If you think they are in breach of OFT debt collection guidelines then you may wish to threaten them with this, saying you will be taking action on that basis if they do not leave off. I have in the past taken action successfully against 2 of those you mentioned in your initial post. After paying me, rather than risking a court visit, they went away quite quickly... They are very cute at threats but hate it when the tables are turned...

The shark has now removed the SAR fee from the account after my complaint. They blamed the OC - cat fight time it seems ...

Yes - best not to speak to any like this unless you have a Truecall system and are using the recording for your own protection. Best to get everything in writing and to send everything recorded delivery so you can prove what you have sent to them.

I can write to you asking you to pay me money for a debt that I say you owe me. You can say - prove it by showing me evidence... Same here...

Up2 - thanks very much for your kind wishes, which are sincerely appreciated. It's so nice when posters can work together rather than scaring the life out of each other as some do about these issues. Do let us know how you get on here and I shall do the same. Give 'em HELL!

The DCA did send some data, after I made SAR, but the main point is they went on to bang the tenner into the account which was against my express wishes.

Hey - that is most helpful - many thanks Martin This will be put to VERY good use.

Martin - excellent Can you tell me what exact rule is breached please? OC is HFC - shark is the Reigate terror - who else! Yes I keep and record the lot... always have..

I found out that the £10.00 DSAR fee I had sent to a shark had been paid back into a disputed account. Is this not a breach on some regulation or other? I had insisted that the tenner must only be used towards the DSAR...

It's really no wonder that this land is in such a mess with corrupt banks that have made a fortune from trusting customers via unfair charges and PPI etc. And now we have the terminally useless FOS that side with banks in the vast majority of cases. I have found via long experience that FOS assistance (don't laugh) creates more stress than any sharks, and that is saying something. FOS is a highly disorganised organisation that is chock full of self-righteous bank puppets that want to pay lip service to our genuine concerns. They usually come over as all knowing experts in matter relating to the CCA, but then politely inform you that they cannot possibly comment on legal issues (such as your genuine claims that your 10 year old 'agreement' with HBOS or Barclayshark is as valid as something the cat dragged in). They are in place to promote the illusion of official fair play for worried consumers - but the truth is something quite different! They are set in place to preserve the biased establishment, which is traditionally a banker paradise geared up for making huge profit out of the rest of us! That is the reality!

Personally I would NEVER offer this murky lot one penny - they ONLY get a cent if the judge says so - otherwise it's bye bye! They appear to be expert at buying alleged debts that other DCA's and banks have chucked out as a TOTAL waste of time... So why pay them? I believe its also only a question of time before they have their credit licence taken away by OFT.. Just wait and see!

It seems especially wrong to me that HBOS have assigned an account in dispute to 1st Credit. This is especially so when the account in dispute is already under FOS investigation for PPI etc. Does this action not break any particular law? Does a default notice also have to be given BEFORE such an assignment in made?

Also - it has to be said that this rather thick DCA 'does' pay up when given effective admin changes. They are one of the easiest to shake off in my experience, preferring to let go of the bone rather than let things get too serious.

Does anyone have a template relating to CPUTR 2008 that specifically targets the following typical scenario: A bank or DCA has been aggressively pursuing an alleged debt for some time. The copy agreement previously given under the CCA 1974 does not hold hold legally prescribed terms or perhaps signatures. What should one be saying to the shark about the CPUTR 2008 herein...? Does the following cut it? Dear xxx This is a FORMAL REQUEST under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 for written confirmation as to whether your company currently hold or have ever held a properly ‘executed’ Consumer Credit Agreement (holding all signatures and prescribed terms) in their possession relating to the alleged debt and if not, to confirm this in writing. Help to tidy this one up/make more dynamic would be appreciated... I am sure many other posters are seeking similar. I wish to hit many firms with this one when completed. PS I am happy for my post to be placed elsewhere if necessary.

Yes - I had CCP with Citi - I complained to FOS but they said it was no go as the payments were with Cumberland. Then I was told by FOS that they could not help so they sent me to FLA. So far I just wait.

Iqor are a persistent little pest of course but 'can' be tamed. I had to complain about them to FOS and finally, after a short tussle, managed to get a bit of compensation from this nasty little DCA for my troubles. Do keep the complaints going in.

Sorry pal - only just clocked this comment. A breach is a breach, regardless of it being in 'dispute' or otherwise I would think. The **** break the regulations and we make them pay the price..this is the name of the game...! I recently got to use FOS to good advantage against one DCA. At first the FOS backed the DCA, as I predicted they would. However, following further evidence that this shark had breached OFT regs the FOS informed me that the DCA wished to offer compensation, rather than let FOS take a chunk out of them via a costly investigation. DCAs are cold-hearted cowards and will frequently pay up rather than risk either FOS intervention or court costs... My advice is to NEVER GIVE UP and to remove all emotion from your mindset when dealing with DCAs. If you can do this you will become more likely to win. Never stop recording ALL their moves and complain constantly to as many regulators as you can. You will get set-backs that WILL wind you up terribly due to the injustice of the situation. You have to move forward and keep fighting and never surrender! Analyse everything good or bad that comes through your post box and USE IT! If you can take successful action against a DCA then use this to attack the original creditor coward that set them on you. One complaint often leads to 3 others.. lol I am currently pursuing three DCAs that have closed their files on me. They think its all over - it aint..lol!! Go get 'em guys!

So long as one is confident that they have a good solid case against such DCAs then ok - go for it. But be advised that some WILL take it all the way. They may also win if they find a supportive judge. This can mean one will be landed with costs too. In my experience it is now advisable to issue claims for compensation for breaches in the CCA that have created harassment for one, rather than blast into claims for admin charges levied against them. The former is a safer option... Some DCAs 'will' still pay up on admin charges (I hit one with four £50.00 admin fees plus costs and they paid up after the NI arrived) rather than risk a court visit, but I reiterate that claiming against them for CCA breaches is more advisable. I got this from a judge too.

Yes - I have had a similar thing with Barclay, who sent me another person's data. I have alerted the OFT, ICO and FOS as well as the bank and will make as much fuss as I can. The biggest concern is that as BC have sent me this other person's data they might have sent mine to her too. No good.

Nicklea - thanks for this clarification. I needed this spelling out as so many consumers are relying on it. We have to get these things correct.

Whilst an account is in dispute, the Administration of Justice Act 1970 requires that creditors freeze all action on an account. This includes: Applying interest to the account whilst the dispute remains. Asking for payment on the account whiles the dispute remains. Putting any pressure on debtors. Passing the debt on to any third party. Registering any information on a customer’s credit record. Where does it say this please - I cant find it?

First National - yes I have a PPI claim against them...via Santander now FLA just say they cannot do much to help... Any pointers re Particular of claim would be helpful..

I think an awful lot of this applies to fun I have had with HBoS (this firm seem expert at rolling multiple agreements onto one page) over the last few seasons.

You also need a special category for the most: Let off the hook DCA by FOS. FOS are happy to listen to consumers’ horrific tales of DCA abuse and then later on give their EXPERT, PRO-BANKING verdict that the DCA in question acted quite correctly in pursuing balances that were provably PPI – missold laden.

What a fascinating thread, well done DD. I do think that informing the sharks etc that you are only able to pay back tokens if they win is an excellent deterrent, meaning that even if they win in court they get back very little in return for all their filthy efforts to harass one into compliance. About 18 to 24 months ago, following terrible advice from CAB, I was naively paying all mine quid tokens per month and worrying myself to death in the process. I decided to sort things out for myself. I found CAG and before long inappropriate CCA attempts ensured that the token payments had been halted. I then discovered that as well as the alleged agreements possessing basis flaws that 99% of them have PPI misselling issues. Now some of this PPI has been returned yet the accounts are still in dispute over the figures. I have therefore presented official complaints to FLA, FSA, FOS, OFT, ICO etc and it is a full time job keeping up with all the paperwork. I have 16 complaints alone with one bank in respect of. Breaches of Consumer Credit Act 1974 Multiple mis selling of Payment Protection Insurance Policies Breaches of Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidelines Harassment by 3rd Party Agencies instructed by HBOS Breaches of Data Protection Act 1998 I almost feel sorry for them yet they have brought in on via their own appalling actions. And like I say – they stand to win back a quid per month as that is all I can afford out of the monthly dues. However, my ambition is to expose them and the way they have profited via hidden commission on their dirty little PPI agenda in this most unfair relationship. If I had a quid for all the times I had been threatened with legal action, home visits etc I would be doing quite nicely. On occasion I have hit them with counter action and most have paid up rather than press me further. I always let them know that I welcome the opportunity to place my dispute before a court – however, time and time again they just play pass the buck and give the file to a new shark. My question then would be: Do readers think that the creditors will still be aware of the fact that I previously paid them such small tokens (2 years ago) and if so how much bearing will this have had of their activities over this period? Oh Yes, I am in a rented home too. I only ask as I have NOT reminded them of this fact for a while. Perhaps I should in view of the above? Best wishes to all