Sorry folks but I have not been on the site for a while and time goes so quickly when you are searching for a job. The long and short of this at the time of writing is that I am now redundant and a 'no win - no fee' firm thonks I have a case to pursue and I waiting to be put in touch with one of their specialist lawyers. I am keeping my fingers crossed. Thanks for you help.

Thanks Bigredbus ... yes the job was moved to another branch of the business but I assumed I would still be responsible but it has been passed to somebody else to do. I was also being harassed by my line manager and I am 100% sure he was trying to foce me to resign because I had complained over filthy working conditions. I have tried to get through to ACAS but there is a long queue when you ring their number and frustration has so far got the better of me but I keep trying. The CAB in my area tales 3 weeks to respond. Regards Heathrow

It's okay ... I managed to work it out and have now started my own thread.

Where does the fine line between being fired and being made redundant occur? This is quite a complex story but I am hopeful somebody will stay with it and can point me in the right direction. I was employed part time for more than two and a half years but during the last six months or so I felt I was being bullied and poorly treated by my line manager who I feel was trying to force me into resigning. After five months at the company they moved the work I was involved in from a purpose built facility to an off-site building that was dark, cold in winter, extremely hot in summer and was totally inhospitable. Although I did not have to work in the facility permanently, I did have to visit it most days that I was at work normally for an hour or so; towards the end for more than three hours at a time. In winter there was no heating and the temperature was sub-zero. I complained about the changed circumstances to my line manager but was told it was only temporary until a new building could be built. Subsequently promises were made but the facility remained unsatisfactory until I was informed I was to be made redundant. That very week work began on improving the facilities although I was told it was being outsourced. The temporary facility had remained for two years. Prior to this about 60% of my work was transferred to another part of the company and removed from my responsibility. I was prepared to travel to the site and continue with this part of the job but was not given the opportunity. I had various 'discussions' with my line manager because I considered the conditions I was being expected to endure were unfit but he refused to enter any debate and continued to order me to do work in the facilities that I felt were unreasonable, if not hazardous. My line manager has never supported me or been willing to discuss things and at times I was even required to bring in my own tools to make my job workable. During the last few months my line manager's attitude towards me had become completely hostile and he refused to discuss any aspects of my work in a reasonable way. I complained to HR although at that time I did not formalise the grievance. However, the day prior to my redundancy announcement I was again subjected to harsh treatment from my manager and was about to make the grievance official when I was told I was being made redundant. I have been through the grievance proceedures with the company but feel this has been biased and has resulted in my redundancy being made official and because I was only part time I will come out with only just over £450 redundancy pay and four weeks salary. As I am 60 years old, finding alternative work is extremely difficult and I am now finding that I have not got sufficient money to live on and do not know how my wife and I will survive on the little she earns. I have contacted the 'no win-no fee' lawyers but they will not consider the case because my salary is insufficient to cover their costs. I view this as highly prejudicial but I feel I have a genuine case against my former employers for bullying and wrongful redunandcy because my job has been passed to others in the company to do, and I feel that the company should pay me compensation. Can anyone advise me what to do please? One other question: I would like access to my HR file. This has been granted but I will need to go to the firm's offices to see it which obviously I am not keen to do. Does anyone know whether the Data Protection Act of the Freedom of Information Act gives me the right to request potocopies of the file sent to me? Thanks.

Apologies ... can you guide me please How do I start my own thread?

Where does the fine line between being fired and being made redundant occur? This is quite a complex story but I am hopeful somebody will stay with it and can point me in the right direction. I was employed part time for more than two and a half years but during the last six months or so I felt I was being bullied and poorly treated by my line manager who I feel was trying to force me into resigning. After five months at the company they moved the work I was involved in from a purpose built facility to an off-site building that was dark, cold in winter, extremely hot in summer and was totally inhospitable. Although I did not have to work in the facility permanently, I did have to visit it most days that I was at work normally for an hour or so; towards the end for more than three hours at a time. In winter there was no heating and the temperature was sub-zero. I complained about the changed circumstances to my line manager but was told it was only temporary until a new building could be built. Subsequently promises were made but the facility remained unsatisfactory until I was informed I was to be made redundant. That very week work began on improving the facilities although I was told it was being outsourced. The temporary facility had remained for two years. Prior to this about 60% of my work was transferred to another part of the company and removed from my responsibility. I was prepared to travel to the site and continue with this part of the job but was not given the opportunity. I had various 'discussions' with my line manager because I considered the conditions I was being expected to endure were unfit but he refused to enter any debate and continued to order me to do work in the facilities that I felt were unreasonable, if not hazardous. My line manager has never supported me or been willing to discuss things and at times I was even required to bring in my own tools to make my job workable. During the last few months my line manager's attitude towards me had become completely hostile and he refused to discuss any aspects of my work in a reasonable way. I complained to HR although at that time I did not formalise the grievance. However, the day prior to my redundancy announcement I was again subjected to harsh treatment from my manager and was about to make the grievance official when I was told I was being made redundant. I have been through the grievance proceedures with the company but feel this has been biased and has resulted in my redundancy being made official and because I was only part time I will come out with only just over £450 redundancy pay and four weeks salary. As I am 60 years old, finding alternative work is extremely difficult and I am now finding that I have not got sufficient money to live on and do not know how my wife and I will survive on the little she earns. I have contacted the 'no win-no fee' lawyers but they will not consider the case because my salary is insufficient to cover their costs. I view this as highly prejudicial but I feel I have a genuine case against my former employers for bullying and wrongful redunandcy because my job has been passed to others in the company to do, and I feel that the company should pay me compensation. Can anyone advise me what to do please? One other question: I would like access to my HR file. This has been granted but I will need to go to the firm's offices to see it which obviously I am not keen to do. Does anyone know whether the Data Protection Act of the Freedom of Information Act gives me the right to request potocopies of the file sent to me? Thanks.

Thanks, I'll get this done. The court case was a couple of months ago; but the Claimant is accepting £30 a month thus far but I want to protect myself in case they change their minds and want to go the bailiff route. As it so long ago (I wasn't previously aware of the form ... and the court doesn't volunteer the information) can i still make this application? Regards, Heathrow

Thanks guys for your kind words and help. I will keep watching postings on this subject. Regards Heathrow

I am concerned about the harsh treatment that can be handed out by the courts system after recently being subjected to what I regard to be bullying tactics by a female deputy judge who refused to take my financial position into account when awarding judgement. I believe I got a rough deal after quite reasonably asking a Court Clerk why my case was running three hours late. My case was scheduled to be heard at 10.00 and I arrived in plenty of time as did the Claimant. The Court was overloaded, mainly with repossession cases, with the claimants legally represented. Cases that were legally represented were given priority over small claims cases that simply had to wait for several hours with no explanation offered by the court. The clock ticked past 11.00; then mid-day without my case being called so I asked the clerk when I could expect to be called. I was angrilly told that it would not be before 2.00pm I explained that I could not wait that long due to other commitments. I was told nothing could be done and I would have to wait or I risked losing the case by default with the judge taking no notice of my written defence. My opponent, at least was united with me on our concern that the cases were running so late. After suggesting that we should make a formal complaint, the clerk went to see a judge and the case was brought forward. However, when the Claimant and myself entered the court we were spoken to extremely harshly and unreasonably by a deputy judge who claimed we had harassed her clerk. This certainly had not been the case but the judge commanded that we take her abuse and if we answered back we would be in trouble. She was obviously not amused that we had dared to question why our case was running so late (my car was parked on a meter) and the case was adjourned. I was unable to attend the adjourned case but put in a written defence based on my inability to pay. I feel my defence was jeopardised because I did not attend and that my defence was ignored by the judge. Despite having little income since the failure of my business, judgement was given against me for the full amount of just over £5000 once interest had been added to an original debt of around £3000 with a proviso that such interest would continue to accrue on the unpaid debt. I had previously made various instalment offers to the Claimant that were not accepted but despite being unable to pay more than I was offering they kept adding interest. t the present time I can only afford to pay £30 a month which means the Court has allowed interest to continue to acrue and I will never be in a position to clear the debt. The Claimant could also enforce judgement at any time if they so wished. I was of the view that the judge had to take a defendant's ability to pay into account when awarding their order but this appears not to have been the case. Does anyone have any advice please. Heathrow

This has probably already been said but the contents of the Consumer Credit Act can be viewed as PDF online. If you type the name of the Act into Google you should find it. If not I will try and find the link. While writing; I have subscribed to this and other threads but I need to start one regarding harsh treatment of defendants by County Court judges but don't know how to start it. I apologise that this is not relevant particularly to this thread but would be grateful of any direction. This relates to a case when I was sued by a supplier after they refused to accept my instalment payments but kept adding interest so a £3000 bill is now £5600. When it went to court it was just over the £5000 mark and because of this the claimant can still continue to add interest or enforce the judgement. I am on to a loser because I can only afford to pay £30 a month but the Claimant refused to accept this and the court would not take my income (or rather lack of it) into account. Heathrow.

Hi Emandcole Thanks for your reply to the threat of a Cabot doorstep visit that they have said will be between 8.00am and 9.00pm on Tuesday. I had written to them before seeing your response and essentially my recorded delivery letter is much like yours apart from me not knowing the Common Law bit. I have told them that I will deem any visit to my home as an act of trespass and stated that I am not in good health. More especially as they have not written before I only they have not outlined why they are calling on me, even though I have a pretty good idea! I have received messages left on my answer machine demanding that I phone them, but I refuse to discuss anything with DCAs on the phone. They then sent a letter asking if I lived at my address and asking me to phone. I ignore it. I have also emailed the letter re their doorstepping but this has not been 'receipted as read'. I haven't been on the site for some time so no thread but previously I have been involved with the Link Financial threads. Thanks again HR

Hi Emandcole and Good luck Bazbar .. hope you screw them. It appears th DCAs are getting truly out of hand and are given too much leeway. I brought this up with my MP two years ago but got nowhere. Anyway, briefly I would be grateful of your advice. I have received a letter from Cabot to say they are calling on me at home on 18 Feb without detailing anything other than an account number on their letter. As I know nothing of this organisation other than the 'bad news' I have read on this site I certainly don't want them calling becuase my wife is very delicate health wise since out finances took a nose dive with the failure of my business and she being made redundant. I am going to write (Recorded) to tell them to deal with me only in writing. Can I legally prevent them calling at my home? They have also requested that I call them but there is noway I will enter a verbal debate with a DCA. I am pretty sure that they have bought one of my many credit card debts for a 5 figure sum but although they have provided a reference number they haven't said what this refers to and my paperwork is not immediately to hand. Thanks if you can assist. Heathrow

Thanks Kraken ... I wasn't sure whether this was still the current situation. Cheers.

Wecome back Angry Cat; you are correct in what you say. Kraken; for informaton purposes I had heard (I can't recall now from where ... but I believe it was directly from my local Conservative MP) that Jack Straw had shown an interest in restructuring the laws relating to debt collection activities, hence why I wrote to him. It might be a vote grabber or something but who knows? The whole thing is a mess at the end of the day but people's lives should not be damaged by the lack of integrity of the companies that fail to obey the rules. However K, I appreciate what you have said ... ie two swallows don't make a summer or whatever the term is, and much of it has been correct about needing evidence etc but it is just that I tend to believe the OFT has had quite a lot of evidence already but who can quanitfy this? There has also been a lot of wasted court time over these kind of issues and at the end of the day, if the DCAs can't prove their case the tax payer foots the bill for much of this. What we need to do now, as AC says it get back on track and perhaps the first thing to try and so is to try and ascertain whether Link are still licensed to Act in these matters.

Come on folks, let's try and cool this down and be positive. It is clear that the DCA's do not always act in an honourable way; unfortunately through my own problems I have had a pretty hefty experience with them so I speak from experience but confess I wrote to Straw about the DCAs generally rather than bother with TS. Link is one of the DCAs who have been harassing me because they have been pursuing me for MBNA accounts that I had been trying to sort out directly with MBNA but (typcically) they (MBNA) refused to acknowledge or answer any correspondence. Then, all of a sudden, I heard from Link ... no prior warning or notification that MBNA had passed the accounts to them. Link then also threatened me over an account they claim I had with HSBC. I sent an CCA request concerning this fictitiois account that I knew I did not have; they failed to respond; I sent them a letter informing them that I have never, ever had any dealings with HSBCA ... they have ignored it and then ignored my threat to instigate legal proceedings them. In view of the experiences that Angry Cat, myself and others have had, I think this amounts to some pretty concrete facts that Link are not playing by the rules. Now, as I see it, even if just one person complained about Link's activities, it should be properly looked into and not ignored or dismissed by OFT or TS. The OFT/TS are meant to protect the public's interests and it is surely their job to get to the bottom of things because, as a Government agency, they have more power than we do as individuals to investigate the facts. We can only tell them what we have experienced. As far as I know there is no stipulation that says they have to receive multi-complaints about a business before they follow up a complaint. At the end of the day the Law needs changing to prevent the banks from selling their responsibilities to DCAs. This is what Andrew Mackinlay MP has also suggested so maybe there is a slight glimmer of hope that somebody in the Commons is starting to take an interest. I have written to him pledging support and I suggest others so the same. But, I do not doubt that lower level civil servants are failing in their duties, so too is the Minsitry of Justice for failing to even acknowledge my letters to Jack Straw and their department. I think more than four months is long enough to wait for any kind of reply so a letter is now going off to the Ombudsman responsible for monitoring Government departments (see Ombudsman.org) to try and prompt a reaction. As far as I am aware (and it might be worth checking the site) the Ombudsman is also responsible for complaints against the OFT so maybe this is the next course of action to take for those on the forum that have been poorly treated. When the general public fail to gain any response from those in public office it makes you angry and it is human nature to suspect underlying motives. If we don't keep hounding these public servants we will never be heard. It seems we are increasingly failling into a Katch 22 ... we are in a no win situation because if we hound them they are less inclined to act ... and if we don't hound them the situation remains the same. Maybe the local press should also be contacted in the areas where the TS offices are failing to act to see if they will investigate what is taking place because they are likely to have received complaints from others in their areas. Angry Cat, despite the recent war of words, you have been contributing worthwhile posts to this site and hopefully you will continue to do so. If you leave now it will be a loss to the forum.

Oh dear me ... somebody seems to have hit a nerve with dear Kraken. Come on guys and gals, let's calm it down and talk sensibly otherwise it isn't worth bothering. We all have our opinions so there is little point in getting personal and the 'nutter' reference made by you Kraken is unworthy and not necessary. But, having said this I now have to ask Kraken again why he seems to be defending the DCAs? The reason posters are keeping on at the the OFTs is BECAUSE of the hounding that originates from the DCAs and if they stopped acting in the unprofessional manner that seems par in their trade then there would be no need to contact the OFT and TS in the first place would there? Just a point.

I have to say that from what I am reading here, Link has plenty to answer to. It may well be that not enough people have actually made the effort to complain to the OFT but, as I have pointed out, one serious case should be sufficient to start the ball rolling. I suspect that the OFT staff, like many others that work in Government positions, simply can't be bothered to investigate. It appears, although I have no evidence, that they are taking the easy way out. We have all seen how hopeless tax office workers can be at dealing with cases; it is not unthinkable to suggest that the OFT are the same. I simply cannot accept that Link can send out bogus claims 'by mistake' ... even they cannot be that stupid. They are either being grossly negligent in their activities (by employing staff that are untrained ... perhaps supporting the theory that they are in league with their local Job Centre) or they are deliberately trying to bring false actions in the hope that people might be frightened into paying (and we know that this is also happening). From the postings here it also appears that in the case of the Lambeth and Welsh OFTs several members have already made a good case but nothing is resulting. I guess this is all another cover up by officialdom ... but then does this surprise anyone? I appreciate Kraken saying that evidence must be provided ... but then just how much evidence do they need to be prompted to act? Yes, I too would appreciate knowing what Kraken does for a living because he appears to be extremely knowledgeable in these matters. At the end of the day the entire DCA industry is suspect and needs to be reviewed to stamp the pariahs from our society and hence my reason for writing to Jack Straw (see earlier post).

Oh dear me ... this is all getting a bit heated. I thought we were here to help one another; why then are you Kraken taking this heavy stance re evidence etc? Surely if just one person has sent evidence that he/she is being pursued for a debt that clearly they know nothing about, and have proved as much, then it seems something is going on. If two people complain, and then three, about the same issue then this is merely clarification. Even taking into account clerical errors etc. this is no excuse because it appears to be happening far too frequently, not just with Link, but with other agencies as well. Come on ... the OFT and the TS are not idiots (but they choose to be toothless) and in view of the media coverage about collection agency activities they should realise that most of the industry stinks and needs investigating. What I don't appreciate is why Kraken seems to be taking this demonstrative stance about numbers. Maybe Kraken you are an undercover agent wuth a different vested interest to the rest of us? Oops ... how dare me make this suggestion .. but perhaps he would like to clarifty his stance on this and be open if he does have an underlying issue or maybe he/she has worked on the 'other side'? Somebody posted that the Government agencies are no longer working for the people ... but against the people for the State. They are not the only Government agency to be seen to be turning in favour of State control. I am sorry if I have become a cynical b*****d. Heathrow

I think Kraken is being a bit naive when he believes that the OFT are acting in fairness against Link or any other DCA for that matter. From what I am reading here I would suggest that there has already been adequate examples of members of this forum taking their complaints to the OFT and are being ignored. How much evidence do they need? Anyone who has had the misfortune to have fallen upon bad times has become a victim but it appears to me that the consumer has rapidly lost their rights of protection. I think it was Angry Cat who said he didn't vote for this damn government ... I didn't either and as for Brown he has never been elected and he really is showing his inability to govern. Is it no wonder that his cronies refuse to acknowledge letters such as the one I wrote to Straw? They are doing absolutely nothing to help the misfortunate people who have lost their jobs and with it their homes ... instead they line their own pockets and get away with it because they are allowed to. It is probably in their interests to turn a blind eye in the matter and being the suspicious person that I am, it would not be unthinkable to suspect that somebody in local or central government is being paid off not to investigate. If the various OFT officers and the Minister of Justice got off their proverbials and took a few hours to read through the postings on this site then they would surely appreciate that there is a real problem. Like the state of the economy; I think the Government is failing to take notice of the under lying problems in this country and this surely includes the underhanded, if not illegal, workings of the DCAs. Had they bothered to investigate the thieving bankers earlier then we may not have been in this position now. But, it appears to me, that they choose more and more to ignore the 'bad apples' and let them do what they like. I may sound cynical but I am old enough to have witnessed the appalling way this country has changed over the years. Heathrow

Magda and Angry Cat are completely right but what concerns me is that nobody in power at Government level or within their departments wants to take responsibility. It is our right to have these things brought into the open. It appears from all of the postings that there is something a little sinister between the OFT and Link that MUST be brought into the public domain. I suggest that everyone who has had unfair dealings with the OFT and Link should make a strong approach to their local radio and TV stations and to the press. We should also make a nuisance of ourselves by badgering our MPs and then, if they don't answer try the Ombudsman. It may not get us too far but at least we will have further proof that something is going on that is very underhanded. I was approached a while ago by a TV production company who wanted me to appear on a TV programme they are making but they wanted me to use my own name so I declined. I will try and find their contact details because they were keen to speak with people who are having problems with the DCAs. Heathrow

Hi Tierisch and fellow members Yes feel free to cut and paste ... and that goes for anyone else who wishes to use the letter to try and push their MPs to act. We need to be firm about these complaints and take them to the press and the highest levels. I agree that we must be personable (now there's a good word) when dealing with bureaucracy but we must also be firm and insist that we have the right to expect them to follow up these complaints. Sadly, and I am getting old in the tooth, we are living in times when A+ states that they are no longer working for us ... the People ... he is right so we have to start fighting back although I suspect with this Government things have already gone too far. Keep up the good work and make a stand. Regards Heathrow

Hi All This is a letter that I sent by post (twice) and e-mailed (twice) to Jack Straw as well as to his constituency office and latterly to the Ministry of Justice. It appears that his constituency office hasn't even bothered to open the e-mail as I requested a response when read. Now, I thought MPs and Government ministers were required to at least acknowledge correspondence within so many days ... and if anyone knows the answer to this one please post it. But, the long and short of it is that despite sending this coorrespondence that affects countless hundreds of people there has been a total lack of response which proves that MPs are not the slightest bit interested in we normal mortals because they are too busy lining their own pockets from out taxes. Since sending this to Straw I have now sent it to my constituency MP who is a Conservative with a note suggesting that he follows it up and makes a name for himself by exposing a Government Minister and his department for failing to respond in any way, shape or form. It's lengthy but the letter follows: 20 January 2009 (and sent again in April) Letter e-mailed & posted Rt Hon Mr Jack Straw The House of Commons Westminster London SW1A 0AA Dear Mr Straw Public concern over the practices of debt collection You will be aware of the well documented items that have appeared in the press where banks, credit card companies, councils, solicitors and debt collecting agencies operating on their behalf are tirelessly harassing citizens that have got into debt. The cases that make the press are just the tip of the iceberg in a situation that has reached critical proportions. Many of these companies are blatantly breaking the law and the public has little recourse to defend themselves against these unscrupulous businesses and their agents that are making the lives of thousands of good citizens unbearable. I will ask you to take the time to view the web site set up by the Consumer Action Group (www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry). This is an independent site that reflects the way people’s lives are being seriously affected and emphasises the way that people are being subjected to the dreadful tactics these companies use as the ‘norm’. The harassing tactics reported on the Consumer Action Group forums are by no way isolated. This points to the need for controls to be brought into law NOW; not in several months time and I request that you look at these issues seriously because you have the power to alter the status quo. The Government agencies, such as The Trading Standards Authority and the Office of Fair Trading, that are meant to protect individuals in these matters are showing a marked unwillingness to enforce laws that are being blatantly broken and abused, allowing the debt collecting industry complete freedom to abuse, harass and terrify people. Often these debts have occurred for reasons beyond the individual’s control, caused by devastating circumstances such as a failed business, job loss, illness, divorce and other changes to a person’s life. These issues raise several fundamental issues that need addressing: 1) What gives banks and other financial institutions the right to sell a debt to a third party when they should be taking responsibility for their own lending? 2) How is a Debt Collection Agency able to set up a business that allows them to buy a debt/alleged debt from a third party when the debt has been ‘written off’ by the lender and the lender has claimed tax relief on their loss? 3) If a debt has been written off by the lender, how does legislation allow the lender to then resell a debt to a third party for a small percentage of the original amount (believed to be about 10% of the total debt) and then resurrect the debt in full as their own? 4) In many cases the debt collection agency will continue to add interest to an amount that they have not lent in the first place? Can this be legal? 5) How can a debt collection agency pursue a third party for money that they have not lent them and without the pursued ‘debtor’ ever entering into any agreement with the debt collection agency? Under current Law surely they have no right to do this? I believe that the above issues bring the current relationships between lenders and the debt collection agencies into serious doubt. I would like to know if there is anything in our constitution that allows this practice to take place at all, let alone without firm controls and vetting procedures. An entire industry has blossomed, that is often being managed by irresponsible and vindictive people who are only concerned with greed. This is causing untold misery to impoverished families and individuals who do not have the means to defend themselves or to pay the alleged debts. I also question the rights of these companies to sell and pass on personal information and files about their customers without the individual’s authority. This contains sensitive financial information that may or may not be accurate. I suggest that this practice might be in direct breach of the Data Protection Act. There is a deep concern about the way people who are in dept are being allowed to be persecuted and harassed by these organisations. Methods frequently use psychological targeting that is damaging the mental and physical health of many individuals and there is evidence that the weakest are targeted the most. . Some of the concerns that must be addressed are: The licensing and regulating of all agencies that are involved in debt collecting procedures. Close monitoring to vigorously control the way such agencies make approaches to those in debt or alleged to be in debt. A total ban on the practice of selling debts to a third party; a process that allows the original creditor to claim tax relief and to rid themselves of responsibility. A total ban on the practice of selling personal information such as home and business addresses, telephone numbers, names of family members and other information to a third party without the individual’s consent All agencies including banks and other lenders should ‘come clean’ and be totally open about any third parties that represent them. This to include a ban on the practice of withholding the names of senior officers within their organisation and a ban on withholding their business address by hiding behind Post Office box numbers that deliberately make it difficult to make contact. The practice of using internal departments under the names of firms to create the impression that they are external solicitors or debt collectors should be controlled to enable customers to determine exactly who they are dealing with. All bailiffs and debt collectors should be thoroughly scrutinised to ascertain whether they are fit to conduct this type of business. All bailiffs and debt collectors should be licensed and be responsible to the Courts. At the moment the public are being intimidated by private agencies who claim to be bailiffs with powers to enter the customer’s home. Any licensed bailiffs that abuse their powers should have their licenses rebuked if they are found guilty of mal-practise, or be immediately suspended if casesarepending. The wording of letters and other correspondence from all financial organisations and their agents must be properly controlled to prevent the growing practise of sending out illegally worded and intimidating correspondence that is designed to cause distress. Agencies must be forced to comply with the letter of the law regarding the supply of Subject Access Reports, Consumer Credit Agreements and other information legally requested by an individual to fight their case. Agencies and bailiffs should be prevented by law to add unfair charges and commissions to their claims. This is open to abuse and racketeering. Agencies should be prevented from making harassing telephone calls to individuals accused of being in debt. Currently these are frequently made to individuals at home and at work, to other family members and to neighbours whereby the callers pose as friends of the individual. Subversive calls of this nature should be immediately banned under law and those making such calls should be severely dealt with under existing legislation or new laws. Agencies should ensure that all of their staff are thoroughly trained and are aware of current legislation. Agency employees involved with customer contact should be enforced to give their names, contact numbers and position within the company. It goes without saying that these should act responsibly and ethically. Agencies should be forced to observe rules relating to personal visits made to an individual’s home or workplace. These are frequently conducted in a most intimidating way and are often devised to cause the maximum stress for the individual accused of debt. Agencies should be forced by law to observe the ‘no telephoning’ request of individuals and put their requests in writing. False and alleged claims by agencies must be dealt with severely Harassment by telephone, personal calls and threatening letters of senior citizens or those that are mentally or physically sick must be prevented. The police should be obliged to use their powers when cases of criminal harassment are reported. Currently most police authorities refuse to become involved even though in many cases agencies have clearly broken the law. The Government agencies, such as the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards Authorities must be better and more appropriately trained. There have been numerous cases of individuals being ‘fobbed off’ or being ill advised by officers that show a marked disrespect of the law when they are meant to enforce it. Similarly these Government agencies frequently appear to be unaware of an individual’s rights and they negligently refuse to act on complaints. The list above is extensive but it highlights some of the most common concerns facing individuals that are in debt. There are probably many other examples of ways that agencies abuse their powers that could be added. There are hundreds of individual examples of breaches in the law that are published in the various forums on the Consumer Action Group website. I appreciate that the OFT are due to be publishing new guidelines within the next few months but I am concerned that this will not come close to offering the protection people deserve. If the OFT cannot administer existing regulations, how can anyone have any confidence in the future. I am afraid to say that I do not believe many Members of Parliament are appreciative or are fully aware of the magnitude of this problem. Others, who may be aware, are choosing to ignore the problem. Unless you have personal experience at dealing with debt collection agencies, it is easy to ignore the problem. I am not alone in believing that the Government must act and be seen to be acting to regulate an industry that has clearly got totally out of hand. Tax Payers’ money is being used to prop up the banks, yet the banks are taking no responsibility for their actions, yet, in many cases they are guilty of irresponsible lending. What kind of country have we created when it allows sick and elderly people to be hounded to death over debts that they owe and trivial fines that they have been unable to pay? The recent death of an elderly man after a bailiff had called at his house is not an isolated incident and the situation is getting worse because the debt collection agencies are being allowed to practice unchecked. I respectfully ask that you give these matters your urgent attention and request that you provide a response outlining the response the Government is prepared to make in order to assist the countless thousands of citizens that are finding themselves at the mercy of these irresponsible individuals and companies that are exploiting this situation purely for greed. Yours sincerely,

HI Chucho If they are claiming a debt that you have neve rowed to a credit card company when you have never had a credit card why don't you try sueing them. It might be worth talking to one of these 'no win, no fee' solicitors and see if they are as good as they say. Good luck Heathrow

Hi Adam The best thing is to try not to worry about it. If you are paying them an acceptable amount on a regular basis you are proving that you are making an effort and therefore there isn't much they can do about it apart from take the matter to court which is extremely doubtful. I agree, send the CCA request and see what happens. Link are a hateful shower (but then aren't all debt collection agencies)? I recently had correspondence from them regarding a bank I have never had any dealings with so they could be trying it on. This leaves me wondering how many people become intimidated by the DCAs and pay up regardless? Link's letter has been followed up with a postcard 'Ring Helen urgently' that was posted to me that had the Link name on the bottom. This is devious to say the least more especially as my wife was about to ring the number thinking it was her cousin of the same name who she has been trying to get in touch with. Keep us posted about what happens.

Hi AHMTHSSN How are you paying the £20 per month to Cap One? If it is buy standing order/direct debit then I feel it would be best simply to continue with this arrangement and ignore Link. If you have already made an arrangement and are paying Crap One then I don't see what the problem is and why the debt has been sold. Under no circumstances telephone either the credit card company or Link ... conduct all communications ONLY in writing and don't sign any letters with your usual signature. If anyone else can confirm this advice it would be good to hear your views.