Two points worth noting: 1. FOS requires you to have followed the bank's complaints procedure, and that you are unhappy with the bank's final response - they are allowed 8 weeks to get to this, before you can escalate the complaint to FOS. It is not possible to complain direct to FOS. 2. Probably happily in this case, FOS will only deal with complaints arising on after 06 Apr 07. The court appear to be following the example of Lord Falconer & Lord Cronysmith, and are talking out of their backsides.

Moorcroft will reply to a CCA with a template letter stating that they have asked the original creditor to supply the agreement, and some red-herring waffle about court defence and so on. A reply is unnecessary. In my case (and I gather it has been the same for others), Moorcroft ignored the request for a statement of account. Some weeks after they had failed to supply a copy agreement, they wrote to say that they had passed the file back to the original creditor as they had been unable to provide the agreement. I have now begun the formal FOS complaint process on the grounds that they pursued a debt they could not prove existed, and with no copy agreement must also have processed my data without consent. I have included Moorcroft's attempts to avoid a complaint by lying about who is responsible for supplying the copy agreement, and feigned ignorance of the new statutory procedure.

Amex have done this to me too, though the reduction was only £200. I asked for an explanation and was told that they do this regularly to many cardholders and it shouldn't be looked at as any criticism or indication that Amex were concerned. However, they did not like my suggestion that I would follow their example, review my payments and reduce them

I've read it. I find it truly revolting. It ranks on a par with their 'nice lady' telephone tactic, wherein a woman phones, pretends to want to help (only, of course, in a way that will favour MBNA, and only if kept secret from CCCS/Payplan), and can do so if only the debtor will pay a little more, she's certain she can persuade her big bad boss to accept it. This, of course, is interspersed with more harassing calls. A classic example of joint questioning, or good cop, bad cop. It's a blunt instrument, but I can see why many people would feel intimidated by it. Not only is it patronising in the extreme, it's bullying. It's clever only in the way it it is designed to make the recipient feel childlike and embarrassed - how many would show it to a CCCS counsellor or similar? I can't wait to send my next letter to MBNA, which will begin: Dear MBNA Although your administrative difficulties seem to be getting more and more serious...

The other driver's insurer has assumed her liability. If she will not co-operate with them, then simply hold her responsible. After being hit from behind by a driver who failed to stop, I reported the accident to the police. The driver provided his insurance details, but then refused to co-operate with his insurers. My insurance included legal assistance, and the solicitors sent the other driver a letter telling him that unless they heard from his insurers within 10 days that he had completed a claim form then they would issue a writ for damages and persoanl injury against him. Did the trick!

I'm not so sure; I suspect that the number of people who are intimidated into paying by debt buyers and DCAs is still significantly larger than the number of 'rogue customers' (to quote the CE of Cabot), who have the gall to insist upon doing things the legal way.

Firstly, thanks to Yaffsimone for posting the pink pig letter. I too would like to see it word for word, not least because the crossed through 'FEES' symbol looks as if they are pointing people towards CCCS/Payplan, whom we know MBNA regularly say they cannot/will not deal with, contrary to OFT guidelines - but then, MBNA seem to consider themselves above the law and rules of the their consumer credit licence. It's not just this letter that needs a wider airing, it's MBNA's approach in general that needs to be exposed. I have some experience of dealing with politicians, both Commons and Lords, and am happy to help if needed. I will try to find out if anyone I know might be interested in this subject. In particular, whilst in no way offering egg-sucking lessons to elderly relatives, I can advise anyone thinking of contacting their own MP on how to best structure a letter to get a response.

A couple of years ago I had some dealings with MCS and DG Solicitors. At the time I was unaware that both belonged to HSBC. However, I wrote and asked MCS whether there was any connection between them and DG - I have their answer in writing that there is no connection other than MCS instructing DG. This is clearly no more than a lie. I have now SARd HSBC, and included both MCS and DG Solicitors. I contacted MCS to determine whether they would need a separate SAR, and the monkey on the phone said: "You send your request letter to HSBC, and they will pass it on to us. If we deem it worthy of a reply you might get something from us (MCS), but we don't have to send anything." He also told me that the 40-day limit doesn't apply, since "we have our own company policies"! Needless to say, that particular monkey received a short, sharp briefing on the law. I always knew that being b*llocked rigid by a drill sergeant would come in useful one day.

A colleague of mine's wife complained to FOS when her bank wouldn't stop a rolling authoristaion to AOL, and AOL kept ignoring correspondence. FOS instructed the bank to cancel the authorisation, refund the payments, and pay redress as well.

Don't forget to ask Clarity for a copy of their complaints procedure, which they are now required to send you under the new FOS rules. Once you've followed it, and if (when) their final response is unsatisfactory, you can escalate the complaint to FOS. It'll cost Clarity several hundred quid, and may help to concentrate their minds on doing things by the rules.

Note also that the letter Moorcroft have sent is a standard one they send as a response to every CCA request. I recently CCAd them, and they wrote (about a month after the 12 + 30 deadline) to say they couldn't provide the agreement. I've now informed them that I'm making a formal complaint to the OFT and ICO as they attempted to collect a debt without any proof of its existence, and processed my data without evidence of my consent to do so.

First, don't speak to them on the phone - only deal with them in writing. They are unlikely to take you to court now - it's a threat. If they did, a judge will not make you pay more than you can afford. Many DCAs claim that they can't do this or that because of 'our company policy'; think about it - it's just what they make up. You saying that you will only speak to them in Flemish or Tagalog because it's your policy would carry as much legal weight! Write to them, making a formal offer to pay £35 per week. Include in the letter that contact from them must be in writing.

I would be interested to see a scan of the pink pig letter! MBNA like pictures; you can see some more at mbna :: financial services and have a laugh at the pretentious and risibly untrue drivel that is their 'core values'. The threats are just that. It's almost certainly a template letter (they aren't imaginative enough to insult you personally). MBNA are bluster and bullsh*t specialists. I imagine that they have, in their letter, omitted to mention various stages of the processes that could result in Unpleasant Things occurring. Send them a suitable reply: More seriously, MBNA know that if they take you to Court then a Judge is unlikely to order you to pay any more than you have already shown is as much as you can afford. In addition, he is also likely to ask MBNA why they have treated the Civil Procedure Rules with contempt. MBNA are corporate morons; the only way to get through to them is to keep on at them. Of course, since they have presumably sent this letter to you since 06 April, you can make a complaint under the new FOS scheme. Send a letter headed 'COMPLAINT', itemise their failures to respond to your offers, any breaches of the OFT guidelines, any harrassment etc., and then wait to see if they comply with the new rules (acknowledge complaint within 5 working days and send a copy of their complaints procedure), take it all the way with them and if they don't play, go to FOS. It'll cost MBNA, so they might actually take notice.

Clarity's rather self-aggrandising and pompous website say they are a 'niche' DCA - in other words, the usual bottom-feeders who buy old debts...

I have just sent a SAR to HSBC so that I can reclaim charges. No doubt coincidentally, a couple of days after my visit to a branch for various bits of information, I received a peremptory letter from my branch to the effect that they were unable to contact me by telephone, and would I therefore contact them. A couple of days later I am handed a letter addressed to 'The Occupier', in which HSBC say that they understood that the Scarlet Pimpernel lives at Blakeney Hall, but they 'now believe that this information is incorrect'; they ask whoever gets the letter to contact them. So I rang, and an offshore call centre said that it was to do with an HSBC credit card. I told them I don't have one, and they insisted that not only must I have one, they won't talk to me unless I give them the number and expiry date (of the card I don't have...). Requests to speak to a manager were ignored. So, I rang the complaints department, and was told that someone would contact me. They haven't, so a week later I have phoned them to check progress. I expressed surprise that HSBC have not acknowledged my complaint in writing by the end of the next working day, as required by the new FOS rules, which are backed by the CCA 2006. They told me that their policy was to try to respond within 5 working days; my assertion that legislation has precedence was met with evasion worthy of a New Labour politician. No, they weren't prepared to answer my question; no, I couldn't speak to anyone else in that department; no, they wouldn't give me the number of any department in HSBC that deals with compliance; no, they wouldn't give me the number of head office - I could look it up on the internet! So, I rang their legal department, explained my concerns, and within 10 minutes a senior customer services manager called me back. She was completely unaware of the CCA 2006 and the FOS scheme. They're going to call me back tomorrow...

DVLA tried to stick me with a £80 'fine' for not buying a tax disc. I wrote back, enclosing a copy of the export certificate supplied by themselves when I took the car to Germany. Some lunatic at their regional office wrote again several times, threatening all sorts of unpleasantness, but I ignored it and they eventually stopped writing.

There have been previous instances of Intrum Justicia chasing non-existant Ebay debts. Their usual stance is the old 'you must prove you don't owe the money, or we'll keep hassling' tosh. Of course, now that the new FOS complaints scheme is in place... Fill your boots!

I think you can - providing you can get Capital Bank to correspond! By coincidence, I am dealing with a Capital Bank case for a client, via a DCA. Throughout, Capital Bank have been a problem; they refuse to speak to me or my client; they are in breach of OFT rules and CCA, and they have the idea that their company policies override legislation. Even the DCA admits to finding Capital Bank awkward and unhelpful. Anyway, I suspect that you will have to force Capital Bank into corresponding. Try sending a recorded delivery letter in which you ask for a refund of penalty charges. If they reply, deal with them as for bank charges. If they don't, write again, heading your letter 'complaint', and complain about their failure to answer your earlier letter, and ask for a copy of their complaints procedure. Under the new FOS rules they are obliged to acknowledge the complaint, in writing, by the end of the next working day. They are also required to provide a copy of their complaints procedure on request. If they answer, go through their complaints procedure; if you don't get a satisfactory final response, escalate the complaint to FOS. If they don't reply to your complaint, you can go straight to FOS. FOS can charge them for handling the complaint, force them to act properly, and award you compensation.

Those who call others sprog are already old, and know it! Still, it reminds me of happy days in light blue - not least because I now work mostly with pongos.

Cabot are the SIB of the DCA world. Lots of bluster made to sound as if they a) know what they are talking about and b) have the law behind them. I shouldn't be at all surprised to find that Ken et al wear cheap brown suits. D8426 = sprog. B8128XXX Scarlet Pimpernel

The bank should be able to find it. So that I could start reclaiming charges, I recently called at my bank and asked for details of old accounts (from when I was married), and they were able to bring them up on-screen in seconds. Including a PPI policy I never knew I had, on a loan...

Buzby's advice is sound. Selling excursions are one of the main ways in which tour operator's reps make money - the tour operator will also take a cut. Reps also make commission from recommending bars and restaurants. In some cases they earn commission when their clients are ill, sending customers to particular doctors or private clinics, when in (for example) in Spain the health service provides a much better standard of care, and is free. Some reps even make money when holidaymakers die (which happens quite regularly on 'oldies' holidays), by informing a local undertaker who pays when they know that the insurers use a different undertaker. Who pays in the end? You do, through increased travel insurance premiums.

The first post at dougs: Buchanan Clark and Wells Ltd is a good illustration of how inept BCW really are.

PayPal are about as much use as 'Swiss' Des Browne. If a buyer claims not to have received goods, PayPal will refund them unless the seller has sent the item by a trackable method. However, this appears to be a case where the buyer has used dodgy credit card details, in which case PayPal has not refunded the buyer, but itself. Go to the police. Don't be fobbed off by a civilian at the reception desk - ask to speak to a police officer about a case of obtaining goods by deception. Many police stations now have officers specifically trained in internet crime, including Ebay. Take printouts of everything relevant - the auction listing, every email from the buyer and PayPal, and the package delivery details. PayPal do co-operate with the police, and will give them more details of the transaction. However, don't be surprised if the address the package was delivered to turns out to be an accommodation address or similar, used by criminals to receive goods to sell on.

Ebay are hopeless. Some months ago there was a spate of incidents reported on their own boards when many people were pursued by Robinson, Way or Intrum Justicia for debts to Ebay that simply did not exist. My own experience was as one of a group claiming against them for goods that did not arrive. The police were involved, and Ebay's ineptitude and slow responses may well have contributed to the individual involved not being arrested. Actually getting the money from them took many months, and queries were usually met with template responses that made no sense. personal responses were usually risibly absurd. Amongst the gems were: 'Our Swiss bank will issue payment, and it isn't possible to send wire transfers from Switzerland' and 'we don't respond to letters quickly because they have to be quarantined as part of our anti-terrorist procedures". Eventually the cheque arrived, drawn on a Dutch bank... Anyway, you could always try surprising Ebay by getting their latest UK phone number from The Auction Guild Inc - MAIN They try to avoid speaking to customers, but you never know...