Have a read of: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/230624-dvla-fine-mess.html#post2555112 it's all explained in my angry letter:D.

yes to all that:D although we'll help you write a defence not do it for you

just stick with the cca for now. Remind me, has the od debt been sold to the dca?

I never advise on court dates harry, but I believe it is 28 calendar days from date of service. Best thing to do is ring your local court and ask. - Dis you an expect a cpr reply?, sols games

bloody manc, didnt stop you thanking me for my advice did it! Anyway I would have disqualified you immediately, if you cannot make the decision about a sensible footy team to support:p. I can asure you that in my business we do not do the 'like this' cold calls you refer to; but yes I do come across the odd belligerent manc on the phone! right i'm off to buy a wolfsburg scarf for tonight:D

3tea, I would say you are 90% right because there still needs to be an agreement whether you have gone over limit or not; if you go over limit them clearly there is a second issue - but that does not remove the need fro an initial agreement for the od. This should be as detailed in 2 of the determination. I'm not sure what you mean by 'lose the protection of part v'. There is no legislation or case law that I am aware of that will bring an od within part v. That said the important thing is that many will try a railroad you with 'an od is not cca' which ci the important bit. Your no agreement = unenforceble is correct, but not just where there is a tacit agreement.

they have asked you for money and you dispute paying it? I'm never sure how much protection it gives, I think a judge can overule it if material to a case but I'm sure the big words with the correct spelling will at least have them scrambling through their 'collins illustrated dictionary'

dangermouse or penfold perhaps:D as pinky says ignore these muppets, doubt most of them could find your house with both hands as it were. they go away once they realise they have 'failed to intimidate'

what about people that make legitimate business to business cold calls during business hours? or do you hate me as well:(.

if you want to get pedantic about the job titles associated with a skill set and level of educational achievement then I suppose fitters would be a better title then. They are certainly not mechanics and I doubt many of them would know a cam shaft it if jumped up and bit them

well you're a fat lot of use, in the same darkened room as me:p.

well that's the point, the wont 'pin down' beyond why not e-mail zoe. Their line seems to be that we help you find long lost friends. However, That wont stop the like of DCA's. THeir response to a section 10 'stop order' should prove interesting

No - but there may be milage in the noa as we go, depending on shall we say ' how authentic it is'

you have a slim chance on section 18 issues with this but I wouldnt bet my kids school dinner money on it. So, if you want a yes or no I would say 98.5% enforceable. - just thought if they'd sold it them maybe it was a bigger issue than I first thought

yes I have twice - hsbc (crapquest), lloyds (1st). Both are still in dispute after a couple of letters and I have heard nowt from either since Feb 2009. I walk my talk:D:p:rolleyes:

what john means I think is that technically there should be a cca AFTER the application is successful. Fortunately most OC's were so desperate to sign up us lemmings that they didn't bother with said agreement. Hence you are left with this unenforeable dog poop. docman I would never take out a reference in a defense to 3.4.2 unless I really had to. And that dog turd of an agreement really warrants putting another 6 in not taking one out. The claimant has failed to deliver - still stands (or would sending a takeaway menu count as sending you a document) and if you are going to say 'by case law' you need to state the case BUT I do like the style of your 'item 14' as it were docman and I would strongly suggest that something like that goes in BTW what did I do to have the honour of 'classic account holder' bestowed on me? or is it just a length of service or 'feel the width of his posts' thing?

you want to find out their side of the story and what legal tack they think they can take. With your letter you are backing them into an alley and saying 'go on then'. slowly slowly catchy moron (or monkey or whatever:p)

no need to go to all that arse gaz. Just send a standard cca request. It's not for you to educate them. It is for them to tell you that part v of the act, form and content - which include section 78, does not apply to an od. remember that at this stage the staff you are dealing with have all the legal training of a mellon - and there you are offering to educate them for free in a single letter - let them earn it one step at a time. Once their heads stop spinning round and they come baqck with 'this is an od and is not covered by the cca' then let me know as I have the perfect gift of a letter for them in response. and FYI you got the laws pretty much spot on

110% wrong. section 10 cca - with high court ruling clarification to prove it

define 'better' but I think you will find a section 10 will get them scratching their heads a tad. 'you do not have my written permission either explain or stop'

agreed, the only way to get 'lots' of unsecured credit at a good rate is to be a homeowner which says they are 'thinking ahead' with a view on the risk

before I comment further I would like to know which dca and do they onw or are they on behalf of tesco?

even if they can remove the clause - which I believe is related to the Insolvency Act (he is signing to say he isnt selling up and doing a runner whilst technically insolvent) so I think it has to stay - I do not think the transfer would offer the protection you seek, although the case may need to get 'bumped upstairs' to the high court for a ruling. but yes let me know if I can help.. If I cannot I'll say so (not guess or waffle) then point you in the direction of a cagger that can help BTW only PM me the link I dont give advice by PM as this is against cag rules and I always like snoops and 42man and john and donkey and docman and dicky and pinky and rmw and .... about 20 others who know lots of good stuff to add their 2p worth!

This is correct 78(1) is there to get information about the agreement and terms at the time of the request. 78(1) was never intended to be a test of enforceability of an agreement but is there for the consumer to get information they may have mislaid or not be aware of about the CURRENT operation of the account. If you want to test enforceability then technically a cpr 31.16 request is the approach to use.

sorry vinty the 'stubborn' quote wasnt a pop at you, I meant that if a person was foolish enough to not appreciate the implications of not complying with a court order to pay - a general statement not a 'get vinty'. - I think that is the important difference for unsecured, if you pay as directed by the court then your home is safe (usually) whereas for a secured loan a charging order is the first port of call as it were. As an aside credit card companies are there to make money which means they will charge whatever they can get away with as an apr