Thanks, I've read the info from the link, nothing I wasn't aware of really. I wouldn't talk to a DCA anyway or anybody else over the phone for just about anything, hence the reason I refused to give them my details when they rang up. The only "conversation" I had was when they rang me and asked me to confirm my details, which I refused to do because it could have been anybody on the phone and as I said, I'd never heard of them anyway at that point. I asked them to contact me in writing, if they wished to pursue the matter, with "a copy of the Agreement" and the reply was that "there isn't one". At that point I said "we have nothing more to discuss then" and ended the call. I'm still not happy about posting the entire details online but I'll take a look at some of the other threads to see if there's anything relative.

No, I haven't moved anywhere. Please stop jumping to conclusions, it's not helping. It's not in my interest to say I didn't receive the said Notice of Assignment, but even if I had I would have reached the same conclusion. When I get chance I'll scan it and post it, then you tell me in an age when s-c-a-m-s are rife if you believe a plain paper letter is genuine, especially after the card issuer said they had never even heard of the name on the letter? I appreciate I might have been talking to an operator who probably wasn't even aware what her own manager's name was, but that's not the point.

Eh? I haven't read anything anywhere else. I'm simply saying that I have no word from the original creditor that they have sold or transferred the debt so I'm not convinced by what the DCA says. Why should be? Or would you just hand over £3k to somebody you had never heard of and the original creditor failed to verify? Incidentally the reason I haven't included the name of the claimant, original creditor and details of defence is because I am aware that they also read this site. I might as well put it on Facebook.

Hi guys, A well known DCA, which I've read a lot about now but never heard of previously, contacted me asking for almost £3000 repayment of a credit card debt. I replied stating that I had never heard of them and therefore assumed it was a [problem]. Notably I have never been contacted by the credit card issuer to say they had transferred the debt to this DCA. The DCA asked me to call them but when I did they wanted my date of birth etc., and as I assumed it was a [problem] there's no way I was going to tell them anything, in my opinion it was up to them to provide me with the required information. I asked them for a copy of the agreement with them and they stated that there wasn't one. I then advised them that unless the situation was confirmed by the card issuer I had no reason to even communicate with them, let alone pay them. Fast forward a few months they issued a CCJ and following a request for mediation, which I refused because again as far as I was concerned there was no case to answer, the matter is now due for a court hearing in the Small Claims Court. The thing is, as far as I'm concerned the position is that I have no account or agreement with the DCA and no proof, other than their say-so, that the account was transferred to them from the card issuer. Their "evidence" consists of a copy of the online agreement I made with the card issuer; statement of account and default notice etc. but all of this relates to the card issuer, not the DCA, and a photocopy of a "Notice of Assignment of debt" from 2017 which appears to have been originally typed on plain white paper and doesn't contain anything, such as a letterhead style or logo, that suggests it came from the card issuer. This is something I've never seen before and there is nothing on the letter that leads me to believe it's genuine. There's no address, other than a note asking me to contact the DCA and showing their address. Why would the card issuer send something as important as this on a plain piece of paper with no other contact details. All there is, is a name, signature and the card issuer name at the bottom. I phoned the card issuer to check this recently and was told they had never heard of this name, and that the account was closed. That's all they would say. So what now? I'm still not convinced this is genuine.

Thanks, I'll take a look but no, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Council Tax Act or Regulation. EDIT: No that's definitely not it

Fair comment, but I've reiterated a number of times since that my question, the purpose of my post, has nothing to do with bailiffs; that's the point. I didn't post the whole tale, i.e that I've made arrangements to pay the council regardless of anything else because it's not the point of the post. As I said earlier I'm sorry I mentioned bailiffs because a lot of people have gone off at a tangent which is exactly what I knew would happen if I started to discuss he actual details of the case.

Oh for gawd's sake can we drop it already? I have repeated time after time after time after time that THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BAILIFFS. They are NOT involved, I've done what I need to do, i.e. a payment arrangement with the council to prevent it going any further. THAT IS NOT THE POINT HERE AND IS NOT WHAT OR WHY I'M ASKING SO PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WILL EVERYBODY STOP TRYING TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES AND STOP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS!!! The ONLY reason I mentioned it at all is because I knew everybody would start jumping in and talking about bloody bailiffs if I didn't post any case details. I actually thought I had mentioned it earlier (but can't see it now so maybe not) that the council had told me in an email that they WILL NOT accept payment and that it MUST be paid to the bailiffs, so I already have proof. I also have a screenshot of the declined payment, which reads something like "Your card details are correct but we can not accept your payment. Look, I appreciate you're trying to help but I'll reiterate one last time, I'm not looking for bailiff help, payment advice or asking what I need to do to cover myself, I know all that already, inside-out. I'm simply trying to establish the legality of their statement. It's important to know if it's a point of law in otherwords, because if I'm right they're in for a whole world of pain. I agree totally that it's completely nuts for them to refuse it but that's their problem and I intend to keep it that way. I'm not refusing or declining to pay my bill, nor do I need that kind of help, that isn't what this is about.

WOW! That's a relief selectric, thank you. You know when you just know you're right about something but can't find any proof of it? I was beginning to wonder if I'd imagined the whole thing but I was sure that if it existed somebody on here would know something about it. Yes, I would be very interested if you can find anything but there's absolutely no rush, as I keep trying to point out I don't need any specific help with my case at the moment, it's just something I'd like to find again.

Ah, yes, I'm aware of that site now you mention it. Not interested, I've heard it all before. I wouldn't have found it anywhere like that, not the sort of place I hang around. They're only of novelty value. @renegadeimp, Thanks, but yes I'm aware of all of that, it's not the question I'm asking. I only wanted to know the official legal position on their "refusal" to accept payment as a point of law, partly so I could quote that law to them. I'm not looking for any advice on dealing with bailiffs, making payments or any of that. Actually physically making the payment (regardless of what they say they will or will not accept) isn't the issue - as I stated above, I made a payment yesterday by bank transfer.

(edit) THIS IS N.O.T.H.I.N.G. TO DO WITH BAILIFFS, THEIR FEES OR ANY OTHER ASPECT. THE BAILIFFS ARE NOT INVOLVED. IF YOU DON'T GET THAT YET, OR DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT, OR ARE READING SOMETHING DIFFERENT INTO IT THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM. Sorry to shout but this is getting beyond farce now. How many times??? I also made no mention whatsoever of part payments. My question was bloody simple enough. Nothing to fear about me and courts, but that confirms you're reading something completely different into it. I'm simply asking if it's illegal for the council to refuse payment of council tax. I don't know where the rest of it came from, I'm sorry I even mentioned bailiffs at all because I knew it would descend into this. To be honest it's beginning to resemble a Monty Python sketch.

I'm not sure what FMOTL means, but I'm reading that as meaning that if payment is made (to the authority) then it shall (must) accept it. Correct?

No, as I said when I looked at the Bills of Exchange thing I was pretty sure that wasn't it. I remember reading something along the lines of "not being able to hold goods in lein of payment" too, and there's nothing like that in the Bills of Exchange Act, so that wasn't it. It wasn't something I saw on a mainstream site, most of those sites all tend to be the same, i.e. you get the same basic information you would get from the gov.uk site or from Citizens Advice, but very little else. I think a lot of the so-called advice on those sites is quite poor to be honest. There's rarely any in-depth advice such as to tell you that a bailiff can't push their way past you, or that you can ask to pay over 12 months instead of 10 for example. A lot of the advice is simply to pay the bill, but if people could do that they wouldn't be looking for advice in the first place. Frankly I could probably give people like the CAB more information than they could give me. Yep, I know that the established advice is to try to offer more if the council (or anybody) refuses. I can see no (logical) reason for them refusing it either, but then I can see no reason for them adding to the bill by sending the debt to the courts in the first place. They're supposed to try to help, not make matters worse. Incidentally, part of our current situation is because we applied for help with council tax and rent last year but after waiting three months they then told me over the phone they had lost the documentation and couldn't do anything so we would have to apply again but they couldn't backdate it. Now they're saying they never received the documentation, yet they quite categorically stated when I first enquired by phone that they HAD received "everything" but they had a backlog so it could take several weeks to sort out. No matter, I sent the payment by bank transfer last night so they can please themselves. As I said there are no bailiffs fees to pay anyway so I couldn't care less what they do with it, there's little point in complaining about that. We all know how incompetent they are at economics which is partly why half the councils in the country are in such a financial mess, despite fleecing millions of out of people with petty parking fines and the like (don't get me started). I'm just really curious to find out what it was I read at that time.

Yes, I guess that's a reasonable conclusion, but I have to reiterate that's specifically why I tried to emphasise form the off that it wasn't a thread about bailiffs, or fees for that matter. The bailiffs won't be calling in the near future, if at all (and they'll be wasting their time if they do), I've seen to that already. It's reasonably simple and for those who are currently struggling it's worth it to buy yourself some time if you need it. I shouldn't have really said we were struggling, that was misleading so probably led to people thinking I'm trying to "beat the bailiffs". We had a bad year last year but are past that and just sorting out the remnants of that period of time. I can pay the council via the bank if I want to whether they choose to refuse to accept it or not. If I do, I'm guessing the chances of them returning the money are as close to zero as it's possible to get so it's probably not that big a deal anyway. I'm more curious than anything as to what it was I read a couple of years ago. It could be significant to me for other (unrelated) reasons

You're the one who seems to be hung up on it. I haven't even mentioned any fees. For starters they have to write to us (complaince notice) yet, and not until that point will any fees be incurred. And as I said there are many ways to challenge those fees successfully. If you think differently I'm obviously in the wrong place. But you're still ignoring one major point. THIS THREAD IS NOTHING TO DO WITH BAILIFFS OR THEIR FEES!!!!! what part of that don't you understand, or are you deliberately trying to wind me up now? The whole reason I mentioned the fact is so we WOULDN'T get hung up and waylaid in a conversation about bailiffs. Jeeze....I'm out.

I've just had a brief look at the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. It's an Act of Parliament isn't it? I don't want to go off at a tangent but I thought such an Act could only be repealed, not superceded. From what I've read of it, that doesn't look like the one I had originally seen anyway.