Let us not forget that on a site such as this there are 'driven trolls' lol. Dastardly trolls with specific motives who aren't just here to cause random havoc. When you out them from their closet they do seem to sod off for quite a while, but eventually return for the most part unfortunately. Normal trolls will usually stay until booted off and not usually return, in my experience anyway.

I know what i'm saying is pretty convoluted, but the CCJ is gained on the strength of the contract. A CO is then obtained on the strength of the CCJ, which is still founded on the said contract. A CO 'secures' the debt. There are 2 competing discourses I guess. Broadly speaking, I don't think any CO's should be granted on CCJ's that relate to unsecured debt. I'm no legal eagle, but I would like to see this tested in court. The question I would ask is what do the hell DO THEY MEAN when crediors use the word 'unsecured'?

One can never talk for others my friend.

Hi Grumpy. :) We have all our insurance products with the AA. Yes they sent a paid for envelope. I will make a formal complaint to them in writing then. Does anyone know if they actually broken any guidelines?

Here here! Don't be a shyster now. ;)

The way I looked at it 'land' was meant to mean property. If I got that completely wrong ok. 'If' I am correct then a CO is a securing of that property is it not? And if that is correct an Application Form/Agreement couldn't, by definition, have been subject to the said 7 day period right?

Well I was thinking about a little march against the banks? Doesn't have to be a marathon. Perhaps we could do Downing street with some banners asking why our lovely labour government isn't doing anything on the matter? Maybe we can just march around a park after getting ****ed and look angry instead... :lol: On my above questionI think I jsut figured out the answer! Bank charges are in effect just another government tax!!! I must be so stoooopid to have taken months to figure that one out... :(

Is there going to be one this year? If there is what about a morning protest as well?

Am I off the mark here then?

They do think they are Capone. Stick it to them good Sosumi. I hope your tunnel is steadily shortening still.

Just thought i'd chuck this in, as it might help someone reading this thread. The best way to keep your phone number private is to change it, make it ex-directory and only give it to family and friends. Use the eztra broadband line (made ex-deirectory too) for companies etc.. Register with the TPS as well. It has worked a treat for us. All the misery we suffered is fading VERY SLOWLY, but fading. Phew. If you have an old PAYG mobile then (after putting it on silent) give that number to the DCA's. It might keep them happy leaving messages and they may not even attempt to trace your real number. Just give it a monthly charge or something. As other people have said, some elements of the tracing world will sink to murky depths to get hold of your details.

My mum had 2 small claims (sent off in the same envelope) that went down the hardship route with Halifax. They accepted the one for £15 and turned down the one for £100! Is that cynically trying to boost your figures or what?! I was stunned. :lol:

Create a flyer for people to print off and distribute down their street or in a busy high street or shopping centre. Then send an email en masse to all CAG members to please print it off and distribute it. I wanted to do this months ago, but I wasn't given the authority to do it and I wouldn't do it otherwise. I could do a few thousand in no time on a Saturday afternoon.

The banks are in bed with the CRA's and DCA's. Expand the site through more publicity. Initiate a forum on CRA's. Look to cause them as much aggravation as possible by going 'industrial'. They can be seriously hurt that way. They know it and don't like it IMHO. Why do Piers Morgan trolls keep turning in the DCA forums? Because they are being hurt financially and are fearful of DAG. At the moment it is just a relatively small pin being stuck in their rears. This site has the power to make it a large pitchfork. That is taking the gloves off in my view and perfectly moral in this unique situation. Expand DAG and give them the kicking they deserve!!! :evil: As for Gordon Brown he makes me sick. He's a Labour PM and I haven't heard him say one bad word about bank charges! :confused: Unless I just missed it...

Thanks for the replies guys. Can this be rethreaded in the 'Legal Issues' forum from Post 149 to here (bar Post 150)? Sorry Speedo! So as creditors are seeking to gain charging orders on some debts that are based on application forms doesn't the 7 day rule in Section 58(1) kick in to stop that? That's the 7 days referred to in Section 61(2)(b).

This might not be terribly important, but it really got on my wick. I recently got a letter from the AA telling me they had merged with some other company or something to that effect. Anyhow, they then stated they had noticed that I had opted out of third party marketing when I joined the AA (WELL YES I DID!). They then said that unless I signed and returned the form they had sent me, with an 'X' in the right box, this would no longer be the case! I would also add that they made it look confusing in my opinion. I'm sure some people would have taken it all to mean to do nothing would leave everything as it was. That certainly wasn't the case. This was all done under the pretence that they were writing to confirming my name and address details! WTF. I don't like being treated like a F****** idiot. My biggest irritiation over all of this is they could have made the letter a 'do nothing and things will stay the same job'. If poeple were happy to reconsider their original decision and opt in to their marketing campaign they could have sent off the letter. Why the hell do I have to send off a letter to reconfirm what I have already told them?! Is what they have done all legal and above board?

Well i'm going to fly solo on this one! I will update this thread with any progress.

Thanks for the replies guys. Can this be rethreaded in the 'Legal Issues' forum from Post 149 to here (bar Post 150)? Sorry Speedo! So as creditors are seeking to gain charging orders on some debts that are based on application forms doesn't the 7 day rule in Section 58(1) kick in to stop that? That's the 7 days referred to in Section 61(2)(b).

BUMP. I really want to give this one a bash. Anyone got a view? It doesn't matter if you're wrong. Give it your best shot.

Has that actually been tested in court Car? Just curious.

It would give me tremendous pleasure to go to court with someone to see one on these companies bite the dust. It would make a nice day out for me with a celebratory drink afterwards. Unfortunately, i'm on the south coast! :( Good luck and kick their pathetic little asses. :D:D

Good luck in court speedtrip.

Well I wouldn't distinguish between Barclays and Morgan Stanley's T and C's too much. Both probably a load of unintelligible chit.

I must be dreaming...

Not many people know the police can bug your phone with little foundation.