Oh dear, and I have to go out. I'm going to miss all the fun.

Probably the weather in Florida

What's that - logic for tortoises?

I was just hoping that ODC would ring ALL the numbers for me. I keep missing their calls as well.

The one that gets me most is the "one way" sign in my road. I'm sick of drivers ignoring it and driving right UP my road (the wrong way) as I'm trying to legitimately drive down it. And the looks they give me when I sit right in their way so they have to back down the road again. Priceless.

Here's the one Mark asked me to call him back on: 01563 554547 And here's the one on their letter: 01563 556548 Looking forward to seeing the transcripts of your chats to them.

I think Rory answered this in post two in this thread.

Again, Rory, I agree. Any business has to make a profit. I also appreciate that a DCA will not be able to collect on every account. If it is not the case that a DCA can buy debts at 10-12% of the original and still collect on enough of those to make a profit, I think this would be reflected as fair costs. So, I guess I'm going to concede and agree that all the DCA should mention in its statement is just the original account and reasonable costs on top of that. Gee.

Yes, Rory, you are right. I'm not advocating avoidance of debt. I think that if it's owed, it's owed. And, of course, you are right. If the debt is owed, is does not matter how much a third party pays for it. The fact remains that the original debt was incurred by the debtor, and is still owed. That being the case, ceteris paribus, the DCA can charge a reasonable amount for collecting on said debt. But ... If the DCA had bought the debt for 10-12% of the original, you'd think they could still collect the original debt and still make a reasonable profit?

It's not funny, els! Well ... yeah, it is.

http://www.raskraska.ru/book/img/giraffe_01.jpg See, it's still not working

Gizmo I totally agree with both you and Rory. Surely the best way to negotiate a settlement is to get a full statement from the creditor. That way the debtor can see that any charges are only those which any reasonable business would charge. Of course, none of us should avoid paying debts that we owe. However, one should always have a full statement of what one is paying before settling. So, thinking as I type, if the DCA has paid less than the full value of the original debt, that should be made plain on any statement. Then reasonable costs should be added on top. But this should only be the case for rogue debtors.

Apology accepted Els, in particular as I ... messed up my own thread by not even being able to post my own pic. Thanks, I say, thanks to Rooster. PS, Rooster - why did my own image not work?

Thanks Michael I'm assuming this is going to be pretty much the same as the 2005 link I was reading earlier. Would be good if somebody could provide us with a summary of how it affects us. Not me though. The most important thing, IMO, is that, as it is an Act - when does it come into force? And how does it change our rights? Maybe somebody here (Sequenci?) already knows this? I've bookmarked it, and I'll try to have a look at it, but my research is with regard to public policies and rights in general - I'm no expert in debt. I'd be interested though, if anybody knew.

Thanks, Rooster.

But can you give us the relevant link to the new proposals please, oh boy?

I've noticed other threads in the bear garden which are, not to put too fine a point on it, SPECIESIST. So, in the interests of equality for all animals, here's a thread for all thosa other animals that tend to get overlooked. Like the humble frog:

Ahh, thanks Michael - must learn to type faster

Darn, that weren't the link I was looking for ... Sequenci posted some link recently to new proposals which I read but did not bookmark.

Is it the same Bill mentioned in this "sticky"? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/47908-new-bill-introduced-parliament.html

I agree. Very cruel. I've sent it to all my French Facebook friends.

Yeah, Taurus, I noticed that.

Yes, that 6 really made me laugh. Now, of course, I would never accuse DCAs of underhand practices such as copying and pasting such signatures to provide official documents. But, even if that were why they wanted them (and, as I've just said, I would never, ever, say that) - why 6? That could not be so they could ensure that at least one was a copy they could use, could it? Anyway, it looks as if they do not have the CCA, so do not have the authority to act in this case. So they're trying to stall. I'd file under "ignore for now" and wait for their next move. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be paying any more money towards this once it gets to the 12+2 days. But I'm no expert!

:o I love it How many ways is this is wrong? Well - apart from anything else, as they cannot be sure that you are the debtor until you provide all of this, surely they won't be expecting any payment? After all, as they are so concerned that you prove who you are before they proceed, they couldn't possibly take your money - now could they? Oh, I love it!

I believe the rules changed in September 1998. See National Debtline Factsheet 23 for this (this is the basic one for Scottish debtors).