I am sorry - I don't think this sound very familiar or quite the same as my issue. Mine was just a simple small claims matter over an unpaid admin fee and not like your harassment situation, although I am sure there must be similarities .. Perhaps others with more legal know-how could shed more light on it for you? However - I can see the format similarities that you allude to... Your N510 has.... “I state that the [High Court of England and Wales] [ County Court] has power under the [Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982] [Judgments Regulation (as defined in CPR rule 6.31(d))] to hear this claim, that the defendant is domiciled in [the United Kingdom] [a Member State] and that no proceedings are pending between the parties in the courts of any other part of the United Kingdom or any other Member State.” Mine has ..... "'I state that the High Court of England and Wales has power under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 to hear this claim and that no proceedings are pending between the parties in Scotland, Northern Ireland or another Convention territory of any contracting state as defined by section 1(3) of the Act." They are in fact very similar so perhaps you are indeed on the right track. Do get it checked first though ok...

"Irrespective of the court being used, are these charges you are pursuing arbitrarily reached? (By that, I mean without their express agreement?)." To be honest, no DCA is ever going to give their "express agreement" to your admin fees. Also it seems that judges are unhappy about DCAs that want to make a huge fuss about a simple small claims fee, such as a charge for a letter, telling us that such a commotion is "disproportionate to costs"... Of course it is not rocket science but one has a choice of either letting DCAs/Banks treat one like **** or fighting back here. I took the latter course of action. Others must decide for themselves.

QB – many thanks for presenting this concise run down of events. I seem to recall that the judge also hinted that this case could open the floodgates for others in a similar position. In layman’s terms the judge appeared to be telling the bank that a small claims admin fee like mine was NOT worth wasting the court’s time over, i.e. it was “disproportionate to costs”. The representative was not a happy little bunny about this and tried to protest but the judge virtually through him out on his ear. Go away you silly little man - seemed to be the gist of what the judge said to the bank representative. The admin fee was related to the account that did ‘not’ hold PPI (PBP) too. This is a significant latter point that I want to reiterate. I wish to know how I can utilise the ‘Judgment’ to best effect against this horrid company. They most certainly DO NOT want this story leaking out as it will naturally affect their ability to hassle consumers via their belligerent DCA techniques. I do hope that my efforts will help others too that have been targeted by them for ‘treatment.’ As I have said before – most companies pay up on admin fees, but this one got overconfident and paid the price.

Thanks CB - you beat me to the punch...lol Q x

CB - yes thanks for this. The ICO may indeed be interested to hear that without any sign of an agreement this outrageous bank has set the dogs on me resulting in them being forced at court to pay my admin fee, etc. I shall have to meditate on this one. I intend to give them all hell and will take whatever action necessary to halt their abuse of the CCA.

When it comes to issuing admin charges for being unnecessarily harassed, I find that most annoying DCAs pay up after a little initial complaining rather than taking it into litigation. However, I recently sued one in court that was an in-house agent for a leading bank. They wanted to take it all the way; therefore I met them in front of the judge. Thankfully, the judge came out in favour of me and said that the DCA was virtually wasting court time as the matter of a simple admin charge was disproportionate to costs. The bank later paid my admin fee, costs etc. They were decidedly unhappy about my victory. Of course I now have the judgment filed away and I am wondering what good effect I can put this to now. Can I perhaps use the judgment against the DCA/bank to report them to the CRA - issue a default against them...? Or maybe use it to protest to the ICO that they are breaching the DPA? There must be some way we can use the judgment to good effect? Expert opinions always welcomed... Q

I recently has a good win in court, regarding an admin fee, against a pesky in-house agent of a bank and I want to start a new thread about taking this successful judgment further More soon...

Oh heck no - don't ignore them punish them for this undue harassment! Send Moroncroft advice that you will be invoicing 'them' for your admin fee if they solicit any further responses from you that are not advice of either a court summons or closure of your file. Then watch how quickly thing change! Simple and effective way to beat 99% of all know filthy little DCA germs... They have been feeding off us like parasites for years - so its now PAY BACK time folks.......... Oh yeah - and invest in a Truecall - end of story for DCA **** and back to the gardening for you!

No worries - it is working fine as stated in post 6 now thanks....

If they continue to harass without any proof of debt I shall be advising the lad to greet their nonsense with an admin fee.

Good stuff folks - it is essential to keep the pressure up and I am glad that others are seeing some well-deserved success. The sharks have twisted the law and had it their own way for far to long. Q

Banks and DCA's wish to get this matter hushed up 'very' fast. Sadly for them they are losing this vital battle. I recently had a significant victory against one of the largest lenders (no names mentioned just yet) that had sent in a defence against my fair admin claim and later met me in court. They lost and it is now hurting their pockets. The main thing is to keep it all simple, logical and to be prepared to meet them in court if they will not back down. Most cases will be settled by them before it gets that far though. It is usually a cheaper option for the sharks to pay up on your fee than risk losing at court. Rest assured though; they all seem to 'advise' you that your fee is unacceptable in the first instance. The ramifications of all this is utterly immense for the banks that rely of the **** DCAs to hunt their victims to despair. Without the threat of unfair collection activities to enforce their iron will the banks are totally screwed. DCAs will not want to risk admin fees and costly court cases and will be forced into checking if agreements are in fact properly executed and enforceable BEFORE taking them on. If the OFT guidelines and regulations on unfair collection activity worked as they should to protect the Consumer then we would NOT have to be forced into this action.

Well - last summer the college gave the alleged debt to a solicitor. They gave the lad seven days to pay - or else. He told them to sling their hook - they went away Now we have this DCA (that specialises it hunting students) pestering him so what does that tell us? The DCA seems to work on a no win no fee basis so the college thinks it can just sit back and smile. The employer who sent him on the college course seems to have told the college that it was not paying So the poor lad gets all the aggro He has written to both DCA and College

Sounds rather familiar Fred. I have lots like this and the 3 to a page HBOS jobs are lovely old time pieces. At the top of the so-called 'agreements' we have the LOAN number and the page is split in two. One side is said to be a Preference Account (with an old/and sometimes unknown and penciled in (by them) preference account number printed on, whilst the other side relates to the loan. Oh yes, and then we have all the mountain of missold PPI that they say they are paying back without too much fuss - which is quite nice of them. It seems that when the bank gave these disputes to DCAs (knowing they had PPI on) to kick around they say that they are bank 'loans' but they use the pref account number on the headings...lol I am thinking of ringing the Antiques Roadshow as they might want to display the lovely old standard of HBOS agreement documentation to show how it looked in the good old, pre-2007, days .. Then again, perhaps the regulatory authorities will want to see the wonderful and artistic things this nice company can do with bits of old paper and our private data! Oh yes - Cabot are seemingly not the only peps that are having a fun time with the sea of paper floating around the UK that is supposed to be accurate and private in relation to us happy and trusting consumers. Aint the Establishment great!

I thought this Cabot link was about my case when I first spotted it as it is so VERY similar http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/218653-cabot-citi-questioner.html I have grave doubts about what I have been furnished with , as data, by this company over the years .

I was very sad to hear of this great loss to both the site and Bob’s family and friends. I never knew him personally but his achievements alone on CAG will celebrate his name to many. Sincere condolences go from me to all who knew this good gentlemen and campaigner. His spirit will without any doubt live on, long beyond the physical limitations which we are all ultimately subject to.

Well they won't get much as the alleged debt is so small, below £400, so they will have to work like slaves for every single penny... Quite a task too when they have no signed agreement etc..

So - how about this? financialfraudsternews.com - Cabot Financial Involved in Data Deception?

Latest is that they have now employed a DCA to chase this. How much does it cost a firm to employ a DCA?

Right - thanks Fred for your kind advice. I need to get to the bottom of this split page agreement thing for sure. Q

I have posted up an example of one of these strange BOS split-page loan come preference account jobs on this link. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/218250-bank-scot-questioner-no.html#post2954518 Post number 19

Right - this is a 'proper' example of a BOS loan and preference account on one split page ... I am also wondering if the CCA HEADINGS are correct or questionable here as BOS appear to be relying on ONE heading for 'both' the loan and the Preference account? Some of our others are just preference accounts on one page and a loan on another BUT all under the main loan agreement number...

Right - just getting it right in my head here. This image holds the loan account number (blocked out) yet BOS say it is the agreement for the preference account. You can see that they have penciled in the pref account number (mid-right side) although this is NOT the number I have ever used and they say its just their 'official use' number. Now they say that other docs they have sent show that there were split sections on the same page as this was just due to the process used at the time - pre 2007 .

Absolutely CB There really does seem to be an amusing clash of terms on these BOS agreements and I would like to know more not just for myself but for the thousands of other consumers who must also hold such alleged agreements. BOS are claiming that such agreements with a preference account on one side and a fixed loan on the other are all quite acceptable and that they are lawful. As we know an improperly executed agreement is enforceable against the debtor only on an order of the court (section 65 (1)), but no such an order can be made unless it contains all the prescribed terms (section 127 (3)). I am pondering over WILSON & ANR and HURSTANGER LTD regarding prescribed terms.... "cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated" BOS assure me that ...... "Again the preference account is linked to the loan and there are 3 separate reference numbers" The preference account allegedly had a number that BOS had penciled in on a few of my accounts. This changed later to the preference account number that I knew. So that was two numbers and then there was the loan number too making their total of 3 numbers all linked to the same page they say. And they just happened to add lots of superfluous PPI too. So I suppose their PPI had policy numbers too so in fact we have 4 numbers linked to the one page... all under the 'one' signature..

I am still pondering over this type of BOS one page agreement that allegedly covers both a loan and a preference account. BOS say this is all fine and acceptable. It has a fixed loan on the left hand side with unwanted (and NOW refunded) PPI. On the right hand side BOS say it is the Preference account agreement. So - according to BOS you get 2 agreements for the price of one here all on the same page. I need to know how all this activity affects the legality/prescribed terms of these so-called agreement (s) as I have several with them. Another question is therefore is this page a multiple agreement under s18? I could really do with some expert opinions on this one guys....