As I understand it, the term 'non-trading company' carries little legal weight. It is not a Dormant Company which is only allowed to have 'specific allowable transactions' going through its accounts, (to keep company staus, ie paying company house, accounts etc) The following information is provide by Companies House website. http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/ What is the difference between a non-trading company and a dormant company? A company can be non-trading in the sense that it isn't doing business. But it may still have other accounting transactions going through its books, which means that it is not dormant in a legal sense. A dormant company must not have any accounting transactions except specific allowable transactions that can be disregarded. What that means in practice, I don't know. David

I have long held the opinion that the only thing our government cares about is.................money!! Assuming the loot goes into their coffers......... David

Having gone right through it, do I send it to Newmans, Natwest or both. Davi

42, you are duly tickled. Curlyben. Ouch! Wouldn't like that in my post 1st thing!! Thanks to both. David

Background: CCA request received by Newmans 21 11 07, regarding a Natwest C/C debt; no agreement sent. In line with CAG advise, I left it at that. On 06 02 08 they phoned and I told them not to phone but put it in writing, however their auto dialer is now phoning me on a daily basis (not answered). I am sending: Telephone harrassment letter. Request copy of Compalint Policy, (FOS if no response). Complaints to T/S and OFT, (are there standard letters for these?) Have I missed anything? David

By law, a limited company must have at least the minimum information listed below, somewhere on their letters, (no matter what trading style they choose to use on the top). 1. Full name of the limited company. 2. Company registeration number. 3. Full address of their registered office. Not sure as to who to complain to but I would imagine it would be Companies House in Cardiff, (companies in England & Wales). I think they would take a dim view of this. David

Not sure about 'false addresses' but many of the DCA's, (and OC's), use a box number and postcode which if put into 'Streetmap' will only give a very general area. I would imagine they recognise that if you push people too and in some cases over the edge, somebody could walk through their front door with a shotgun one morning. Such are the days we live in. David

From that entry Calder Financial is not a seperate legal entity, it is Mercers. A limited company (subject to some restrictions) can call itself whatever it feels like and churn out letterheads in that name. The only real care they need to take, is that the name is not already in use or obviously, a law suit can result. Can be tricky as there is no longer any requirement to register trading names with company house. David

Sub. Love to know what they have got to say about that. Don't they have a legal dept? David

During 1985/1986 a major finance company I worked for put all their agreements on microfilm and destroyed the originals. This has been suprceded by electronic imaging. with the possible exception of large loans and mortgages, there are no originals. David

Given the mess the banks have got themselves into, (with some pretty stupid lending policies), it's no great suprise that they are taking action to secure as much debt as possible. Financial institutions are required to make provisions for bad debt. If they recognise that their position has deteriorated, they must increase the provision made. This accounts for the headlines recently, such and such bank has announced a big fall in profit/expected dividend, as this area is the only area the money can come from, to meet the requirement. Generally: Unsecured debt that goes into serious default, has to be regarded as a total, or near total loss. Secured debt, by definition, has a much higher recovery rate. A worst case figure would probably be better than 80% on defaulted loans. So it would follow that if you can secure debts, provisions on these can be reduced, which means that the impact on profit/dividend is less. David

Delfi101 "Optima are not a DCA" - True. They are virtually a clone of Weightmans solicitors and in fact if you look at Weightmans, you could argue that Optima have lifted some of their blurb straight off that site. The debt collection side of Weightmans is just one division of a large outfit of solicitors. From the Optima site, apart from conveyancing, they do nothing else but debt collection!! Hmmmmmmmmm David

The OFT does still have teeth, however these days they seem, (to me), to be selective as to who they bite. Complaints regarding Banks, supermarket chains and big business in general seem to get the response of "we are building a file on this", "when we get enough complaints" etc. I think that can be translated as "when we can no longer ignore it, we will have to do something" Consider their response to a complaint against say, a motor, or a market trader. In my experience they are all over them like a rash! The difference: The public perception of these tends to be that they are a bunch of crooks anyway, (a bit unfair I think to the majority) and deserve all they get. The other point is that they don't have any clout. In short, easy targets. The OFT can lay down the law, rack up court cases and produce yearly reports saying how well they are doing. To be fair, we may be shouting before we are hurt, but you know, you just get that feeling............ David

Subscribing - I always remember a phrase from one of their letters which was "we really do not understand why you do not settle this claim" (around 10k). They must have had a lot of fun with that one. Good luck David

There is a new twist on the silent call system. This is a standard silent call, but when you try 1471 - you get a number. I had some of these and dialled back..............and wound up in the queuing system of a marketing company!!!! The first time I hung up in amazement at the xxxxxxx cheek of it. When the calls persisted, I did get through and gave them both barrels. That worked. David

Hi From the thrust of the quote, it would appear to be an attempt to disconnect the amount of charge, from what it says on the tin, ie 'late payment fee' and that in fact it covers a package of other services provided. Whereas this might be of value to them in this particular case, would it not open up challenges under other legislation. I am pretty sure under the legislation on unfair contracts, hidden and undisclosed charges are a no no. Human Rights Legislation may well have something to say on that as well, as in fact they seem to be saying that, 'we have to put something on the contract, but it doesn't really mean that'. Which calls into question if this is a fair way of doing things. With the power that the financial institutions have in the UK, I have wondered (and still do), if this will ever go anywhere. I think that we can take some comfort in the fact that our judges, despite their often misquoted foibles, are often not afraid to rule on what they think is right. Case in point, one of them just blew a massive hole in the current anti-terrorism legislation. Think of the pressure that will land on them over that one! David

Goldfish has just been sold to Barclaycard, (Business Section, The Times, Friday 8th Feb). David

Patrickq1 Saw an article in the Business Section of The Times (Friday 8th). Goldfish has been offloaded by its American owners to...Barclays, who say that it will be fully integrated into the Barclaycard system. David

Sub and support David

Welcome back

A touch of paranoia is not a bad thing!! Paul, thanks for your view. I have a few more to go at for which I think they will struggle to come up with the goods ('95 - '98 issue cards). I can come back to that one when the picture is clearer. David ps I'm an ex-pat Sotonian

Thanks for the thought maybelline. As it's been rattling round cyberspace for a day or so now, it's probably not worth worrying about now. After all, they do know were I live anyway. Regards David

Thanks for that 42; the HSBC one brought a smile to my face!! To clarify, the AG I have is one of two that were sent to me and is therefore original. I signed and returned the other. Despite appearing to have differing dates,they are the front and back of the same sheet of paper. Bearing in mind this agreement may be computer generated, I would suspect that the references are when that particular part was 'signed of' and then became part of the overall document. I would love to knock this one out, as I have a much larger agreement with HFC, the result of a GM card going back to '97. That agreement is very probably 'junk' if they can find it at all. However, that would't help me if they promptly wizzed over to Northampton CC and got a judgement on this one!!! Lisa, check your mailbox later. David

Hi My thinking is that it fits the bill, so unless there is something I am missing, it would probably work. That of course leaves, did they execute it, can they find it and is it legible, (unfortunately, I think they had probably moved on from microfilm by then). David

To clarify, this is the front and the back of the agreement. David