Yes, definitely start your own thread and see how this develops. It could possibly be some good extra ammo. We need some mods to comment I think. Some of the posts already seem encouraging to me. Everything needs to be put together into a good, solid defence.

Well a lot already on this thread. Two of my great concerns are them demanding a copy of your passport and the manner in which they talk to you on the phone. Now you asked the question you have jogged my memory. I think I have uncovered another tactic which they use. They put a large debt on my credit report for about £5000 which wasn't my debt. Also, there some wild address link connected to that debt listed as - wait for it - 'THE GERMAN EMBASSY'! :lol: Now there was also a legitimate debt in their care listed on my credit report. I think their ploy was to get people to contact them about the 'blatantly' false debts and address links. Furthermore, the false debt was listed down as Thames Credit and the legitimate debt was listed down as Aktiv Kapital. They are actually one and the same and people wouldn't know that. For example, I was talking to some 'person' on the phone about the false debt and he suddenly piped up about the legitimate debt that Aktiv Kapital held. There and then he said and I quote verbatim et literatim: 'Oh, well we've got that one now.' No previous letter or communication about that. Just there and then on the phone. That's a good method of assignment unless they are one and the same!!! :lol:

I am not best qualified to give advice on a case that has progressed to such a stage. If I felt that I was I would... I am sure someone will get to it. All the best Patrick.

Just got the following email from Neteller: Dear , Our records indicate there has been no activity on your NETELLER account since 3/14/2007. We apply an Inactive Administrative Fee of up to 30 USD to all accounts that have not been used for 14 months.* Avoid the fee If you want to avoid the fee, all you have to do is deposit, withdraw or make a transfer with a merchant. You may also want to check out our new Net+ card services that allow you to securely shop with funds from your NETELLER account anywhere MasterCard is accepted. Visit www.neteller.com to sign in and see what you can do with your account. If you do not use your account, the funds will be removed from your account by the 15th of next month. If you would like to speak directly to a NETELLER representative, please contact us. The NETELLER Payment Network On further investigation it's $30 'PER MONTH'! All very reasonable. I count myself lucky they didn't go for $100 or something. I mean why on earth not? In fact, why not just empty everyone's accounts and send them off to a plantation for good measure?

I will wait until Monday and if I hear nothing will compose my complaint and send it off to the I.C.O.. I will post it up on this thread. Just for the record, this is the response from Callcredit: Dear Mr, Thank you for your e-mail; I am sorry that you did not find my response adequate. I confirm once six years have elapsed on settled and defaulted accounts, the credit account records are removed from all credit referencing databases. However, I further confirm these records are not immediately erased from archives, research datasets, or disaster recovery facilities. I trust this clarifies matters. Yours sincerely, It would have been nice to get this response without sending multiple letters and emails though. All my correspondence was completely clear from the off. They seemed to continually think I was concerned about the future of my own ruined credit report and not just a concerned citizen. All they kept on saying was 'it won't be visible on your report', 'it won't be visible on your report'. Well I knew that and the best way to keep it like that is to permanently erase the data after a set period of time.

After 2 relapses I seem to be more stable now. It's no life getting through the days suffering with that C**P... Mentally, I honestly reckon I can be completely on my feet by the end of the next year. I do feel more in control now. Never would have done it without C.A.G..

Yes, I think that's probably the prevailing legal view. That's what the O.F.T. hinted at as well. They declined to make a formal ruling though and told me only a court could do that. A bit odd for their law so to speak, but that's the way it works. Definitely needs changing though. There needs to be a simple bit of regulation enabling folk to get their statements without resorting to a S.A.R..

I had correspondence with the OFT in writing and on the phone about this. I told them this seemed to be an ambiguous area of the Act and needed clarification. In any event, I stated when when the Act was next updated this area should be made completely clear. I suggested it was ridiculous that folk who just wanted statements should, 'in some cases', be forced to send off £10 for an S.A.R. which could result in a bundle thicker than a phone book being received in the post! They should just make it to an opitonal extra £1 to get the statements with the C.C.A. or simply £1 for the statements without the C.C.A.. Even £2 for the statements would be reasonable I suppose. I am a bit mythed why they can't make an interim ruling on this. As things stand, from my experience, some creditors send through statements free of charge (rarely), some creditors do send through statements with a C.C.A. request (mostly when you specifically ask for them) and some creditors force you to send off £10 for an S.A.R. to get the statements. Then again, you also have HBOS who try to charge you £5 for 'every' statement you request! :lol: And when you say 'why would anyone do that if they can get the lot for £10 at the most?' they give the folllowing response: 'SOME PEOPLE DO.' Absolutely disgusting.

Bravo!

I only just returned to the site last night. I deffo would have made it to Kent, if i'd known in time, to support a good contributor to this forum. However, I don't think I can actually afford to get there and back and I have no credit whatsoever. Don't be worried Tiglet, go and kick some butt!

This in relation to their post cards posing as delivery companies. I had some correspondence with the OFT over this ongoing case. They couldn't tell me anything specific, 'but' I got the strong hint that this is progressing nicely. I was told that the name seemed very 'familiar' by the woman I spoke to :lol: and she told me to encourage others to keep complaining. I think I actually like the OFT. They 'seem' to do their job well from what I can make out. KEEP ON GETTING THE COMNPLAINTS IN.

This in relation to their post cards posing as delivery companies. I had some correspondence with the OFT over this ongoing case. They couldn't tell me anything specific, 'but' I got the strong hint that this is progressing nicely. I was told that the name seemed very 'familiar' by the woman I spoke to :lol: and she told me to encourage others to keep complaining. I think I actually like the OFT. They 'seem' to do their job well from what I can make out. KEEP ON GETTING THE COMNPLAINTS IN.

BUMP. These 'people' need more attention I believe...

BUMP. I would say to any DCA employess reading this and thinking of leaving their jobs do one thing. Get some decent footage for us and pass it on to the media. Good practice is hard to come by nowadays and the nation needs more paragons of honest business to aspire to. I am sure any juicy bits might even secure you a nice leaving gift... :-) Surely, the DCA you leave might even tide you over some more for advertising their prestigious company and putting them in the limelight.

No surprise there then... Just like Belgium the same M.O. was used. Investigators were branded as incompetent and replaced. Hmm.

Pretty amusing for me, well as amusing as such a subject can be. My dear gran, bless her, died 10 years ago. They kept sending an annual statement to our address. My father rang them, and wrote, every year and told them to stop doing it, as she was deceased. After they did it about 10 years in a row he got a bit upset. I rang them myself last year and demanded to speak to a manager, not a supervisor, and was very clear to them about the situation. They said they understood and no further letters would be sent. Today, lo and behold, we got another statement through! However, instead of just saying my gran's name at the top of the statement, like in the previous statements, they have added in 'Deceased' after her name! I'm surprised they haven't got the debt collectors involved too, even though she doesn't acually owe them anything. To be honest, this is actually upsetting my father. Not a lot admittedly, but it is. It seems a bit of a small matter to take legal action over. Anyone got any advice?

BUMP. What do the banks do for us apart from rip us off. Not much really. I say again that we need a national bank and people can vote with their feet. We completely own Northern Rock now and need to keep it. In my eyes, money is pretty simple stuff. Banks just imagine new and wonderful ways to roger us hard. I thought industries were privatised for progress and competition. I don't see much of either. I mean what goes on in the Research and Development department of a bank... How can we fleece these poor people a little bit more? That's my guess. We need to press our government on this. We need a Charter For Fair Banking. The government has to set the parameters. Banks should make money by having our money, NOT by charging us for fun. They don't have a God given right to make billions! We keep saying 'The Banks', 'The Banks', 'The Banks' when we talk about them. Well, I say we don't need 'The Banks'. I say it is my right as a citizen of this country to be able to access fair banking! Well, why the **** can't I? There is no reason why an industry has to be completely privatised or nationalised. We need a national bank and comprehensive regulation which will force the private banks to be competitive and play fair. Proposed CAG Charter. Unpaid Direct Debit - VERY LOW CHARGE. A polite letter should be sent out informing the customer that this has occurred. The charge should only apply after the second attempt to take the debit by a company has failed. My father once got fined £70 (2 x £35) for one 'smallish' direct debit in the space of a week. That was more money than the diect debit was for! WTF. Overdraft - NO CHARGE. (Rate of interest charged limited by the government) A customer should have the right to refuse an unauthorised overdraft. Overdraft limit should only be increased by mail or in person at a bank. A special exception could be made for people requesting the ability to up their overdraft limits by phone or at the banks discretion. This should be by mail at least 7 days after an account has been opened. Unpaid Cheque - VERY LOW CHARGE. Credit Card Late Payment - NO CHARGE. As long as the interest is ticking they are doing well. If no payment is received for 2 months a polite letter should be sent asking them to contact them. Credit Card Over Limit - NO CHARGE. A higher rate of interest could be charged (on the excess money only) limited by the government. Limits should only be increased at the customer's request! It could be ok for them to write and offer more credit, but this should only be available by completing a form and mailing it back. A customer should have the right to refuse a buffer zone over their credit limit when the card is taken out. The same principles should be applied to loans. That's just a few things I can think of at the 'drop of a hat'. As well as fighting the injustice of charges, we also need to demand what we think is fair! Let's create a CAG Charter and not rest till we get it. All that is happening, in my humble view, is that we are making talentless, brainless, arseholes rich. They then think they are smart and important people and seek more fame by humping us some more. Yeah, great... I DON'T THINK SO! P.S. I don't think this makes me a great socialist!!! Am I bonkers or something? It all seems quite straightforward to me.

I never updated this thread after my correspondence with the OFT. I made my case about the fact that there should be a dedicated webform on their site for the reporting of telephone harassment. I stressed the seriousness of this issue and the damage it is doing to the health and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of people. I also pointed out the fact that many letters sent to creditors demanding that the harssment stop, based on English law as well, had actually been ignored. I did get a response and I do get the impression that the OFT listen and have good staff. I have contacted them by phone and email on a few occasions now and I always seem to get throuigh to someone who actually cares. This is a copy of the letter I sent: I am sending this complaint form in response to the disgusting behaviour of creditors and debt collection agencies harassing good folk in their homes by telephone. I consider this to be a very insidious and invasive form of harassment and am sure that it causes tremendous stress and grief across the country on a daily basis. This harassment even continues after people have sent off official letters quoting the ‘Administration Of Justice Act 1970’ via registered mail, though the harassment has admittedly stopped for some people. I know that the O.F.T. doesn’t specifically deal with individual cases and just accepts information from the public to input on to its database to help identify where problems lie. I am not expecting you to deal with individual cases. I would like to see you create a simple webform dedicated to the reporting of telephone harassment ‘after’ letters requesting that it stop have been ignored. You should also make a public statement on this issue that leaves these harassers with no doubt about your position on the matter.This is a very serious issue and I don’t think you are taking it seriously enough. It makes people ill and I am convinced it has contributed to suicides. Nothing stops these creditors and agencies from writing, though of course there should be a limit on that as well. The webform could just ask for a copy of the letter sent, who it was sent to and for the registered mail reference number. It could also ask for a brief outline of the level of harassment being suffered and for a copy of any reply received. The webform should be aimed specifically at individuals, unlike this one, and the simpler the better. You would soon be able to build up a picture of what is going on and decide whether any action needs to be taken against an organisation. Please look into this and don’t ignore it. This is the response I got: Thank you for your email received on 17 July 2008. I apologise for the delay of our response. I found your comments on the consumer credit market very interesting, and I have passed on the details to our policy makers in Credit Group. The notion of a webform dedicated to the reporting of telephone harassment has a great deal of merit, and I certainly agree that there would be an advantage to such a system. You may be interested to know that in recent months the OFT has met with several other consumer protection groups to discuss methods of contact, including the use of webforms. I will ensure that your comments are passed on to the interested parties. For some background information, that you may already be aware of, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act) established a licensing system to protect the interests of consumers in the credit area. If a business wishes to undertake the collection of debts that arise from consumer credit agreements then the Act states that they are required to hold a consumer credit licence; this is issued by the OFT. Under the Act, the OFT has a duty to consider the fitness of all traders who hold consumer credit licences. In considering fitness we take into account whether a business has engaged in improper business practices. Where we receive complaints about the business practices of licensees, we investigate them and where appropriate we take enforcement action; that action depends on the evidence and circumstances. Action the OFT can take includes revoking, refusing or suspending a licence; or placing conduct requirements on the licence of the company or business in question (failure to comply with a conduct requirement can result in a financial penalty being levied). The OFT has issued guidance to consumer credit licence holders engaged in the debt collection industry. The guidance is intended to ensure that debt collectors treat debtors fairly. Non-compliance with this guidance will call into question the fitness of licence holders and applicants. You can view our guidance at: http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/cca/debt-collection For some information about our current or recent work in our role as the regulator for the consumer credit market, I would like to refer you to numerous press released that can be viewed on our website: http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/ This will give some examples of the type of work that is in constant operation within the OFT. In particular you may be interested in our press release of 9 April 2008 relating to action taken against 13 of the most complained about debt collectors in the UK (attached). We have been monitoring consumer complaints for matters relating to companies, and will soon be taking enforcement action against those who have not taken steps to change their methods in line with OFT guidance. Unfortunately I am prohibited from disclosing further information about this matter under Section 9 of the Enterprise Act. Thank you again for writing to us. We are very grateful for your views. I then sent one futher email: I appreciate the reply. There is one point I would like to add. I think it would be a good idea for a blanket ban to be introduced on phone calls to debtors over 70. And got the following response: Thank you for your email of 12 August 2008. Your further input is appreciated. We do take seriously all feedback and views we receive, so please do contact us again if you have any further comments. I hope everyone keeps updating the threads on letters respected or not, as it does provide a good snapshot of what is going on.

After further thought I think the best thing is to try and get this defence in (obviously fleshed out a bit) with someone who has a court date set. If they have nothing else to lose what harm can it do? I would be happy to go along to the court myself, as long as it isn't at the other end of the country, and present the defence. Anything south of the Midlands is fine for me and all at my own expense. As long as the person concerned knows that there are obviously no guarantees that's ok right? I would like to approach someone and see if they agree. Can a mod make some comment here please. Are there any flaws in my thinking? A key point for me in a defence is the defendant may well have not taken out the credit if they thought losing some, or all, of their home was a possibility. The industry, plain for all to see, blatantly advertise credit as 'secured' and 'unsecured'. I don't see how a judge can ignore that when creditors are seeking C.O.'s and Orders For Sale on 'unsecured' debt. Let's give this a bash in court!

My 74 year old father used a council car park. He had some sort of cardboard disc that he had to set and display on his windscreen. He accidentally set it incorrectly. He got back to his car inside the time he would have had had he set it correctly. He went to the council 'immediately' and explained everything. They still made him pay a £30 fine. I was outraged by this, but was suffering ill health so didn't try to intervene. My father wasn't up for a fight. This all happened about 3 months ago. Can I now challenge this for him? To be clear, the council knew - and fully acknowledged - he had done nothing 'wrong' and were basically just fining him for setting a cardboard disc incorrectly! Absolutely disgusting...

Cheers Underdog. I am only looking for some very basic advice. Hopefully someone with good legal knowledge will come along and at least push me in the right direction. I will wait till Friday morning and then decide on the best course of action. This WILL be taken before a Judge. I will of course update this thread. If I lose, I lose... P.S. If I win, and it sets some sort of precedent, I will get to see the looks on their faces with everything being retrospectively 'reversed' as well would I not? I think that would actually make my life! :-0

I AM going to do something right now. I will try my hardest. I saw something on TV the other week where C.O.'s were now turning into forced 'Orders For Sale'! Something i'd never even heard of before. That just got right under my skin. If I have to randomly send off a County Court form to one of the big boys I will do that. If I win it will set some sort of precedent I hope. What exactly do they mean by 'unsecured'? 'We won't take your gaff as long as you pay up.' Well, no **** Sherlock!

I have banged on about this before. The good folk here seem to think that this can't be challenged in court. I am of the 'opinion' that when credit is CLEARLY advertised as 'unsecured' it can't then miraculously become 'secured'. I don't care what small print they will try to hide behind. I want to give this a bash in court myself. LIKE KICKING OFF THIS WEEK. I don't actually have a case to defend. Is this still something I can take issue with in a County Court? Could I just randomly pick on any creditor I choose over this issue? I will construct my own argument. Basic and brief advice appreciated please.

Did anyone follow up on the issue of C.R.A.'s archiving our data after it is removed from credit reports? I eventually got a response from Callcredit, after much pestering, that they did indeed archive our data. They refused to say for how long though. Equifax flatly denied that they archive data. Again, they had to be pestered quite a bit. What makes me dubious is that when I pushed for a letter from them signed by a manager 'relevant' to the said issue they started waffling! I suspect that they do indeed retain this information. As I made clear in a previous post, Experian have already admitted that they do indeed archive our data. As with Callcredit, they wouldn't state for how long. Probably indefinitely in my opinion. I believe that the issue of archiving needs to be regulated. There needs to be a set period where our data is still on their systems after it has been removed from our credit reports. They shouldn't be allowed to keep our data indefinitely. For me, this period should be 2 years at the absolute maximum. I am now ready to present my case to the I.C.O.. I just wanted to be sure that no one else had taken the bull by the horns and pressed on with this issue.

'Which?' magazine happen to have a good 5 page feature on cameras in the issue for this September. They tested 21 digital compact models and 5 DSLR models. Not that means much to me. I will happily scan and email you the report if you aren't able to get hold of the magazine from someone. Or I could photobucket it as well I suppose.