Have you got the agreements yourself? Did you actually get a proper agreement for all 4? That sounds a bit unusual... Not the most clever thing to do, asking them to go straight to court, given that, when faced with UE agreements (or no agreement), lenders usually just pass the accounts round from DCA to DCA, been doing that with me for nearly two years now and you'll find plenty more examples! That sounds like a major rip-off! Basically you have paid them for nothing, as you can easily have written to your creditors and obtained the agreements yourself. Not only that, but it looks like they may not have been totally honest with regards to the enforceability of the accounts either! You should look at the agreement you had with THEM and see what exactly you were supposed to get from your fees, you may have a case against them! You should be looking at reporting them to the relevant authorities such as the Law Society. Don't talk to them on the phone EVER. Just refuse to answer their security questions and/or put the phone down! After a while, they'll stop trying. Don't let them scare you with their bright red letters and all sorts of threats, they are just templates they churn out by the 100s! May be a good idea to post full details of your accounts along with any paperwork (minus personal details of course), some may be proper agreements, some may not, sounds like those 'solicitors' have been less than honest with you!

Sadly, you need to be employed for 12 months to claim unfair dismissal. The main difference between the probation period and the rest of the 12 months is the notice period, which during probation is normally a week on either side and 4 weeks afterwards. This is what a friend of mine was told when he went to see a Solicitor about it. He has been dismissed from two jobs (in the last 5 years) after an 'unsuccessful' probation, the 1st time by a major Law firm who offer, amongst other things, employment law advice to big companies, so they did everything by the book, starting with an extension of the probation period. Having sought legal advice on both occasions from various sources, the conclusion was that you don't really have a case, not only is probation intended as a way for employers to decide whether they should keep an employee or not, you also need 12 months employment to have a case. There may be exceptions where a case of, say, discrimination could be built, I know a pregnant lady who was dismissed 3 months into her job who got a settlement (unofficial) as she was told to go as soon as she mentioned her condition.

Hmmm sounds like you are acting on behalf of this company which looking at posts above seems to be engaging in fraud! And NO you don't always get what you pay for! Not with Claims or Debt Management companies you often don't! You can do all that yourself with help of sites like this or free ones lime CCCS etc.

If you want to determine the amount of charges, you need to send a SAR request. If they send blank CCAs it's probably because they don't have your agreement, in which case the debt is unenforceable. Are you still paying this?

That's correct: unenforceable debts still appear on your credit file, sad but true. If the debt is unenforceable (as admitted by themselves due to lack of a CCA) and you already have a default then I'd say there's very little reasonto pay anything.

Sounds more like a Claims Management CONpany referring to Unenforceable Credit Agreements (UCAs).

??? Assuming it really IS his debt in the first place (it may not be those guys like phishing!) his credit file will be exactly the same whether he responds or not! Recorded defaults drop off after 6 years regardless! If it was his debt & it was recorded it would stay even if he started making payments so not much point really…

Agree 100%! Judges deal with a lot of different issues not just Consumer Credit, and to remember every bit of case law as well as statute and common law would require a super-human mental capacity! They are there to pass judgment on the facts put in front of them, not to do research for you!

If you are still paying obviously you are acknowledging the debt and the clock won't start till you stop. As you know if you don't pay they could take you to court so it looks like you are looking at unenforceability rather than acknowledgment of debt, as you have been paying, that's not really an issue at this point. As to whether your debts are enforceable or not, it all depends on the dates you opened the accounts and the replies you get to your CCA requests, nothing to do with having acknowledged the debt in the past (for example, by making payments). A debt is unenforceable if they can't supply a valid agreement, that doesn't mean it goes away but it means they can't get judgment against you. Obviously the debt still exists but a court may be prevented from enforcing it. The idea, however, is to stay away from court till time runs out by making creditors and DCAs aware of the fact that you know the law and you know they are in default by not supplying a valid agreement. I have been doing this for 2 years so far but it all depends on what they have, in my case one creditor has admitted to not being able to supply a CCA in any shape or form! So, best to forget about acknowledgment of debt as not relevant at this early stage, and see what they send back in response to your CCA requests, with a bit of luck some won't be able to provide anything at all! Once you get them back OR their time is up and they haven't replied, you can put the accounts in dispute accordingly. Till then, try not to worry and enjoy the Festive Season!

Even though on Carey it says exactly the opposite, i.e. that a recon can satisfy a S78 request but you'd need an original to get a CCJ... :mad2: I guess it all depends on how well you defend and how good is the recon...

There's more to enforceability/unenforceability than a signature, the prescribed terms should be all included as they were at the time of opening the account and as varied. There's special rules regarding two part agreements, for example, for a loan with PPI. Compliance with a S78 request and enforceability are not the same thing. This is a thread about requesting a signed agreement: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html#post1868913 PT2537 the author is a solicitor... There's also this one: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?314597-Challenging-Reconstituted-Agreements Plenty of material in the Legal Issues section of the forum...

Yes, definitely, for as long as you are paying, even £1/pcm which is why creditors accept token payments that could never clear the debt but it doesn't allow it to get Statute Barred either. Your 6 years normally start the month after your last payment although this is often debated. Sending a CCA request is not acknowledging debt but to be on the safe side they should contain the words "I do not acknowledge any debt to your company" and refer to 'the alleged debt" and "the above account" rather than "my debt" and "my account". Offers of repayment, letters explaining why you can't pay, etc. constitute acknowledgment. Sending generic account in dispute letters, unenforceability warnings and CCA requests do not as long as they are worded correctly. The implications are simply that if you acknowledge the debt you restart the clock and the debt won't be Statute Barred until 6 years after that rather than 6 years without a payment. DCAs often make discount offers as bait to get you to acknowledge the debt!

:?: WHO says CAB is only for the unemployed? One thing is claiming benefits, which are affected by living with a working partner but CAB advise is for everyone! I WORK next door to a CAB and we've all been there for advise!

No, no-one is forced to do anything (well, not at gun point if that's what you mean!) However, people are often 'forced' into doing things due to circumstances, like if you have no work or money, you are 'forced' into claiming benefits, otherwise what would you do? beg? steal? All this about people being responsible etc... at the end of the day we ordinary people are not in charge of strategy and planning. That's what governments are for, otherwise what would be the point of having all those guys in Westminster? Voters can only vote for those who are up for grabs and in reality and when all the bull is set aside, there's often very little different between one and the other. Many people have been responsible all their lives, working, paying bills and debts, etc. only to have the rug pulled under their feet by the credit crunch caused by the greed so-and-so of Wall St in the first place and the ripple effect it's been having ever since! Look at these and other forums and see how many times you find something like "...till I lost my job in 2008/09/10...", "...our business collapsed 3 years ago..." etc. See a pattern emerging? There are others who have been affected by unrelated circumstances such as ill health or disability as well so no, it's no always 'up to the people' to decide!

Sanctions, of course!