Did you ever get a letter from Lowells, last year some time - they 'settled' an awful lot of debts in this manner, I had one too. You will hopefully find this will vanish off your CRA soon, although this bunch only amend your free file once a year.

.....to clarify - debts if you live in Scotland become SB in 5 years and not 6 so, yes indeed already SB, but then HFO are chancers.

Just wondering is a SAR to your Bank might reveal more information on when the payments were made etc.

How long ago was it issued

Personally I would hold off on doing anything at present. If I understand correctly, the first debt is not being persued anyway? You mention a catalogue and Avon, is this one and the same, and who is chasing this? You need to be sure that both are statute barred before tackling their defaults on your credit files. You will need to know who placed the defaults, and whether there were previous defaults which have since 'fallen off' which were placed by the OCs. You can only ever be defaulted once for each account and this looks as though the DCA have placed their own defaults. Defaults are normally placed by the OC within 6 months of the 'cause of action' (non-payment). 2007 is far too late for these to be 'genuine'

Too complicated for their tiny minds - allegedly.

So, on what grounds have you appied to have this 'set aside' as you have a Court Date, you must have a name in which the Summons against you was taken. You will need grounds for a set aside

Surely if you 'own the property, ie, have the expense and or liability to maintain said 'piece of land' then you also have the right to say who can and cannot 'alight' onto that piece of property!

Have you made sure that they have the legal right to be asking you for money, ie have they produced a NOA, or are they acting on behalf of the original creditor, IMHO by all means due the expenses sheet, but don't go wading in with an offer just yet. You say you have been getting letters, more information as to how old is this debt, when was last payment made, etc. would be a good start.

Have they made a new account = in otherwords have you agreed to this and signed a new agreement - they are try to pull a fast one. Your CCA will just cover the loan, so you can raise a dispute on this once it returns.

Not sure, but if they terminated the agreement then all you owe are the arrears? They can no longer claim the full balance.

Well said HH

Certainly 5 seconds is too long: so long as you and he are on your property and he is uninvited then he is commiting to tort of trespass.

After 12 + 2 days with no response, the Account is in Dispute and no actions can be taken until and if an enforceable Agreement is provided. The Statute Barring of a debt runs from the last payment or acknowledgement from yourself. Any debt is never 'void' it may be unenforceable in Court: Time Barred; but is never 'void'

As I said previously, I believe what is happening is that as time passes there are going to be less and less 'recent' bad debt for them to chase. Since the banking fiasco several years ago, fewer and fewer people have been approved for new debt, so even less people are then finding themselves in trouble, hence the lowlifes' that are the DCAs are left scratching around in the dirt like chickens for something to sink their (hens) teeth into!!

Mine are knocking for you - so glad you are asking all these questions, I will have to as well as I am but a couple of weeks' behind you, so following with bated breath!! Good luck though, you are getting excellent advice and doing so well to keep up, I would probably have been taken by the men in white coats by now

The point here is the 'gererous discount' which usually means they actually do not have a leg to stand on!! If you could clarify how you were informed of the things mentioned in your first post, ie, by letter, over the 'phone etc. we can advise from there.

You would first have to be served papers to say they are taking you to Court, so you would get some warning and time in which to act to prevent a CCJ, but don't worry about that for now.

Welcome, my suggestion would be to send a CCA request to each 'current' DCA. If or when you receive replies, open a seperate thread on here for each one and we can proceed from there. I would suggest that at present you should keep making the agreed payments to each one. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...request-letter.

Did you send the 'prove it' letter or the 'cca request' letter?

when did you take this account out? If you CCA the original creditor I do not believe they can pass it to a DCA until and if the CCA is satisfied. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...request-letter.

As said, hang on in there and ignore them, do not speak with them on the 'phone, if they call, tell them in writing only. Let us know if they write.

Send an amended letter as below adding the facts as mentioned above: Further to your letter dated I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to you, as it is in dispute with xxxxx and has been since Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998 .As xxxxxxx is now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, Office of Fair Trading Collection Guidelines and s10 Data Protection Act request, I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default, enforcement action is NOT permitted; under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law. Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS. Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to xxxxxx for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as you cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities. If you choose to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action. I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished. I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter. Also whilst writing I would inform you of the following: Please be advised that I will only communicate with you in writing. Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a "doorstep Assessment" as per your above mentioned letter please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you. There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke License under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance. Doorway surveillance is available and will be used as evidence. Regards

No 'heres' what I might, could, do in there is there - go get erm and let us know what if any, they respond to this.

In my opinion after getting a few (or in my case a deluge) of these letters you have to stop worrying and treat them with the contempt they deserve. Yes indeed, they could do this, they may do that etc. but instead of going in all guns blazing why on earth do they not treat people with the respect that (most) of us deserve and are entitled too, what gives them the 'right' to threaten us with all that they might or could do and get away with it. If they had a brain cell between them they would realise that yes, this can work in some cases, but there are far more of their 'customers' who seek advice and become won't pays rather than can't pays simply because of the tone and unreasonableness of their letters. In most other industries or circumstances these sort of threats would never be tolerated, imagine if other industries ran their businesses on threats!