on for around £1,400. You may find that something closer to a 50% offer would be more likely to bear fruit.

Alison Kenny (Trainee solicitor)

less than 24 hours after rejecting their offer and demanding 100%, Abbey have agreed to my demand. Without admiting liability, of course. Citi, next...

Abbey's solicitor's offer letter came with an email address, and an invitation to reply using that address, so I've replied. and rejected their offer. bring it on...

I've an action going through with Abbey at the moment, and they have indicated their intention to defend the claim in full (£2,000 + £500 interest). I have today received a letter offering full and final settlement of 50% (£1,250-ish) if I agree to drop the claim. Tempting, as I could do with the money, and it would come through quickly, instead of having to wait for a court date and judgment... I suspect I'll fight on to the bitter end, but have to have a chat about it with my wife, as it affects both of us...

I have a claim against Abbey going through for just over £2,000 plus interest. I've received the same letter from DLA with the exact same wording.