I'd still ignore it. If you genuinely do owe some money, let the DCA prove it. There's a tried and tested route which involves asking for a copy of the original agreement. If it does turn out that there's a genuine debt, and all the paperwork is in order, then you can begin negotiating a repayment. But let them do the legwork! Btw, even if there has been correspondance in the last six years, unless you've admitted a debt in writing (or made a payment) that doesn't affect the Stature Barred timescale.

I'd agree. There's a decent chance that they're fishing for somebody with a similar name, or that they've bought a lemon - a stature barred or unenforcable debt. You've done the right thing by asking for advice here, but for now I'd ignore them and wait for their next move. The most important advice I'd give is NEVER speak to these people by phone: they'll twist your words and try to trap you into admitting that you owe them money. The onus is on a DCA to prove that you owe money, they can't force you to prove that you don't. Do keep us posted

Just a thought: have you ever checked that CCM have got a legal right to be collecting this debt in the first place?

From what I understand, Cabot pay their staff pretty well, and have plenty of opportunity for them to earn big money if they perform well. Also, I've been to King's Hill, it's a pleasant enough little estate (although somewhat bland and sterile for my tastes). So to have such terrible staff turnover begs the question: what's so horrific about working for Uncle Ken? I'd dearly love it if any ex-Cabot employees would like to comment on this thread.

I see. To be honest, you're going to need better advice than I can give. Sorry I can't be of more help, but I wish you luck

If it helps, this is an extract from the OFT's response to my complaint about Cabot: A 'true copy' of an agreement principally consists of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the statutory content of the agreement. The name, address and signature of the debtor does not have to be provided. Additionally, the creditor must supply the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor; the total sum which has become payable under the agreement but remains unpaid; and the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor (the latter two must include the various amounts comprised in that total sum and the date when each is/was due). However, the copy must be a copy. It need not be exact on immaterial points, but it cannot be a conjectured reconstruction. If the trader has no original copy, the trader will have difficulty showing that he has complied with the regulation by supplying a 'true copy', since nobody would know what was in the original. When the trader comes to enforce the debt in court, he needs to have a signed copy of the agreement in order to enforce. As the law stands currently he cannot otherwise. So don't worry about when they might knock up. When it comes to Court, they need a proper signed copy - not a replica or conjectured reconstruction.

I wouldn't panic. In my opinion, they'll still need to provide a legible copy with the prescribed terms in order to prove enforcability. You and I both know the chances of this are about the same as winning the lottery while being struck twice by lightning. There's a thread somewhere about how Cabot will try to railroad the judge into finding for them, and some excellent advice about having a skeleton arguement prepared and sticking to your guns.

In my last job, if I'd had staff turnover of 21% I'd have been out on my ear! In fact, I managed to go a whole year with the only one person permanantly leaving the company, the rest being internal promotions. 21%? Stand in the corner and hang your head in shame, Ken.

Fortunately Ell-enn, the tide is slowly turning. The FOS have recently been given new powers to follow up complaints which are not satisfactorily resolved, and I for one have taken the opportunity to complain about Cabot. It hits them where it hurts: they pay £400 for the honour of being investigated! I don't think the DCAs appreciate how determined consumer groups like this are. Put it this way: two years ago, the banks weren't scared of us...

I've never understood that whole "we are not the creditor" bowlax. As CB says, if there's no creditor, how can there possibly be a debtor as defined by s189?

This could be good! If you've got a Court Order and Lowell are ignoring it, get back in touch with the Court. They won't be impressed, and can force Lowell's hand - with baliffs if necessary

It's also worth having a read of this sticky: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

I wish I'd known about this site when my mate was about to lose his house, things might have turned out very different. I'd so glad that there's genuine instances of people finding practical help through CAG - and HR people who are willing to take a more holistic view of employee welfare

Gone Away Information Network - basically a register of bad debtors who have "done a runner". Which is why the OP doesn't want to be on it.

Pretty much. Processing such incorrect data would, in my view, be likely to cause damage or distress. Therefore you're well within your right to use the Data Protection Act to force the data controller to rectify such data. As for claiming compensation, you'd have to demonstrate that such processing caused actual damage - eg having to pay a higher interest rate on a loan.

Spectrum are an IVA practicioner. Committing to an IVA is, contrary to what the glossy advertising would have you believe, not an easy way out. There are several steps you could take towards getting in control of your finances which don't involve an IVA, and are free. Personally I'd cancel the appointment - or if they won't take no for an answer don't let them in. I'll wager they use all manner of tactics to get your signature on a document during the meeting. If you really must meet with them, DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING. If they're a remotely respectable company, they'll give you time to make an informed decision. But my advice would still be to cancel the appointment. If you can post some details of your finances here, I'm sure we can give some practical (and free!) advice which may very well negate the need for an IVA. Hope that helps

Good point about the test case, Seahorse. Re Vanquis touting for business over t'internet, wouldn't that only have a bearing if the "agreement" was made under the 2006 Act? Surely under the 1974 Act they'd still have to send out a paper copy for a signature?

You know the old saying about an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters...

Re timescales, I'd actually agree with Rory. I appreciate it could be frustrating having to wait, but 21 days is the timescale laid down by the Data Protection Act for correcting incorrect data. I would make your request more formal, in the form of a Data Subject Notice requiring them to recitify your data. Under the DPA they legally cannot ignore this: they either have to comply or state their reasons for non-compliance.

I'd send a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to the original creditor, it may reveal that these debts are statute barred, in which case it doesn't matter a jot what Cabot do or don't produce Of course, if the alleged debt is more recent, there may be charges which you could reclaim in the usual way - although with the infamous test case this could take some time. In fact.... if you were chasing the OC for a refund of unlawful charges, I personally don't see how Cabot could take any action until this is resolved. You'd certainly be disputing the debt.

Does it contain the necessary prescribed terms? It certainly doesn't sound like a proper agreement. My Barclaycard "agreement" as supplied by Cabot is here - does yours look anything similar? http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s185/djdave2007/cabotapp.jpg Have a look at this thread, it may help: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

I don't think there's any need to send Link a CCA request, as you've already done this with the Moronic Bank of Numpty Americans and they've defaulted on your request. In your shoes, my next step would be a complaint to Trading Standards and the OFT - as you are aware MBNA should not have sold an account which was actively in dispute. Tread carefully, Link are a particularly nasty bunch in my personal experience. However, like all bullies, they do back off when they meet with enough resistance

Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom. Wikipedia:Copyrights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tiglet, please pass on my good wishes to your friend too. I know it might not mean much coming from a stranger on t'internet, but honestly I hope he makes a swift and full recovery. Jason, don't worry about "being a man". No doctor will think any less of you because you're seeking help. No human would. There's nothing remotely unmanly about feeling vunerable. We've all been there. If you don't feel comfortable talking to someone face-to-face try initially ringing the Samaritans for some advice. They'll talk to you in complete confidence, and I'll wager you feel a lot less worried about seeing your GP afterwards. You're getting some excellent practical advice on here, which I'm sure is boosting your confidence. But do not under any circumstances let your physical or mental health suffer because of your situation.

Is the Cabot "debt" a seperate issue? If so, I'd strongly advise starting a new thread in the dedicated Cabot sub-forum (link at the top of this page) as you'll get some excellent advice in there