Thanks again for all the replies, just to update it seems the call was one last desperate fishing trip. The phone call came 1 day before their records showed it became statute barred, I'm certain they are a couple of months out, at least, but no point wasting time on that. They have filed it away safely in their 'not a chance in hell' pile now.

Thanks for the replies. Similar to spidey, only took the call as I knew/thought it was statute barred & a part of me quite enjoys hearing the disappointment in their voice when they finally twig that their empty threats aren't going to send me running for my wallet. Just rattled me slightly when without prompting they mentioned a supposed verbal agreement and the vague 'we won't let it get to the point where we can't collect' statement. Got a statute barred letter ready to go but I'd rather humour them to the point where they accept they can't provide a copy of the credit agreement(been promising it for over 2 years!!) and 'take a commercial view' and simply write it off and close the account.

Hi, Just looking for some confirmation on rules regarding acknowledging debt with reference to it becoming statute barred. Keeping it brief, account has received no payment for over 6 years & certainly has had no WRITTEN acknowledgement in that time. During a recent conversation with Cabot they claimed I had made a verbal agreement to pay around 5 years ago & invited me to make them an offer for full & final(politely declined !!) stating that they would not allow the account to reach the point where they couldn't collect. Whilst I'm not certain I did ever make a verbal agreement its not impossible but I always understood that the 6 year clock could only be reset by either a payment or written acknowledgement, can anyone confirm this is the case or what evidence of a verbal agreement would be required. Thanks in advance.

wouldn't claim to be an expert by any means but I have done a fair bit of reading on DN's recently and it seems to me that yours clearly doesn't given you the required 14 days to remedy. Even disregarding a need to allow time for postage they only gave you 13 days from the date on the DN. 12 February would have been the 14th day but they clearly state payment is required BEFORE that date i.e. 11th or earlier. In reality, as I understand it, they are actually even further short because the earliest assumed date of receipt would be 31 January and as such it it only provided 11 days to remedy.

Not being actively chased at the moment but no doubt someone will crawl back out of the woodwork at some stage. Heard nothing on either for a few months due to DCA's being unable to produce Credit Agreements. Just need to know whether I need to be pro active or whether I can sit tight and introduce the [hopefully] defective DN's at some time in the future if I need to. Seems like you're suggesting do nothing for now?

When you get your SAR response I'd have a very close look at the default notice(I assume that is included in a SAR). I Just dug one out from 2007 which appears to be defective owing to them not allowing sufficient time to remedy. They had not allowed any time for postage and in any case the payment deadline only allowed 13 days from the date the letter was produced. if they were non compliant in 2007 there must be a fair chance they were before that also.

Having, unfortunately, adopted the ostrich approach to things for few years I have recently dug out some unopened post from a few years back and found some 'interesting' bits and pieces. It seems I have at least 2 defective default notices, will endeavor to scan later but I'm fairly sure both are defective.Both accounts have been terminated. First one, from HBOS, is dated 24 May and requires payment BEFORE 7 June(i.e. 6 June or earlier). Even without any allowance for postage this still doesn't provide 14 days to rectify. Second one is from Goldfish/Morgan Stanley and states that payment must be made 'Not later than 14 days from the date of this Notice'. As no time is allowed for postage I again understand this would be defective. Additionally there is no date on the actual notice, only on the covering letter. Now the part I'm looking for advice on, does the fact I didn't formally accept the terminations affect me in any way? Do I need to accept the terminations now, the DN's are from 2007!?? Thanks in advance.

I may be missing the point entirely here but surely McGuffick can only really come into play once an agreement is produced. By the time the case was heard RBS had managed to find the agreement and the argument essentially became about what RBS where or where not entitled to do during the period they could not produce the agreement. Had RBS turned up at court without an agreement(the position any DCA who are 'still looking', would be in)they would surely have been laughed at. It seems to me that any DCA trying to use McGuffick is assuming they will ultimately be able to find an agreement, which is demonstrably not the case.

Chalkitup, I'm in the middle of a similar situation, albeit with Cabot rather than the OC. My understanding is that their response is ,probably, technically accurate. They are not obliged to comply with a CCA request for an overdraft, owing to the section V exemption you refer to. As such no[sINGLE] written agreement is required and they are not obliged to send you, upon request, copies of the relevant bits for the £1 fee. This doesn't, of course, mean they would not need to show that all aspects of the OFT determination had been complied with should they wish to ask a court to enforce any alleged debt. Or that they can get away with ignoring your SAR. As I see it its a bit like a bank being able to satisfy a CCA request with a reconstituted agreement, their response is fine as far as their obligation to provide information goes but what they need to enforce an alleged debt is a whole different ball game.

The first time I got one of these (from a 'Mr Money', no less) I fell for it and rang them. Must have got through to a newbie 'cos she was far too honest and told me they send these 'calling cards' purely to get people to ring in and use them when they don't know if they've the right address. I'd guess the chances of them turning up are slim to zero but, as above, if they do invite them to leave they have no rights.

Thanks robinredbreast, always good to get someone else's take on things. Your summary more or less ties in with what I'd deciphered from the various threads on here. I have written confirmation from cr@pbot that they don't have any of the documents you list so as far as I'm concerned unless they change their mind and suddenly find them.....

Assuming it runs from the date I last payed money into the account its just over a year.

Whilst I tend to agree with the general advice of never setting up DD's with a DCA it is worth noting that would not be for you to prove you were not informed. If you make a claim under the Direct Debit Guarantee your bank is obliged to reimburse you immediately and then take it up with the payee. If your complaint was not being given due notice of a change it would be for the payee to prove otherwise.

Just to keep thread up to date. 'My comments have been noted' and Cabot have put the account on hold whilst their 'Legal Team' decide what to do. I'm quaking in me boots!!! No sign of any documentation whatsoever.

Fortunately for me it appears that they simply don't have anything which even purports to be a Credit Agreement. Once I'd put my request in writing their tone and attitude changed immediately and I haven't heard from them since, I'm sure thats more related to the OFT imposed requirements linked to in my last post than them suddenly rejoining the Human Race. So I would say, as others have done, don't speak on the phone. If you have something to say to them write, if they ring you refuse to answer security and tell them to write to you. They behave as they do on the phone because they can and know they are able deny it later if needs be. Whether you make an offer is really a choice only you can make, if your agreement is enforceable(I'm not qualified to comment on that) it may be your only realistic long term option but if so keep in mind that only YOU or a court can decide what is an affordable monthly amount, what Muckys think of any offer is largely irrelevant and they have absolutely no right to your income and expenditure details.