With that splendid sense of fairness that New Labour are famous for, MoD insists that the military co-operate with TV Licencing/Crapita, whilst for Tony Bliar and 'Sinn' Hain's new best mates it's business as usual - no TV licencing, no DSS investigators, and so on. Then again, people buying televisions tend to use spoof addresses, as a security measure, you understand, which seems to confuse Crapita's database...

Alas, Seahorse, you have the wrong ECI - the clowns I'm dealing with are these: ECI: Under Construction Still, the other one is risibly self-important - no doubt they'll turn up on CAG some time.

Any company that tries a doorstep collection in Northern Ireland must be the most moronic of morons. So, I'll expect them next Tuesday... I'm not advocating any sort of illegal violent response, incidentally, though that's why there are some areas where DCAs fear to tread. Not where I live, which is very firmly on the right side of the law.

Daunted As you are ex-service, you can also get help and advice from organisations like SSAFA, RBL and the ABF, all of whom are able to assist with debt problems.

A few weeks ago I received, out of the blue, a letter from a company called ECI, pursuing an alleged debt on behalf of Cabot (I will not say which bit of the hydra yet). I ignored it, as I did the next couple. Ultimately, however, curiosity got the better of me and I had an entertaining conversation with ECI. It transpired that they were trying to collect a debt apparently incurred in 1984! - is this a record? I told them that so far as I could remember I have never had an account with the bank they named, but in any case it would be statute barred. It seems that ECI, like so many DCAs, think that the OFT guidelines and DPA don't apply to them. "You must owe the money, because Cabot say so, and statute barred doesn't mean we won't continue to enforce it", they said. "Actually, it means precisely that you won't, because you can't", I said. "Well, maybe not in court, but we can still try to collect", they replied. They then went on to tell me some porkies about registering defaults with CRAs, cancelling my birthday and making the sky fall in. I went on to ask if they could produce evidence of my consent for them (or their client, Cabot), to process my data, to which they replied that they must have it, because Cabot wouldn't have handed the case to them otherwise. A touching faith in Cabot, no? The creature at ECI said he was so confident that they could still collect, that he'd be writing a final letter before taking me to court (he'd obviously forgotten that that isn't going to happen). Maybe he wrote it, but he certainly didn't send it to me. On the other hand, I have written to them. I am rather busy, so my letter won't get posted until the 6 April. In my letter I have told them that I perceived the phone monkey's talk of continuing to collect as a threat to harass; asked them to confirm that they will now comply with the OFT guidelines; demanded a copy of my signed consent for them and Cabot to process my data; and demanded full details of their client. I have a feeling that they will not want to play. The next stage will be to complain to the FOS and IC about ECI, and then begin a complaint against Cabot under the DPA. Sink me, I'm quite looking forward to doing battle with Citizen Maynard.

Replied!

Bally35 Has your OH spoken to anyone at MOD about his records, such as the Veteran's Agency? Coincidentally, I registered with a NHS GP in a naval town, and it took 9 months for my records to appear, and only then because I used my knowledge of military/NHS med admin to help the process. There is considerable interest in military healthcare from both MPs and the media at the moment. One of the specific areas of interest is in what happens when people leave the forces. The Defence Committee of the Commons is currently looking at healthcare, and I am part of a group that will be submitting written evidence to the committee. I would welcome any information, which will be treated in strict confidence (any specific case submitted to the committee will be anonymised, and only used with consent). If records are being lost, or if MOD or the NHS systems are not robust enough, this is a good chance to change things for the better. Feel free to pm me if you prefer.

I had a similar problem with Tesco, even though I sent them a cancellation letter they said wasn't required! They attempted to chase me for premium they claim wasn't paid (untrue), one month's premium, and a £75 'cancellation charge'. Eventually, after a farcical exchange of correspondence, in which Tesco sent everything to different incorrect addresses, they put the masterminds at Moorcroft onto it. I disputed the debt with Moorcroft (on the basis that the extra month's premium and cancellation charge are unreasonable penalties), and sent them a CCA for the instalment plan, to which they failed to respond other than with a proforma letter (to the wrong address). Tesco sent me two different printouts of their standard agreement, with different dates and addresses, that did not meet the CCA requirements. I have not heard from either Tesco or Moorcroft since.

tbern - I know a couple of journalists who may be interested in the story. National papers - serious broadsheets, not red-top tabloids. Let me know if this is of any use.

It is curious that so many military medical records seem to go missing, not least because of the simple procedures in place to archive them and forward the relevant parts to the NHS. However, MOD has claimed not to have casualty figures for Op TELIC, which was proved to be no more than a lie, so they have demonstrated that they cannot be relied upon to be truthful. I really find it hard to believe that any serviceman's medical records can go missing entirely without trace. Military medical records are contained within a file cover (FMed4); the record of routine GP consultations is written on a card (FMed5); when full, these were edited and archived. Whenever a referral to hospital or elsewhere was made, the details are on an FMed7 - one copy to the hospital, one to the FMed4, and one to the central archive. The same goes for medicals and so on - a copy in the FMed4 and a copy to archives. Whenever a FMed4 goes anywhere, it's receipted. Nowadays, of course, much of it is computerised, but in addition to the digital record, hard copy printouts are kept. When an individual leaves the services, a summary of their records is sent to the NHS Central Registry at Smedley Hydro, so that their new GP can send for them. So, if MoD are claiming that records are lost, then they've managed to misplace the individual's personal medical record, any hospital records, and the archived copies. Oh, and if you've been on ops they've also lost the Field Medical record as well. How very careless of them. Anyone with Gulf War Syndrome should also have specific records held by the med group who investigated it. I am aware that some units (especially Army), don't give service leavers the correct information about how to register, and that some NHS GPs don't know how to request ex-service records, but if many people are having difficulties then something needs to be done. I would be very interested to know what those whose records appear to be missing have done to pursue them, and what answers MOD have given.

A number of people on Ebay forums have found that not all credit card companies will do chargebacks from PayPal, because they view PayPal as a third party or intermediary. Personally I use PayPal only to pay for goods on Ebay. I gave up accepting it as a payment method some time ago - it provides no protection for sellers, the fees are very steep and the customer service is non-existent.

Having spent a good deal of time reading on the CAG site I am about to begin the process of claiming charges back from HSBC. I have hardly ever used my overdraft in the last six years, so do not think there will be anything worth claiming on my current account. However, the account I am most interested in, and would be grateful for advice on, is a FlexiLoan account that was opened whilst I was married (I am not any more), and which was defaulted in 2003. The debt was pursued in-house by MCS and DG Solicitors, and I ended up paying £30 per month - I still am, even though I tried to stop the standing order, but HSBC won't let me. Much of the debt was made up of penalty charges. At the same time, I also had a HSBC Visa card; when the FlexiLoan account was defaulted HSBC cancelled this account and demanded full repayment, though subsequently they 'reinstated' it - i.e. I don't have a card but am paying the minimum payment each month. Again, there are charges I wish to recover on this, and again HSBC will not let me cancel payments. I have already set up a parachute account. My questions are: - When I SAR HSBC, could they refuse to send details of the FlexiLoan account as it was a joint account? - Should I make a separate claim in relation to the Visa card? - I have substantive evidence that MCS breached OFT guidelines on a number of occasions - is this worth pursuing or using in my claim? Thanks in advance.

Just came across this thread whilst looking for something else. I had a membership with a book club, and one book I ordered didn't arrive - they said it was back-ordered. Anyway, a couple of weeks later I received a letter from a DCA - or at least that's what it seemed to be. A check on Companies House website revealed it to be part of the book club company. I rang their head office (rather than the 0870 number on the letter), and asked for the person who'd signed the letter. She began by claiming I had to pay anyway, even if they hadn't yet supplied the book, and threatened Small Claims Court (for £14!). We then had a chat about company law, and why her DCA letterhead showed an incorrect registered office address, premium rate numbers, and how I'd welcome the opportunity to go to court. This produced a torrent of apologies and an explanation that this was just a part of her job that she didn't really like, and would I just tear up the letter....

The first thing to note is that bailiffs are not going to turn up on your doorstep - in a few days, or a few weeks. What the revolting creatures at Phillips omitted to tell you is that the only way they could involve bailiffs is if: - they took you to Small Claims Court, and - the judge ordered you to pay instalments, and - you didn't pay the instalments Then, and only then, they could obtain a Warrant of Execution and involve bailiffs. However, you should also be aware that the Civil Procedure Rules say that court should be a last resort, and the judge is likely to take a dim view of any premature action taken by a DCA. A judge would not order you to pay more than you can afford in any case. Additionally, the OFT guidelines consider that telling you that bailiffs will be involved in this way is unfair practice; DCAs should also cease pursuing on the phone anyone who is vulnerable, or who has mental health issues. You do not have to speak to these creatures on the phone. In your circumstances I would suggest you seek advice from CAB or similar. They should be able to deal with the DCA on your behalf. Alternatively, someone here will be able to suggest letters to write yourself. They may also be able to assist with the parking tickets.

I suspected that you might have some sort of interest which helped to form your opinion - as indeed I have, though you don't say what you do. I see you work in ITU transport - I have some experience of this as part of CCAST. I'm still in healthcare, but no longer a paramedic. I fail to see why a comparison with doctors is stretching it, in that it simply illustrates the point that experiential training is valid. I am not suggesting that the undertaking of experiential learning in addition to didactic training makes a paramedic equivalent to a doctor; that would be absurd. 20 weeks didactic training, coupled with the experiential element may not be perfect, but it is considerably better than the old standard for ambulance staff. Probably the only people I've ever met who'd like to see a return to those days are some very narrow-minded nurses, and technicians who couldn't hack the paramedic course. I think it compares well with the training for paramedics in many other countries, and is significantly better than many others. If the NHS ambulance service was not so abused, I suspect that a) we wouldn't need quite so many paramedics and b) those we had would be better motivated. The higher level education for paramedics is the degree in Paramedic Science, some also have Diplomas in Emergency and Pre-Hospital Care, which are equivalent to the DipEd held by nurses. The degree is a prerequisite for the new Emergency Practitioner qualification. Paramedics are now state registered. Anyway, this is an interesting discussion, and I look forward to your answers on scoop and run versus stay and play, and why you think that the research is all wrong. I can understand there's a place for swoop and scoop - my former colleagues have to do it occasionally - BBC NEWS | UK | Treating the injured under Taleban fire Returning to the OP, I agree that the ambulance staff didn't get it right, as you will see from my first post. I wasn't there, so I don't know what protocol they could have been following; but I doubt that what they were doing was in accordance with their training. As in all professions, not all are perfect. If OP's complaint resulted in them undergoing refresher training, I see that as a positive outcome. ps: spelling forgiven, but I couldn't resist pre madonnas!

Another of their tricks is to start harassing debtors on DMPs, claiming that payments have been missed (when they haven't), and that the DMP is now void so they'll be adding charges and interest again. MBNA will also claim not to be able to speak to CCCS/Payplan (nonsense, as they have Paylink). Ultimately MBNA will agree to 'reschedule' the debt, which means they'll leave the extra charges and interest, but restart the DMP. This tactic relies on CCCS/Payplan being so busy that debtors find it hard to get through to them, or to get anything done quickly. It also relies upon CCCS/Payplan not taking the extra charges up with MBNA, again because they are too busy. Then there's MBNA's own version of 'good cop, bad cop'. It starts with a DMP, and sudden telephone harrassment, then one day a 'nice lady' phones the debtor, and suggests that she can help. She can stop the calls, and she can agree payments that will make the debt go down quicker, but the help is conditional on it remaining a secret from CCCS, and the nice lady will have to ok it with her boss, who's usually very strict, but.... It's a cynical and unsavoury tactic that preys on the vulnerable.

To train as a paramedic, an individual must first be a qualified Ambulance Technician. Taking, as an example (because all the trusts are slightly different), Cumbria Ambulance Service, to become a Technician requires successful completion of a 10 week full-time course followed by several months of supervised and assessed experience. The final assessment is at 50 weeks. Most ambulance services then require potential paramedics to have completed a year as a Technician before they can attempt the Paramedic entrance exam, which consists of both practical clinical tests and theory. Paramedic training then consists of a further 10 weeks of intensive learning with regular assessments and clinical practice. Once qualified, Paramedics undergo regular updates and refresher training. Hardly 'little formal training'; it is not easy and requires a mixture of intellectual ability and practical clinical skills. There is a lot to be learnt on the job, however, and this is no bad thing. After all, it's how doctors become Registrars, then Consultants. It's the only way to see a wide variety of conditions. I think you mean prima donna (and apart, and unnecessary). Why do you think that following proven protocols and carrying out an assessment makes a paramedic a prima donna? What is your evidence for believing that the ambulance service is 'saturated' with prima donnas? What do you think the advantages of 'scoop and run' are, contrasted to the research-proven methodology currently in use? How are you qualified to judge? OP is aware of the NHS complaints system, as she used it. No doubt if she remains unhappy she will be in touch with the NHS Ombudsman.

CCCS are usually very good, but of late they have become busier and so had to try and do more with the same resources. Theoretically, DCAs and creditors should recognise that someone who has gone to CCCS (or Payplan) has acknowledged that they are in difficulties but are committed to resolving the situation. Unfortunately, in practice, some DCAs and creditors don't play by the rules and this creates a substantial amount of additional work for CCCS. MBNA are probably the most difficult to deal with I have referred several people to CCCS, and am in regular touch with them. My experience is that whilst things are straightforward they are excellent, but they don't have the resources to deal with anything complex. However, there's nothing to stop the individual doing some of the work themselves, or getting someone else to do it for them. For example, one of my clients is aware that much of her debt to MBNA is made up of penalty charges. CCCS can't deal with this, so I've drafted letters and we are dealing with it separately. In another case MBNA suddenly started adding PPI to an account; again querying this through CCCS would be a long drawn out process, so I am having fun dealing direct. In another case First Direct persuaded a client to pay them direct, even though FD had agreed to a DMP; this has now been reinstated - but all with most of the work done beforehand for CCCS to save time.

My understanding is that the above used to be the case; my earlier quote was taken directly from the DTI website.

Some NHS Trusts have contracted-out the control of parking to local councils. I worked at a hospital where this was the case. Previously, there were endless problems with vehicles causing obstructions and shoppers and people who worked in nearby offices (usually solicitors) using the hospital car park. Hospital security patrolled the car parks, but not very well. The trust increased the parking charges, and the council's moronic PAs started ticketing cars. Including mine, despite it being in a designated reserved space, with a staff permit and a large 'emergency on call' sign - for 'failing to display a valid ticket'! Effect: the council has made a lot of money, the NHS has lost a lot of goodwill, the solicitors now come in a bit earlier and pay for an all day ticket, and it is just as hard to park as it ever was. Consider this, too: You have an outpatient appointment at 1100. You know that you will be with doctor for about 15 minutes. You arrive 10 minutes early, and pay for an hour's parking. However, the clinic is running late; you can't go and buy more time a) because you may be paying twice for the same period and b) you may miss your appointment. When you have finally seen the doctor you find you have a parking ticket. It seems to me that if the NHS is unable to guarantee that you will be seen promptly, they have no business either charging for parking or ticketing those who overstay through no fault of their own.

Googling the number comes up with this: Getting in touch with Pay as you Talk

Are you sure they are from O2, and not some sort of intermediary? A phone company kept making unsolicited calls to my mobile. They knew my name and that my contract (which was with O2) was shortly due to expire. I told them every time that I was not interested. I live in military accommodation, but also own a house (though I'm rarely there). Going to the house for a weekend, I found a courier's card saying 'parcel for you at the pub'. When I collected it, I found it contained a mobile phone, and paperwork in my name which appeared to be a contract. I noticed, however, that although the parcel came to my house, the address on the contract was my father's! Before buying my house, I used my father's address for all credit-related stuff; he confirmed that he hadn't ordered a phone. I contacted the company, who claimed that I must have ordered the phone. I asserted that I had not, not least because it was a Nokia, and since I dislike them I wouldn't have ordered one. They could not explain the address anomaly, then claimed they couldn't discuss it 'for data protection reasons'. Ultimately they demanded I send the phone back, or they would seek full payment. They refused to send a prepaid package until I told them I'd keep the phone as unsolicited goods. Here's the detail from DTI's website: Under the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971, (as amended) it is an offence to demand payment for goods known to be unsolicited, in other words, they were sent to a person without any prior request made by them or on their behalf. Someone who receives goods in these circumstances may retain them as an unconditional gift, and does not have to pay for or return any unwanted goods. Anyone who receives a demand for payment for unsolicited goods should report the matter to their local Trading Standards Department.

If council staff are unhelpful, complain to a local councillor. Council staff are obliged to answer councillors' questions. Ask your councillor to investigate why council staff, who are supposed to be public servants, are so ignorant of important matters such as what bailiffs can charge. Ask why the council have entered into a contract with bailiffs who are clearly not working within the rules, and that this clearly brings the council into disrepute. Tell him/her that you are doing your best to pay what you owe, but these unlawful and unreasonable bailiff fees are causing you major problems. If your councillor appears unwilling, mention that your next stop will be the local press. I have been a councillor, and would have certainly taken a problem such as this to the head of finance asked for a detailed and rapid explanation. In general the 'professional' council staff see councillors as interfering amateurs, but this is the councillor's strength - they aren't part of the smug little club that often forget that they are there to serve the public.

In light of the additional information about your reports to reps and so on, I suspect that you may be able to take this further. However, I think you need to stick to this and not be distracted about the side issues of Spanish-speaking Spaniards and minor accidents. These may be irritating, but Airtours weren't responsible for them; the accommodation was a constant problem, had a significantly detrimental effect on your enjoyment of the holiday, and was Airtour's responsibility. I'd be inclined to write to Airtours again, highlighting the fact that you followed their procedures whilst in the resort, but without success. I'd be specific about saying that whilst you appreciate them acknowledging (with the £50) that things were not right you would like them to apologise and provide an undertaking to look into the hotels in question.

It strikes me that some of your expectations are unrealistic. You say that you were unhappy with the first hotel because you had concerns about food hygiene, you did not feel that the staff treated you appropriately, and the swimming pool was not for the exclusive use of holidaymakers. As far as the food is concerned, Airtours will no doubt have ensured that the hotel meets the appropriate local regulations; any concern should have been raised with the staff and/or the Airtours rep - did you do this? The question of staff attitude is subjective, and again should have been brought to the attention of your Airtours rep, who should have dealt with it with the hotel management. Did you do this, and was there any change? Quite a few hotels allow non-residents to use facilities; locals living nearby may have such an arrangement. However, it would probably not be unreasonable for Airtours to mention this in their brochure, or for the rep to explain to you when you brought it to his/her attention. You say that these locals looked at young girls in swimwear - does this mean that they were children, and you thought that the activity of the locals was inappropriate or suspicious? If so, did you report the matter to the police? To complain about Spanish people were speaking Spanish in Spain is absurd. When you arrived at the second hotel, you list a number of complaints about the room, and say that whilst you brought these matters to the attention of the rep, who raised them with the hotel, but that nothing happened for the remaining 11 days of the holiday. You do not say what you did when nothing seemed to be happening. Did you keep the rep informed, and ask him/her for progress reports? Did you photograph the offending aspects of the room, and forward the images to Airtours? Moving on to the incidents involving your child, a significant feature of your description of both incidents is that the child seems to have been insufficiently supervised. If you were aware that the door slammed, why did you allow your son to go ahead by himself? No first aider? You weren't in UK, and cannot expect UK standards to apply. Health and safety legislation is different, too. Accidents do happen, and it isn't always possible to blame someone for them. Thankfully, it is clear that in neither episode the injuries sustained were minor, in that they did not require immediate medical attention. Under EC arrangements, hospital treatment is free in Spain, so there should be no medical costs. Did you report the accidents to the Airtours rep at the time? In summary, you may have had some cause to complain about some aspects of the accommodation, but you will probably find that within the terms and conditions of the booking is a clause that says you must make all complaints to the reps at the time rather than waiting until you get home. It is unreasonable to expect Airtours to assume liability for things outside their control, such as your own parental responsibility or the locals failure to speak a language you understand. In the circumstances I think Airtours gesture is reasonable, but you can take it up with ABTA if you think you still have a case. What would you expect to be a reasonable outcome?