Yeah thanks Brigadier you even shouted case law as well well done Not much need in the arrogance really which you have shown all along must be cold up there on your perch hey I do apologise profundly that i am a lowly Fire Fighter and can only admit to saving lives for a living rather than make sure i am 100% up to date on case law civil law and the likes. I am well aware of the Carey case beleive it or not i managed to read it all by myself - just dont agree with it Maybe you could give us you r reasons as to why you beleive this to be fair when it shafts the innocent parties just as much as the non payers. Sorry to others for the little touch of sarcasm in this post but sometimes the attiude you get in here from so called site team is nothing short of arrogant to those who know less on matters than some You only seem interested in seeing things as away of debt avoidance rather than the rights and wrongs of the debt collection industry

Yes true and understand the points you have just raised but the consumer contract regulations accompanied by the consumer credit act are clear in what they say and thats where judges that have allowed reconstitued agreements in court that have made it easy for creditors to bend things. The CCR state everything that should be included in an agreement for it to be valid and so do the OFT's publications on contract requirements. No where in any of these does it state 'reconstituted agreements'. So how can any judge go against these and deem it acceptable. A good example is Alfie(excuse the name) goes to court, says yes judge i do owe the money and am trying to pay what i can afford but i do not beleive i should have been brought to court as the creditor cannot supply me with an agreement and default notice upon request. Creditor goes here is a mock up as we dont have originals. Couldnt be bothered to look after em and yes we have breached the DPA by not keeping the data for 6 years etc etc Judge goes yes creditor Judgement awarded Alfie have a CCJ to mess you up even more. Wheres the fairness in that? And also this is what those regulations stated were put in place to prevent. Not protect non-payers

What if it is mis-laid? Lost in house move etc whole number of reasons It is more expected of a large organisation to be better equipped at filing these documents or loading them onto computer systems as is common practice today.. Is it not also expected under the Data Protection Act that the data be kept for 6 years? Why do companies have such trouble in been able to forward you a copy of an agreement then if so. Then there is the default notice issue. CCA clearly states one needs to be issued in perscribed form in order for further action to be taken. So creditor goes to court saying yes we issued it but have no copy..what else other than their word does the court have they did in fact issue one..? Also how can they prove it was as required by the CCA if they have no copy therefore can prove they legally held the right to bring legal action against the individual. To side with a creditor in this instance makes a mockery of what the regualtions say and what they are actually there for. It is not a case of ignoring your debts so dont even go there. There will always be some that play the system as in anything in life but what this is aimed at who find theirselves in this position through no fault of their own then get banged with a CCJ just to help them along a bit..

Who said dont pay its you thats saying that. But if a creditor can go to court with no documentation, cannot even prove that the default notice is issued as perscribed and in accordance with the CCA get a CJJ against the debtor where is the protection for the consumer in that? Is the CCA that clearly states it nothing to do with what i beleive, think you need to stop asuming people are trying to avoid their debts and see that regulations have been wriiten for a reason - to stop things like above If a company canot be bothered to keep their documentation in order with all the systems that are in place this day an age why should they get the easy ride in court?

An agreement may exist but the regulations are clear. An agreement has to be set out in the perscribed form and accompanied by a default notice set out in the perscribed form for further action to be taken on defaulted accounts. It is clear as day and if these regulations stipulate the presence of an agreement is needed between two parties and defualt notices set out as persribed are required then whats the point in having such regulations if they just get ignored. A creditor should be required to provide substantial proof of everything contained within the agreement and relevant default notices before it is passed on to who ever. I see now they seem to rely on the fact they have accounts and judges take that as enough to warrant CCJ's been issued. I can go on excel now and knock up all kinds of agreements for different people but without proof how do i substantiate anything exists between us - i dont. As for the T&C's they maybe different acts of parliament but it is a consumers personal information we are talking about here, on which the ICO is very clear on how it should be dealt with. How can a company need your permission to pass on your info to CRA's, Solicitors etc but they can just go sell all your personal details to anyone they like? Where is the Data Protection in that exactly?

When have i mentioned a SAR?

Yep understand everything you said their Coniff Lets forget about finding how much they buy a debt for as it just comes to a dead end and is too complex What irritates me is when people start saying this is same as this and that whn it quite clearly isnt I also know that judges have been passing CCJ's uisng the argument you mentioned above but in my view when a creditor fails to provide a valid agreement and default notice i fail to see how they can when the law is quite clear that if terms on agreements are not set out as per regulations they cannot be enforced, same applies to default notices, one has to be issued in the perscribed form for further action to be taken. It is not a case of trying to say the debt doesnt exist as i believe they should be paid one way or other. What my answer would be is how can a creditor 100% state in court that everything was in the perscribed form as per the CCA. If they cannot prove this they should not be allowed to take further action until they do so. Same goes for selling of agreements, if they cannot prove an agreement was in place then they should be barred from selling that debt as what evidence other than their word do they have of the original balance , APR total charge and payments etc My main 2 points and quite valid that i dont want to get lost in all this are: It should be clearly written into terms and conditions or on the agreement itself that a creditor may sell on the balance to a third party in the event of default If the creditr is willing to accept a reduced fee from a DCA then that fee should be first offered to the consumer to be given the chance to clear it

No sharing is sharing selling is selling I share my house sometimes with family does that mean i have sold it them? Why worry? am not worrying its the principle of how they operate. You said they can sell on an agreement without having the agreement. How so? If there is no proof of an agreement how can they sell it? Can you sell a car when you cant prove you own it - No! And its Consumer Law not property law so it is irrelevant

Share and sell are different very different Sharing is sending it to agencies such as CRA's and the like

They cannot claim a debt without an agreement but they can sell one even if they have no proof if it?? Come on please

So they need your permission to pass on your personal information but they do not it to sell your personal information?? How is that then? It is people's personal info not a product

And as said before what right do they have to sell when it's not stated within the t&c's? An agreement is only legal if it is set out as required and you are only bound by terms and conditions that you sign for not what is not included

Snippets taken from the ICO's own publication. There is a diffrence between commercial and financial interests. A DCA's interestes are only that of a financial nature so it would be up to them to prove what affect it would have on them. Section 43 of the Act sets out an exemption from the right to know if: the information requested is a trade secret, or release of the information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of anyperson. (A person may be an individual, a company, the public authority itself or any other legal entity.) There is an important distinction to be drawn between commercial interests and financial interests. While there will be many cases where prejudice to the financial interests of a public authority may affect its commercial interests, this is not necessarily the case.

Not sure ho many cases have been taken using ECHR legislation but would be interesting to see it go that way. This is an issue the likes of the OFT and ICO should be taking on. The Commercially Sensitive Info subject is there for a reason. It stops information going out that may be detrimental to a business which is fair enough. But can the law fairly argue the same applies to individual consumers who want to know what information a company holds on them? I dont think it it can and shouldnt do. What does a DCA stand to lose exactly? They buy the debt for peanuts then claim the full balance from you. Someone tell me what they stand to lose buy it been revealed they bought a debt for £200 then receivce £200 from the debtor? Nothing they simply do not set to profit from it. Look at it carefully and there is a massive difference as to where Commercially Sensitive applies and doesnt really apply.

I will need to look for that section if there is one As said I am only using my agreements as an example as they are currently live but I am sure many agreements that have been sold in the past will have been missing such info At the end of it, it all comes down to how fair the current system is and what areas need to be changed I feel as do others that a creditor should be obliged to offer the same deal to the debtor first should be something that is changed

Yep understand that bit But what right have they to sell on your information when you have not given them permission to do so? If it is written in agreements then fair enough, don't agree with it but that's how it is! If it is not written as a t&c that you have signed to agree then they should lose that right

Brigadier I understand what you are saying and I know things are currently as they are no matter how unfair You state it is already written into agreements but is it written into every agreement? I have gone through 2 of my current agreements I have and it only states information may be shared no where does it state may be sold! So if I ever was to default on them not that I will just an example what right have they to sell the balance on in the future?

Did I say you 'did' or that you 'should' big difference Who cares how much Tesco pays for their beans! Their beans are not involved in a debtors personal sensitive information Any information someone holds about you should be made available to you simple as that And like i said in my last post that is more of a side issue to my main point

Hi guys Glad i have started a good debate here as this matter really gets under my skin and by the way in which consumers can be sometimes treat. I understand the point that is is classed as 'commercialy sensitive info' but in my view and i am guessing many others view it shouldnt be. A consumer has the right to know all the information a creditor has on him, balances owed the lot. The same should apply to when a creditor then sells on your information to a DCA. If they can legally sell your personal information then a consumer should legally be allowed to know how much for. Easy to hide behind outdated laws that prejudice one party. It should also be written into to T&C's that it is possible that the creditor may sell on the outstanding balance to such third parties. If it is not they should lose the right to do so in the same way they lose other rights when other information is missing. The main part of what i orignally intended to point out though and what i would like to see happen is that if a creditor is willing to accept a reduced amount from a DCA the offer should first be made to the consumer. If nothing else they will then have been given the opprtunity to fully discharge their obligations and move on. The way the debt collection industry is ran needs a complete overhaul and bringing into modern times, they get away with far too much to the detriment of the consumer. Please bear in mind i am not saying make it easier for people to avoid their obligations simply be given a fairer chance to clear their name and debt. James

I understand they are sold as part of a companies business thats not what im getting at. I know what you mean by the car sales point but this is peoples lifes and mental well being in question not a second hand car. My biggest point is if a creditor is willing to accept a greatly reduced fee from a DCA then they should be prepared to offer the debtor the chance to pay off their debts at that price first. Maybe if purchasing of debts was banned then it would encourage creditors to negoitate more with their consumers. For example some creditors will reject propsals to pay off debts by installments in which case they would eventually receive the full amount, some will reject full and final officers yet so many months/ year or two down line they will sell it to these leaches for less than they would have got dealing direct with. We all know what DCA's are like and they can make peoples life hell even more so when they own the debt.

Yep well thats just the way everything is these days. Doesnt get away from the question of how the DCA's are allowed to profit in this way and why the debtor is not first given the offfer before they sell. All wrong!!

Hi It is common for DCA's to purchase debts from creditors for a fraction of the amount owed to which you will recevie or should receive a letter from them stating the outstanding balance has now been legally assigned to ..... you now owe them the money. They pay next to nothing to purchase these debts yet are allowed to claim the full balance from you. Why?? For example they purchase a debt of £1000 for £200 yet are allowed to chase you for the full £1000. It is just a way for DCA's to make massive profits. Furthermore if a creditor is willing to sell a debt for a fraction of what is owed, why is this offer not offered to the debtor first? If they are willing to take a smaller amount from a DCA and then close the account why is this opportunity not given to the debtor allowing them to then discharge their debts?? The current sytem of debt collection needs a serious overhaul and more protection given to consumers.

Do you have copies of the agreement and default notice? No legitimate default notice then no legal grounds for them to take further action against you You need to be more clear as others have said above James

Did you pay it straight back or have they added charges to the loan? Correct enforcement by the way is a default notice in the perscribed form then to take you to court afterwards but as said above thats something they will not do.

They like to send emails headed 'Deafult Notice' proceeded by a sentence stating how much they think you owe and to contact them. Load of rubbish to put it simply They can rant and rave and make silly little threats all they want but util the follow the correct line of enforcement ignore them. More to the point have you got your agreement with WDA and what was the total amount payable? That is what you need to establish as if you have paid in ful no body should be chasing you. James