Hi got from them something along the lines of 'due to further investigations as to your personal circumstances we have decided not to continue proceedings' so there must be a big file somewhere that identifies me as toxic lol

And there's the rub- you've just re-iterated my point. Everybody has different circumstances, and one size does not fit all. Not everbody needs a paper trail, but some people do. It's up to the idividual to gauge their circumstances, assimulate the information at hand and decide accordingly. It's what I've been saying all along

No I'm not. In my experience, which spans many years, I'm not wrong in the least. Your experience may be different, which is fair enough. The whole strength of forums like this is that we come here to share individual experiences and to learn- we all have different personal stories, that doesn't mean the ones that don't correlate with your own personal experience are necessarily flawed.

Everybody who is here risks going to court. If you dispute an account and stop payments, you risk going to court. There's really no getting away from that, regardless of what 'experience' you have had to date. The important thing is to be informed enough to show the creditor that you are prepared enough to take them on if they decide to go down that route- the majority of creditors/DCAs [including all of mine when properly presented with this possible scenario] avoid legal action; however like I said in another post creditors decide from the outset how good a prospect you are to sue, and if you're a juicy one...well they'll go after you regardless of the hours you've spent meticulously arguing with DCA template letters and developing a 'paper trail.' As most of us here in my experience are can't payers rather than won't payers- i.e. we're here primarily because we are skint rather than trying to find a legal way out of our debts [not that I'm knocking that by the way], I worry that some of the advice given on this forum really does make things over complicated for people; for the ordinary consumer, garnering enough simple and effective advice from here and putting your account firmly into dispute should be the effective first step. Sure, respond to anything new that comes up specifically associated with that dispute, but continually responding to letters from them not only gives them rope to hang themselves, but yourself as well. I've had over ten years of dealing with creditors and DCAs since I first hit difficulties all those years ago. All I had to help me then was the National Debtline [a terrific organisation if I may say so] and my own wits and on the whole I survived better than I might otherwise have done, so I'm thankful. Finding this site a couple of years ago was a godsend for providing additional weapons for the old armoury and the usefulness of that is immeasurable BUT I think people must be very wary of over complicating things with too much technical 'knowledge,' apparent in the spate of people taking action against creditors [i.e putting yourself in the place of claimant] last year with CPR31.16 etc which has proven disasterous. I think its important to remember that just because people appear to be 'newbies' to this board, doesn't mean their life began with its discovery. Nobody likes going to court. I know solicitors who don't like going to court and that's their job. The important thing for us is to be prepared as best we can for it, because once you start disputing accounts, it's a possiblity. A slim one, particularly if you're a can't pay, but a distinct one. So my advice as always is be informed, prepared, keep it simple and most importantly of all....let them come to you. But remember you also have a life to live.

Well like I said each to his/her own and individual circumstances [indeed, even down to each individual debt you have- they can each receive differing treatments from DCAs] should dictate your response at varying times of the dispute process, but by requesting a CCA and disputing the account legimately through the proper written process does not I think indicate that you are swallowing the guff in their letters. It puts a clear marker down that you understand your rights, and the DCAs take due note of that. I believe at the very outset of the debt recovery process, the bank/DCA identifies whether or not you are a good 'bet' with regard to taking legal action against you. This is based entirely on your personal circumstances as they can identify them at the time- i.e. whether you have a reasonably well paying job and assets [primarily property]. Putting the account in dispute as early as possible shows them that you mean business and are likely to defend any legal action against you; this will deter many DCAs but if it is seen that you are a juicy target they may well chance their arm anyway and see where they can get, which explains some actions undertaken further down the line. In some cases it may therefore be useful to have a 'paper trail' but you have to bear in mind that you will on the whole be dealing with computer generated template letters that you can reply to until you're blue in the face but it won't stop the [automated] next one being sent. The bottom line is if they think it's worth suing you [i.e they think you are capable of honouring a CCJ] they'll go after you no matter how extensive your paper trail is. It really is up to what makes the individual comfortable, but personally I think life is too short to continue an ongoing dialogue with DCAs which, as I said in another post, also runs the risk of you accidentally acknowledging the debt in some way. To my mind, the best thing is to make it clear to the first couple of DCAs that you will vigourously contest any action, have your CPR strategy at the ready if they do, then keep your head down and let them make their move. Ocassionally things may crop up that you need to respond to but on the whole, letters just sent by the press of a button....? Well its up to you to decide how worthy they are of your mental energies. I've done the above over the years with over a dozen creditors and none of them have decided to chance their arm with legal action [apart from two before I had an inkling of my consumer rights] and I've saved an awful lot of my personal time not writing to them everytime a different DCA turns up. I think life's too short. But as I said, everyone's of their own mind and of course have unique personal circumstances. Vive la difference!

So ...I think it really is a case of not acknowledging ,not token paying(unless one wants to settle anyway)..letting them take US to court and sit back for 6 years. Dotty 50: Yet others say it is best to respond and keep a paper trail, should it end up in court. It's up to individual circumstances but I think once you have put the account legitimately into dispute with the correct paperwork, you're 99% of the time wasting your energies continually responding to every DCA that chases you, and even may run the risk of inadvertently acknowledging the debt, pushing the six year statute bar even futher into the future. Unless something comes in from leftfield, IMO you don't need a paper trail once the ball is firmly back in the creditors court to prove you legally owe the debt. Anyway once you get to the third or fourth DCA trying to contact you [and by then their primary motive is to establish any form of simple CONTACT with you first] you are in the sad torpid world of DCA bottom feeders and the chances of legal action are as good as non-existant. So I think it's worth hanging on to the hundreds of letters [annoying as they are] and make a big pinata out of them for your end of six year party lol

Thanks fuzzybobble 'prove it' letter on its way Any other recent IND experiences out there?

Asking for proof first seems like a sound way to approach this one. Just one thing at the back of my mind though- if IND do quickly go for a Northampton CC claim [they say in their letter they will do it on 30th March which may happen here as I have an edgy feeling about this lot-it would be particularly daft on their part though as I'm on benefits and without any assets] would it be more advantageous for me to have the account officially in dispute as quickly as possible [ie through a CCA request now] or wouldn't it matter, as I'd be in the realms of CPR requests by then anyway?

Hi Fuzzybobble last payment was made a couple of years ago. This one went off the radar during some difficult times and as I hadn't heard anything from them since 2000 when token payments were set up with Westcot, decided not to rock the boat at the time with a CCA request on this, one deciding to sit back and see what happens. It's interesting you say send a 'prove it' letter rather than a CCA request first. Does that have any advantage over just whacking in a CCA request now and getting it over and done with? Thanks SD

Recieved a couple of days ago out of the blue a 'last letter before proceedings' from IND- which looks like some two-bit bottom feeding outfit 'based' in Stamford [prob one afternoon school leaver with a phone lol] It entails an owed amount which they say they will pursue plus interest [almost as much as the owed amount] plus usual sols fees within a week unless there is repayment in full. all a bit farcical as I've never recieved a statutory default notice from them let alone a deed of assignment or have heard from Westcot/MBNA [OC] for years. It therefore appears like a very heavy handed bullying technique although reading a couple of threads on here it looks like this outfit are on the crazed side and will go into legal action without any semblence of correct paperwork to back themselves up. So I was just wondering if anybody has had recent experience of these cowboys as I suspect from the look of the letter, thousands have been sent out by IND [who appear to be a front for NCO [Europe]] hoping to strike lucky on a handful. If that's the case,we need to be aware of their tactics and develop a coordinated group response accordingly. I'm in two minds whether to ignore them and wait and see what they do [if anything] or to CCA request them and make it clear they will face firm opposition if they are stupid enough to take it any further. I'm inclined to take the second option at the mo and officially put the account in dispute [debt from 2000 so little if no chance of MBNA having the right paperwork now] and be ready with the appropriate CPR if they do trundle on with their threat. Any thoughts/similar experiences? SD

Well at the end of the day it all comes down to what assets the creditor perceives you to have as to whether you are worth the hassle of trying to get a CCJ. It's in the lap of the gods in that way really but I would have thought after this length of time they would have already of gone down that route- when someone is identified as a viable target, they usually don't waste much time. Which makes me suspect that they are wary of action. When it's got to this point with me, I've just stopped all correspondence- I think it's a waste of time and life's too short to deal with computer generated rubbish that once it's started, can never be stopped in its tracks until it's ran it's course-and nothing further ever happened with me. But that's a personal experience. Kel's is a good thread to absorb though if you haven't already...lots of good stuff in it. I'd just play the waiting game now and prepare yourself withthe right strategy and paperwork to strike back at them firmly and immediately as soon as the act [if they ever do]. I personally have a hunch they will stand back from this one, but as I'm sure you've found out on this forum, NOTHING is done with predictable, common sense in the financial industry lol

Emandcole: I'll keep you all up to speed but safe to say another victory for cag and and as soon as I get hold of any counterclaim fee I'll be making a donation to the site. We'll see how much Link don't want to be in the court on this in the coming weeks I imagine, either way it's time for a little fun I think. Naughty. Moi? Got to be a high five there, well done!. Nice to read some good news and goes to show with a bit of tenacity these arrogant fools can be brought to task

Axiom 99: We are at last experiencing a truly liberated information exchange (for now) and this will be the last chance for ordinary people to claim some sort of voice so we had better use it while we can I don't think this can be stressed enough- the internet has given the ordinary citizen a lifeline to fight back and influence the direction of society for OUR, majority benefit. But I fear it is going to be a limited window of opportunity so there is no time for prevarication. And although I at first thought this discussion may be going off topic, I don't think it is that much. The Manchester cases are a perfect example of the struggle going on in our establishment right now, and they should be given a lot wider publicity than they are getting. The fact that it's not happening...well the reasons for that I'll leave to your own conclusions.

Absolutely and although going a bit off thread [but perhaps not as far as one might at first think] I would urge readers of this thread to find out more about Common Purpose. Look through the PC gloss, and it's chilling.

It's not outlandish anymore to see it as the development of a new world order. It has clearly been taking place and it's objectives achieved with ever quickening effectiveness since the seventies. There is actual, documented proof of this intent. For example in the 70's an organisation of CEO's called the Business Roundtable openly declared itself 'committed to the aggressive pursuit of political power for the corporation' [real quote, not conspiracy theory spin]. They aimed to do this through direct influence of politicians, the academic world and the media. They started off spending 900 million dollars a year in the seventies [which was a huge amount then] and have continued to do so with an ever growing war chest. And that's not the only businessman's club doing it. Their power and influence makes the biggest trade union at the height of its power look no more effective than a kid being able to win a conkers match in the school yard.

It's much like a communist country in that all out, unregulated capitalism has created a political and economic system that is ironically very similar to that of a communist state; a small self-serving elite of politicians, law administrators and 'economic managers,' enriching themselves and staying in power above the mass of other people below them. it's funny for all the fear [which still daftly exists] of us being taken over by Wolfie Smith's et al, we have in the end been taken over by 'nice' men in suits, who have imposed the same [if not worse] system on us.

I'm pretty sure you'll find there's no judgement. If there was, why would they be asking you for a payment proposal? In the unlikely event there is a CCJ, they've clearly done a Carter and served it at an old address, yet as usual [not being the brightest of bulbs in the box] they've then slipped up by immediately contacting you at a new address, which they've clearly known all along. As such a set aside should be no problem. All the same though, I bet my bottom dollar there is no judgement. Do a little research to confirm this, then tell Carter to blow it out of his bum.

I think the last paragraph is spot on and something we should all be aware of and keep at the forefront of our mind. The CMC involvement in these ordinary consumer issues is also a double edged sword. Their bottom line is to make MONEY and if that income stream is affected by too many consumer wins too high up the court system setting simple precedents that reduces the need for them, well... CMC involvement has it positive side but I have a gut feeling their policy is to settle out of court as much as possible, and their supporters [some of which are on this forum] have admitted as much. Whilst good for the stress levels of the individual consumer involved and a decent little earner for the CMC, it doesn't do the overall cause much good,which needs some decent judgements in higher courts in favour of the ordinary consumer. I may be overly cynical but that's why I think CMC activity in the courts [as sen at Manchester] is appearing rather half-hearted- if not downright inept. Unfortunately the consumer is being positioned [again] between a rock and a hard place. It is up to us as members of a independent non-profit making forum/co-operative to devise a strategy that helps US, not the bank balances of some other profit motivated company[ies].

God help the banks if and when it does get to the European courts. They will fight tooth and nail to avoid this...

Well you have to wonder don't you; not big on conspiracy theories myself but seeing the financial mess the world is in due to the devious machinations of banks, it's not stretching the imagination to consider such a thing as a possibility. Despite all the posturing and bullish press releases from CMC's and their supporters [including some on this forum], I've yet to see any real, positive action on their part to benefit the ordinary consumer. In fact when it goes to court, we seem in some respects to be going backwards. I'll believe in the effectiveness of the CMC's when there is an example of a convincing, unequivocal WIN in court over a SUBSTANTIAL issue in favour of the ordinary consumer; i.e.not one like the Manchester case where it's taken over 700 posts for it to be dissected and any informed layman can see that a better legal job could have been done than actually was.

Yes I think you are quite right in what you say here; the devil [or angel ] is in the detail of this judgement and I think there is more to it than first meets the eye; I think there is a lot of further obligations placed on the lender to provide more detailed information that they just aren't going to be able to cope with [as you've outlined]. I mean we all know most of them, in their rush to sign up new credit card accounts to meet their bonus targets, didn't even bother to keep accurate agreement records under the CCA- how the hell are they going to be able to cope with providing a coherent paper chain from account inception to the present day with all the agreement, t and c changes etc over the life of the account? The fact is they won't be able to and they know it, which is why their press spin has been relatively quiet about this judgement. They WILL though, try to spin the parts of the judgement they believe they can twist to their advantage, namely that reconned agreements are acceptable now in court situations. It's them clutching at straws, but playing dirty is second nature to the banks/dca's and they certainly won't miss this opportunity to bully their way into convincing some people they are legally due monies they in fact are not. I think it was DD [orBaggio? apologies if I've wrongly referenced] who described this as a very astute, political judgement. I'm beginning to agree with that now and can see now how there [cleverly] may be more in it to the advantage of the consumer than at first seemed apparent.

I think this neatly encapsulates the whole cycle of creative book keeping that, writ large, has been developed and applied by the whole banking sector these past thirty odd years. They've effectively 'created' money out of thin air- money as little more than a commodity itself, held in nothing more substantial than computer ledgers- and it's all started to fall apart the last couple of years. They've recovered a bit but it's only a honeymoon period, they're cruising for a bigger fall soon, I'm sure. Personally I would take the postings of dca profit [or any company connected with the finance industry these days] with a pinch of salt. If I remember right people were still investing in Icelandic Banks who were posting profits months before they spectacularly collapsed. Banks are masters of creative accountancy and their poodle dca's fall completely under their umbrella. I've had dealings with dca's for over ten years now and my abiding experience/impression of them, is that they operate on a shoestring, even in the 'good' times. Quite literally in the case of the smaller ones further down the food chain, a handful of people sat in a room with a PC and phone each, the shared use of a photocopier and a Nat West piggy bank where all the one pound postal orders go for the annual xmas party lol If there's one odds on good bet for 2010, I would put my money on a few of them starting to go to the wall this year. How my heart bleeds.

Exactly right we need to devise a strategy now to deal with this judgement. Although it is true that nothing has really changed legally- lenders have essentially had their arguments that reconstituted agreements/'true copies' are adequate for s77-79 requests backed up, but there's no real change there- but the big implication to my mind is what's going to happen out there in the more fluid, murky real world of human personalities and corporate motives. The terrain has altered a bit for us ordinary consumers I think; I am sure banks/dca's will use this judgement to try it on with reconned agreements in some court situations, and we need a coherent way of dealing with that.

I don't know what the figures are, but I strongly suspect historically the number of errant accounts that actually get taken to court as a percentage of the whole is quite low. A lot of posturing happens in bullying letters and phone calls happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if less than 1 in 10 accounts end up in court [prob a lot less]. Unless you are identified as having a reasonable income and other assets- particularly property- legal action hasn't really come into the equation for a lot of defaulted accounts, precisely because of the lender cost issues you've outlined above. These costs are bound to only increase now, and leaving aside the fact that banks/dca's shy away from anything that needs too much effort, their operational margins are already a whisker away from collapsing. After the dust has settled over these test cases, I think that number of legal actions on errant accounts will reduce even further. Unfortunately, if they know you are still in a job with an average/above average income and more critically find out you have reasonable equity in your property, you will be their favoured type of target So it's of paramount importance to know your rights to nip any such actions in the bud.

The reconstituted agreement satisfies the request a debtor has of their creditor for a copy of their credit agreement under s77-79. This 'true copy' business is of course nothing new, and this judgement reinforces the argument of the banks that they need not provide an 'exact' copy of original agreement. This is however nothing new, that's always been pretty much the case. What the judgement is significant in however, to my mind, is the emphasis given to the notion that just because the original agreement can not be found or 'copied' with 100% accuracy [even down to whether there is a signature or not], this does not mean it's never actually existed in an executable form. The banks/dca's will pounce on this and wring as much mileage out it as they possibly can. You have to of course remember that this judgement is very narrowly focussed on s77-79 requests and NOT on issues relating to the debtor being the defendant [where he/she can request to see the OA in evidence], but nonetheless I personally believe it opens the door for banks/dca's to push the envelope and start trying it on with regards to relying on reconned agreements in a court situation. It's of course sneaky and bad form, but can we really expect anything else from them? That is why I think the terrain has changed significantly for the ordinary consumer these past couple of weeks and adapted strategies are going to be needed.