great minds im interested with this idea and would like to talk more on the subject perhaps privately to begin with

tell me more ?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219623 see this cheerful thread and take heart that dca's arent as powerful as they like to think they are GUESS youve figured out im bored and thats why im still poking around here huh....

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?37319-Is-there-a-CCA-with-a-mobile-contract Found some interesting posts on this thread

With full respect and just to clarify what my point was earlier i e guidelines I would have to just reply that i dont think you grasped the fact that if a debt company etc breach those guidelines they leave themself open to complaint and open to civil action even criminal action in regards to harrassment an so forth thats the point i setout to make as someone like you on here to help others and just to make it clear on your point above they cannot lawfully make any attempt to collect on a disputed debt nor should they make threats to force payment from anyone as to do so without informing them that before they can legally and lawfully make a demand for a payment they must first take their claim to court with evidence of validity to justify any action.. with respect and much hope that this argument will end here as it would be pointless to continue as ive stated in prior replys to you we will have to beg to differ and you can if you wish to make comment but this is the end as far as im concerned and just as a matter of respect to you, ive never said that mobile phones providers / contracts are covered by the cca but as mentioned theres a debate goin on that suggests otherwise and its the dca's like wescot and ico whoever they are that fuels that debate even more than you might expect and not least the bbc one show even suggests that a phone contract is a credit agreement so my own arguments with respect are based upon research not just my own guess work as you may have believed it to be so as ive said now thats the end of this debate as far as im concerned and while i'd be happy to debate it further with you at some point i'd prefer it not to interfere with this thread like ive said before and please dont say anything that suggests that im nonsensical or unable to grasp something as by doin so your tone is insulting and but for that i'd prefer not to be involved in hijacking this thread .. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theoneshow/consumer/2009/01/27/mobile-phones-can-seriously-af.html sorry h8

With respect locutus A running account credit agreement s77_78 of the cca minus sect 78/1 which does infact allow a request under the cca rules .guess the dca couldnt be bothered to read beyond the first part possibly cause it wasnt suited to them and as for the single payment thing in reality its only being presented as a lump sum by the dca and o2 when if you where responcible and did have an agreement you would have been billed by invoice monthly for a set amount each month...sorry h8

Creditor From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "Creditors" redirects here. For the 1889 play by August Strindberg, see Creditors (play). A creditor is a party (e.g. person, organization, company, or government) that has a claim to the services of a second party. It is a person or institution to whom money is owed. [1] The first party, in general, has provided some property or service to the second party under the assumption (usually enforced by contract) that the second party will return an equivalent property or service. The second party is frequently called a debtor or borrower. The first party is the creditor, which is the lender of property, service or money

Uhuh lol glad to be of service and currently im awaiting a responce from lowel portfolio who ive told 3mobile breached my contract way back in 09 and,despite resurfacing in april this year and selling the claimed debt to them and, saying that theyve got a clean bill of health, and im, responcible for that debt ,,im wandrn anyway ive told the dca to give me details of the court they intend to use if they choose to go down that road so three weeks and counting if they ply pressure again ,,then yep some good ideas to take forward from that post, ..lol and post 42 yeah its good aint it...your welcome bud.. ATB h8_halifax:madgrin: cdj

locust With respect, though as yet its not included in the consumer credit act there is a view being taken that if the simcard is the exclusive property of a mobile company then technicaly you are just hiring that simcard paying for call credit.. in the terms of mobile phone contract theres clearly stated that if you fail to make a payment then one of the options is to limit your credit so i suppose you could argue thats a difrent meaning of the word credit but essentialy its an exchange of cash for a service .. And with respect buddy the soul reason i brought up the credit act was in reply to wescot who themself mentioned it in theyre reply to h8 and minus the act i mentioned they do make use of that act especially the part that gets them out of supplying the request from h8 and other than me extending that by showing the part they chose to leave out i wouldnt have mentioned it at all.. but clearly youve missed that part and if you dont mind my saying if infact your right then im not the one who brought it up wescot are the source so i dont see why you feel the need to point it out as my mistake when its wescot who made that statement in the first instance ,,, as4 your other point , my point wasnt whether the oft had teeth to force a company to change theyre ways my point was to, challenge your statement to h8 that the guidlines arent law which you now seem to acknowledge .. respectfully weve both had our say and i do grasp the situation of the oft lacking of power its just you initially did seem to suggest the guidlines arent law but that wasnt the case regardless of the oft s ineffectiveness which youv only just brought up now and as you say untill they take the companys to court just like we could for breach of those guidelines you prove my point as correct though again the oft do have the power to remove the licence of operaters with fines without court process if they see fit to do so... beyond that both of us shall need to beg to differ and i cant see any point to this debate now respect ..

http://forum.davidicke.com/archive/index.php/t-47240.html full thread available here in respect of 3 mobile and o2 >debt collecting agencies > theres a few arguments on this thread which interfere with its main purpose and a suggestion of not acknowledging the court system which is a political viewpoint and one im interested in however in respect of not turning up at court to do with debt issues or dca court action against someone would not be advisable as such refusale can result in a ruling being made against you and will not do your defence any good at all should you have one. ps not intended for anyone in particuler just posted the link to help with advice respect cdj59

Ok, for anyone interested. I had a good look around and this is what I found. I have now replied to the above email with this Dear Customer services Rep, Thank you for your email, the contents of which are noted. I must draw your attention to the fact that this account is subject to a serious dispute. On the 17/09/2010 at 17:13 I wrote to your company requesting that you provide a copy of the written contract, in this case the credit agreement upon which this debt, which you claim a right to recover is based. You will no doubt be aware that this debt is credit as defined within the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and as a result, pursuant to section 78(1) of the Act I may demand a copy of the credit agreement at any time as long as the statutory fee of £1 is paid. Your response to my request leaves me a little confused, I must point out that it would appear that you have mis interpreted the law as your response has major inaccuracies within it "Law Of Property 1925" Secondly, you state that you are not the original creditor nor did you provide the original credit facility. Now then, either way, you have a duty to ensure that the correct documentation is provided. If you are assigned a debt and the assignment is absolute, it would come within section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Now surely you will be aware of the definition of “Creditor” within the consumer credit Act 1974, section 189(1) of the CCA 1974 states "creditor " means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor Therefore if you are claiming that the assignment is absolute you have the same duties as were placed upon the original creditor and MUST supply me on demand with a true copy of the original agreement. However, if you purport that the assignment is merely equitable and not absolute I.e. you have the rights but none of the responsibilities under the agreement, then I draw your attention to section 175 of the CCA 1974 175.Duty of persons deemed to be agents. Where under this Act a person is deemed to receive a notice or payment as agent of the creditor or owner under a regulated agreement, he shall be deemed to be under a contractual duty to the creditor or owner to transmit the notice, or remit the payment, to him forthwith So clearly, you would have a duty to pass my statutory request on to **CREDITOR** for them to supply the information, I would like to point out that the OFT guidelines on debt collection make it clear that all collection activities should cease while a reasonably disputed debt is investigated. Also since you cannot provide a copy of the credit agreement, this debt becomes unenforceable in law, furthermore, any rights to process my personal data and defame my credit file would be contained within the written contract, the contract which you do not appear to have! I'm sure I don’t need to go over the vast amount of case law that has been before the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords but I will outline the facts from the Judgment of LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) 29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61 (1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. Clearly No Credit Agreement, containing the prescribed terms as per Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983 Schedule 6 Column 2 and signed by the debtor, that can be produced before the court means the court cannot enforce the debt. This is mirrored in the following cases…. Wilson and another v. Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 London North Securities Ltd & Mr and Mrs. Meadows [2005] EWCA Civ 956, Dimond v. Lovell - [2000] Q.B. 216, Rankine v Barclays Bank Plc [2005] I'm sure your legal department will be aware of these cases, but should they not be fully conversant, then I can provide copies of the judgments To clarify my position I do not have any debt with your organisation, I do not acknowledge any debt with your organisation and I shall not enter into any negotiations to settle any debt you claim I have with your organisation. Until such time that you can produce before me a copy of the credit agreement containing the prescribed terms in the prescribed form bearing my signature, I will not discuss this matter further. Further more, I put you on notice that any further attempts to collect this debt or any harassment by your company to coerce me into paying you monies before you provide me the documents that I requested, then I shall issue you a letter before claim, complying with the pre action protocol Para 4.3 placing you on notice that I will be issuing proceedings in the Cheshire County Court against your organisation seeking a judicial ruling pursuant to section 142(1) of the CCA 1974 to determine the validity of this debt. I must point out that the court has the power to discharge a debtor from their obligations under section 142 and I am advised that any action that I could bring under that section has an excellent prospect of success as the facts stand and furthermore I would ask the court to consider costs in this matter. I again invite you to provide access to the original agreement showing that it contains the prescribed terms and is signed by both the original creditor and myself. If you are unable to do so, then I would invite you to give consideration to writing the balance off and closing the account. I am mindful of the fact that litigation would lead to added costs and time on both sides and therefore I urge you to consider this situation and act accordingly, from the advice I have received it is clear to me that I have a good prospect of success based upon these arguments and I do not wish to have to press this issue before the courts unless totally necessary. I respectfully request a response to this email within 7 days setting out your position Regards I'll post any response if any. Note no responce was posted so ether there wasnt one which could suggest the dca gave up or the original poster gave up guess we`ll never know

Respect q1 Not a lie exactly but they only stated one part of the act and by quoting 78/4 and leaving out 78/1 theyve tried to mislead you hence their statement to you about you not mentioning the specific act which can be viewed as a getout of jail card by blaming you q2 yep im afraid as yet im not able to post links coz of only having x amounts of postings here so i had to split that link up , and i sort of figured it might not work like that hence the reason ive copied the justice act and suggested letters from the thread there and the last post but1 from it is basicly a responce to the a responce from the dca to the person who started that thread which i`ll post after this one to you ill also upoad the pdf here with the guidlines i refered too on my first post here to you. q3 With respect to some of the advice youve been given here ive heard of people like you whove caved in and made payment to dca companys to get them off their backs and far from that being the case the dca have used that as an excuse to claim other outstanding debts from them and al manner of problems have been caused from not high enough repayments etc etc so if you dont owe dont pay and that settlement offer sounds really odd not to mention desperate from them so dont pay and see if you jump into my page and checkout that thread i mentioned via all posts it will give you hope believe me ...ps h8 dca real cool nick id join your club ANYtime lol .. so yeah dont get 2worried about it and the fact that theyre taking a long time to respond is probly coz their playing you as they do hoping you will cave in . full respect mate tc ttfn:-D OFT1272.pdf oft298.pdf

yOU CAN FIND THE GUIDLINES VIA THREADS IVE POSTED ON I E.effects of debt on health and lifestyle...thats all folks

The thing is i d theft while its a serious crime that should be reported i definatly agree with that but proof of it happening depends on evidence and if you stop to Think about it youd be hard pushed to supply evidence when the only person or persons who can provide that evidence refuse you access to it in preference to collect money from you placing you as ether an avoider of debt or just plain responcible regardless to the point of witholding the information that you can use to register a case of i d theft you might say obstructing justice by refusing you evidence that you can use to both clear yourself of responcibility and engage the police to aid you to do just that im not certain but you may be able to report a suspected case and report the dca as having the relevant details and refusing your access too that. Which im certain even they know isnt acting reasonably never mind unlawfully but there is another possibility and that could be that wescot are infact playing you and god knows theres plenty of threads on here and elswhere to backup this theory so you could if you wanted too consult a soliciter or a law center cab etc and tell them youve been placed in an impossible situation by the unreasonable actions of the dca and do this in tandem with the request perhaps getting backup to do that into the bargain . The other point about wescot /02 laying claim to have done an investigation and having found you lible for the debt which if not supported with solid supporting evidence that can stand up to scrutiny in a court of law would amount to misrepresentation to you and once youve sent that letter edited to suit your predicament if needs be then, let them try to trick you by deciet and hell mend them and theyre kind .. so that isnt really a viable option for wescot th`o they might try it its not legal /lawful till they prove it with solid evidence which giving the reluctance to provide it so far by idiotic measures and twisting the guidlines to suit that reluctance they probly dont have any evidence and if you click onto my picture youll find those guidlines for yourself ...best wishes ps realizn this will probly be too much for sum to take in but its experienced and lawfully based so atb to you and dont hesitate to ask if you need any thing else ...ttfn

respect and simply put the guidelines are drawn up based on caselaw and are legally enforceable in a court of law or by intervention of the oft and asscociated gov bodies simplesz...see example just posted Respectfully without malice unless youve got evidence to the contrary its not a good thing to suggest to people that the ofts guidelines are not law..thats my point and with `out further argument i withdraw from this side debate as obviously the thread isnt intended for that purpose and im just correcting what i see as misleading by stating the facts end of....