I would be most surprised if he bothered to even address an offer to be honest. I have left the situation in limbo for the moment.

I am also interested in what prescribed terms may have been screwed with in the original so-called agreement due to the addition of an unwanted/unfit for purpose PPI policy? What about the issue of missold PPI creating an unfair relationship between lender and consumer? PPI sellers have been fined big time for failures in this field. What they have done is very wrong. Therefore when a lender has been found to be guilty of such an issue they are accountable, just like anyone who commits a crime. They have made extra loot out of our ignorance and it stinks. I see an analogy with a crook who once stuck a gun in your face and demanded money. He latter is exposed but you are then expected to deal reasonably with him... Is it just me or...?

And today yet more 12 quid late payment charges roll in with the BC statment that is in dispute due to no agreement. I have not paid a penny since summer .

AT LAST BOS HAVE SENT ME A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IT HOLDS PPI AND THE TICK BOX IS UNTICKED. BUT THEY ADDED IT ANYWAY. IT IS A JOINT LOAN BUT IT IS ONLY COVERED FOR ONE PERSON AND I AM SELF EMPLOYED I HAD NO IDEA WHAT PPI EVEN WAS THEN IT CAME BY COURIER BUT THERE IS NO RIGHTS TO CANCEL THE BIT ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS IS NICE AS IT SAYS THAT I CAN SUE THEM IF THEY HAVE IT WRONG UNDER THE CCA. PAGE 2

Lol I think if was just supposed to believe the pencil scribble at the top as the real date... How do these peps ever get such jobs??? Nevertheless - I will tuck this away for a rainy day.. IT POSSIBLY IS BEST TO SAVE RATHER THAN USE SUCH DATA RIGHT NOW.. ??

I have edited this post for security reasons.....

That is a good point. I WAS TOLD THAT GE HAD SIMPLY "CHANGED" ACCOUNT NUMBERS WHEN THEY TOOK SOLE OWNERSHIP. THEY SAID - CUSTOMERS WERE NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS CHANGE IN "ACCOUNT DETAILS." THAT WAS NEWS TO ME.......

Hi CB I am easy about this, but if you think it best then that is fine with me ....... Many thanks for all help - which is greatly appreciated. Q

BTW, this thread evolved from this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/215881-cl-f-cca.html#post2690913

This one has now evolved into this one....... And still fighting to see how is going to pay up on PPI http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/218262-cl-finance-questioner-7.html

Many thanks CB I am getting more confused every time they write to me as no one seems to what to deal with the PPI claim or face the associated problems I am dealing with on this whole issue. Sant say they are not liable for PPI yet admit to a joint venture under the title of Retail Fanancial Service with HBOS so....? HBOS say silent as do CL I just feel like I am being messed about . YES - SANT WHO WERE GE SAY THEY WERE ADMIN AND YET JOINT OWNERS BUT ENTITLED TO ISSUE DNS ON THIS ONE.. I just require some simplification in all this complex chaos and I do not trust what Sant tell me as GE were mega fined for PPI misselling before, as we know.... And is the term 'Modifying Agreement' relevent herein in view of what they say as I have no idea about ever being "duly notified" about a change of acc number? Someone - PLEASE SAVE ME BEFORE I CRACK UP!!!!!!

My records indicate that no DN was applied to this file. However BOS appear to have terminated any contract (AND THEREFORE POTENTIALLY RESCINDED THE CONTRACT) via the following threatogram off RW...love the bit about the problem not going away shock horror! Clearly threatening me with Blair Olly and stupid was not working I wont waste to too much time of these Salford chuckleheads but any opinions will be conciderd - for sport.. Prime concern is that BOS may have given us a gift horse here. just seen a letter saying that they did serve a DN - CANT FIND ONE YET I AM SUSPECTING THAT THE THE FORMAL NOTICE SEEN ABOVE MAY BE WHAT THE CALLED A DN SAR IS OVERDUE TOO SO...

Right - so now Santander have written back with this excuse not to pay the PPI claim..... I have no data about the number change either but they say it was all ok??? So do I just focus to HBOS for PPI (have alreday written to them but but reply came back) or chase up Sant over this ??? The CL assignment said it was an absolute one yet Santander admit they are doing admin here..

Bookworm Ok - so fix it so that it works for us! The guy on that piece I copied claims that he has been successful in charging them so.........? Unwanted harassment that has been stated by us as harassment is perhaps the way to go? And you will never catch a fish if you fail to open that can of worms in the fist place..

Others can sit around and wait for the sharks to eat them if they think its the best/safest course of action - I would rather take the fight to the enemy - and give it back threefold .. This issue is ripe for exploration and if enough members of the public who are being victimised by filthy gree-ridden debt collectors take combined action we can get results. Just believe in it and it WELL happen! I admit that it must be taken on board properly though so that it is highly accurate at law. DCAs are the aggressors not us and they must finally be made to pay for their terrible conduct of harassment towards the UK public. They treat their hand-picked targets like dirt and this activity has no place is 21st Century society. If the law permits this evil to grow then the law is an ass must be challenged as corrupt and bogus! Sign me up to the march when its on ok....... Whoops - just fell off me soap box!!

But many are fighting the enforcibility of a contract and not the fact of whether its exists or not! Moreover, charging for work done admits nothing and is just a fee for time being utlised. You could charge a guy for washing his coat but that does not mean you are guilty to soiling it. If a person or body forces us to sacrifice our valuable time (against our wishes) to deal with them then we must have recourse to charge them for this time. This only seems logical and reasonable.

I FOUND THE FOLLOWING WHICH THE POSTER SEEM HAPPY TO BE BROADCAST ON THE NET - THIS MAY HELP....... I suppose tHE main thing next to accuracy is that fees we chare a sahrk are seen as fair and reasonable. CAN YOU IMAGINE A FEW MONTHS DOWN THE LINE WHEN FOS ARE INVESTIGATING CONSUMERS FOR EXCESSIVE DCA CHARGES WITH THE DCAS SHOUTING THAT THEY WANT FAIR COMPENSATION FOR WHAT WE CHARGED THEM......LOL ........ WONDERFUL.. Anyway - all this is most inspiring and much better then waiting for postie to bring yet another crappy DCA red letter threatogram. THIS COULD JUST ABOUT PULL OUT A CONSUMER REVOLUTION IF HANDLED PROPERLY.. Are we men/women or are we mice???

Exactly so. DCAs are in the dirty business of making money out of the misery of other human beings that is what they do. They break all the rules until they get officially stopped and I speak from experience. Therefore we do urgently need to explore accurate ways to charge them for the misery they inflict on us. Being defensive is fine - but we also must be proactive and this is one way to get results..... So let's see all the excellent tech/legal experts on CAG get with it and pool their enormous energies into making the sharks pay for the stress that they create now. I have heard of others who claim to have taken sharks to the cleaners after they failed to pay up on admin charges ect so I believe it can be done. Templates, the are highly effective and accurate to address this issue, are needed fast! Well? Nuke em - right behind you mate - do not let any quitters (or is it DCA sharks?) get you down......

I get the impression that 'some' posters want to swiftly kill off this excellent effort to put ****** sharks in their place... Now if there are TECHNICAL holes in the initial (and inspiring) letter on this thread then rather than attack it I would have thought any genuinly concerned CAGGERS would seek to address it and rectify the situation with an even better letter. I cannot believe that real CAG supporters would mock for the sake of it here! Perhaps I am am just a little too suspicious in seeing panic-stricken DCA agents rushing about on this thread like headless chickens. If the letter has any errors then why not seek to make it even better - rather than mock it - at least this poster is trying to fight back which is great.. If you can do a better letter than lets be seeing it now!

Absolutely brilliant. Why should we not bill the **** who pester us? Can we add shoe leather for trips to the Post Office too?

Will do Alan - thanks Have also got an issue here with PPI offer off OC but balance still disputed http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/219471-1st-cred-questioner-3.html#post2684570

Hi Slick Your last para is the top priority All DCA gave was an illegaible app form for an agreement......... THAT WAS ALL THERE WAS. Left the issue of a proper copy of alleged agreement with the DCA last summer - I am still waiting for one... I feel I need a good threat over how this missold PPI have ensured that the terms of any agreement were utterly duff. This OC have been mega fined for PPI so they can do without any more publicity aggro so.. if you get my drift?? I also note that their calculations fall short as we asked then to include more from when the account opened - plus they missed out several dates in one years - but I have the statements to prove this..

The OC has written back stating that they would pay me the PPI and that the balanced is no longer owed to them. They say that the balance being sought by the DCA is a seperate issue and that the balance would still be due TO WORSE CRUDITE ..... They also say that the account was passed to the DCA prior to any dispute re PPI They say that they did not breach DPA as the account would have been transfered within the guidlines that I would have been notified over at the time. All very clever when they only gave us a an illegible app form as proof of any agreement....

Thanks folks - I shall not give them an inch as that is not my way. May need to send a gee up response soon as my claim went in at the end of Nov.

SAR has just revealed that BC (thanks BC) made calls after being informed that their action was being reported as harassment. I am also aware that they have been fined for telephone abuse.