Well, we can go round and round in circles, but it is an interesting discussion and Spurious is providing a useful insight into some of what goes on at one DCA's offices. I was struck by this: Yet DCA's assume that 100% of people they contact have no intention of paying, or are trying to delay, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. I said earlier that most people end up in debt not through choice but because of circumstances over which they have no control. DCAs behaviour in these circumstances is almost always both unreasonable and disproportionate. I don't doubt that there are some well-intentioned people in the debt industry, but I doubt they'll be able to change anything because the whole industry just accepts that bullying and harassment is how it's always been. No-one will want to be the first to change, for fear that they'll lose business to the sharks. The OFT guidelines recognise that DCAs indulge in unfair practices, and have done so for years. If the OFT was not a toothless tiger, and had taken action against just a few DCAs, things would be very different. I'd like to see two things - firstly, the OFT guidelines being made statutory, with meaningful penalties (large fines, and directors banned from working in the same sector for 5 years, say), and secondly legislation to limit the percentage of an individual's income that can be taken to repay debt. Not only would this protect people from DCAs, it might also make lenders think more responsibly too.

Ah yes, TV Licencing aka Crapita... I have a house that I don't live in, work taking me elsewhere and providing a variety of alternative accommodation. There is no TV at the house, and has not been for over 5 years. Do Crapita believe it? No, they don't. In true DCA style they bombard me with letters and postcards suggesting all manner of threats and consequences. Usually I ignore them, but a couple of years ago a letter was forwarded which told me, in large red letters, that 'enforcement officers' would be calling at my home soon. I wrote back, telling them that home at the time was a rather hot and dusty portakabin affair called a corimec, located just outside Basra in Iraq. I told them that I should welcome a visit, since their silly plastic policemen may then gain an insight into the reality of life, and why a TV licence is actually not important in the big scheme of things, and why Crapita's pomposity and harassment fails to impress me. I suspect the irony was lost on them, as they replied reminding me a) that military accommodation still requires a TV licence (they treat every room as a separate residence), and b) that if I have more than one home I must have a licence for each! You couldn't make it up!* *except under a New Labour government, of course.

In my work I quite often see people with suicidal ideation, and debt is one of the major reasons for them thinking about killing themselves. There is no question in my mind that the behaviour of DCAs is a major factor. The vast majority of people in debt are there because of unexpected changes in their lives that have affected their financial circumstances. Given the opportunity to resolve the problems in a realistic way, they would do so. However, when someone is already dealing with a major stressor (relationship breakdown, redundancy, bereavement and so on), bullying and harassment by a DCA can only contribute to the problem. And it is bullying; rudeness is one thing, but sustained campaigns of harassment is quite another. By coincidence, I have also done a fair amount of work in bullying cases. Interestingly, one of the characteristics of bullies is that they are often weak and incompetent - they bully to divert attention from their own inadequacies, and in order to gain control. It seems to me that the way in which DCAs often behave illustrates this point very well; most of their tactics involve threats, harassment and bluster, but the truth is that they have no real powers at all. This is reinforced by their advertising - look at any DCA's website, and see how they portray themselves - a very different picture to the grubby reality of how they operate, and how many times they fail. The inappropriate use of rules and regulations, regardless of whether they are applicable to the case or not, and the threat or use of legal processes as 'punishment' are recognised forms of bullying. Bullies will also seek to deny responsibility for their actions and their effects. How many DCA staff will behave differently if told you are recording a call? Just why do Royal Mail seem to lose so many letters for DCAs? Why do so many DCAs have their own (made-up) definition of how many calls constitutes harassment? And, of course, none of them will admit that a suicide could be the result of bullying by a DCA... There's no doubt in my mind that many of the DCA staff I've spoken to are bullies, but whether they started out like that or whether the workplace culture has made them that way I don't know - probably a mixture. I suspect that for many it's a miserable situation, stuck in crap job and an unpleasant environment, yet unable to move on (especially in areas of high unemployment or where the alternative is a worse job) - perhaps that's another contributory factor.

I think at this stage I'd be inclined to give them very little info: Dear Sirs Thank you for your letter dated XXXX, the contents of which I have noted. However, as the alleged debt is currently disputed, I am confused as to why MBNA have sold it, since this would be a breach of both the Banking Code and Office of Fair Trading Guidelines on Debt Collection. No doubt you will be able to furnish me with an explanation. Yours etc.

I'm interested in joining, though my own involvement with Cabot has been minimal so far.

I am currently awaiting delivery of a Notice of Assignment from one of the lickspittle DCAs Cabot use. The bank in question seem to have remarkable foresight, since they apparently managed to send a letter in 2000 to a company that did not exist until 2007! The implication could be that Insp Knacker might be minded to view such documentation as part of an attempt to obtain money by deception (or conspiracy thereto). On a serious note, I cannot believe that producing backdated documents in this way can be regarded as a legitimate business practice. Otherwise, people may be tempted to produce a few backdated invoices to Cabot for 'services rendered', and demand payment of them.

There are two separate issues here. 1. Ebay are claiming £32 from you, presumably for listing and final value fees. 2. You arranged to buy something from another Ebay member, paid the money but did not receive the item. Your opinion is that Ebay didn't help you to get your money back. Ebay's fees are covered by their User Agreement, the contract you agree to when you become an Ebay member. If the fees have been legitimately raised, you should pay them as you would any other bill. Ebay, as they never tire of saying, are just a venue; in other words, they are not party to any transactions that take place. If you have a dispute with another member, they are not responsible for the outcome. Presumably you have gone through the Ebay complaints procedure, left negative feedback for the other user, and, if you paid by PayPal, also opened a dispute there. If all of that has failed, you still have a legal remedy - you can take the other Ebayer to Small Claims Court. Ebay use Robinson Way and Intrum Justicia to chase debts - I suspect that either will provide at least £32 worth of hassle!

Unfortunately Rameses has yet again managed to drag a thread off topic. As far as TS are concerned I wonder if there's also an element of debtors being (wrongly) percieved as less worthy of time and resources as some of their other customers?

Moorcroft are in Manchester, as is Co-Operative Bank's credit card operation.

It would be interesting to see a scan of the letter, or the actual text of it; I'm itching to know which law they are relying on to force you to disclose details of the driver in court...

MCS and DG Solicitors are all part of HSBC. The risible 'Central Debt Recovery Unit' is just a trading style of MCS - they have one or two others. As they are a DCA they have no powers whatever. It's most unlikely that anyone would turn up on your doorstep, but if they do, you don't have to talk to them - just ask them to leave. With F&F settlements, it is common for DCAs to cash cheques and then pursue for the rest of the debt unless they've agreed to an F&F. The usual advice is for a third party to write first and get written agreement from the DCA that they will accept the amount as F&F, and then send the cheque. I suspect that in this case MCS will claim that they thought you were simply making a payment towards the outstanding balance. I would not be at all surprised if they say they are unable to find the accompanying letter.

I have several copies of the same letter from Angela Harries, which seem to be HSBC's way of saying that they've sent your statements but nothing else. I have spoken to their Data Compliance dept, who tell me that SARs are initially treated as requests for 6 years of statements; if you want more (as I do), they go into stalling mode and demand that you fill in a form so you can give them all the info that was in your SAR again. They also told me that they didn't receive the original SAR (despite signing for it), and that I hadn't paid - curious, because they've actually returned the cheque, which was enclosed with the SAR... They also sent me a printout of all my transactions on one account, followed by 40 envelopes containing copy statements for the same account, acompanied by a covering letter apologising for sending so many copy statements, but 'this is the only way we can provide the information you asked for'! I get the impression that their admin is in meltdown.

Thanks for the clarification. At the target in front, in your own time, go on...

Get hold of a copy of the Banking Code and then ask HBOS if they think their action is compliant (it isn't - they are supposed to be fair and reasonable, and to help if you have financial difficulties). Also, start a formal complaint under the FOS scheme.

I see where you are going, and applaud it, but I've always understood that the vexatious litigant rules applied to those who initiate action either frivolously or without proper grounds, rather than those who abuse the judicial process as defendants.

Do a bit of reading about the OFT guidelines, and the scales will fall from your eyes...

Who is 'they'?

Good letter. May I suggest an edit or two, however? I would be inclined to hold sending copies to anyone else for the moment. They are likely to acknowledge your complaint and say they'll look into it, followed by a partial admission and offer of some of what you've asked for. There's no need to use all your ammo at once. Also, I doubt that Watchdog holds any fear for most tour operators - everyone threatens them with Watchdog, but they know that Watchdog needs many, many complaints before they'll consider a feature. And anyway, in the general scheme of things Thos Cook are by no means the worst. Trading Standards and ABTA are far more likely to get their attention. I'd also keep quiet about having worked for them, just in case they decide to send some sort of excuse based upon an explanation of their internal procedures, you may well be able to surprise them with your 'insider' knowledge, which might be useful. Good luck.

HSBC are in a mess with SARs. They are overwhelmed with people trying to reclaim charges. In my case, they claimed not to have received the original SAR (despite signing for it, and subsequently I discovered part of the cheque I sent for the fee in one of the statement envelopes!). After chasing them, they sent me statements. After an LBA, they then demanded I fill in a form saying why I want the data - then they say it's because they need to check my signature. However, after many fruitless calls to their useless Service Quality Centre I received a letter from the Data Compliance Team, and spoke to them. It seems that HSBC treat all SARs as requests for 6 years statements, and these are dealt with offshore. However, if you want all the data they hold, Data Compliance in Sheffield deal with it - and they seem quite switched on. In the first instance, try ringing the Service Quality clowns and insist that they put you in touch with Data Compliance in Sheffield.

An update. I spoke to ECI this afternoon as they had failed to respond to my last letter other than to acknowledge receipt and say they'd reply within 5 days. I have to say that the chap I spoke to was entirely businesslike and helpful - perhaps because they have nothing to gain now. Anyway, he's got some stuff to send me: A copy of a letter from RBS assigning the alleged debt to Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd. This is apparently dated Feb 2000, which is interesting, since Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd didn't exist until January this year. Either RBS had a crystal ball seven years ago, or Cabot have been busy with their printer and someone else's letterhead. Details of ECI's client - Cabot Financial (Europe) Ltd. Quite how they metamorphosed from UK to Europe is a mystery. No doubt Willem has the answer. Alas, although he's asked Cabot for a copy of the original agreement, they don't have it, but are apparently trying to find some T&Cs. Quite how this meets the requirements for processing data is another little mystery. ECI are asking me to confirm that I won't take any action against them, which is nice... As soon as I receive the papers, I shall have pleasure in helping Cabot to contribute another £400 to FOS.

Take a look at http://auctionguild.com/generic17.html , contact information and scroll down for UK contact info. I spent some time pursuing Ebay a while back - their numbers change regularly, but TAG is usually reliable.

I would be inclined to speak to your local councillor as well, not least about the attitude of the council employee you spoke to.

I'd be inclined to keep it very simple:

Contact your MP (find him/her at TheyWorkForYou.com: Are your MPs and Peers working for you in the UK's Parliament?) and ask him to take up the case for you.

Bullsh*t. CRAs don't record such data. If the cheques had been dishonoured, your bank would doubtless have written to you, robbed you blind in the process and the whole thing would be reflected in your statements. Their charges are absurd. In addition to being disproportionate, they can only levy charges if there is express contractual provision. The amount of such contractual charges would have to be shown in the contract. A note of caution, however; it may be, because things to do with railways can be subject to all sorts of unique byelaws and Acts, that they are able to charge for collection - it's worth checking. I suspect that the DCA is none other than the railway company, or acts for Chiltern and other rail operators (TOC = Train Operating Company). Anyway, the next course of action is to write to them formally disputing the debt, and reminding them that under the OFT guidelines they must cease all collection activity until it is resolved.